I suppose as is usual I am one of the few on here that pay no attention to the premium/not premium designation as I REALLY don't know what designates a bullet 'premium'. I always thought of it as the top quality not a different design. I can see from this thread I have been wrong all these years and this lack of knowledge has made me miss so many kills over the years when I just thought it was that I didn't hunt much or take many shots. I never got this great experience in bullet design from punching holes in paper or tin cans or Necci wafers,all I was interested in was hitting the target. When I loaded for game I loaded the same bullet I had been shooting with that proved accurate and in my case that was always a Nosler Partition. I never particularly matched the bullet with the velocity as i mostly used the Nosler book and if they said so much powder for such a bullet ,that's what i did. For some un-godly reason I have been successful doing it this way for over 55 years hunting both here and in Africa on everything from jackrabbits to Cape Buffalo ( I don't use Noslers for Elephant). I'm glad my hunting days are more or less at an end as with all this knowledge I would have to learn an all new method to keep from losing animals as my old way certainly wouldn't work.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by zimbabwe:
I suppose as is usual I am one of the few on here that pay no attention to the premium/not premium designation as I REALLY don't know what designates a bullet 'premium'. I always thought of it as the top quality not a different design. I can see from this thread I have been wrong all these years and this lack of knowledge has made me miss so many kills over the years when I just thought it was that I didn't hunt much or take many shots. I never got this great experience in bullet design from punching holes in paper or tin cans or Necci wafers,all I was interested in was hitting the target. When I loaded for game I loaded the same bullet I had been shooting with that proved accurate and in my case that was always a Nosler Partition. I never particularly matched the bullet with the velocity as i mostly used the Nosler book and if they said so much powder for such a bullet ,that's what i did. For some un-godly reason I have been successful doing it this way for over 55 years hunting both here and in Africa on everything from jackrabbits to Cape Buffalo ( I don't use Noslers for Elephant). I'm glad my hunting days are more or less at an end as with all this knowledge I would have to learn an all new method to keep from losing animals as my old way certainly wouldn't work.[/QUOT]
Tongue in cheek but point on. roger

Lets ask ourselves were we would be if we stopped pushing the technology envelope?

The answer is yes! Premium bullets are designed to do what they are designed to do better. The argument is whether or not it is tuely needed. If your using enough gun/caliber for a given task than it really is irrelevent but if your pushing the limits of a smaller than standard caliber than you need every performance advantage you can get.

Roger,
A premium bullet is all about what happens to it,after it has bronken the first bit of skin and its travel through the body of the animal.
Also its ability to handle anything that can go wrong in there, like hitting heavy bone etc.
I dont think that its about killing better, but better killing abilitites, once all the factors are included that every bullet has to deal with in its quest to do the job.

Best Regards
Marius Goosen

I want to answer this question again and say YES a premium bullet can kill better.
The deeper the penetration the more damage and bleed out if two holes. The brass hollow points create what I call the "Circle of Death" with its petal fragment shear. if the vitals are within that "Circle of Death" then the grim reaper just arrived. The "Circle of Death" can kill better and make a not so good shot still deadly.

Boomstick:

"two holes" defining "killing better" than "one hole" ? Really ?

"circle of death" ? based on what ? shooting bullets into stacks of paper?

Really it's one thing to test bullets in simulants and comparing their "behaviours" but equating what you see to lethality, well that's a bit thick for most to swallow!

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
I want to answer this question again and say YES a premium bullet can kill better.
The deeper the penetration the more damage and bleed out if two holes. The brass hollow points create what I call the "Circle of Death" with its petal fragment shear. if the vitals are within that "Circle of Death" then the grim reaper just arrived. The "Circle of Death" can kill better and make a not so good shot still deadly.

Your enthusiasm is quite something to see boomie!

"Circle of death"......

