Why Match/Target Bullets For Hunting

[Formidilosus]

My belief has always been that wind would cause more misses than any other factor, but I don't have the experience to state that definitively. Just too many variables with the wind. Learning to read it, especially over mixed terrain, would take a crapton of experience.

Wind is by far the biggest error that can’t be computed with hard data. However, they’re are techniques and equipment that make it way easier than how most do it

Maybe it missed it but why does higher bc lead to more hits? Less wind drift? Less bullet drop at long range?

We miss do to the biggest error. In any given shot there are going to be a lot of errors- range errors, MV variation, environmental data errors, angel, etc. But the biggest one for people that have a solid system is wind. The higher BC bullet drifts less in the wind, and therefore whatever error we make in our wind call, shows up as less error on the target.

 

[Formidilosus]

The last piece of why match bullets for hunting is terminal ballistics. I.E.- killing animals.

This is not an easy or short subject. Well, it is, but there is so much BS that people have been told and believe that it takes a bit. Someone can give a solid, thorough briefing on how billets kill in 10’ish minutes. But you spend the next two hours factually and logically disproving every incorrect idea that has been bantered about for decades. As I’ve written about ad nuaseam, there are vast amounts of correct information if you want to read and learn. Google “Dr Martin Fackler”, Dr Gary K. Robert’s”, “FBI” along with “wound ballistics” and read until your eyes bleed. Entire organizations have been stood up with the most experienced people alive to solve “how bullets kill”. It’s a known thing for the last 30 or so years. Yes, most is specifically about humans. However, it is directly applicable to other mammals.

Here are a few quotes as a primer. From Dr. Martin Fackler, the father of modern wound -

There are four components of projectile wounding. Not all of
these components relate to incapacitation, but each of them must be considered. They are:
(1) Penetration. The tissue through which the projectile passes, and which it disrupts or
destroys.
(2) Permanent Cavity. The volume of space once occupied by tissue that has been
destroyed by the passage of the projectile. This is a function of penetration and the frontal
area of the projectile. Quite simply, it is the hole left by the passage of the bullet.
(3) Temporary Cavity. The expansion of the permanent cavity by stretching due to the
transfer of kinetic energy during the projectile�s passage.
(4) Fragmentation. Projectile pieces or secondary fragments of bone which are impelled
outward from the permanent cavity and may sever muscle tissues, blood vessels, etc.,
apart from the permanent cavity. Fragmentation is not necessarily present in every
projectile wound. It may, or may not, occur and can be considered a secondary effect.
Projectiles incapacitate by damaging or destroying the central nervous system, or by causing lethal blood
loss. To the extent the wound components cause or increase the effects of these two mechanisms, the
likelihood of incapacitation increases.

Kinetic energy does not wound. The much discussed "shock"
of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down" power is a myth. The critical element is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding. Penetration less than 12 inches is too little, and, in the words of two of the participants in the 1987 Wound Ballistics Workshop, "too little penetration will get you killed. Given desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet

Quote
Whether we like to admit it or not, the primary purpose of military rifle bullets is to disrupt human tissue. Yet the effects of bullets on bodies - the characteristic tissue disruption patterns produced by various bullets - remains unclear even to many of those who design and produce bullets. Surgeons who are called upon to treat the damage bullets cause, with few exceptions, lack practical knowledge of bullet effects. Attempts to fill this information void with formulae, graphs, flawed experiments, invalid assumptions, and theories based on half-truth (or no truth at all) have only increased confusion.

The obvious - simply measuring, recording and describing the disruption produced by various calibres and bullet types - has largely been ignored in favour of more dramatic and complex methodology. To illustrate the problem: if a neighbour told you that a meteorite had fallen into his back yard, wouldn't you ask him how deep and how large a hole it had made? If he replied that he had, on good authority, an estimation of the meteor's striking velocity and the amount of kinetic energy it had "deposited" and gave you both these figures, you might be impressed by the sophistication of this information, but you still wouldn't know how big a hole he had in his yard.

