quote:

originally by Trax:
You ask[ed a] question and I ... [did not] answer it

Your statement needed correction, [which is added here in the citation].

So do you accept that the CEB non-con/raptor has a significantly wider radiating petal trajectory conical than TSX's?

Your answer hasn't appeared yet, at least not in a unambiguous way without all of the asides, caveats, and extraneous material perhaps camoflaging it. Try a simple quotation of this question and as simple and direct summary answer as you can.

Just a common mans impression on how the CEB and the Barnes TSX and TTSX shear their petals differently.

I have the impression that if the(very often they don't) Barnes TSX and TTSX bullets shear their petals, they shear them at the end of the bullet expansion.
The petals are then bent backwards and the breaking point of the petals are facing the direction of the bullets penetration.

This will in my opinion result in that the Barnes petals in general tag along after the bullet and stay rather close to the main bullets path and wound channel.

While when the CEB shear its petals, it does it early in the expansion phase when the petals are pointing outwards and forward with the breaking points still pointing backward and the tips of the petals points forward and outwards from the main bullets path.

This results in that each petal from the CEB bullet will have a forward and outwards cutting path away from the path of the main bullet part.

Now for the experts to stomp on my theory

Norwegianwoods:

Valid observation and likely accounted for by the difference in modulus of elasticity and the stress and strain behaviour difference between brass and pure copper. Add to this the design difference in the size of the cavity and you have the answer.

What has not been done is to do a head to head test in valid test medium such as Ballistic gelatine or ballistics soap. This will give a clearer picture of what to expect in to tissue with the same density as the soap or gelatine.


As I have pointed out on numerous occasion , wet paper is not a valid test medium because of the rather peculiar behaviour of the paper to the shot.

( Paper is a composite woven fibrous medium, failure of the fibres are typically away from the point of projectile contact which in turn leads to paper wadding or stacking in front of the projectile, the wad now becomes a projectile in itself so that the "Wound like effect" is way bigger than that of muscle or gelatine. The drag induced but the slug or wad is also then very different to that of the bullet alone )

Live animals are also not valid for testing because of the difficulty is getting reproducibility. It is very difficult to get exactly the same shot path to draw conclusions from.

A important point that most of the newer bullet designers overlook is that for many years and with many many successfully concluded hunts animals were shot with all manner of conventional bullets. Even with what was seen as notoriously bad designs; We cannot discount that they kill and for the most kill effectively.

With this in mind making a solid case for this is better than that when it comes to putting down game becomes quite difficult, a case of subjectivity over objectivity ie. other than personal preference.

What wet paper, ballistic gel and ballistic soap all provide, is a rather uniform test media.
So you can sort of compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges.

The problem with all of them is that they are all rather different from a real life animal.

When shooting at an animal, the bullet meets fur,hide, muscles, bones, lungs, gut content and what not on its way. And on some animals dried mud too.

The results a bullet tested in ballistic gel as in the test the thread started with gets, doesn't say anything about what happens when bones are hit.

Some of the bullets that show decent/good results in that test, will show totally different results if heavy bones are hit.

All in all we would need thousands of real life test results on different animals to make solid conclusions about a bullets performance.
And that would be needed to be done for different impact speeds and calibers too.

Some embrace the energy dump theory and others don't.

In reality we will all get/have a subjective view about what bullets we think performs the best for the different cartridges we use and animals we hunt.

Personally I very much like the Barnes TTSX bullets and I get outstanding results with them.

In very moderate or slow cartridges I like to use heavy for caliber standard cup and core bullets like the Lapua Mega.

This is what I have subjectively concluded with after 30+ years of real life hunting and testing of lots of bullet designs

Now I am more interested in the performance from different broad head designs, arrow weights and arrow speeds when hunting with a bow

