I like Bob's classic statement:

"> bigger IS better assuming appropriate bullets for the task."

and I must diagree with Trax
"petals blowing off is nothing new"

Secoradary projectiles radiating outward by design is new to this generation of bullets, and calling them 'non-con' by name may help some people perceive a difference that they would otherwise overlook or miss. Now getting that to happen in copper with a high BC is currently being developed and improved, as we see with the copper raptors. The perfect general purpose bullet hasn't been achieved yet, but we have some excellent choices to work with, including Nosler's.

PS: while penetration itself may be overrated, guaranteed adequate penetration [i.e. guaranteed penetration through hair, bone, muscle, and full chest cavity] is an absolute necessity for me to consider a bullet to be "premium" or "excellent." Large caliber cup and core bullets have occasionally formed nasty, one-sided, flesh wounds and such cup and core bullets should not be chosen for dangerous game and preferably not for large game over 400lbs. Such bullets are the reason for the whole "premium" genre.

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:


and I must diagree with Trax
"petals blowing off is nothing new"

Secoradary projectiles radiating outward by design is new to this generation of bullets,...

Nosler Partion fragments, Barnes X fragments, GScustom HV fragments,CEB fragments....ALL radiate out & forward to some degree.
Variations in those bullet expansion designs result in different levels of fragment travel for each type bullet,
but they all still operate off the same MODEL in physics.

but its obvious the mind altering Non-Con drug hype must have strong residual effect on some people.

quote:

and calling them 'non-con' by name may help some people
perceive a difference that they would otherwise overlook or miss.

Mr.Nosler could have called his NP design "Non-Con Penetrators", to help consumers perceive a difference,
based on the fact they penetrated better than the more regular SP bullet people were using at the time.

One could call any of the bullet brands I named above as nOn-Con, to help highlight their individual performance characters.
Just as Pirelli markets a tire called "P-Zero Rosso Max"... sounds f*cking impressive!!!
but technically its still just another developed variation of steel belted radial.

quote:

And since I can't seem to wear out that old blue Patagonia poly long under wear top you are likely to see more of it in the future.

Phil,

Here in New Zealand it has been shown that blue is a safer colour for hunters to wear in our bush than blaze orange. We unfortunately have a number of hunters being killed each year by other hunters not identifying their target.

quote:

Nosler Partion fragments,

Well, if you think that the CEB pictures and Nosler partition designs should be lumped together, you are welcome. Communication is failing.

Nosler expects their petals to be retained (their lead basically diasppears in the main wound channel), CEB expects their petals to detach and to radiate outward at a maximal angle. That is a distinctively different design. Terry Wieand did not investigate this in his article a year or two ago. Too bad.

quote:

Originally posted by Pieter die 4de:
The question as to the effectiveness of the non-con solid bullet is still questioned because in lightweight bullets the petals are also lightweight. For example in a .458 vs .308 bullet there is notable difference in the weight of the petals that become secondary projectiles which translate to much lower momentum for the lighter bullet. It stands to reason that the petals of the 458 bullet will penetrate deeper but also inflict more damage.

Are there examples of how .308 non cons have performed on game to evaluate the tissue and lung/heart damage.

The other question is why should a meat hunter opted for a non con bullet instead of saying a Swift A-Frame or a North Fork bullet that creates a bigger primary wound tract (bigger mushroom?

Pieter

I am repeating my question.
Could anyone ANSWER PLEASE.

Thanks
Pieter

Pieter,

I believe that there were reports and pictures of game posted in the Big Bore: Terminals thread with small bore bullets. There was a shorter Medium Bore: Terminals thread, too, that may list some of the results. Some deer were shot with small bore Raptors and the petals exited the far side of the deer's chest.

You ask why anyone would choose this over an A-frame or Northfork? Because the overall wound channel and destruction is much bigger. Most of the Raptor users are current and former fans of both Northfork and AFrame.

Trax,
You cannot compare solids to softs under any conditions, I don't doubt your many published quotes as being correct! but they are misplaced at times..apples to oranges and all that sort of rot!