Bullet mass and bullet striking velocity establish a bullet's potential; they set the limit on the tissue disruption it can produce. Bullet shape and construction determine how much of this potential is actually used to disrupt tissue; they are the major determinants of bullet effect.

So what does that mean, it means this- death occurs due to oxygen deprivation or blood loss. That’s it. Those two things happen by damaging the CNS or vital organs. Damaging vital organs happens through destroying tissue. The four primary wounding mechanisms for destroying tissue from rifle projectiles are: penetration, permanent crush cavity, temporary stretch cavity, and fragmentation.
So how do you measure those four mechanisms? You shoot tissue and measure the holes created. But tissue is variable, and staying consistent from animal to animal to compare different bullets is impossible. You need a consistent and repeatable medium to compare bullets against, and to.
The FBI in the early 90’s officially started using calibrated 10% ballistics gel which has the same “consistency” as muscle tissue. This was initially done as a consistent medium, with no belief that what you see in the gel will be a one for one, of what you see in living mammals. However with more than 30,000 test shots, thousands of live examples; properly calibrated 10% ballistics gel has proven to have an extremely high correlation to live tissue results. If you conduct the tests correctly, and know how to measure it, ballistics gel will tell you what to expect with a high degree of confidence.

 

[Formidilosus]

I’m writing all this, so there is a common ground for discussion. Otherwise it’ll be nonstop back and fourth.

So you take properly calibrated ballistics gel, shoot it, and then measure the resulting damage for those four wounding mechanisms- penetration, permanent cavity, temp cavity, and fragmentation. There are also multiple barriers that are placed in front of the gel, that the bullets most go through in the FBI protocol- bare gel, heavy clothing, wallboard, sheet metal, plywood, glass. These pictures are all from bare gel, which is useful for medium game chest shots with no large bone. (All picture are public).

It looks like this-


Gel blocks are generally 8”x8”x18” long. Shot left to right. The rest is written in the picture. Penetration depth was 15.25 inches, with a max temp cavity (TC) of more than 7.5 inches as it spilt the block top and bottom, the max TC occurred 6 inches in, and was 10.25 inches in length.

Now you have a 3D picture or image of the actual wound that was created by the bullet passing through. No matter whether the bullet had 15,000 ft-lbs of energy on target, or 150 ft-lbs, it doesn’t matter. Energy is potential, not actual. To find actual you have to shoot stuff. And once you shoot stuff you have a hole that was created by “x” bullet, at “y” impact velocity that can be measured. Once you have that, it doesn’t matter how much energy it had.

So taking all of that, I overlaid the wound tracks of three different 6.5 projectiles onto a large deer.

Monolithics such as Barnes, E-Tip, GMX, etc-



Lead core bonded such as Nosler Accubonds, Hornady Interbonds, Scirocco, etc-




Rapidly fragmenting, tipped match billets such as the Hornady ELD-M and Sierra TMK-




The bonded and ELD-M impacted at similar speeds, the mono was much faster; and all had similar ft-lbs of energy. Yet, the wounds are vastly different just as they are in real life. The interesting piece here, is that while all of them are really close in max temporary stretch cavities- +/- 7 inches, the permanent wound cavities are very different. That’s because soft tissue is propelled or stretched away from the bullet as it passes, but most is elastic and returns back without tearing- think about stretching a rubber band. You need around 2,000+ FPS to get permanent wounding from the TC. Even though the mono (GMX) impacted with higher speed, because there are no fragments most of the stretched tissue wasn’t cut or torn and therefore returns after the bullet passes. Contrast that with the ELD-M fragmenting violently, and each one of those fragments are cutting the stretched tissue. The result is that nearly the entire temporary cavity becomes the permanent cavity.