I always enjoy the scientific knowledge, experience and discussion that Alf brings to these topics. Much more interesting than the physics class in school, another reason they should have guns in school I guess!
It helps me to understand the "why" of what I already knew and observed about a much admired 275 Grain Semi spritzer Speer 338 bullet launched at about 2500 Fps and also how much time, money and work has been done to come close to approaching that level of lethality and reliability in other more "modern" ways. Also the older I get the more I appreciate that "Elmer was right" about his favorite 338 bullet, and I hope maybe somewhere along the way, I might be right about a thing or two as well.
My observation with the Barnes X bullet was that in the 225 grain .358 it killed like the hammer of Thor when impact speeds were above 2000 or so fps. Never shot anything further than that with it. The 180 Grain 308 X bullet the same and I did shoot a whitetail with my 30-06 at about 380 yards with that and if penetrated lengthwise and exited the neck. Very dead and very good destruction of the vitals. The 165 X flat base about the same in a smaller sample size. The 165 X boat tail, not so much. It did not open well and we ceased using that one. I have not shot any of the newer Barnes designs but can assume that because they keep "improving" them that they think they should. All of that is fine with me. I loved the High BC of the Barnes bullets and do of the other modern bullets as well.
But I killed my biggest bull elk with the 275 Semi Spitzer 338 Speer at 425 long steps across a hay meadow. I have quite a few 140 grain 6.5mm Nosler PT's in the bullet can and am saving them for my son's 260 Remington and hopefully being able to let him kill an elk with one. I think that says my opinion of that bullet. I also have some 220 Nosler PT's for my 30-06 just because should I get to kill another elk, that is what I will choose. I have quite a few 220 Hornady RN 308 that kill deer well and one can indeed, "eat up to the hole." I have also shot enough game with the 220 .308 solids, Hornady and Barnes to know they work fine as did the 300 grain Barnes 338 solids. If one puts them through the vitals from any angle, the animal dies and does so quickly in ratio to what it hits inside.
Thanks again all for the discussion and information.
Best regards,

quote:

quote:

Alf,

the difference in medium is a valid question but the (lack of) definition of 'non-con' is problematic.

quote:

416 TANZAN

So here is the rub, you fire a TSX or in my case a GSC fast enough and their "petals"come off as well, so what does that make them, conventional? not so conventional, conventional?

It relates to how each hunting bullet is designed to function.

Traditionally bullets have been designed to accomplish one of two things - either to stay completely intact without deformation to accomplish maximum penetration within the game animal or to deform and expend as much of its energy as possible within the game animal. Here we’re talking bullet deformation is a conventional and non-conventional manner.

The Barnes TSX/TTSX and GSC HV bullets are designed to deform in the conventional manner when the bullet impact is within their design envelope. They are designed for their blades, beginning at impact and during penetration, to fold back alongside the shank and the blades. Being of copper construction the blades will fold more before shearing which will keep the blades closer to the shank as they radiate outward from it until their momentum stops. It is true that when the bullet impact velocity is sufficiently fast the folding ability of the blades become overstressed causing them to shear from the shank – the key here is fast enough – or if impact velocity is sufficiently low the blades will not expand, meaning the impact velocity is outside the bullet performance design envelope.

Inversely the CEB Safari Raptors designed to deform in a non-conventional manner when the bullet impact is within their design envelope. They are designed for their blades, beginning at impact and during penetration, to fold back and shear from the shank post impact at a low velocity whether being of brass or copper construction. If of brass construction, the blades will fold less before shearing which will allow the blades to radiate further from the shank until their momentum stops. If of copper construction, the blades are more pliable so they will fold back more before shearing which will keep the blades closer to the shank as they radiate outward from it until their momentum stops. If the impact velocity is sufficiently low the blades will expand but not shear or perhaps not expand at all – meaning the impact velocity is outside the bullet performance design envelope.

So that’s the difference between conventional and non-conventional monometal hunting bullet deformation and their shearing of their expanded blades - its how they designed to perform within game post impact. The conventional monometal bullet design does so by happenstance whereas the non-conventional monometal bullet design does so – by design…

Note: Revisions to post for clarification purposes based upon the following comments by Trax and Alf.

quote:

quote:

One is intentionally designed & manufactured to perform a certain way, and the others just rely on mere happenstance?

I am of the understanding that ALL intelligent mono metal bullet manufactures design their projectiles for predetermined levels of performance & behavoir.

quote:

Conventional:

Anything that is passive kinetic energy driven that either stays intact, deforms or then fragments partially or totally commensurate given a certain amount of resistive force encountered.

Non conventional makes up special munitions examples may include: Non lethal munitions, i.e. bullets that do not penetrate skin on purpose, such as crowd control munitions.

So how does it work now?

