I'm amazed at all the new premium bullet makers and I wonder why. I don't even know them all, some are new (Hammer) and some not so much, but are all the proven designs, ie. Barnes, Nosler P, etc. really not doing the job that well? And then to be willing to pay more some a bullet that is relatively unproven on game. So educate me guys: why should I buy something like those vs. using a design proven for many years on game fields all over the world?

The animals have all been reading the internet and for example know that a .22 cal bullet into their heart lungs and liver wont phase them--takes a magnum and a premium bullet.

I do not and refuse to, use any of the "new" solid copper/brass, DU, "premium" bullets, which are just fads designed to sell hunters more and expensive bullets, I still use the common, lead and copper Hornadys, etc; plain Jane, bullets.
Miracle of it is, they still kill stuff.

Well, Barnes bullets have been around since I was a kid. Not the copper monos, maybe, But heavy duty stuff and solids.

The Barnes Hollow point Monos I think started to be available about the Mid '80s. A lot of people had trouble getting them to shoot accurately, and Barnes Kept refining them from the X through the XLC and the TSX and TTSX models. I never had trouble with them, but I spent a lot of time and money learning about seating depth and Barnes monos. The Barnes monos available today still can be pretty touchy about seating depth, but once you have that solved for a given rifle, they shoot every bit as well as any bullet.

Performance on game with todays Barnes monos is stellar. The are more reliable than anything. They DO not blow up on game out of magnums at short range. The more reliable make two holes than anything else I know of. The tend to very straight lines through game by comparison. I have never recovered one yet from a deer. That is shooting little 53 grain TSX .224s up to 50 caliber. They are notable for destroying much less meat than cup and core bullets. Yet, they will destroy the chest contents of game animals.

People do complain about them failing to expand whet the hit game. Personally, I would bet that a lot, maybe most of that is due to bullets tumbling before hitting game. If a TSX or TTSX hits something before it hits game they can and do tumble. I have seen convincing evidence that well more than half of them can and do restabilize travelling butt first because of the tendency of the nose to open only slightly and the drag from that coupled with the spin of the bullet from the rifling of the barrel combine to keep it more or less flying but forward. I do not know hw often that happens hunting, but I have found that I can reproduce it intentionally.

I keep them pretty high in Velocity and use them preferentially. The penetration and the straighter line of travel in game works better for me. When I get better performance out of them and no lead in my meat I see no reason not to use only monos.

Same old sales fog that's been going on for years. I'm so sick of the games and gimmicks that I make my own "Premium" bullets now. Its easy, you take a modern, tapered copper jacket and swage lead into it with a good quality swage die. And if you find that its not enough, make a bigger one.

Its not so much that the old bullets do not work as the playing field has changed! The gun haters and green weinnies have teamed up to try and back door outlaw firearms! No bullets, no guns! Outlaw lead and bullets go away. That's were copper came in to play. There have been some ideas to replace lead but were too expensive or BATF shut them down! Copper ain't great bullet stuff! They are trying to improve the bullets and innovation cost money. Simple business, you can only put so much money in before you have to get some out. Sell it as "Premium"!

I understand marketing and business and that makers have to come up with something new to sell. That is why we have so many useless cartridges on the market, and which is why many of them don't last long. I, however, didn't fall for it (Barnes is a Newcomer to me; you young guys think it is something special; seriously 1985 was yesterday and I had already been shooting for decades by then) so I stuck to the plain ones. I know I will get hate mail for that. I'm used to it by now.
Now, did someone say that Bigger is Better! That I can do.

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
The animals have all been reading the internet and for example know that a .22 cal bullet into their heart lungs and liver wont phase them--takes a magnum and a premium bullet.

Right! It is a matter of the target being well-informed. Hundreds of thousands of 150-lb humans, having about the same body mass as your typical whitetail buck, have been killed with only a .223 or a 7.62x39 -- and many more of them killed with a measly 9mm Parbellum. This is because they FAILED to read the internet and realize that mammals their size can't be killed with such small arms. On the other hand, the deer are obviously reading the internet on a regular basis and keeping up with which plain old cup-and-core bullets won't harm them.

Bullet making has gone a long way in my long lifetime from the failures or yesteryear. we should give the new bullet makers a break and try their stuff..condeming without trying is a mistake..I like testing bullets.

I still love the old corelokts, but I like swift, Noslers, Northforks,Barnes and others that were new and unfounded at one time..Given the approach here Ive seen we would be still shooting round lead balls!

I'm sorry to report that I don't shoot enough critters to judge performance with any authority. In the last year I shot one pig on the run and a sambar stag with Woodleigh 286gr RNSNs and another sambar with a 300gr Swift A-frame from my 9.3x62. All were convincing and effectively one shot kills. Both of the Woodleighs left good exit wounds but I don't know what happened to the Swift, being in a hurry to get some meat off the hill.

I have started loading Barnes TTSX for the 338WM and find them very accurate and wind-cheating - but have not blooded one so far.