 

[Formidilosus]

The controversy with “hunting bullets” versus “match bullets” isn’t in the difference in how they well they kill. It’s in a skewed and misguided understanding of how bullets kill at all. Due to some issue with very soft bullets and big magnums causing insufficient penetration on some animals decades ago, the market and companies went the complete opposite direction and got the public more interested in what a bullet looked like when it was recovered, rather than the hole it created in the dead animal at their feet. Thus weight retention, perfect petals, and max penetration became the gospel with almost no thought given to how long it took an animal to die.

If death comes from destroyed tissue, then the more tissue destroyed, the faster a bullet kills.
It’s very obvious by both the pictures above, and in shooting vast amounts of animals with each of those bullets, which creates the largest wounds and kills the quickest.

Provided shot placement is good, the most important piece is sufficient penetration to reach vital organs. After that, the wider you can make that wound, the faster things die.

How much penetration is enough? On a big WT or Mule deer buck 12 inches will reach both lungs from any point in the rib cage. If you’re trying to slip it through intestines first from quartering away, you need 16-18 inches. On RM bull elk- 16 inches will reach both lungs from any point in the ribs. 20’ish inches if you try to stick it through some guts quartering away first.
If I am inclined to take extremely hard quartering away guts shots... well I’m not, and in scenarios with an animal facing almost away, I just put it into their neck or the base of the spine at the hips.

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

Great stuff Form. If you haven't written a book, you really ought to consider it. I have no idea what you do professionally, but between that and your leisure pursuits, you appear to have an incredible body of experience. Let's touch on hydrostatic shock. I know that term has been tossed around, or kicked around perhaps, quite a bit. You said shock doesn't exist. I don't know what the term is, but the force that creates the temporary cavity is what I think most people refer to when they refer to shock. What is the proper term for the force that causes the temporary cavity.

We had a crappy weather weekend, so i found some rabbit holes to go down. Interestingly two of them led back to your writings. One was from 2012 over on the 'fire. It was from 2012 and you were singing the praises of bonded bullets. It seems like your experiences have steered you in a bit of a different direction since then. Something I didn't see mentioned above is heavy bone busting. Is that something you avoid with match bullets?

The other rabbit hole was a scope rabbit hole that led me back here to your Optika 6 test. It's crazy what goes into a test of a single example. I notice that you don't mind naming scopes that perform well, but I rarely see you mention the name brand of those poor performers, though I thing I can sometimes infer. Do you stand to piss too many people off? At any rate, I love those tests and would love to see more. That info could go in your book! It's a shame that there's not a way to machine replicate the forces. Somewhere out there is an engineer that could save you some of the time you invest in beating up scopes. The forces would be consistent and repeatable as well.

Last thing and back on topic. You have written as if a match bullet is a match bullet. I would assume they aren't all created equally. Are there match designs that don't give the above results? Are some too thinly jacketed with lead too soft?

 

[WCB]

Penciling in and out doesn't just happen to "target bullets"

Actually, it can and does. Then on the opposite you an get them blowing up on shoulders etc. and not getting adequate penetration.

 

[Formidilosus]

Let's touch on hydrostatic shock. I know that term has been tossed around, or kicked around perhaps, quite a bit. You said shock doesn't exist. I don't know what the term is, but the force that creates the temporary cavity is what I think most people refer to when they refer to shock. What is the proper term for the force that causes the temporary cavity.

To be clear, that was a quote from Martin Fackler. In terminal ballistic circles, the main ideas behind “hydrostatic shock”, “hydraulic shock”, etc., are due to high impact velocity there is a “shockwave” or “electrical impulse” that is sent outward from the bullet that can damage arteries or even brain function far from the wound track. Imagine a pressure wave of blood in arteries being sent back to the heart and brain from the “shock” that ruptures those organs. Or something similar. In the above case, no “hydrostatic shock” has not proven to be contributing factor to wounding in any legitimate medical research, let alone that it even exists.

As for what the force that causes the ten port cavity is called, velocity. In so much as I can recall, I don’t think there is a specific term for it. It’s just the TC (temporary cavity.


