quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
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 .

Alf, I know you are in the middle of a pissing contect with your posts right now, but it is ambushing the basic question of this thread.

For instance, you say

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

Both died, both were killed !"

Do both die? Are both killed, with the same regularity by both premium and non-premium bullets? THAT is the question. Why continue the discussion, if we assume they are?

And as to the testing...if you know of better tests of the effectiveness of hunting bullets than hunting with them, why don't YOU design some such tests which you believe both valid and reliable, and perform them yourself? Then you could tell us what you found and maybe shed some real light on the subject?

I think everyone here pretty much agrees that the more damage a bullet does to vital organs, and the more easily it can be directed to those organs, the more likely it is the animal shot at will die quicker than it will from less damage and unpredictable bullet paths.

While it is true that destruction which will immediately kill one animal won't kill another as promptly, obviously we can only test hunting bullets in a limited number of animals. Or, are we supposed to kill ALL the animals of all species to prove a rather obvious practical point? One needn't cut down the whole forest to see the trees, eh?

Anyway, am not trying to get on your case. Am just suggesting that you might contribute a lot more to answering the question asked than just criticizing the efforts of some other poster who clearly IS trying to answer it to the extent of his research.

Best wishes,

AC

(Sorry for all my typos)

quote:

Originally posted by Antelope Sniper:

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.

The difference is,... bullets like, Raptors,GSCustom, BarnesX, Etips,Failsafes etc, are designed with a specifically predetermined fragment size and number,unlike the many smaller-varied size particles produced in a say a Nosler partition, ballistic tip or Berger bullet.

Trax, nice picture of the BT.
What was your test medium, and doesn't it look kind of lethal?

AC:

The question of what kills better is as old as the study of terminal ballistics itself, in fact is is the primary classic question !

To this en we need to define what is meant by "killing" "death" and "incapacitation"

Death as anyone with a forensics or trauma background will tell you is not an instantaneous event, it is a procses in time and it goes from a state of potential reversability to irreversability.

Inacapciation on the other hand does not imply the amimal is dead, it is incapicated and from that death may occur or not.

An example is killing by humane killer in an abbatoir.

The animal is immediately incapacitated by captured bolt humane killer, it is not dead, in fact it's heart is still pumping and they then slit the throat so the animal bleeds out and death ensues.

The same could be said of a brain shot, the animal goes down, incapcitated. It is still alive and can be kept alive indefinitely if medical help is offered.

In terms of defining lethality in missile injury it is common practice to report on matters of 'killing better' by referencing data such as the probability of incapacitation as a percentage should a wound with certain characteristics ( wound profile) be administered to a certain anatomical region of a standardized body. This data is never a certainty only a statistical probability or possibility. Perhaps those who test bullets should take the time and read some of the available sceintific data on tests done out there. The US Surgeon General's manuals on wound ballistics an excellent start, because it outlines the problems associated with the actual prediction of incapacitation and lethality when projectiles are compared.

By doing this one can then predict within statitistical limits how many animals would go down ie become incapcitated within a set specified time if shot with a certain missile.

In this lies the classic problem of the question of potential lethility of missiles for those who design them. Various acronyms have been used, casualty criterion, lethality index etc etc.

Some, such as the many indices propagated by hunters and lay shooters mainly based on projectile characteristics, tell one side of the story only. ( and fail because of the one sided view only)

It is a two way street, on the one side the bullet and how it performs in tests and targets, on the other side the target and how it behaves and this is where all of these hard fought for tests fail. It is not that those who do the testing are wrong in what they do, their hard work is wonderful but it has no bearing on the living target is going to react to the passage of the bullet.

Without have a valid way to mimic the reaction of the living target all is for nought !

Each and every modern researcher in the field of ballistics concedes to this fact.

Alf, I am really surprised by your last post here!

Talk about obfuscation...and there you have a masterpiece of an example!!

As you well know, there is going to be no assisted resuscitation of an animal a hunter has downed and is bringing to bag.

And the fact that the surgeon general and his peers cannot predict the reaction of any one particular animal, does not in any way influence the statistical observation of field hunting tests that great damage is or isn't done, nor that in total, more animals die more quickly, when more massive damage is done.

I think what you have said, in total, is that you don't know how to test bullet lethality either. If that is the case, whether because of complexity or because of ignorance, it really leaves you sucking wind in justifying your criticism of those who DO try the practical tests we have available to us and report their observations.