I like my phrase
Alf. If one bullet does more tissue damage does that not translate into a deadlier bullet?
More and more game have entered the "Circle of death" recently see the posts in the terminal bullet thread about African safaris and even some deer with a 40 grain Raptor from a 223. The extra projectiles forming a circle around the solid base causes some pretty good damage. Yes tested in media and game of all sizes. Testing in media gives an idea of what has transpired in real game. Do you deny the damage done to the animals shot with either the flat point or hollow point brass bullets? I respect your opinion but why do you hate testing bullets? Is it because the sorts and round nose bullets you have used have shown to be outperformed? Even the hunters of old always wanted the latest and the greatest. This is not about personalities or people but what works best or better. Barnes X bullets are great and have improved still but did you harrumph them when they came out? Barnes test well and work well but the brass bullets now being sold by CEB have surpassed them in damage and penetration. If something new and better comes out I will tip my hat not be a skeptic in the light of proof. I'm not an expert but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night

Two holes are better than one yes it's about damage to vitals but my point was the ability to penetrate deep enough to do so. Do Barnes X bullets kill better than soft lead round balls? Yes. We think premium in terms of cost but if the value was tied to performance than things change a bit.

Then thin it down with the field results that are starting to come in--

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Boomstick:

"two holes" defining "killing better" than "one hole" ? Really ?

"circle of death" ? based on what ? shooting bullets into stacks of paper?

Really it's one thing to test bullets in simulants and comparing their "behaviours" but equating what you see to lethality, well that's a bit thick for most to swallow!

SSR

So Boomie, Does Vapo need to add a 6th setting for the CEB bullets?

I'm guessing this would be like the the volume knob of 11 in Spinal Tap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbVKWCpNFhY

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

A number of years ago I developed a deadometer...yes...a device to measure just how dead a deer was.

I had a digital display with five possible settings....
1. JBD...(just barely dead)
2. SDT...(slightly deader than that)
3. ADD...( average dead deer)
4. PDD....(pretty damn dead)
5. DTS....(deader than ....) well you know

While I agree with ALF that two holes don't kill any better they certainly raise the chances of tracking and finding the animal.

There is no simple equation here but a few things are evident.....depth of penetration is important and premium bullets do help in assuring this factor.

Speed of eruption and diameter of eruption during this penetration is also important and premiums help here as well by keeping the jacket intact with the core.

Premiums also help with trajectory in that they allow a slightly lighter bullet for a given job and this can be driven faster and thereby allowing a slightly flatter path.

quote:

Can a premium bullet kill any better

Yes, I think so!

Lol YES!
6 COD "Circle Of Death" shows the radius of the touch of death by the grim reaper.

quote:

Originally posted by scottfromdallas:
So Boomie, Does Vapo need to add a 6th setting for the CEB bullets?

I'm guessing this would be like the the volume knob of 11 in Spinal Tap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbVKWCpNFhY

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

A number of years ago I developed a deadometer...yes...a device to measure just how dead a deer was.

I had a digital display with five possible settings....
1. JBD...(just barely dead)
2. SDT...(slightly deader than that)
3. ADD...( average dead deer)
4. PDD....(pretty damn dead)
5. DTS....(deader than ....) well you know

quote:

Originally posted by Oldsarge:
As I said somewhere else, the premium bullet craze is a response to the belted magnum craze. If you don't shot the latter, you don't need the former. Of course, if you do, you do!

What about my 300 RUM?

Ok, that was pretty rude for my first post to the forum.

I agree, I think the whole bullet craze is a little insane. I have used 130 grain Core-Lokt bullets in my .270 every year except this year.
Then I used them in my 300.

The upgrade wasn't for Texas Whitetail, I bought the gun for Elk and wanted to try it out when I went deer harvesting this past January. Same bullet technology still worked for medium size game.

Although I did buy some Nosler Partitions for my elk hunt. They worked great being carried around in my gun, never to be fired.

Welcome to AR Chris, and don't pay a lot of attention to all of us Old Farts.

Find a bullet your rifle likes and then make sure you place that bullet where it needs to go.

Don't matter whether it is a Premium bullet or not, find what your rifle likes and if you are happy with the results, That Is All That Matters.

Enjoy the site, it is the best one on the internet.

The question should not be 'can a premium bullet kill any better" but rather 'would the animal I wounded and did not recover have been recoverable had I used a premium bullet'?


And there is no right answer to the question, but to me, it is fifty cents extra well spent.

quote:

I respect your opinion but why do you hate testing bullets?

Boomie: what on earth gives you that idea?

Here's a thing about testing:

You test for a certain parameter for example penetration or bullet expansion. ie you pre- determine the parameter then design a test that will test for that parameter.