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:

Nosler expects their petals to be retained (their lead basically diasppears in the main wound channel),
CEB expects their petals to detach and to radiate outward at a maximal angle. That is a distinctively different design.

CEBs are just another variation of EVOlutionary design xpanding bullet, they are not a REVOlutionary design xpanding bullet.

IF people wanted their petals detaching and radiating out, they had BarnesX and GSC to choose from yrs before CEB arrived.
Now CEB is on the scene offering yet another variation of monometal expanding soft- that like barnes X and GSC, also sheds its petals.
as such theres nothing really non-con revolutionary about CEBs.

CEB can claim that because its design sends it detached petals in a different projection pattern to the other brands
is then enough reason to call them non-con,
but Mr.Nosler could have called his NP a non-con as well,simply because it penetrated better than the other common bullets of the time.
Non-Con would have had as much validity as a boost sales attempt marketing term to Nosler, as it does to CEB today.

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:
Well, if you think that the CEB pictures and Nosler partition designs should be lumped together,
you are welcome. Communication is failing.

I have not anywhere stated that NP and CEB are alike in design.
One can have various different design expanding softs , but all are based on the same MODEL in the realm of mechanical model physics.
..even a humble simple in comparison design .22LR expanding HP lead bullet, works on the same model as NP,CEB,X,GSC, Aframe, etc,etc.

What I have implied, is that despite their differences in designs - NP,Barnes,GSC,CEB etc
ALL exhibit fragments of one size or another - that radiate out and forward on impact, to one degree or another.
Which indicates CEBs are just a variation of design expanding soft.
but some people seemed foolishly hooked on the marketing hype nonsense 'Non-Con revolutionary design' claim.

BarnesX and GSC bullets also show different bullet performance in target compared to a NP
so CEBs are not certainly unique in that regard.
and just as Barnes and GSC are not Non-Con revolutionary in design,... neither are CEBs.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
Trax,
You cannot compare solids to softs under any conditions, I don't doubt your many published quotes as being correct!
but they are misplaced at times..apples to oranges and all that sort of rot!

Ray,

Maybe you just missed my point.
Let me repeat;


Essentially RN solids in .375,.416, .423, .458, .470,
have less cross sectional frontal area than one would find from a small cal. bullet suitable for deer.
e.g.; Aframe soft fired from .257WBY can exceed .500" in frontal measure.

SO if the larger bore RN solids actually have less frontal area than a small .257 calibre deer bullet,
what then made them so good for DG?
Well its simple, they offered far superior penetration due to the larger bores abilities to accommodate
much heavier weight/higher momentum bullets.
....but essentially at the same time, exhibiting a smaller frontal area than one of todays deer rifle .257cal soft points.

quote:

Well its simple, they offered far superior penetration due to the larger bores abilities to accommodate
much heavier weight/higher momentum bullets.

It is all about one's objective and choice upfront to manipulate the force (momentum) over the expanded frontal area in relation to its application - either a deeper penetration or a wider primary wound channel. This can be for a Solid versus a Soft bullet, or even between Softs. Example" The Barnes-X end TSX designed their expansion to be limited by 2x diameter, whereas some other CEB's go up to 2.4x and some even more depending on impact velocity - it is that trade-off that the manufacturer seeks in an ideal velocity band. This is why the Barnes design is so popular as its offers and ideal trade-off for hunting soft game. Newer offering on the market (Barnes was first in 1979) do essentially the same thing like Swift A-Frame, North Fork and others.

This trade-off on expanded diameter and weight loss also implies that that a 100 gr .243 bullet and a 180 gr bullet at similar velocities will not penetrate or perform the same. And so we have a choice for the application at hand.

Pieter

A primary example of 'trade-off', is how 6.5x54ms and 7x57 were transformed from a deer round
to a very effective proven elephant killer, by
using higher penetrating [smaller frontal] non-deforming solids ,,
instead of - wider wound channel/shallower penetrating/weight reducing softs.
6.5mm and 7mm solids penciling through the heart or brain, did the trick time and time again.

Interesting now is that we even have the option of partially expanding solids called 'cup points' from NF,
and of course the GS custom FN solids that also flange out when meeting heavy resistance.

Quite so !!!

Pieter