All is NOT for naught in such testing, regardless how much you choose to assert so. Though we human hunters have made progress more slowly than some would like, more lethal projectiles HAVE been developed, particularly over the last 150 years, through exactly such "cut and try" methods.

So, give us and yourself a break, please. Either contribute something useful to the thread, or at least quit harassing those who do try to.

See what you started ,Ray? roger

Bartsche
I like your new pic
A cross between a hippie and old mean biker dude

By golly, there are degrees of dead. Not nearly dead, kinda dead, pretty dead, and shovel dirt in his face boys, he's gone gone gone.

You must have watched 'The Princess Bride"

Yes.

I've kind of taken a fancy to the Norma Oryx. Dont know why. Havent ever used them on anything yet. Cool name I guess. Majority of bullets I have on the shelf are C/C. Minus the Oryx's that were recently purchased, the only Preme's I had on the shelf were 6.5 140 Part (left over from 264 WM loadings ) and 8mm 200 Part. I'll not list past caliber loadings, but preme's were a rarity. Me current and (future) loadings;
*=Good Kills

6.5x55: 129 Hornady*, 160 Sierra, (140 Rem CL, 156 Oryx, 160 Hornady).

7x57: (150 Win PP, 175 Rem CL)

32 Win SP: 170 Speer FN*

7x64: 150 Nos Bal Tip*, (160 Speer SP)

30-06: 180 Sierra PH SP, (180 Speer RN, 180 Speer Mag)

270 WSM: I dont know why I even bought it.

30-40: 180 Sierra PH SP*, 220 Sierra RN, (180 Speer RN)

338 Win: (230 Oryx, 225 Speer DC, 215 Sierra)

358 Norma: 250 Speer SP*

8x57: (200 Part, 175 Sierra PH SP, 185 Rem CL, 150 Hornady)

Well that was a bunch of rambling horse whooy

WOW! such a vast amount of knowledge mixed with a vaster amount of bullshit amazes me..

The bottom line is premium bullets are better than cup and core when you include "all conditions to be encountered" and thats the end of the story..All the pictures of dead animals, balistic charts, targets and whatever else mean zilch! the look what I did results could even work with a pellet rifle under the right circumstances..mostly internet gobly goop.

That is why I like Nosler partitions, Woodleigh Weldcores, GS Customs monolithic, and North Forks, they are premium bullets and they work under all conditions that I have encountered.

I like and use Sierras on deer, but I still know a Nosler Partition is a better deer bullet. That does not take a genious to figure that out, only a argumentive person would challange that, and he wouldn't draw much of a crowd.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
Woodleigh Weldcores

Ha those are the other ones I'm going to look into. Damn if I forgot them.

There are lots of different Premium bullets now.
For me today, I consider it to be a expanding premium bullet when it both expand in some sort of way to destroy vital tissue and at the same time penetrates well to insure that the vitals are hit even at poor angles.

Because of this, I don't consider the Ballistic Tip to be a premium bullet. Yes, it can kill very quickly, but you need to be very careful with shot placement and angles with it.

Earlier has it been to major forms of premium bullets.

One type has a soft front that expands rapidly and usually loosen from the rear part of the bullet short time after impact, making some sort of reduced BT effect making much damage there, and then have the rear part to continue to assure deep penetration, usually with a relatively small wound channel.
This type has been around for a long time.
One thing I dislike about some of these, is that they often continue in a different direction after expansion.

Then you have the type that are either monolithic or bonded where the whole bullet is designed to stay together after expanding, even at high speeds and hitting bones, to insure deep penetration with a fairly large and straight wound channel all the way.
I disliked the old Barnes X, because it often loosed one or more petals at high speed and continued in a different direction.
Often these bullets don't make a massive wound channel, but the deep penetration still insure decent tissue damage.

Today there are two bullets that I know about that is some sort of a monolithic bullet that are designed to shear off their front part in a controlled way to make massive tissue damage and still have the rear part to continue to ensure a deep and straight penetration.
The CEB BBW#13 NonCon and the Norma Kalahari.

I have seen on this forum the massive damage the NonCon does inside animals and I have heard very good reports about the Kalahari, but I have not seen what sort of damage the Kalahari does yet.