Now comes the difficult part, for the test to be valid the test has to be free of bias or confounding factors. And to boot the limitations of what you are testing for has to be understood and defined ........ that's generally how it works.

What do you guys do, you test for bullet behaviour, ie depth of penetration and bullet fragmentation in paper but now you make assumptions concusions on stuff you never tested for ?

Bullet behaviour, expansion and fragmentation does not equate to tissue behaviour and even less on how the animal is going to react to insult.

You did not test for lethality, in fact you did not even test for any form of equivalence to real live muscle.

You look at the hole in the reference cards in the stack of newsprint and you assume that this is the pattern of wounding you are going to see in muscle?

The words used I believe is "massive trauma"

Do you really "traumatize" paper? but i get what you guys are trying to say, so lets accept the concept of paper "trauma" but now the problem?

Is that hole you see in the reference card caused by the bullet or was it caused by the wad of stacked paper that the bullet pushes in front of it as it passes through the stack of paper? And more, does muscle do the same? Does the hole look the same as in the paper?

I have no problem with testing but at least humour us with data and conclusions that pertain to what you are testing for.

quote:

Speed of eruption and diameter of eruption during this penetration is also important and premiums help here as well by keeping the jacket intact with the core.

Not all premiums are the same, in fact, some premiums act VERY differently to each other in this regard.
compare a CEB [brass] Raptor to say an A-Frame.
CEB raptor can have a larger dia. of eruption/destruction zone[secondry HV projectiles formed by sheared off petals] and still penetrate a fair way after the fact.
Bullets like copper GSC-HV, will also exhibit such HV secondary projectile behaviour, but at a much higher velocity than CEBraptors.

I do think some people can over emphasis sectional density and penetration,... as Gerard from GSC has
said,

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
To put it in practical terms. The high SD bullet will penetrate through the animal and three thorn trees. The low SD bullet will penetrate through the animal and one thorn three. I will take the lighter faster bullet for the greater energy dump and larger temporary channel any day.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
in fact you did not even test for any form of equivalence to real live muscle.

Water is Newtonian,- its viscocity does not change with increase or decrease in agitation speed.
Ballistic gel is Non Newtonian- dilitant [shear thickening]. Its viscosity increases with increase in agitation speed.
Blood is Non Newtonian- speudoplastic [shear thining.] Its viscosity decreases with increase in agitation speed.

water in containers,water saturated paper,water based ballistic gel, cannot accurately simulate bullet or tissue behaviour in the flesh of a live animal.

This thread has knowledgeably blossomed out into posts and discussions of associated areas.The answer to the question in point is NO ! roger

I'll take two holes everytime, its my choice not anyone elses, and I always have a real good blood trail..I don't buy off on the bullet shed all its "energy" inside the animal, what a croc! who measured the cavity? It works both ways if the bullet is put in the right spot it kills the animal, but I have seen animals lost and almost lost for a lack of a blood trail wherein the there was no exit hole for air to enter and push blood out or so It has been said, but the fact is as a rule you do get more blood on the ground with two holes...

I think folks have gone as far overboard with their comcept of a "premium" bullet as they did when Roy brought out his line of super killing magnums.
A bonded bullet merely has the core glued to the jacket by some means. So's you don't get those nasty, old seperations that (IMO) folks make too much over. The reaction of the bullet to flesh doesn't depend on the cyberspace bullshit; it has to do with the hardness of the core and the shape and thickness of the jacket. And that varies between brands of bullets. Every company has their own idea of what is the perfect bullet. And bless the people that take the time to shoot those different bullets into some sort of media so they can tell THE RELATIVE PERFORMANCE of the different bullets. Who cares that their test do not exactly similate flesh. They certainly can tell the RELATIVE PERFORMANCE.
Just because a bullet sez its bonded or cost a dollar + a pop, doesn't mean it's magic and will do anything that a CnC bullet will do in its performance window on the specified game.
Point to be made however, if using them gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling and a added degree of confidence, then they're probably worth it for that alone.