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:

quote:

originally by Trax:
You asked a question and I answer it

Your statement needed correction,

416T,
since you have such a weak and fading memory, below is the question of yours I clearly answered and no correction is or was needed!

quote:

originally by Trax:

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:
Do solids more effectively drop an animal near the place of impact and with less tracking?

In many circumstances they certainly do....as such, a lot of people select the use of solids just for that reason.

Even in the case of the Nosler Partition, innovative Mr.Nosler was driven by a need for more penetration not more radial expansion,
in order to effect a good kill on large game with his 300mag.

It seems that such response by me, does not suite or support your agenda of plugging CEBs detatched petal radial penetration.

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:

Again, what I perceive in this thread is a continual skirting of the issue pointed out several times:
the petals of CEB bullets behaved differently than the TSX bullets.

That may well be the case that CEB behaves differently, but since CEB was not in the list of the 8 premium bullets tested,
..who really cares/what is the relevance?

TSX petals may not behave exactly like CEB [or even GSC for that matter],
and one can also observe that the petals on the various premium cup-core bullets tested, dont behave exactly the same either.

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:

Your answer hasn't appeared yet, at least not in a unambiguous way without all of the asides, caveats, and extraneous material perhaps camoflaging it.
Try a simple quotation of this question and as simple and direct summary answer as you can.

Thats hilarious coming from someone who :

- claims 'different kinds of shear' ..but then claims thats not what was really meant.
- posts contradictory statements on their belief in the importance of SD.
- keeps talking about CEB when they are not even part of the bullet test in discussion.

Material/helpful explanatory information posted by me, that you find extraneous, may in fact be helpful-educational to others on the forum.
...so, as I recently said before and as it now seems that you again need reminding,... this thread is not just about YOU [or CEB petals for that matter].

quote:

Originally posted by capoward:

So that’s the difference between conventional and non-conventional monometal bullet deformation and their shearing of their expanded blades.
The conventional monometal bullet design does so by happenstance whereas the non-conventional monometal bullet design does so – by design…

One is intentionally designed & manufactured to perform a certain way, and the others just rely on mere happenstance?

I am of the understanding that ALL intelligent mono metal bullet manufactures design their projectiles for predetermined levels of performance & behavoir.
They design/manufacture the bullet[with the properties & limitations of the material in mind] to behave/perform in a fairly reliable predetermined way, within certain velocity windows.
NO doubt different materials and design, result in distinct variations of bullet behaviour in game.

quote:

quote:

originally by Trax:
You ask[ed a] question and I ... [did not] answer it

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:
Your statement needed correction, [which is added here in the citation].

So do you accept that the CEB non-con/raptor has a significantly wider radiating petal trajectory conical than TSX's?

... Try a simple quotation of this question and as simple and direct summary answer as you can.

also

quote:

orinally by Trax:
416T,
since you have such a weak and fading memory, below is the question of yours I clearly answered and no correction is or was needed!

quote:

originally by Trax:

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:
Do solids more effectively drop an animal near the place of impact and with less tracking?

In many circumstances they certainly do....as such, a lot of people select the use of solids just for that reason.

Even in the case of the Nosler Partition, innovative Mr.Nosler was driven by a need for more penetration not more radial expansion, in order to effect a good kill on large game with his 300mag.

Again, instead of quoting the question mentioned, you append a distantly related question. But your other posts seem to imply an acceptance between the lines.

For the record, [you've apparently misread my intent] I would like to see discussion on the comparison and huntability of different kinds of damage patterns, including the CEB 'radiating petal shear' type. I do not consider the matter either clear or closed. However, the discussion cannot be advanced until people first recognize that there is a phenomenon to discuss. "kinds of shear" and "sectional density" are 'red herrings' to such a discussion. If you needed them clarified, fine, they have been clarified [and could have been clarified without derogotory comments].

The overall concern is how the 8-bullet tests can be used and integrated with wider knowledge about bullet possibilities. I see three broad types of damage to consider, yea four, in bullet assessment:
1. conventional mushroom (covered in the article on the 8 bullets),
2. non-conventional 'separately radiating petals' (mentioned by me as needed to be compared and evaluated),
3. and solids (mentioned by you), which should be discussed according to
3a. flat-nose patterns
3b. and round-nose patterns, which are different in various soft media though fairly similar in solid media (like wooden boards).