I think this sort of construction is great for trophy hunting, but I am not so sure they are so great if you still want to eat the shoulder meat of the animals you shoot

But it is still better than the whole carcass rotting in the bush somewhere


And ALF.
You remind me of people I have studied and worked together with.
You are very eager to criticize the work and ideas of others, but you don't contribute in constructive ways at all.
In the Terminal Performance Thread on big bores, you have just been deleting your posts and just left a . for us to see.
Very constructive indeed....
I can do very well without the "help" from your kind, and I am sure many other manage fine without it too.

Okay, I'll take a "stab" (is that killing, incapciation or death?)

In a hunting bullet we expect a certain result, preferably death preceded by incapcitation, but most certainly death, and quickly if possible (more important in some situations than others, I suppose).

If a bullet is constructed so that it, given proper placement, results in sufficient penetration and tissue disruption (a balance if you will) then we achieve the aims intended.

I really like bullets that do both nearly simultaneously.

If I shoot a critter the bullet was designed for, and I obtain teh result I desired, then the combination in that instance was appropriate. If, during the next iteration, the same bullet and the same sized animal is shot and either aim is not achieved, and the bullet was placed witihin a reasonable location, then something failed, obviously. The question is what exactly?

I think, having shot a deer with a 220 grain Hornady RN, and lost it, even though the shot was a reasonable and well-placed (at least I beleive it went true) heart shot with classic animal reaction, I must have used a bullet that was not properly matched to the animal (as I was in fact advised by a gray beard type).

Too much bullet, even though it may have worked. Now, if I had encountered a Texas heart shot situation, I am pretty sure the bullet in question would have indeed been well-matched.

On the other hand, what if a 223 60 grain soft killed a deer broadside very effectively, destroying the heart/lungs or at least a significant portion thereof to bring about the aim intened-incapacitation and death. Now, given a Texas heart shot, what would the liklihood of success become? Probably not effective in that situation.

A compromise then may be in order. A bullet that has enough mass and toughness to drill deep if required, but expand at least initially violently enought to not pass through vitals w/o doing significant harm (which is what I think y 220 grain 30 cal did). SOme may argue that they would pass teh shot in this case, fine and reasonable, I suppose.

Therefore, I subscribe to the concept of:

A) use enough bullet (caliber) a 30 will never end up smaller than 30 while a 22 may not ever become as large as a 30 etc.
B) use the best bullet you can for the task at hand (premium bullet may indeed not be required, but a cup and core entry grade bullet may indeed fail on a major bone etc whereas the premo slug probably will not.

I think as Ray states, for whitetails, C&C bullets of medium caliber (24-33) will work fine most of the time for deer, but when they fail, a few more cents would likely have prevents the loss of the desired aims, incapcitation and death and at least hasten recovery.

I never would have thought a 220 grain 30 cal from a 30/06 at 2400fs and 100 yds range would not efficiently kill a whitetail under any reasonable field conditions. I found the buck late in the winter while hunting varying hare on the Tug Hill of Northern NY. He died about a mile from where he was shot. Conditions at the time of the shot did not facilitate bloodless tracking and three of us circled widely but never came close to where he lay. I fed coyotes.

I think we should choose our bullets fairly carefully and match to the critter we intend to incapacitate and kill to death, besides, it is easier to field dress them once they are indeed, dead.

Best;

The answer to the original question is still NO. We have ,however , as stated , collected a lot of knowledge and bull shit. HoooRAY for both. roger

"Can a premium bullet kill any better?"

Of course it can. Figure that, when they work, all bullets kill with about the same effectiveness, dead is dead. Premium bullets will do it more reliably. Your chances of meat in the freezer or trophy on the wall is never 100%, but it is higher with a premium bullet.

When you pay more for a premium bullet you are not buying a bullet that kills better, you buy a more reliable bullet.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
"Can a premium bullet kill any better?"

Of course it can. Figure that, when they work, all bullets kill with about the same effectiveness, dead is dead. Premium bullets will do it more reliably. Your chances of meat in the freezer or trophy on the wall is never 100%, but it is higher with a premium bullet.

When you pay more for a premium bullet you are not buying a bullet that kills better, you buy a more reliable bullet.