I don't know if I even understand some of the phrases used in this thread. I have never "tested" a bullet on wet paper or ballistic gel. If I am hunting big deer in a thicket, I am shooting a premium bullet (TSX's) so I have an exit and better blood trail. I can also shoot any angle presented because a nice broadside is probably not going to happen. If I am hunting over an open corn field or soybean field, about any bullet will kill a deer with reasonable bullet placement. In Africa, I'm not going to carry ballistic tips, I'm going to carry A-Frames, Woodleighs, TBBC's or TSX's.

quote:

Originally posted by Oldsarge:
As I said somewhere else, the premium bullet craze is a response to the belted magnum craze. If you don't shot the latter, you don't need the former. Of course, if you do, you do!

Unless, of course, you live and hunt in the Condor range in California...and then it's lead free bullets only. Yay Me.

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:
.... Every company has their own idea of what is the perfect bullet. And bless the people that take the time to shoot those different bullets into some sort of media so they can tell THE RELATIVE PERFORMANCE of the different bullets. Who cares that their test do not exactly similate flesh. They certainly can tell the RELATIVE PERFORMANCE.
..

Some people appreciate when some bullet makers go to the effort of testing/comparing their product in a test media that relates directly to hunting, ie; such as live game.
Just like some appreciate when bullets are tested to determine their actual BC rather than their computer estimated BC.
The results of testing different design bullets in live game is more significant to me than the relative performance differences discovered in a ballistic lab. That is not to say that the results of testing done in man made media, are not helpful in some way.

Alf,
Are these bullets ANY good?
We will just call these quadroped bullet testing results.
Some more animals for the "Circle Of Death"

quote:

Dear Sam:
I’m here in our camp in Rifa along the banks of the Zambezi River, reflecting on my hunts of the past season. I appreciate the cartridges you sent over loaded with the #13 solids and the Non-Con bullets. Their performance was truly remarkable.

The calibers that were used on my hunts included the .577 Nitro Express, .416 Remington Mag, and the .300 Jarrett.

I personally used my .577 to take down a charging hippo, a fleeing wounded Cape buffalo, and a backup shot on a trophy bull elephant. The bullets devastating and immediate shock and stopping power on the animals was as dramatic as I’ve witnessed in my 17 year professional hunting career. In all three cases, the animals hit the ground within seconds. The charging hippo plowed into the ground at my feet, the elephant dropped where it stood, and the fleeing Cape buffalo received a “Texas heart shot” and went down within 10-15 yards. I recovered the bullet from the buffalo under the hide of the chest. The bullet had blown through 5 feet of muscle, gut, and bone.

Most recently, my friend Doug Stein and I hunted Cape buffalo and various species of plains game. Doug was using the Non-Con bullet in his model 70 Winchester in .416 Remington mag. We ambushed a large mature buffalo after a brief stalk and Doug placed a shot behind the shoulder from approximately 35 yards. The stunning and swift shock on the buffalo’s system had him stumbling within a split second. The wounded buff tried to run with the other buffalo, however, he pulled up within 30 yards allowing Doug the time to place a 2nd shot behind the opposite shoulder. The 2nd shot literally swept the buffalo off his feet. I can tell you the geyser of blood rising from the wound was like none I have seen. Without being too graphic and over descriptive, I tell you this to properly describe the extraordinary amount of instantaneous hemorrhaging of the wound channel. Upon inspection of the buff’s vitals, I was amazed at the severity of the bullet wound including the multiple secondary wound channels from the bullet petals. No long walk required to follow up this buff!

Additionally, I was able to witness the .30 caliber Non-Con bullets used on a variety of other plains game species from Doug’s trusty .300 Jarrett. Without exception, each animal dropped in its tracks. The .30 caliber bullets included the plastic tip to help stabilize the bullets on longer shots over 200+ yards. The bullets performed with remarkable and consistent accuracy on each shot.
I plan to continue using these bullets in my rifle on all my future hunts. Thanks again for introducing me to these wonderful bullets.

Regards,

Cliff Walker
Professional Hunter
Walker/Watson African Safaris
wwalkerwatson@aol.com
Bulawayo, Zimbabwe

Cliff Walker
Walker & Watson Safaris
Cell: + 263 712 215 240
Cell: + 263 772 116 254
Office: Kerry + 263 9 240908
Office email: wwalkerwatson@aol.com

I daresay that any responsible bullet maker has done extensive testing in non-flesh media of some sort(s) before they start sticking them in live animals.