A quote from Dr. Gary Roberts-

The tissue surrounding the permanent cavity is briefly pushed laterally aside as it is centrifugally driven radially outward by the projectile’s passage. The empty space normally occupied by the momentarily displaced tissue surrounding the wound track, is called the temporary cavity. The temporary cavity quickly subsides as the elastic recoil of the stretched tissue returns it towards the wound track. The tissue that was stretched by the temporary cavity may be injured and is analogous to an area of blunt trauma surrounding the permanent crush cavity. The degree of injury produced by temporary cavitation is quite variable, erratic, and highly dependent on anatomic and physiologic considerations. Many flexible, elastic soft tissues such as muscle, bowel wall, skin, blood vessels, and empty hollow organs are good energy absorbers and are highly resistant to the blunt trauma and contusion caused by the stretch of temporary cavitation. Inelastic tissues such as the liver, kidney, spleen, pancreas, brain, and completely full fluid or gas filled hollow organs, such as the bladder, are highly susceptible to severe permanent splitting, tearing, and rupture due to temporary cavitation insults. Projectiles are traveling at their maximum velocity when they initially strike and then slow as they travel through tissue. In spite of this, the maximum temporary cavity is not always found at the surface where the projectile is at its highest velocity, but often deeper in the tissue after it has slowed considerably. The maximum temporary cavitation is usually coincidental with that of maximum bullet yaw, deformation, or fragmentation, but not necessarily maximum projectile velocity.

We had a crappy weather weekend, so i found some rabbit holes to go down. Interestingly two of them led back to your writings. One was from 2012 over on the 'fire. It was from 2012 and you were singing the praises of bonded bullets. It seems like your experiences have steered you in a bit of a different direction since then. Something I didn't see mentioned above is heavy bone busting. Is that something you avoid with match bullets?

Not sure of the context of what I wrote specifically, but a couple of points about then and bonded bullets. In 2012 I was still shooting mostly magnums except for the 243 and 308. Some of the bullets didn’t exist then, that do now. Even still, the primary projectiles that I used for hunting then was the 178gr AMAX from 300 mags, 168gr AMAX from 308’s, 95gr NBT from 243’s, and 62/64gr Fusions/Gold Dita from 223’s. Lots of others were used as well, but those made up the majority. I didn’t and don’t generally recommend extremely frangible bullets in bigger cartridges because almost no one is happy with the excessive meat loss that results. The 243/95gr NBT got a lot of use then because it was the smallest (at the time) combination that killed quickly with acceptable penetration for all around hunting from 0-500’ish yards. The options commonly available then for 223/5.56 killed just fine out to 300’ish yards, but were not what I considered a solid replacement for the bigger rifles for all around hunting, hence some tending towards harder bullets for the bigger rounds. The 77gr TMK changed that (2014 if I recall), and since then has been the primary cartridge and bullet combo that I and most of those I’m around use for everything.