Gerard, I have no argument to what you say but is it really pertinent to the original question? I think not. The 150 grain commercially loaded bullets are well designed for the 30-30 on deer and reliability has been adequately proved over the last 100 years. roger

The answer is yes, the premium bullet will kill better than the ordinary cup and core bullet. After many kills on all sizes of game from around the world, and many recovered bullets or not (complete pass throughs with good blood trails), I can say from my experience, an emphatic "YES". The better constructed bullets such as the North Forks, Nosler Accubonds or Partitions, A-Frames, G.S., Barnes, TBBC, and others will stay with the job and get it done, be it penetration or expansion to maximum levels. I shoot from .243 up to .416 and when shooting at an animal, it will be with a premium bullets. I started with the Partitions, still use them, but discovered the North Forks and will use whatever shoots best in my rifles, including the Barnes. Between my son and numerous grandsons we use a lot of bullets each year, they will be premiums when the target is anything but paper. Good shooting.

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
"Can a premium bullet kill any better?"

Of course it can. Figure that, when they work, all bullets kill with about the same effectiveness, dead is dead. Premium bullets will do it more reliably. Your chances of meat in the freezer or trophy on the wall is never 100%, but it is higher with a premium bullet.

When you pay more for a premium bullet you are not buying a bullet that kills better, you buy a more reliable bullet.

Gerard, I have no argument to what you say but is it really pertinent to the original question? I think not. The 150 grain commercially loaded bullets are well designed for the 30-30 on deer and reliability has been adequately proved over the last 100 years. roger

The title of the thread:
Can a premium bullet kill any better
You ask two different questions either by design or mistake..
Reread Gerard post.
Gerard answered the question posed in the title of the thread..

Norwegianwoods:

And you Sir remind me of those who claim guns kill people !

Do guns kill people? No they dont, people kill people. A gun on it's own does not kill anything !

So to the original question:

Bartche posed the question: "Can a premium bullet kill any better"

Gerard answers to a completely different question when he answers about "chances of killing" that is not the same a killing better.

By adding the entity of "chance" we enter the realm of statistical probability and anyone who has studied wound ballistics or trauma would and should know how difficult or impossible it is to answer any question on "killing ability" of any one factor.

or my all time favourite:

"Speed kills" does it really?

Roy Weatherby built an empire on this very premise, false as it is. We raised a whole generation of surgeons basing treatment protocols on this notion.

The short answer is No ! speed ( upping velocity) does not kill any better not does using a premium bullet "kill" any better.

Whilst ballistic event is commonly seen as a non exact entity the description and practice of the science is exact and so it should be, for too long we have been subjected to falsehood in not only the lay shooting publications world but also the sciences, particularly medical science.

So Alf,

Statistically speaking, what provides the best "chance" of killing?

Basic Question: How dead can an animal be? Is it "deader" with a premium bullet than with a standard bullet?

Antelope Sniper:

"statistically speaking" a unanswerable question !

And i'm not trying to be a wise ass on this, the problem with this type of question including the original question is that there are no parameters set for the premise.

First off define "Kill better".

What is " kill", is it dead or is it incapacitated ?

So if you define "kill better" are you asking "time from shot to incapacitation" ? or is it time of insult to time of death ?

Those who study wounding and missile injury
set very definite definitions of what constitutes lethality or possible lethality. Without defining what we are actually asking there is no hope of finding the correct answer.

That incidentally why everyone has a different answer on this, because it's a bad question.

A premium bullet cost perhaps 50 cents more than a cup and core..What the hell is the arguement here, some of this anal gobbly goop is ridiculas..especially on an expensive hunt, why not a premium bullet! 50 cent insureance is the best deal you can get anywhere...

Some of you childrem were not around back in the 40s and early 50s and all bullets were cup and core and they killed quite well SOMETIMES, and SOMETIMES NOT..Failures were not uncommon at all, that has not changed much.

A premium bullet may penetrate more and retain more weight, but if a premium and non-premium bullet both reached/pass through the vitals, i cant necessarily assume one will kill better than the other.

One could also ask will a "super premium" bullet[NF,AF,Trophy Bonded] kill better than a more ordinary "premium"[Nosler partition]..assuming both pass through the vitals?

and if neither an non-premium, premium or super premium bullet don't hit the vitals, is any of them a more effective killer than the other? [there is no doubt the tougher bullet may result in more non-immediately lethal damage, to better anchor an animal]

quote:

Bartsche: The 150 grain commercially loaded bullets are well designed for the 30-30 on deer and reliability has been adequately proved over the last 100 years.