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:
I daresay that any responsible bullet maker has done extensive testing in non-flesh media of some sort(s) before they start sticking them in live animals.

and the even more responsible one collates findings from trials on non flesh media together with findings from following trials in live flesh.

Just like I want drug companies to test their stuff on mice,monkeys and finally men [volunteers], before I decide to use it...

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:

quote:

I respect your opinion but why do you hate testing bullets?

Boomie: what on earth gives you that idea?

Here's a thing about testing:

You test for a certain parameter for example penetration or bullet expansion. ie you pre- determine the parameter then design a test that will test for that parameter.

Now comes the difficult part, for the test to be valid the test has to be free of bias or confounding factors. And to boot the limitations of what you are testing for has to be understood and defined ........ that's generally how it works.

What do you guys do, you test for bullet behaviour, ie depth of penetration and bullet fragmentation in paper but now you make assumptions concusions on stuff you never tested for ?

Bullet behaviour, expansion and fragmentation does not equate to tissue behaviour and even less on how the animal is going to react to insult.

You did not test for lethality, in fact you did not even test for any form of equivalence to real live muscle.

You look at the hole in the reference cards in the stack of newsprint and you assume that this is the pattern of wounding you are going to see in muscle?

The words used I believe is "massive trauma"

Do you really "traumatize" paper? but i get what you guys are trying to say, so lets accept the concept of paper "trauma" but now the problem?

Is that hole you see in the reference card caused by the bullet or was it caused by the wad of stacked paper that the bullet pushes in front of it as it passes through the stack of paper? And more, does muscle do the same? Does the hole look the same as in the paper?

I have no problem with testing but at least humour us with data and conclusions that pertain to what you are testing for.

ALF---Old Buddy! I see you are back at it again, and have not LEARNED A DAMN THING, nor have you paid attention at all to the Terminal Performance Thread on big bores! Still at it, throwing out nice words like "ASSUME" and your Stupid Ass little remarks! Nothing Changes, you are still full of CRAP From one end to the other! And you might even be misleading these folks here, that do not know you well enough, as you KNOW FOR A FACT what I do, test first, field work follows. And you know this for a fact as well--What works in the test work IN MY TEST MEDIUM--WORKS IN THE FIELD AS WELL--I have proven it 100s of times over and over, and you have seen it, but yet here you are still spouting the same old crap as always!

Forget you, but let me show some of this MASSIVE TRAUMA that you make LIGHT of!!

This is a frontal shot on a cape buffalo with the 500 MDM and a 460 gr BBW#13 NonCon, the heart is nearly cleaved in two here if you can't see it well enough, it was dark by the time we got this one to the skinning shed



Here is another buffalo heart from yet another frontal shot at 35 yds with a 458 B&M a 420 gr BBW#13 NonCon, the petals had just separated and were still traveling close to the center bullet



Both of these remaining bullets went completely through the stomach, and both were found on the other side of the stomach, Penetration is not sacrificed!




This is the top of a crocs head, shot with a 458 B&M 420 BBW#13 NonCon at 30 yards as he rose out of the water to eat an elephant leg. MASSIVE TRAUMA???? I think so! As you can plainly see there is nothing left inside of the skull, I would say massive to say the least!




An exit wound far side of a buffalo by a 420 BBW#13 NonCon



This waterbuck took a 425 gr .500 caliber BBW#13 Carnivore at 106 measured yards. Hit on the left side just behind the shoulder, blades and bullet traveled and bullet and one large blade exited the far side shoulder, breaking it in the process. In between was MASSIVE TRAUMA inflicked in which lungs were found in PIECES, one piece of lung larger than my fist had been completely severed and separate from other parts of vitals. Again, MASSIVE TRAUMA.





This buffalo took a 460 gr .500 caliber BBW#13 NonCon on the point of the shoulder at 30 yards. It was a broken mess, MASSIVE TRAUMA INFLICTED, but even still he had fight left in him when he tried to bite me at 5 yards! Then I inflicted some more massive trauma to his head with another 460 gr BBW#13 through the noggin which literally blew a massive cavity out the size of my fist just behind his eyes, quickly followed by a 500 gr BBW#13 Solid which drove the length of the entire buffalo, from nose to stern and found sticking out the back side, actually with the nose poking through, DEAD STRAIGHT!


