It would probably be good for a separate thread to be started on this overall comparative issue, but the discussion can't take place if some want to spend time denigrating references to the second type mentioned here (separately radiating petal shear [where noticeable gaps appear between the petal wound channel and the main wound channel]).

PS: there is slow motion photography showing the CEB petal trajectories.
e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9cVl8xaegM
(you can ignore the advertising at the beginning, but the slow motion in the middle is quite illuminating and suggestive, with photographing forward and backwards in time.)
I haven't seen TSX or GSC radiating trajectories in similar gel. It would be nice to know if it happens and under which conditions.

I watched a couple of minutes in the linked video, and have some qeustions:

1. What was the "gelatin content" of the blocks? In the video they look very "loose" or "watery" to my eye.

2. There is no reference for how big the blocks are. Are they 12" long? 24" long? How wide & tall are they? The width & height are important, along with the gelatin content (resistance) if one is to even begin saying anything about the penetrating ability of the petals.

Until one knows how much media the petals are penetrating, I can't imagine even speculating, much less having any confident knowledge, as to their wounding effectiveness.

It is an interesting qeustion; maybe some will shed some light on it. Thanks,

friar

Conventional:

Anything that is passive kinetic energy driven that either stays intact, deforms or then fragments partially or totally commensurate given a certain amount of resistive force encountered.

Non conventional makes up special munitions examples may include: Non lethal munitions, i.e. bullets that do not penetrate skin on purpose, such as crowd control munitions.

Or then munitions that are made up of multiple separate projectiles contained within a primary missile; Typically used as offensive munitions in circumstance where selective targets are targeted without endangering non targeted individuals

Or then true explosive munitions or incendiary where the explosive nature of the projectile is not passive but actively aided.

The conventional and its behaviour is constant to a central model. A soft lead ball fired from a BP gun behaves in exactly the same manner or rather to the same model as your CEB. The forces acting on the projectile and the projectiles behaviour follows the same physical model.

Specific behaviours may differ based on design but in essence it remains the same physical event.

Non lethal munitions represent the same model but is at the extreme edges of the bell curve with extremely low SD's. On the Other side of the spectrum is the passive kinetic energy penetrators used to defeat armour, here we have the ultimate in SD.

ALF, you have done a good job in the last post of stating the different terminology, as you see it, for all type of munitions. However, if I understand what 416T is saying, he, (and I) believes that the categories of conventional and non conventional also exist as definitions in HUNTING bullets, as cup and core (lead centered in a jacket) vs. other types.

I agree with him that I would have liked to see the "non conventional" hunting bullets shown as a part of the study.

I believe you have correctly answered part of the question of specific performance with the following:

quote:

Specific behaviours may differ based on design but in essence it remains the same physical event.

But I would still like to see why, i.e. what particular alloy characteristics, velocity, etc., are required to make the CEB throw it's petals outward and FORWARD, rather than the Barnes which leaves the petals in, or closely around the wound channel, possibly shedding to the rear.

Just thoughts, since I use neither of the brands in question.

I would have also liked to see the performance, in this study, of the non premium lead center type bullets like the standard Hornady Interlock.

friarmeier

Yes, those are good questions.

The video was composed of several individual clips.
Here is one shorter clip that mentions the test media
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Yedv-cMqXk

These are 6"x6" by 16" blocks of synthetic ballistics gel from Clear Ballistics:
http://clearballistics.com

It would seem that it is a readily available, widely used, commercial medium. Makes for pretty photography and we don't need to worry about paper fiber build-up causing something that wouldn't/couldn't happen in an animal. Michael458, of course, has already collected a couple of hundred animal field reports and the phenomenon holds in the field, too.

quote:

I haven't seen TSX or GSC radiating trajectories in similar gel. It would be nice to know if it happens and under which conditions.

I would have to dig for the photographs but I have several that show the following.

All GSC HV bullets react as follows:

1. At around 1600fps, GSC HV bullets give a double caliber mushroom.
2. At around 2400/2500fps, the petals start coming off.
3. At 2700, petals are off, the shaft of the bullet is flat fronted.
4. From 2700 and faster, the shaft of an HV starts to expand at the leading edge.
5. The petals, when they come off as pre-determined, radiate away from the wound channel.

