Yep, he did, because in 20 years of usage, that is the ONLY time it ever happened, and it DID NOT stop me from using Barnes Bullets!

Unlike some people, I do not base my opinion on a bullet on ONE oddball incident.

Unlike YOU, I am not trying to convince ANYONE of ANYTHING!!!!!!

You do not like Barnes Bullets, and you don't believe ANYONE should like Barnes Bullets, well that ain't happening.

Some folks are well satisfied by the performance they have obtained with Barnes Bullets, that is just life!

Oddball incidents like centre-punching a 100 pound whitetail with a 300 Weatherby and expecting to shoot it again?

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Ah the myth /faerie tale/ legend / lie / illusion of the pencilling through bullet

A Barnes TSX that does not "open up" does not pencil through ! it tumbles ! then if you are lucky or not it exists !

That unopened TSX is highly unstable and will overturn in short order !

ALF, Unless the bullet glances off a bone, what would make it tumble?

It is my understanding that if the rate of twist of the rifling is correct for the weight and length of the bullet, the bullet spin will be correct, and it's flight will be stabilized.

Why would an unopened Barnes TSX be any more highly unstable than any other bullet?

And why would a Barnes TSX bullet tumble more or any quicker than any other bullet?

I've watched many videos by Barnes and others to see bullets (including Barnes TSX) travel straight through blocks of ballistic gelatin without tumbling.

quote:

Originally posted by Ray Alaska:
... I believe that smaller game up to deer don't always offer enough resistance to the nose of a bullet such as a TBBC, Barnes-X, or the older Winchester FS...

We all have our own experiences and results with the game that we've shot and the bullets that we used.

IMO there are too many variables to be able to make positive conclusions of what a particular bullet will do every time.

I could relate over 50 years of experiences with various hunting bullets, but I'll limit it to just these few:

On one of my trips to South Africa the only rifle that I took was my .375 RUM shooting 270 grain Barnes TSX bullets at an average muzzle velocity of 3043 fps.

On that trip I shot 13 animals with those bullets and only recovered 2 of the bullets. They were the perfect Barnes mushroom and were recovered from a Kudu bull shot at 165 and 150 yards.

Three of the other animals that I shot with those bullets were a Jackal shot at 50 yards, and 2 Steenboks shot at 80 and 50 yards. All three of those animals had exit wounds that I could fit one or both of my fists in. I wear XL gloves.

The Bontebok and Red Lechwe size animals all had a .375" entrance hole and about a 1" exit hole.

On another South African hunt I used my .300 Weatherby shooting 168 grain Barnes TSX bullets with an average muzzle velocity of 3290 fps.

Two of the animals that I shot on that trip were a Sable bull shot at 40 yards and a Klipspringer shot at 310 yards. The Sable had a 30 caliber entrance hole and a 3/4" exit hole. The Klipspringer had a midsection exit hole that I could fit my fist in.

On a Dall sheep hunt in Canada's Mackenzie Mountains, I was hunting with my .257 Ackley shooting 117 grain Sierra GameKing bullets at an average velocity of 2988 fps. I shot my ram at 206 yards and a Mountain Caribou bull at 250 yards. They both had a 25 caliber entrance hole and a 1/2" exit hole.

Packing out my ram, we came across a Wolverine that I shot at about 100 yards. He had a midsection exit hole that I could fit both of my fists in.

In the 16 years that I have been hunting with Barnes bullets, I killed over 40 animals in the Western US, Africa, and New Zealand with them. I have shot game with both 270 and 300 grain TSX bullets in my .375 RUM and both 168 grain TSX and TTSX bullets in my .300 Weatherby. I have not lost any animals shot with these bullets. I have not tried to recover all of these bullets, but the ones that I have recovered are all the classic Barnes mushroom. And all of the larger animals where the bullets passed completely through the animals, the exit holes were at least twice the diameter of the caliber size entrance holes, showing that the bullets did not "pencil" through the animal.

buffer--
That is the kind of experience that I have had with Barnes. Excellent. Yes, I did have one buffalo run 300 yards, found dead with with a beautiful mushroom found poking out of the skin on the far side. Solid center lung shot but it missed the heart.

As for tumbling--pointed FMJ bullets tumble inside a medium if they cannot "super-cavitate".
That is why flatnose solids are preferred.

Another myth ! Tumbling bullets cannot supercavitate ?

Back to the pesky issue of basic science and not internet gunnery pseudoscience !