And in every single case--EVERY ONE OF THEM--The bullet was tested in my test medium a mix of wet print and in every single case when taken to the field, the same results occur in the field.

Every single BBW#13 Solid and NonCon have been tested. Of course these are the two bullets represented above, that were tested extensively before going to the field. Many times lower and higher velocity tests were conducted as well.








BBW#13 NonCons react exactly the same way in animal tissue as they do in test medium I use. Blades shear at 2 inches, in animal tissue and the test medium. Blades do penetrate vitals and rip and tear and destroy. All the while the main bullet continues to penetrate deep, much further than any conventional can, also destroying even more tissue. Massive? Damn straight! It's incredible.

Now, please, for many of you that do not know me, I am NOT in the bullet business, nor the gun business in any way. I am by profession a forester, and I already have a job, I don't want another one. I do this for my own personal pleasures, I am a shooter and hunter, like most of you. I am not part of any bullet company, I have no business nor monetary interests in any bullet company.

Sam Rose, friend and fellow shooter/hunter, and I developed and designed the BBW#13 Solids and NonCons through extensive testing of our own to have a better bullet for our use. I also developed the entire line of B&M Rifles and Cartridges, once again for my own use in the field, they are so successful I share this with other fellow shooters and hunters. I do keep rifles, bullets, brass, dies and things like that on hand for all the B&M cartridges, including bullets designed by both North Fork and Cutting Edge, for the B&M cartridges. This is for the guys who shoot and have these rifles and cartridges. This is done at my own expense, and those expenses are passed on to the guys who simply reimburse me.

When Sam and I took the bullets to CEB and Dan, we were very excited about the results we had been getting with them and wanted to share them with you. While we remain as direct consultants, we are not employed in any manner, shape, form or fashion. I am heavy involved in assisting CEB in doing the test work, and will not allow a bullet out that does not test well for any reason. Or, one that can be improved upon. Test work FIRST AND FOREMOST. After all, my name is part of it. I do keep on hand many of the bullets in calibers I don't shoot or have any part of. This is done at my expense to assist fellow shooters! Folks who want to try a box of bullets do not want to have a special run done of 15 boxes of them! At my expense, I have the 15 boxes run, and divvy those out to you guys, 1 box at a time if you wan to try them. Yes, in MOST cases I charge what they cost me, and many times I forget to add shipping, so it does end up costing me in the end I promise! Sometimes, I give boxes away, AT MY OWN EXPENSE!

It insults me to no end for ASSUMPTIONS to be made that I am some sort of "Bullet Pimp", which I have been called by those who are IGNORANT.

I say these things, only to explain this to folks that don't know me here on mediums or other forums.


Now please for those of you that do not know, accept my sincere apologies for seeming somewhat "Harsh" to POOR little Alf! But what you must realize is the fact that Alf has been at this WITH ME for well over two years now, and it's the same old song and dance from him. Although he has been shown many many times that field work is done directly after successful test work, and that all match up, what is successful in the test work, is successful in the field, regardless of the bullet being tested or worked with. I have worked with every bullet on the market, big bores that is primarily. There are none that I know of that have not been tested or worked with, many very successful conventionals that I have also used in the field many times.

Alf has chosen to ignore all of this, I have been doing this well over 15 yrs now, test and go to the field with the test bullets, and I have never once failed to prove, in test work and then in the field. Yet, he keeps up with the same old dribble, same old story, and I am not sure what can possibly motivate that? Please accept my apology if it seems a bit harsh, but honestly it is somewhat insulting to say the least! Now if Alf was new to this, then I would be very patient and try to educate, but I am sorry, Alf is beyond education.

Thanks, and again, Sorry for the rant.

Michael

First field work with the BBW#13 NonCons and Solids started one year ago, November 2010. They have continued with incredible success this entire hunting season in Africa, Australia, and here in the US. In EVERY CASE, bar none, the remarks from the PHs, the hunters, the shooters, the outfitters, the trackers and skinners and everyone witness "I have never seen anything like this".......

In June I took the BBW#13s to both Zimbabwe and South Africa, there I shot 7 buffalo, Hippo, Elephant and a few other things with them, all 100% successful, ALL exactly as in the test work, with the exception that one gets deeper penetration in animal tissue than in the test medium. Bullet behavior, is ALWAYS the same. Yes, MASSIVE TRAUMA is inflicted to test medium and MASSIVE TRAUMA is inflicted to animal tissue, in exactly the same manner, END OF STORY!