As for Bonded bullets themselves, they can be fantastic. Most combine a good balance of weight retention for penetration even through barriers (heavy bone in this case) with rapid and wide expansion for increased wound size. Speaking of medium to large game hunting, they are probably the best overall choice for most hunters from close in to around 400’ish yards. The problem with bullets such as ELD’s/TMK’s/etc. is often severe meat damage. They kill dramatically, but any bone hits at high velocity results in a lot of lost meat.
Let’s look at the other side- monolithic solids such as Barnes TSX/TTSX, Nosler E-Tip, Hornady GMX, etc. I have, and do use deep penetrating bullets like these quite a bit. They have their place, but they create deep, relatively narrow permanent wound channels with very little secondary wounding effects. Between hunting, crop damage, etc. I have killed and seen killed hundreds upon hundreds of medium and large game with lots of bullets. For instance, years ago in the span of a few weeks I used an at the time, new mono bullet to kill 30+/- deer at a variety of impact speeds. Measured, logged and took pictures of the placements, wound channels, distance traveled after hit, and approximate time to incapacitation. Then I used the same rifle and cartridge with a different newer bullet for the same amount of deer and compared the results. The differences were readily apparent to all- the mono killed slower at ranges, animals traveled farther with all non CNS hits, and they stayed on their feet longer after lethal hits. A couple of animals with both bullets were non lethal, or non immediately lethal hits, and the differences in the time to recovery, distance traveled and animals reaction were striking. Granted, 60’ish animals is a relatively small sample size however two animals we’re shot at identical ranges, as in within in a few feet of each other, and in near identical placements and angles (broadside, guts). The one with the mono turned into a rodeo that had to be tracked for a very long distance with multiple shots to finish. The one with the rapidly fragmenting bullet ran something like 60-70 yards and died. The temp cavity and fragmentation had ruptured the diaphragm. That’s just one group of samples.
The only place that I see a use for deep penetrating bullets of any sort for general hunting is when there is no other type of bullet in a given scenario that will achieve adequate penetration, or when meat damage is trying to be limited as much as possible. That leads us back to bonded lead core bullets, as well as thick jacketed non bonded bullets. For most people, they offer an adequate combination of penetration and wound

The other rabbit hole was a scope rabbit hole that led me back here to your Optika 6 test. It's crazy what goes into a test of a single example. I notice that you don't mind naming scopes that perform well, but I rarely see you mention the name brand of those poor performers, though I thing I can sometimes infer. Do you stand to piss too many people off? At any rate, I love those tests and would love to see more. That info could go in your book! It's a shame that there's not a way to machine replicate the forces. Somewhere out there is an engineer that could save you some of the time you invest in beating up scopes. The forces would be consistent and repeatable as well.

There is a way to test it mechanically and it has been done. However it’s expensive, I don’t own it, I can’t show the results, it can’t be used at the range, and people don’t have it to replicate fit their use. The drop tests, etc. were the initial proving grounds of scopes failing before they did so in actual use. Then legitimate testing was conducted that proved what was found by the drops with rifles. Since the results are repeatable and predictable, for personal use the rifle drops are very simple and easy to do, they’re repeatable and have consistent results, and show whether a scope will or not.

 

[Formidilosus]

Last thing and back on topic. You have written as if a match bullet is a match bullet. I would assume they aren't all created equally. Are there match designs that don't give the above results? Are some too thinly jacketed with lead too soft?

If I have not suffiently pointed out that match bullets are certainly not all alike, I apologize. They can and are very different from make and model, to even individual models within the same line. The “softest” match bullets are nothing but extremely large varmint bullets. You use weight to get penetration. However, there are lots of “match” bullets that either don’t expand or upset at all, or ones that do so late in the penetration path, and/or are extremely variable in what they do in tissue.

ELD-M’s, TMK’s, etc. all create wounds in shape and behavior similar to this-



The exact penetration and width will vary based on the caliber, weight, and velocity, but their similar. As an example, the above is a 175gr TMK from a 308. This is 77gr TMK from a 223/5.55-


The behavior is nearly identical, just the depth and width are slightly different.


Now compare those to this (175gr Sierra MatchKing)


And the 77gr SMK-


The two TMK’s have near immediate expansion (zero neck length) the SMKs have penetrated 5.5 and 3.25 inches before upsetting at all. If SMK’s did that consistently (Berger VLD’s do) , they would work fine. The problem is that due to inconsistencies in the nose, SMK’s are extremely variable- some upset almost immediately, some penetrate several inches as above befor upsetting, and some penetrate quite deeply before tumbling and fragmenting if they do so at all.

This representation from Gary Robert’s shows that-


The dark colored tracks are the permanent wound, the non shaded outlines are the temp cavity.

The main most common match bullets that I would use for hunting-

1) Heavy weight Hornady Amax/ELD-M’s and Atips.