The bullet gives the following advantages:

1. When speed is high and expanded frontal area put the brakes on continued penetration pretty fast, GSC HV bullets shed the petals after forming the wound channel and the shaft ensures continuing penetration.
2. When speed and momentum runs out at extended distance, GSC HV bullets still give the lowest impact speed expansion of all premium bullets and retain maximum weight for deep penetration. Expanded frontal area plays a lesser role in braking the bullet when speed is lower, so deep penetration still happens.

Making a bullet that loses the petals every time is easy, just make it brittle enough. Making a bullet that hangs together every time is also easy, just make it robust enough. Expansion becomes a hit and miss though.

Making a bullet that behaves in a pre-determined way, reliably, is not so easy but GSC has been doing that since 1997. I guess we have been making con-non-cons for a long time then.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Conventional:

Anything that is passive kinetic energy driven that either stays intact, deforms or then fragments partially or totally commensurate given a certain amount of resistive force encountered.

The conventional and its behaviour is constant to a central model. A soft lead ball fired from a BP gun behaves in exactly the same manner or rather to the same model as your CEB. The forces acting on the projectile and the projectiles behaviour follows the same physical model.

Specific behaviours may differ based on design but in essence it remains the same physical event.

Alf, thanks for the clear educational cold hard facts, nothing more nothing less. [i.e.; none of that 'non-con' marketing hype that some are religiously sold on.]

Compared to the old regular SP of decades ago, the advanced bullet designs that have followed from various companies [be it cup-core or monometal],
can all claim to have some form of 'non-con' marketing hype trait in their design...since 'non-con' [in the realm of product marketing] can have ambiguous interpretations....

- Noslers controlled expansion partition feature was not conventional compared to typical cup core SP bullet designs of the day, nor was the new level of penetration it then achieved.
- Bonded bullet designs then did away with the conventional-traditional swagging of the lead core, and offered the non-conventional feature of a bonded core.
- Monometals then did away with the conventional-traditional multi metal type bullet construction.

Yet now we have new kid on the block bullet manufacturers that claim to be uniquely 'non-con'.. and try to make it sound exclusive to them.
ITs just a marketing hype term that bullets manufacturers in the past, never really bothered to use to describe their advancing bullet designs and construction.

...Now its got to the point where products are not only claiming to be 'non con',.... but also claiming to be 'non-con' non-cons!.. ...WTF next?

quote:

Specific behaviours may differ based on design but in essence it remains the same physical event.

Alf, you put your finger on it. In fact, you have been doing so for some time. Understanding the event is fairly straightforward. It is placing the event within an event and creating a sequence, that requires a lot of experimentation and very careful design. Even then, one can come short but, in the words of a gent from Texas: When you strive for perfection, even when you come up a little short, you are still in good shape.

416, that's a good reference page. It describes their gel methodolgies well.

Though fragmentation would vary in each case (when impacting a live animal), it would be interesting to know roughly how far the petals deviate from the central bullet path in the ballistic gel.

Thanks!

friar

Gerard, glad you chimed in!! I would love to see the pictures of your expansion and the petal shedding. I would be interested in the direction, other than "radiate away from the wound channel".

It has become a minor curiosity for me whether or not the radiation from different manufacturers is more forward, vs. straight away vs. shearing and staying in the channel.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:

quote:

I haven't seen TSX or GSC radiating trajectories in similar gel. It would be nice to know if it happens and under which conditions.

I would have to dig for the photographs but I have several that show the following.

All GSC HV bullets react as follows:

1. At around 1600fps, GSC HV bullets give a double caliber mushroom.
2. At around 2400/2500fps, the petals start coming off.
3. At 2700, petals are off, the shaft of the bullet is flat fronted.
4. From 2700 and faster, the shaft of an HV starts to expand at the leading edge.
5. The petals, when they come off as pre-determined, radiate away from the wound channel.

The bullet gives the following advantages:

1. When speed is high and expanded frontal area put the brakes on continued penetration pretty fast, GSC HV bullets shed the petals after forming the wound channel and the shaft ensures continuing penetration.
2. When speed and momentum runs out at extended distance, GSC HV bullets still give the lowest impact speed expansion of all premium bullets and retain maximum weight for deep penetration. Expanded frontal area plays a lesser role in braking the bullet when speed is lower, so deep penetration still happens.