There have been many many more this year taking these bullets to the field other than myself, all the same story, all extremely successful, all sorts of calibers and cartridges, all the same.

As for the mediums, I got a report the other day from an Australian trip in which multiple hogs/pigs were shot with incredible performance from the 255 9.3 BBW#13 NonCon and 270 375 BBW#13 NonCon, another story about several large 1500+ lb scrub bulls being shot with the 9.3 255 BBW#13 with extreme performance. One deer has been shot here that I know of with the brand new 130 308 Raptor, and it was drop to the shot success.

I assume nothing! I verify everything!

Michael

Now, now Michael, thats not very nice of you! I did not attack your person just your method!


You are presenting what you believe to be evidence based testing, right ! So I will repeat what I stated.

You have designed a set of tests, correct so far? you report on bullet behaviour in the test medium. ( no problem with that) but now comes the problem. You make assumptions and report assumptions on things not tested for!

You speak of trauma to the paper i.e. the reaction of the paper to the passage of the bullet. and you then correlate that to your so so called "field testing" . This is not valid because there is no equivalence between the parameters you are reporting on.

No matter ho many names you call me or how much you hate my guts it does not alter the fact that what you are trying to do has no validity !

Your paper tests are valid for bullet behaviour only i.e. depth of penetration, deformation and fragmentation. Thats it. it is not valid for lethality deductions or how living targets will behave.

That's all I have to say on that have yourself a nice day !

Alf

quote:

Now, now Michael, thats not very nice of you!

I ran out of "NICE" with you 18 months ago. You pretty well took all the NICE I had and shoved it back in my face! Looking for NICE, you can look elsewhere!

quote:

you report on bullet behaviour in the test medium. ( no problem with that) but now comes the problem. You make assumptions and report assumptions on things not tested for!

I don't make "Assumptions" Alf, I know, because I have taken all of them to the field that I test. I KNOW! No Assumptions!

Please present your body of work that includes Test work before hand, and Field Work on animal tissue afterwards, then you can qualify yourself, but it has to be both, not one or the other.

Since you have never done any work with these mediums, you are not qualified to say what is valid, and what is not valid.

The tests are valid, and I have been to the field and shot enough animals to know exactly what to look for in "Lethality". You can deny it all you want, you can do what you please, it will not change the facts. You have not tested, you have no experience, only what you read and assume, yes you have field experience, but no correlation between test work and field data. You are not qualified to judge anything.

I suppose none of the 50 + buffalo I have shot over the last 10 years or so count as to how living targets behave, nor the 100s of other animals taken count, especially after testing every single bullet I have ever put to flesh? Not Valid? Says Who? YOU?

Alf
Looking at results in game and taking the tests out of the equation don't you admit the performance is stellar? I think you are not open to the debate about performance and that is fine but results are dramatic.

I must say I'm FREAKIN impressed those on game results.

Hmmmmm, that bullet isn't anything new, They Eruopeans been making bullets that blow the front ends off for about 100 years and a lot of partition bullets will do that from time to time...My all time favorite DG bullet is the North Fork cup point monolithic but it just expands a bit and still gets the penetration. Not saying these new bullets are the berries, just saying they arn't the last word in balistics, they are another option.

Most of my bullet testing has been in game but after meeting Michael and seeing the way he tests I was very impressed with his operation. The consistancy of the paper pulp is unreal. I'd say even though it is different than ballistic gel it is probably just as consistant. Paper is much cheaper and easier to use than gel. If Michael used gel he would be spending more money than the government is right now. OK I'm a little off thread sorry.
Do premium bullet kill better, HUMMMM dead is dead but you have to hit vitals to kill. The more damage to vitals the quicker the kill. I've had bullets blow up on impact and not get inside even a deer size animal. I like two holes too. I have always been a big bore man but in my recent years I'm going smaller in caliber and better bullets. It works. I still like to slam a big bullet into something. I want my bullet to do everything its supposed to do. Lots of damage and lots of penetration. If a bullet can do that then it is premium in my mind. Fit the bullet to the game. Also fit the bullet to the velocity. Now some bullets are designed to do all these things and might just fill the bill. I have shot quite a few non cons into game and I'm very very impressed. These will be my number one bullet from now on. Sure cup and core work and I will shoot those also. The non con can not fail unless the gun doesn't go off or you miss. It does the tramua and penetration and if it fails to expand you end up with a very good solid.