2). Heavy Sierra Tipped Matchkings

3). Berger VLD’s and Hybrid Hunters. Also Targets and OTM’s if velocity is high enough.

4). Lapua Scenars.



The Eld-M’s and TMK’s will feature rapid and immediate expansion/fragmentation and around 16-22 inches of penetration depending on impact velocity. Berger’s are different. They penetrate several inches, usually 3-6”, before the nose collapses in and then they fragment violently. They will penetrate that 3-6” through pretty much any part of an animal before fragmenting. Scenars are some of the “hardest” match bullets and tend to penetrate the most, with a narrow wound channel than the others. I do not favor them, but they do kill well and consistently.

 

[Flyjunky]

Actually, it can and does. Then on the opposite you an get them blowing up on shoulders etc. and not getting adequate penetration.

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying penciling in and out is a trait of target/match bullets only?

That is utter nonsense. Go back and read my post, I've had Barnes TTSX "hunting" bullets pencil in and out, and there are many reports of others having seen the same thing.

 

[prm]

Good reading. My results match your descriptions. 140 VLD on bull elk made a nice wide wound channel. 139 Scenar went through a mule deer buck with a small entry hole on near side lung, slightly wider exit then a nice hole through far side lung and exit.

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying penciling in and out is a trait of target/match bullets only?

That is utter nonsense. Go back and read my post, I've had Barnes TTSX "hunting" bullets pencil in and out, and there are many reports of others having seen the same thing.

A 215 Sierra Gameking sure doesn’t expand at muzzle velocity from a 338-06. Basically acts like a solid. I’d take a 6.5 Scenar or Berger VLD over that bullet every time.

 

[Flyjunky]

Good reading. My results match your descriptions. 140 VLD on bull elk made a nice wide wound channel. 139 Scenar went through a mule deer buck with a small entry hole on near side lung, slightly wider exit then a nice hole through far side lung and exit.




A 215 Sierra Gameking sure doesn’t expand at muzzle velocity from a 338-06. Basically acts like a solid. I’d take a 6.5 Scenar or Berger VLD over that bullet every time.

Good reading. My results match your descriptions. 140 VLD on bull elk made a nice wide wound channel. 139 Scenar went through a mule deer buck with a small entry hole on near side lung, slightly wider exit then a nice hole through far side lung and exit.




A 215 Sierra Gameking sure doesn’t expand at muzzle velocity from a 338-06. Basically acts like a solid. I’d take a 6.5 Scenar or Berger VLD over that bullet every time.

I've never shot Sierra. I only use Berger and just make sure the tips are clear, never had a problem.

 

[hereinaz]

I have an Accubond load that shoot same POI as my Berger 180 vld out to 250 no problem.

I carry the Accubonds in my 7 mag for quick close shots that may need to go through bone at bad angles. I also shoot them inside 100 yards because at high velocity Berger and other match bullets can explode without penetration. But, that is only happening inside 100 yards with bullets impacting above 3000 fps. Not gonna happen with a 6.5 creed velocity.

Outside of the above, I shoot the Berger 180 vld exclusively. It is a fantastic weight and when you run the data through calculators, you can't beat the numbers unless you get into "ultramag" territory with 230ish .308 bullets. Errors in wind, elevation, form, etc. are all reduced.

IMP, putting the bullet in the right spot is far more important than getting over 180 grains. Recoil is a major problem for a lot of shooters, though they won't admit it.

In two seasons, I have hammered deer, caribou, and elk from 100 out to 730, and all were dead with one shot, except my elk that stood there dying, so I shot him two more times. He turned and fell over backwards dead. They have so much blood, that they simply die slower. In each, their vitals were shredded and I got exits. My buddies started running 180 and switched to 7mm after they saw the devestating effect.

For kicks, buddy let his dad shoot at an elk at 1100. He was high, they dialed down and his dad shot him twice, perfect evening conditions... not something I personally would do... both shots were devestating expansion and ruined his lungs.