Supercavitation is a fluid mechanics phenomenon !
Muscle bone and tendons all are SOLIDS and though hydrated solids behave like solids !
Tissue has structure and it does not flow !

They exhibit cavitation but the mode of formation is due to displacement of the target material by the penetrating bullet and not due to the solid becoming gas !


Cavitation in fluids and thus supercavitation IS NOT A FUNCTION OF NOSE SHAPE !

Any shape can induce cavitation.

A super cavity is simply a cavity that envelopes the whole body of the projectile with only the leading edge in direction of motion being wetted.

Cavitation and supercavitation is a function of the fluid mass density and its vapour pressure when boundary flow conditions are evoked in fluid flow. Again nothing to do with nose or body shape.

A bullet whether tumbling or going nose first will cavitate in fluid as long as flow is induced that drops fluid pressure to its vapour pressure !

quote:

We all have our own experiences and results with the game that we've shot and the bullets that we used.

IMO there are too many variables to be able to make positive conclusions of what a particular bullet will do every time.

A TRUER more ACCURATE statement was never spoken!

quote:

Oddball incidents like centre-punching a 100 pound whitetail with a 300 Weatherby and expecting to shoot it again?

What are you talking about you strange little creature??????

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

Oddball incidents like centre-punching a 100 pound whitetail with a 300 Weatherby and expecting to shoot it again?

What are you talking about you strange little creature??????

quote:

I do a little guiding from time to time and favorite shot, either when I am shooting or a client is doing the shooting is a "Dead Center" shoulder shot, not high/low or behind, but dead center to get the critter off its feet.

Ammunition is the cheapest element involved in a hunt, so having to put in a finisher on a downed animal is a small price to pay.

quote:

Originally posted by Dogleg:
This seems like a good place for this:

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/wildlife/deer/articlegad.html

Thank you. I found the article very helpful, although it needs context and reflection in order to make proper applications.

First of all, it covers many factors beyond bullet type. It should be noted that it concluded that caliber between .24 and .30 was not a significant factor. What does that illustrate? I think that when a caliber is adequate for a certain size of game, then increasing caliber does not significantly change anything. What the study does not show, for example, is for what size of game a .24 caliber becomes less efficient than a larger caliber.

We can illustrate this with a prairie dog. A highly frangible bullet at .20 caliber will take out a prairie dog. Shooting a .458 will not prove any deadlier on the prairie dog.

What we saw in the article was a test on a relatively small deer.
A Rocky Mountain mule deer is larger than a Carolina whitetail and a statistical significance may have started to show. I would certainly expect that such a test on elk, waterbuck, hartebeest, wildebeest, or roan antelope would start to show statistical preferences away from a .24 or .25 caliber.

When I hunt and choose a caliber, I tend to want a caliber that can take the intended game from any angle and from any expected or reasonable distance. (Up to the present in over 35 years of hunting that has meant a limit of 400 yards.) I am willing to give up a little on spectacular broadside shots in order to cover penetration from all angles and bone structures. Then it is on me to deliver the projectile to the boiler room (the heart-lung center mass surrounded by shoulder-leg bones, joint of neck, and spine).

In Africa, the collective wisdom has wavered between .375" and .416" for buffalo. There was a time when some countries demanded "over .40 inch". I suspect that game departments have already collected much data over half a century ago that is more ad-hoc than the article but still leads to some very educated hypotheses. In general, the .30" calibers were known to kill, but were considered less reliable and outlawed. The .366" squeaked in in some countries and had the .338 Win Mag been in more wide use in Africa back in the 1960's and 1970's (when hunting was still legal in Kenya) it, too, may have been considered a reliable cartridge. Bottom line: I have seen some spectacular kills with cup-core .270 on plains game, but there are some big animals among those and the 338 WinMag made an impression as a better anchoring round, over undocumented but relatively wide experience.

As for bullet integrity, the tougher bullets are usually intended for game heavier than a whitetail, so the study is interesting but not really relavant to the larger questions.

Thank you again for the link to the study. It will give me confidence in choosing loads and cartridges (like 243) for grandchildren who first learn to hunt smaller deer. Of course, in California that may mean the newer TTSX and GSC bullets, but that is another story for another thread.

quote:

I do a little guiding from time to time and favorite shot, either when I am shooting or a client is doing the shooting is a "Dead Center" shoulder shot, not high/low or behind, but dead center to get the critter off its feet.

