Why Match/Target Bullets For Hunting

[Sykes]

Nevermind, I repeated what was already mentioned about Aaron of gunwerks on the Backcountry Hunting podcast

 

[Zerk]

I read a guys reply when he was told, the bullet he uses is not for hunting, but target shooting, that deer didn't know the difference.

People shoot deer with, bows and 22s too. Unless that is what you had, or only thing that shot good in your rifle, why would you not get a bullet designed for hunting? I think the better quetion, is why not. To prove something?

 

[Brendan]

Unless that is what you had, or only thing that shot good in your rifle, why would you not get a bullet designed for hunting?

Because in certain scenarios the "target bullet" works much better than the bullet "designed for hunting".

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

The most recent episode on the Backcountry hunting podcast sounds awfully familiar. "Target bullets for Big Game".

Thanks for sharing that. I am not sure I would have understood it as well had I not previously explored the subject through threads like this and other questions I have asked. It served to affirm why I have arrived at the Nosler Partition as my go-to bullet for the kind of hunting that I do where shots go from 25 yards to 200 yards as a long one. The Partition gives a great compromise of the structural integrity it needs for bone crunching and the easy frontal upset for broadside shots. I am not sure that our western, open land hunters fully appreciate that we often don't have time to wait for an ideal shot presentation we sometimes have seconds to shoot, sub-optimal shot angles and are threading shots through very narrow openings in vegetation.

The podcast really helped me understand why BC can be such a big deal and it helped me understand the upset threshold for bullets, and why a few hundred FPS difference matters. I'll pass from this earth having never experienced such hunting, but I believe I kinda get it now. I guess you could say I have made a transformation from basic knowledge to a fundamental understanding, and that's why I ask questions. I don't know if it is a blessing or a curse to have a pretty large dose of skeptic in me.

I did make note of a few things in the podcast. He never mentioned our revered TMK. He also does not like to push his Bergers and ELD-Ms through bone at close range. Not for the amount of meat damage, but for lack of confidence that they will make it to the vitals. I don't think he used the word "splash" but eluded to what I have heard referred to as splash.

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

We hunt on a South Texas ranch where the brush is very thick. We hunt open open areas with the brush often next to the brush. If a shot animal gets into that brush, they are very difficult to see/find even if they don't run far.

The rancher doesn't allow shots over 200 yards because he doesn't want lost animals. He wants the deer DRT If at all possible.

So far, I have never needed a second shot on any of the deer I have shot at. The only hard track I have had was when my bullet broke apart shredding the vitals of an Axis doe but not leaving an exit wound. It took me an hour to find her in broad daylight despite the fact she only made it 20 yards. I didn't like that. I want a bullet that stays in one piece leaving an exit wound and blood to point me in the right direction.

BTW- I cannot afford the big trophy bucks and exotics he has. He lets me cull does most years.

Somebody here may be able to explain it. I can't. I have shot animals, hit heart and lungs, had pass throughs, yet not had substantial blood. I have no idea why it happens that way sometimes. I have also had bullets not pass through and give me a good bit of blood. While it seems to me that pass throughs give me the best chance of blood, my experience tells me they are far from a guarantee. I hunt thick stuff too and have come to favor the high shoulder shot along with some bone for the best chance at not losing a deer to a 50 yard death dash.

 

[Weldor]

Check out Norma's youtube take on their match bullets. Very informative.

 

[Macintosh]

My biggest takeaway: Is a match bullet really a match bullet if the only reason they call it a match bullet is to play fast and loose in order to sell them to mil/le? Seems the name is intentionally misleading and the name is 99% of whats tripping people up. If someone marketed the exact same product as a hunting bullet very few people would have anything to say about it.

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

Another thought I had as I listened to the podcast. It seems that the Accubond Long Range was designed to check the structural integrity/lower upset velocity/high BC/long range box. Yet, I see very little written about it, other than a few people complaining that it's too lightly constructed for close in work.

Form, any experience with the ABLR?

 

[Formidilosus]

Form, any experience with the ABLR?