There are a handful of rifle calibers that do not benefit from the increased reliability of a premium bullet. The 30-30 may be one of them. Maybe. I was not aware that the question "Can a premium bullet kill any better" is limited to 30-30 only. As for "better", if "more reliable" is not "better", we have different ideas of what "better" is.

quote:

Alf: The short answer is No ! speed ( upping velocity) does not kill any better not does using a premium bullet "kill" any better.

Pulling our legs again, are you? It seems that you say that a 22 long rifle with a 40gr pure lead bullet is as effective as a 220 Swift with a 40gr monometal bullet but I must be missing something.

quote:

Hunt1413: Is it "deader" with a premium bullet than with a standard bullet?

If 'deader' includes 'higher probability', 'better linearity' and 'reliability', that would be a yes. If 'deader' means 'when they work', that would be a no.

quote:

Ray: back in the 40s and early 50s and all bullets were cup and core and they killed quite well SOMETIMES, and SOMETIMES NOT

Thank you, Ray. I am always surprised at how quickly failures are forgotten and only the successes are eventually remembered.

Trax put it in a nutshell. It comes down to reliability and that better constructed is more reliable. Both vehicles will get you there, one will just break down more frequently than the other.

quote:

no hope of finding the correct answer.

Alf, so what I understand, is that due to your vast education on the subject, you've become so over educated you can no longer answer questions within the field of study?

Antelope sniper:

The answer is quite simple or not depending on how accurate you want the prediction to be.

Everything we look at here, in terms of bullet description, whether we call them premium, non premium, old , new, non conventional, conventional, whether we rate them on a scale to some index based on foot pounds, velocity, weight, shape, form, construction;

It is sadly all for naught, because it tells us absolutely nothing about lethality or potential lethality.

What we are doing is to look at a two way highway and we are looking at the cars and their behaviour going one way only, we have no idea in this limited view of what the oncoming traffic is doing or going to behave; and this is the fatal flaw in predicting the outome of a possible collision when the two lanes should meet.

Numerous serious attempts have been made by those who study missile injury to bring about a reliable measurement instrument that would link living target behaviour to bullet behaviour thus giving us a reproducable "index of lethality" .... None so far have been entirely satisfactory !

It is for this very reason that the following simple scenarios cannot be modelled to a measuring instrument:

JFK is assasinated with a 6.5 Carcano, his brother Bobby with a lowly 22.

The outome for both is 100% Lethality, this in spite of us all conceding that the 6.5 should be "more lethal than the 22" ?

The 22 Should Kill better than the 6.5! but in this scenario both victims are totally dead, 100% " killed"

Or this stupid scenario:

I shoot an elephant in the foot with a 460 Weatherby and it walks off with a limp,

I shoot another with a 308 using a military hardball, in the head it drops and is killed outright......

all of the knock down indexes tell me the 460 is way way more powerfull, more lethal, infinitely more knock down ability than the 308 and yet in this scenario the ele walks off, How did this happen?

In this you would answer bullet placement, that is why!

Yes absolutely but now comes the crunch.

How is this enity of "bullet placement" accounted for in any of our current " looking at the bullet only "models?

It is not, nor is there any account given for the more complicated factors that contribute to lethality and that is the simple reality of this whole debate.

Some here accuse me of being anti those who test, I am not, what I am against or rather what I fail to understand is how solutions are given to questions that were not tested for in the first place.

You test for bullet penetration in a test medium, bullet fragmentation etc and suddenly it is a reliable account of how lethal the bullet is going to be ? How exactly did they get to this point ?

The problem is how to define what brings about lethality on the oncoming traffic lane and then even more problematic how to link the bullet parameters to lethality parameters in one workable instrument.

quote:

JFK is assasinated with a 6.5 Carcano, his brother Bobby with a lowly 22.

JFK died instantly and RFK lived another day before he died. RFK spoke to bystanders immediately after the shooting. JFK was shot at a distance and RFK was shot point blank. I would say, based on this particular example of two non premium bullets, that already there is a difference. Maybe speed and bullet construction?

quote:

I shoot an elephant in the foot with a 460 Weatherby and it walks off with a limp,

I shoot another with a 308 using a military hardball, in the head it drops and is killed outright......