My experience, nothing more.

mainly there are four types of bullets.

1. Lead filled copper jackets.

2. Partition bullets with lead in the front half and back, separated by a copper partition.

3. Solid shank bullets that have lead in the front half, while the rear is solid copper.

4. Copper bullets of various designs, made of solid copper.

Regardless of who makes those types, the end results are the same.

For hunting, the main point is penetration, followed by expansion.

For this, number 2 above is better than number one.

Number 3 is better than number 2.

Number 4 is better than all of them.

Again, this is what I have found in my hunting.

Others might have experienced something else.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
My experience, nothing more.

mainly there are four types of bullets.

1. Lead filled copper jackets.

2. Partition bullets with lead in the front half and back, separated by a copper partition.

3. Solid shank bullets that have lead in the front half, while the rear is solid copper.

4. Copper bullets of various designs, made of solid copper.

Regardless of who makes those types, the end results are the same.

For hunting, the main point is penetration, followed by expansion.

For this, number 2 above is better than number one.

Number 3 is better than number 2.

Number 4 is better than all of them.

Again, this is what I have found in my hunting.

Others might have experienced something else.

I don't really have enough experience to stick my oar in here, but since when has that ever stopped anyone.

I have tried all four types. The one that works best for me is number three.

I think there are two other factors that play into that. The first and probably most important factor is impact velocity.
I have never owned or hunted with a magnum and I typically load my ammo closer to start loads than to max loads. My impact velocities are therefore probably a bit low for copper bullets to expand properly, even though I typically don't shoot far.

The other factor I believe plays a role is the shape of the bullet. The bullet I like best has a relatively blunt nose. Specifically, I am talking about the Rhino solid-shank, either the 150gr .308 or the 160gr 7mm. It puts game down better than anything else I have tried.

But I don't think the difference is enough that I would not use a traditional cup-and-core bullet, and in fact I do take such bullets along when I expect to shoot at longer ranges. But in those conditions I change a number of other factors as well.

My short-range hunting is done walk-and-stalk, shooting usually from badly-supported positions and going for heart-lung shots.
My longer range shooting is done from better supports and I typically only go for high neck shots when the animal has got it's head pointed directly at or away from me. With that shot, bullet performance is almost irrelevant and the chances of inflicting a serious wound are very small. It either kills, inflicts an easily-survivable flesh wound or misses entirely.
Also germane to my method is that I hunt almost exclusively with single-shot rifles. On these long-range shoots, I will take both types of bullet. The two loads zero the same in my rifle. If a short-range shot presents itself, I will use the stronger bullet.

For some this would be a recipe for disaster and I am not necessarily recommending this. But for me it works.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

mainly there are four types of bullets.

1. Lead filled copper jackets.

2. Partition bullets with lead in the front half and back, separated by a copper partition.

3. Solid shank bullets that have lead in the front half, while the rear is solid copper.

4. Copper bullets of various designs, made of solid copper.

For me there are three.

1- Old school cup and core

2- Bonded cup and core

3- Full metal Jacket

One of those three are suitable for anything on planet earth short of disabling a Tank.

I’ve tried a bunch.

The cup and cores work very well, within constraints.

The solid shank work very well, but are rather technically difficult to make well, and are expensive.

The partition types are likewise somewhat difficult to make well from a technical standpoint.

The monometal bullets are relatively undemanding technically, but did require some R&D and you have to appreciate the differences in the material.

FMJ’s for penetration are more difficult than you think (remember the hornady debacle). Remember that ball ammo isn’t really FMJ, it’s a backwards cup and core…)

Solid penetrators (whether steel military AP, tungsten like the old grand slams, or DU) are expensive, technically difficult to make, and often rather regulated.

Then there are the various fragmentation types for limited penetration purposes (think the nontoxic varmint bullets and the limited penetration SD rounds.)

Why are there so many? The cost for bullets is very high compared to materials costs… so folks think it’s a good business to get into. Couple that with all the shortages, and there is easy entrance into the market.

How many will stick around? I don’t know.

Saeed’s walterhogs show that it wasn’t that hard for him to develop them and turn them out… but it costs him a lot for each bullet (how many of us can afford a CNC lathe to build our own- and I suspect if he totaled up equipment, materials, and put some nominal value on his time, his bullets run in excess of $10 each.

I would use more a frames and partitions than I do if I could just find the things at something approaching a decent price.

I shoot more cup and cores than anything, then partition types, then monolithics, then FMJ’s.

I do shoot some penetrator rounds, but those are all milsurp, and they are not exactly common because there are lots of folks who are willing to pay a premium for them.

Saeed’s comment makes a lot of sense from a DG position, but for most hunting, you can define “enough” penetration and often simple cup and cores can give it. If you get adequate penetration regardless, then expansion becomes #1.

For varmint hunting, expansion becomes #1, and penetration is a distant #2.

Ray hit the nail on the head as far as I can see.