They work fine. I generally prefer fragmenting bullets however.

 

[davsco]

after browsing i'm skipping to the end here. so, other than more accurate and better BC and/or higher speed, is the actual performance (destroying vitals etc) of some match bullets better than hunting bullets? ie compare 143 eldx to 140 or 147 eldm. or 200g eldx vs 195g eldm.

in other words, assuming the same shot placement in the vitals at the same entry speed, are you still picking eldm over eldx? talking elk or muley.

 

[Formidilosus]

is the actual performance (destroying vitals etc) of some match bullets better than hunting bullets?

Yes.

in other words, assuming the same shot placement in the vitals at the same entry speed, are you still picking eldm over eldx? talking elk or muley.

ELD-X is not the best comparison as the performance is nearly identical to some “match” bullets. Hornady could have named the ELD-X the “ELD-M”, people wouldn’t know the difference and would be saying “it’s not meant for hunting”.


People are getting stumped by a name. I can name a solid, non expanding copper bullet a “long range terminal ballistic missle”, yet it wouldn’t change how poorly that bullet is at long range or terminal ballistics. Forget the “name”- to know what a bullet will do in tissue you must fire a bunch of them in tissue, or proper tissue simulate; and measure the actual wounds created. At that point, it doesn’t matter what the name of the bullet is.

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

They work fine. I generally prefer fragmenting bullets however.

I may not understand fragmenting in the way that you are using it. By all accounts, the ABLR dumps a good bit of its weight until it gets on down below about 2000 FPS. Does fragmenting not cause the weight loss? By fragmenting, do you mean a bullet that completely goes to pieces. Help me understand what you mean when you use fragmenting in that context.

 

[Formidilosus]

I may not understand fragmenting in the way that you are using it. By all accounts, the ABLR dumps a good bit of its weight until it gets on down below about 2000 FPS. Does fragmenting not cause the weight loss? By fragmenting, do you mean a bullet that completely goes to pieces. Help me understand what you mean when you use fragmenting in that context.

In this context: the ABLR may lose some weight, but commonly maintains 60% or more even at relatively high impact velocities. An ELD-M at high impact velocities will be 30-40% or sometimes less. Performance wise they are very similar to Federal Fusions and Speer Gold Dots- which is good.
There is nothing at all wrong with the ABLR, but because of its bonding it does not produce as wide of a wound as a true fragmenting bullet; though wider than most other bullets.
For the cost there is no benefit to anything I would use them for right now, although I don’t have a very large data set with them and should use them more.

 

[Mountainrancher]

In this context: the ABLR may lose some weight, but commonly maintains 60% or more even at relatively high impact velocities. An ELD-M at high impact velocities will be 30-40% or sometimes less. Performance wise they are very similar to Federal Fusions and Speer Gold Dots- which is good.
There is nothing at all wrong with the ABLR, but because of its bonding it does not produce as wide of a wound as a true fragmenting bullet; though wider than most other bullets.
For the cost there is no benefit to anything I would use them for right now, although I don’t have a very large data set with them and should use them more.

Form any experience with the tipped game king bullet from sierra?

 

[Formidilosus]

Form any experience with the tipped game king bullet from sierra?

Yes. They are a relatively narrow upsetting, deep penetrating bullet.

 

[35WhelenAI]

Yes. They are a relatively narrow upsetting, deep penetrating bullet.

Relative to what other bullets?

 

[Formidilosus]

Relative to what other bullets?

To the range of normal, or commonly used bullets for hunting. They are not a mono, but they are also “tougher” than an Accubond for instance.

 

[Mountainrancher]

To the range of normal, or commonly used bullets for hunting. They are not a mono, but they are also “tougher” than an Accubond for instance.

I would assume that puts them in the “needs 2000 feet to properly upset” category?

 

[Formidilosus]

I would assume that puts them in the “needs 2000 feet to properly upset” category?

More like as much velocity as possible.

 

[Castle Rock]

I used them pushed hard in my 260AI and was disappointed with the damage