Complete the analogy thus:

I shoot an elephant in the foot with a 460 Weatherby and it walks off with a limp.
I shoot an elephant in the foot with a 308 using military hardball and it walks off with a limp.

I shoot another with a 308 using a military hardball, in the head it drops and is killed outright.
I shoot another with a 460 Weatherby, in the head it drops and is killed outright.

I shoot an elephant in the chest cavity with a 460 Weatherby and it dies.
I shoot an elephant in the chest cavity with a 308 using military hardball and the elephant comes looking for me because it is now angry.

Maybe there is a difference between the effectiveness of a 460 Weatherby and a 308 Win with mil hardball?

quote:

Gerard answers to a completely different question when he answers about "chances of killing" that is not the same a killing better.

This is confusing.

quote:

How is this enity of "bullet placement" accounted for in any of our current " looking at the bullet only "models?

I did not see the bullet placement question in 'Can a premium bullet kill any better'.

Gerard: Good to hear from you again

Let me just state from outset. I continue to use your bullets allbeit in spite of a very sporadic supply via Corlane sport in Dawson Creek and I have no problem supporting why I do so as I have done from the outset now more than 13 years ago in Magnum Magazine.

As we are discussing the concept of "killing better" as posed in the title of this thread however find myself at odds in that if I have to rely on own experience as I have to ask myself why then did so many animals die and "die well" when shot with old time "conventional bullets"

If the statement is made "Premium bullets kill better" does it then mean that "non premium bullets do not kill" or do they " kill less".. How do we define this?

What do I then answer when my hunting partners 13 in all this year on our annual 10 day "moose camp", successfully kill moose. This year 2 moose, last year we killed 8 moose between 19 guys.

Not one bar myself remotely interested in what they shoot with, not even knowing what they feed into their rifles and hardly knowing what rifles or scopes they use.

As a rule these guys go off to the local tackle shop and buy whatever is the cheapest line of ammo loaded with some generic bullet. They get them mixed up with rusted stuff from past years hunting dug out of a mouldy jacket pocket......... And yet they are quite successful at filling their tags, year after year I must add.

Pray tell me how do I convince these guys to turf their ammo and load up with "premium bullets" because they will "kill the Moose better" than what they have been doing up to now? it's going to be a very tough sell especially if you are standing over one just killed with a no name brand bullet shot from a no name brand rifle that they traded for a feed of crab or fish.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
A premium bullet cost perhaps 50 cents more than a cup and core..What the hell is the arguement here, some of this anal gobbly goop is ridiculas..especially on an expensive hunt, why not a premium bullet! 50 cent insureance is the best deal you can get anywhere...

Some of you childrem were not around back in the 40s and early 50s and all bullets were cup and core and they killed quite well SOMETIMES, and SOMETIMES NOT..Failures were not uncommon at all, that has not changed much.

Ray you may or may not be a day or two older than I. Were the early flailures you're referring really with the bullets from a 30-30. The answer is still NO! roger

I do not have much experience with the 30-30 with leadcore bullets. The only failure I have seen with it was shot placement related. The same holds true for air rifles and 22 rimfires. However, I have seen many failures with leadcore bullets where shot placement could not be blamed. I have also come to the conclusion that lead core bullet failure is too easily explained with 'don't know how I could have missed that shot'.

Hearing the excuse and finding the carcass days later, numerous times, has proven that one without any doubt.

Hi Alf,
People like the Moose Campers are found in all walks of life. Running a gunshop and organizing hunts has taught me that. These people accept a certain level of failure in many fields. They expect retreaded tyres to fail more frequently than good quality tyres. The stitching on clothes made in China is expected to come undone, this is normal. The working life of a cheap watch ends when the battery dies. Only when they pay attention to selecting with more discernment, do they realise what they have been missing.

I ask the question: How often has a tarnished cartridge user in moose camp casually said, 'missed a good one today', as opposed to a hunter who uses premium bullets or cartridges? Do the survey. I have made this observation for 20 years at our Kendrew hunts, amongst others. It is the prime reason why I started making bullets - I had to find a better way to introduce more reliability to the hunting equation.

Bartche,
The 30-30 as an example is an unfair comparison, as the factorys have loaded it and improved on it for so long they have about reached perfection for its velocity..I won't argue that with you..