Berger and other appropriate "match" bullets will fail because they have a clogged tip or impact at exceedingly high velocity or too low velocity. They can fail on some bone shots, but I have blown out more than one elk shoulder. I can eliminate those possibilities by careful decision making.

But, other bullets fail for other reasons. I have to be smart the way I use them.

What is nice, is the aim point for a "match" bullet is the lungs behind the shoulder crease. It is a forgiving spot, big area forward and back. And, you destroy the lungs for very fast death, and ruin far less meat than an "anchor" shot through a shoulder with a heavy bonded bullet. My 7ss has anchored all the animals shot with it, only two running maybe 30 yards to lie down and die. Others died where they stood.

I think there is something about a gunshot wound to the chest vs. one that hits meat. Hitting meat seems to make them run, like a lion bit them, an automatic reflex. A chest shot seems to just shock them into standing up to die.

 

[Formidilosus]

I also shoot them inside 100 yards because at high velocity Berger and other match bullets can explode without penetration. But, that is only happening inside 100 yards with bullets impacting above 3000 fps.

What do you mean by “explode without penetration”. What has been your experience.

Not saying they can’t, I’m curious. I’ve seen and used heavy Berger significantly above 3k impacts, and haven’t seen any that haven’t made it through the scapula and into the chest cavity.

 

[EmperorMA]

IMP, putting the bullet in the right spot is far more important than getting over 180 grains. Recoil is a major problem for a lot of ALL shooters, though they won't admit it.

Fixed it for you.

Recoil is a problem for everyone. That is why there are things like brakes and suppressors. All of us will shoot a .223 better than we will a .338 Win Mag.

I think there are far fewer "bullet failures" than there are "placement failures" by the shooter. Even putting a frangible bullet on big bone at close range is "placement failure" rather than a bullet failure, IMHO. Same goes with putting a mono though lungs at < 2000 fps.

I am really starting to like the newer group of high-BC hunting bullets that are made to be as slippery and on-target at long range as the match bullets but as capable as the toughest hunting bullets up close. At sane speeds, these seem to be a great alternative for those looking to shoot at all reasonable ranges. Not sure what more anyone could want between 0 and maybe 800 yards if shooting a heavy for caliber ELD-X or ABLR started at 2600-3000 fps.

 

[hereinaz]

What do you mean by “explode without penetration”. What has been your experience.

Not saying they can’t, I’m curious. I’ve seen and used heavy Berger significantly above 3k impacts, and haven’t seen any that haven’t made it through the scapula and into the chest cavity.

I wouldn't worry about it, if an animal came in my crosshairs, I am pulling the trigger, even with a Berger. I am sure it is a very rare occurrence, it is just one thing to control for or be aware of. Nothing is perfect, but this is certainly very, very rare, to almost be internet myth.

No personal experience, but a top retailer of Proof rifles sells a lot rifle to hunters. I have seen two pictures from him where it looked like a bomb crater on the side of an animal with no penetration. A second shot on the animal was lethal. The common thing was extremely high velocity Berger. One was on a sheep.

I have heard of it around the interwebs before that, but I gave it little thought until he showed me.

 

[hereinaz]

Fixed it for you.

Recoil is a problem for everyone. That is why there are things like brakes and suppressors. All of us will shoot a .223 better than we will a .338 Win Mag.

I think there are far fewer "bullet failures" than there are "placement failures" by the shooter. Even putting a frangible bullet on big bone at close range is "placement failure" rather than a bullet failure, IMHO. Same goes with putting a mono though lungs at < 2000 fps.

I am really starting to like the newer group of high-BC hunting bullets that are made to be as slippery and on-target at long range as the match bullets but as capable as the toughest hunting bullets up close. At sane speeds, these seem to be a great alternative for those looking to shoot at all reasonable ranges. Not sure what more anyone could want between 0 and maybe 800 yards if shooting a heavy for caliber ELD-X or ABLR started at 2600-3000 fps.