Making a bullet that loses the petals every time is easy, just make it brittle enough. Making a bullet that hangs together every time is also easy, just make it robust enough. Expansion becomes a hit and miss though.

Making a bullet that behaves in a pre-determined way, reliably, is not so easy but GSC has been doing that since 1997. I guess we have been making con-non-cons for a long time then.

Thank you very much. This is a help and hopefully an expansion of a new part of this thread.

It may partially explain why there were so many 'instant kills' reported when the 'x' bullet and monolithic bullets were first being discussed around 1990 and following. In 1994 I remember shooting a pair of warthogs with a 270 and 130 grain Barnes-X at some distance (180 yards) and both dropped at the shot without, apparently, touching the spine. I attributed this to the reports of increased one-shot effectiveness, though aware that a sample of two meant nothing, and the dorcas gazelles that would drop were so small that most anything could explain it.

Something was obviously going on beyond 'penciling through'.
The more pictures that we have to understand this, the better.

.395-cal/340-grain GSC HV tested in water buckets,
1600 fps, 2500 fps, 2700 fps: Initial impact in water is a severe test.



The GSC FN copper monometal solid is visibly expanding the nose on impact with water at +2700 fps.
Brass FN solids expand their noses measurably too, at +2700 fps:



Above is anecdotal from my "Iron WaterBoard Buffalo" bullet trap ... until Gerard digs up his photos ...

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:

quote:

I haven't seen TSX or GSC radiating trajectories in similar gel. It would be nice to know if it happens and under which conditions.

I would have to dig for the photographs but I have several that show the following.

All GSC HV bullets react as follows:

1. At around 1600fps, GSC HV bullets give a double caliber mushroom.
2. At around 2400/2500fps, the petals start coming off.
3. At 2700, petals are off, the shaft of the bullet is flat fronted.
4. From 2700 and faster, the shaft of an HV starts to expand at the leading edge.
5. The petals, when they come off as pre-determined, radiate away from the wound channel.

The bullet gives the following advantages:

1. When speed is high and expanded frontal area put the brakes on continued penetration pretty fast, GSC HV bullets shed the petals after forming the wound channel and the shaft ensures continuing penetration.
2. When speed and momentum runs out at extended distance, GSC HV bullets still give the lowest impact speed expansion of all premium bullets and retain maximum weight for deep penetration. Expanded frontal area plays a lesser role in braking the bullet when speed is lower, so deep penetration still happens.

Making a bullet that loses the petals every time is easy, just make it brittle enough. Making a bullet that hangs together every time is also easy, just make it robust enough. Expansion becomes a hit and miss though.

Making a bullet that behaves in a pre-determined way, reliably, is not so easy but GSC has been doing that since 1997. I guess we have been making con-non-cons for a long time then.

Below are the photographs I found. Some are not as sharp as we are getting with digital photographs, they were done on film camera. Some date back to 1996/7. Speeds mentioned are rounded off to the nearest 100fps.

Water tests of two different calibers at 1000fps impacts. Note that the left hand bullet in the first picture tumbled. The original photos were dated 1996/7.




These two were fired into the water tank at the SAPS ballistics lab in Port Elizabeth. Impact was at 1300fps. The original is dated 2006.



These are three different bullets with water impacts ranging from 1300fps to 1600fps. Dated 1997.



Water tank at the SAPS ballistics lab. Impacts at 1600fps. Dated 2006.



This photo was sent to me by a reloader in Spain. It is dated 2009 but I think it is earlier than that. The bullet is caliber 6.5 mm.



Two 308 HV bullets with impacts at 2000fps.



Two 458 caliber bullets at impacts of 2400fps. One recovered from a lion and the other from water.




Some photos of bullets at impacts of 2800fps up to 3100fps. These are from customers and are three different cartridges.




Testing done by independent persons and companies confirm the testing we have done and the results reported by reloaders and hunters.

This is gel testing done by Monolithic Munitions .



Here is a photo that RIP sent some years ago.



Most members here would recognise the picture below. It is of course a pair of HV bullets and not HPs



I do not have photos of petal penetration and how they move away from the shaft. I used thin plastic witness sheets for testing and probably put them in a secure place so that I would be sure to find them again.