Sam

It's kinda hard to follow-up with a post that adds something that hasn't already been well said. I think the initial question was sorta loaded, but it certainly got the conversation going.

Generally speaking, beyond just killing stuff, the so-called premium bullets do what I want to do with a bullet better. I could list those things, but it would be repeating what others have said. It often just comes down to a subjective issue of what's good enough, and that depends.

KB

quote:

They Eruopeans been making bullets that blow the front ends off for about 100 years and a lot of partition bullets will do that from time to time

Accubonds are also designed to blow off the front 30% of the bullet.

The old Nosler solid base bullet would do the same thing. Last time I bought some of them as seconds I paid $6.00 per 50.

Mike, I do like you test medium. I sure wish we had it avaliable here in Colorado.

I've never seen a conventional bullet have 7 exit wounds like I have with a non con. Yes other bullets blow there noses but not in six different directions.

Pardon the pun, but I'll have one more shot at this thread....

Do premium bullets kill better? Frequently, yes.

Let's go back 150 years to when bullets were almost pure lead, no jackets.

We'll make a bullet the same weight, shape, and dimensions of any premium bullet you want to name on today's market. We'll also try to shoot it at the same velocity, ignoring the fact they didn't have the powders to do so back then.

Assuming the bullet flies at the same speed, achieves the same trajectory, etc., it finally hits the game exactly where we aimed.

So, now what happens?

Sometimes it hits the skin, penetrates, and goes straight to the vital tissue we aimed at.

Other times it hits the skin, pentrates, and depending on the angle, etc., whangs into a large bone, and expands too much to penetrate enough farther to hit the vital organs at which we aimed. Once in a while it bends and although it penetrates a lot farther, pentrates in entirely the wrong direction and misses the vital organs completely. Yet other times it simply comes apart, yet again failing to do what we had "aimed" (lol) for.

Now, do modern premium bullets always perform exactly as we want.? No, of course they don't.

Do they perform the way we wish more often? You're damned tootin' they do!!

The first "pemium bullets were probably "hardened" lead, and thus performed at a premium level over what came before. Then they were improved AGAIN (and sold for a higher premium) by being jacketed.

And so on.

Now they are premium because of jacketing, bonding, different cores, solid monometal, etc.

All are tried as part of the process of getting bullets to more consistently fly straight and true INSIDE the animals struck, while also creating maximum tissue damage.

And do they kill better under more adverse circumstances than the early almost pure lead bullets.

Yes, they do.

Is their premium price worth it to you? Only you can answer that question. Pick your own level of "premium".

The heading of the thread:

" Can a premium bullet kill any better ? "

By this we assume premium vs non premium not so ???????

So we shoot an animal with a premium and it dies, we shoot another animal with a non premium ,it to dies ...... which was killed "better" ?

Both died, both were killed !

Now come all the stuff about testing.

Lots of bullets are fired into paper and then in live animals.

We see pictures of wounds and pictures or reports of bullets making lots of exit holes, thats great but no where is the original question which kills better adressed or tested for, no where but no where does the test test for what is "killed better" ?


What is more no where does the tests test for incapacitation ie how long it takes for an animal to go down when shot with one bullet compared to the other.

As I have said a observational statement or question is posed, a test is designed and tests performed, (with great dilligence I may add, and this is not questioned) however the tests do not test for anwers posed, they answer questions pertaining to bullet behaviour, they adress what the bullet does under the circumstances presented during the test, they answer nothing about stuff not tested for.

This btw is nothing new in the gun world, it is a fallacy that has been around for a very long time, just like Weatherby's inference that "velocity kills" shooting a jug of water and watching it explode is a fine eaxmple of the fallacy, yes the higher the velocity the bigger the "explosion" but thats just the point.

The size of the explosion tells us nothing about lethality or the ability to "kill better" all it does is it tellls us that if the speed goes up a jug of water will explode with greater show .