But when velocity gets to lets say 3000 FPS then the picture changes dramatically and you know that!! .

But to answer your questions I have never had bullet failure with the 30-30, 25-35 or even the 300 Savage or 30-40 Krag..Why? because the velocity of these calibers is such that they are kind to bullets..

Most of my early failure were with the .270, 30-06 and even my old 300 H&H...The bullets were bad about coming apart, not saying the didn't kill the game, but I didn't get my required two holes and had some pretty long tracking jobs, and the Rem Bronze point was a big offender, When it worked it was death and distruction, when it failed it failed mislerably..Same with the later Barnes X bullets and they were supposed to be a premium..

Just my take, but If I'm going all the way around the world to kill a cape buffalo, elephant, Lion or what not..I will have super primium bullets for my gun, not Sierras or even Hornadys or Speer..They will be Nosler, Woodleighs, GS Customs or North Forks, but that is just my personal choice..

I'm just discussing and wouldn't argue the point with anyone for more that 24 hours!

SOMETIMES premium bullets kill in circumstances where cup 'n core bullets cannot be relied on to kill at all. Perhaps not very often (very seldom?), but occasionally. That is primarily because premium bullets can get into the vital parts of the animal and screw up the clockworks there under circumstances where non-premium bullets occasionally may not.

And sometimes, both bullets kill, but the premium bullet kills more quickly, so we find the dead animal and know it is dead, while we don't know if the non-premium bullets killed at all, or if we even hit the animal with them.

Again, that's likely to be mainly because the premium bullet both expands a bit more reliably AND penetrates just enough more reliably IN A STRAIGHT LINE, thus hitting the vitals it was aimed at.

What % of the time does the premium bullet kill where the cup 'n core doesn't? Damned if I know!! But I do know my Nosler Partitions kill considerably more consistently than the Sierras I began my hunting with...and from the very same gun too. Even if that is only 1/2 of 1% of the time, I figure that is worth the cost on hunting trips for both the mercy shown to the animals and success for me.

Everyone else's mileage may vary, but that's what my odometer tells me.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
Bartche,
The 30-30 as an example is an unfair comparison, as the factorys have loaded it and improved on it for so long they have about reached perfection for its velocity..I won't argue that with you..

Actually ,Ray, that was my contention and that is why I choose this specific case. There is a point where the premium bullet buys you nothing at all as far as being a more potent killer except in the minds of those wanting to appear as knowing sophisticates or the uninformed. There is nothing mean or nasty intended by this statement it is just my observation and impression of how premium bullets are discussed on this forum. Premium don't fix a lot of things. roger

I'm noticing using the Hornet, with a load of Blue Dot, and using a 45 grain Barnes X bullet, dramatically increases the chances of anchoring elk....

Hot Core passed that on to me ... and he definitely was right...

quote:

Premium don't fix a lot of things.

That says it all. The fact that it fixes some shortcomings of standard bullets is what we have been saying. Mainly, premiums are more reliable. The hunters who only hunt with a 30-30 and own nothing else, probably do not reload, buy whatever ammo the local store has cheapest and use one monkey wrench for all nut and bolt sizes. They "miss" occasionally and think nothing of it. So be it.

The other side of the coin is that some of us own chronographs, reload with quality equipment and use the right size spanner for the nut. We "miss" less and care about our actions and the results.

quote:

Originally posted by seafire2:
I'm noticing using the Hornet, with a load of Blue Dot, and using a 45 grain Barnes X bullet, dramatically increases the chances of anchoring elk....

Hot Core passed that on to me ... and he definitely was right...

Yeh, and I've noticed that even the best premium bullets don't make the .22 LR any more reliable on hippo. Is that because the .22 LR is already probably the most studied and sophisticated cartridge in the ammo makers' inventory?

Surely it's not because the .22 LR isn't really a particularly appropos cartridge for game that may show the occasional advantages of premium bullets from other cartridges is it?

quote:

using a 45 grain Barnes X bullet, dramatically increases the chances of anchoring elk....

Although this statement was made with a large tongue in a large cheek, the underlying truth makes a good case for using premium bullets rather than bullets with thin, unbonded jackets, filled with soft lead cores. Should one have to shoot an elk with a 223, what would you rather do it with? What will be most reliable? Note: Not infallible, most reliable.