The picture below shows what the sheets would show so it can suffice. It is from this page which is in Afrikaans. The hunter, who writes for a couple of magazines, shot an eland and a gemsbok with his 7x57 with the 285130HV and the photo is from the gemsbok.

Thanks Gerard! Great stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
Amazing how well all the bullets performed.

I would choose the TSX last over all of them myself mostly based on many anecdotal stories (on AR from reliable sources)of lost or long tracking episodes on game where the bullet failed to expand. The only thing it really has going for it is penetration and the small amount of extra penetration is worthless IMO compared to the lesser expansions at lower velocities.

Although I haven't used them, the Rem CL Ultra performed the best IMO for any uses except the biggest game (elk, big bears, or moose) where you might need more penetration on a quartering shot.

Don't believe all the TSX horror stories. I have shot a ton of game from whitetails in Mo. to Africa to Alaska with the TSX in calibers from a .257 Wby to a .338 WM. The closest was about 40 yards, a whitetail with a 7x57 140 TSX, the farthest a 470 yard whitetail with the .257 Wby, as well as a 350 yard caribou with the .338. They have been the longest string of one shot kills I have ever had. They do work.

This has been a long and interesting thread.

What I can add is only a limited amount of personal experience with smallish whitetails, and smaller caliber high velocity loads.

My daughter started hunting with me when she was 6yrs old. My handloading played a big role in her being able to shoot accurately with the Win 70 I had grew up shooting. I chose the Barnes X in an 80gr weight leaving the muzzle around 2800fps as the recoil was light enough for the kiddo. The first 4-6 deer we shot with them all had a caliber sized hole going in and coming out. Internal damage was more or less a 1" cavity straight through. Ranges were between 25 and 75yds for all shots. Out of all of them one dropped on the shot, the others were tracked from 25 - 100yds. Upon dressing them out it was noted that there were additional wounds in both rib cages and also up in the spinal area well away from the actual wound channel which indicated the petals shearing off and radiating away form the core bullet.

This same thing was noted when I used the 100gr Barnes X in my 25-06 in a three season period shooting over a dozen deer. Almost identical performances of both bullets and reactions from deer.

While I don't expect every deer shot to drop on the spot with broadside shots, it is or has become rare for them not to when I switched to using the 95gr Partition in the .243 and the 115gr in the 25-06.

During this span from say, 1990 to around 2008 or so, I used up what I had left of the X on feral hogs and sorted other critters. Then along came my first grandson, who at age three decided he wanted to shoot himself a hog. so back to the drawing board and bullet search. With him it was entirely a different ball game. Being he only weighed about 50 pounds dripping wet and stood just a touch over 3" tall made things a bit more interesting.

The only rifle I had that would or could fit him was my Ruger Compact in .308. I settled on a 125gr Nosler BT for his first hunt. It dropped the 80'ish pound hog on his nose at 45yds. Several weeks/months later, he shot a 30'ish pound coyote at 158yds from which it never exited. I immediately switched gears and tried out the then new Barnes 130gr TTSX. THe only modification I did to the load was a bullet swap and length change and we were shooting bulls with them. These were loaded over H4895 and were hitting around 2550fps give or take. We were working them up as he could handle it, so things did change through out the year. These were responsible for several hogs in the 150 - 200 pound range, and we never recovered a bullet. I used them out to 200yds and he used them within 75yds. All wound tracks were now up to around 2" in diameter, with excessive external damage radiating out.

How does all this fit into this thread, well like I said before it is simply what I have found in my own personal experience with some of the mentioned bullets. Some do well some don't in every situation encountered. I am of the belief that 98% or more of my hunting and usually most other folks, would be completely fulfilled by standard C&C type bullets. The exceptions are in special cases/uses or circumstances, or when using high velocity calibers where driving the bullets to 3000fps impacts velocities might occur.

To be honest, with most of my higher velocity loads the Partition has worked with almost boring repetition for over 30yrs. Ranges as close as 10 feet out to past 400yds have all mostly resulted in one shot stops dropping them in their tracks or easily within 50yds of the initial hit. As much as I hate to say it the only other bullet I have had this much similar and reliable performance from, has been the lowly Core Lokt. I also however take into account the effect of the damage caused to surrounding tissue as well, with with either of these or the TTSX has been well within acceptable limits.

Just my observations in the past 30yrs, no more no less.