Thanks, and that is 100% correct.

The offerings for bullets is growing and fantastic. Certainly, the LR Accubond and ELD X fit the bill for guys who want a slippery bullet but hunting performance. They will absolutely work at most ranges for hunting.

I ---could technically--- shoot an animal at 1000 yards with my rifle and do it confidently. I practice first round hits and quick second shots out to 1000, mostly so I am nails out to 700. But, I can't honestly see myself shooting that far.

 

[Ram94]

This thread has confirmed my thought process of shooting 162 ELD-M's in my 7mm-08. I havent killed anything with the load yet, but was thinking they would perform well with the lower velocity of the 7mm-08 as compared to the 7RM I had been using prior.

 

[hereinaz]

For anyone keeping track, @Formidilosus has presented the exact same information that ultimately convinced me to shoot high BC "match" bullets, even though the internet is full of reasons why people choose not to shoot them. It was a great thread and should almost be a sticky... Everything he presented is technically right on the money. It is the technical information that explains why it works like it does.

Besides that technical stuff, there are all sorts of threads and evidence of how and why match bullets work. Check out the .223 77 TMK thread for effectiveness on bear, moose and elk. There are all sorts of reasons to use a bigger gun, but you can't say the lowly .223 won't kill stuff.

Bottom line for me is that the skin and ribs on any animal in NA are soft enough for a .223 to penetrate, and if it expands and continues penetration for 12 to 16 inches, the animal will die with destroyed lungs. The bigger the animal, the bigger the lungs for a target. Game animals will always get a match bullet. I killed my bison with a .308 and Juggernauts last year. Dangerous animal, like brown bears, obviously you have different factors at play, so I am going to carry the right tool for that job. In Alaska, I carried the Accubond in my rifle for possible risk of bears.

So, knowing even a .223 77 TMK will kill, the next part of the equation is putting the bullet in the right place. That is where the choice of caliber is most important, simply to keep recoil to something YOU can manage well enough to shoot. If you have ever missed when the crosshair was on the animal when you pressed the go button, and the rifle shoots from the bench just fine, then consider bumping down to reduce recoil so you can shoot it better. You will never kill what you don't hit.

Just this year, a kid shot my rifle at 730 on a Coues deer. It went through it on a hard front quarter, from lung, liver, and out the guts. Parts of the bullet mixed with grass then blew a crater in his offside rear leg about 4 or 5 inches across. I was utterly amazed to see how nasty the stuff exiting him was. We found a big piece of the jacket in the leg with one big chunk of lead. After that, I was convinced that even a .223 or 6mm match bullet at that distance at minimal expansion velocity still would have killed that deer. I didn't need more than the 26-28" of penetration across vitals and guts with enough gas left to shred his leg too... The skin, ribs, and innards of an elk are not that much tougher than a deer, so I have personal experience that my cartridge/bullet combo is plenty to kill whatever I hunt.

 

[hereinaz]

This thread has confirmed my thought process of shooting 162 ELD-M's in my 7mm-08. I havent killed anything with the load yet, but was thinking they would perform well with the lower velocity of the 7mm-08 as compared to the 7RM I had been using prior.

Great choice. Just make sure terminal velocity is enough to make the bullet perform at the distance, and whatever it hits will be dead. Shooting a 7-08 is certainly easier than a 7 mag, so your shot placement will be less of a concern. I don't "need" to carry a magnum for most of my shots, but I can carry and shoot it, so I do simply to increase the possibilities. Everything shot with my 7 mag would have died if hit with a 7-08 and the 7-08 could have made all the shots because distance and conditions weren't extreme that the magnum would increase hit percentage meaningfully.

It is a mathematical thing, check your dope, and if terminal velocity is high enough the critter will die with a good shot, then get your dope right, get a solid shooting position, and press the go button.

 

[woods89]

This is the content I come here for. I would love to see it be a sticky.