Ammunition is the cheapest element involved in a hunt, so having to put in a finisher on a downed animal is a small price to pay.

Now, this was your comment:

quote:

Oddball incidents like centre-punching a 100 pound whitetail with a 300 Weatherby and expecting to shoot it again?

Since you have such a unique concept of reality, and can not actually understand English.

The comment I quoted in Bold at the top of this comment was made in a discussion concerning bullet placement, nothing to do with the type or brand of bullet being used, but a situation where an animal is down but not dead or wounded but not down.

Nothing was said about EXPECTING to shoot a 100 pound whitetail, center shot with anything.

We get the POINT, you don't like Barnes Bullets, you think they should be Outlawed, GOOD FOR YOU!

Some folks simply Do Not Agree with you, Get Over It!!!!!

When YOU start making the Laws or paying for other peoples hunts/guns/ammunition, THEN someone might give a DAMN about what you think or believe, Don't Hold Your Breath.

You can quit anytime you want.

Ive seen bullets pencil thru animals on many occasions, Ive also seen them tumble and Ive seen them change directions...I know of an instance where a 7 mag went in and elk and out an elk and the bullet hit a tree next to the shooter, it was a Barnes by the way and the shooter was Gary Painter from Twin Falls, Id.

During WW2 all we had to hunt with at the ranch were blackmarket 30-06 military ammo..We shot deer galore with them over the years both on our ranch and a leases ranch across the Rio Grande in Mexico..We filed off the points to expose the lead, they still did strange things, but mostly just penciled thru.

quote:

You can quit anytime you want.

And you can go FUCK Yourself anytime you want!!!!!!

I have NEVER claimed that ANY of the Barnes Bullets were the "Be All/End All" as far as hunting bullets are concerned.

But as can be PLAINLY seen with the responses on this subject, EVERYONE does NOT buy into your line of concerning Barnes Bullets!!!!

Get over yourself!!!!!

You nor Anyone Else are under ANY obligation to use Barnes Bullets, but for God's sake understand that not everyone else agree's with you!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
Ive seen bullets pencil thru animals on many occasions, Ive also seen them tumble and Ive seen them change directions...I know of an instance where a 7 mag went in and elk and out an elk and the bullet hit a tree next to the shooter, it was a Barnes by the way and the shooter was Gary Painter from Twin Falls, Id.

During WW2 all we had to hunt with at the ranch were blackmarket 30-06 military ammo..We shot deer galore with them over the years both on our ranch and a leases ranch across the Rio Grande in Mexico..We filed off the points to expose the lead, they still did strange things, but mostly just penciled thru.

Yes, strange things, but the filed off point may helped those blackmarket bullets go straight in the animal.

Did you perchance check the bullet that hit the tree? I would guess that it was an old style whose tip squeezed shut so that it acted like a pointed FMJ. Or maybe it was a pointed FMJ?

Hunters claim bullets "pencil through"

The collective ballistics science world says otherwise !

And this knowledge is not new !

The British circumvented the provisions of the Hague convention with their Mk VII 303 bullet many many many years ago.

From this list the fatal bullet that killed President Kennedy. It to overturned and later reenactment of that fatal shot using ballistics dummies and high speed photography shows this behaviour.



All of these bullet "tumble" or overturn in target ! and they do so as a matter of physical obligation based on their geometry.

Some will do it within mere millimeters following penetration.

The critical data such as the distance from tip to point of CG as measure of the length of the leverarm that the overturning force uses to overturn the bullet and the transverse moment of inertia a critical parameter determining the magnitude of the gyroscopic force needed to counter the overturning force.

Alf
Seeing the 308 220 in the list which is a rn solid, I would not have expected overturning. The 160 carcano the same? Does this mean our modern rn solids are likely to overturn? I can't see their numbers being much different than the above two listed. Thanks in advance for your reply.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

You can quit anytime you want.

And you can go FUCK Yourself anytime you want!!!!!!

I have NEVER claimed that ANY of the Barnes Bullets were the "Be All/End All" as far as hunting bullets are concerned.

But as can be PLAINLY seen with the responses on this subject, EVERYONE does NOT buy into your line of concerning Barnes Bullets!!!!

Get over yourself!!!!!

You nor Anyone Else are under ANY obligation to use Barnes Bullets, but for God's sake understand that not everyone else agree's with you!!!!!!

Are you close to having a stroke yet? That might not be burnt toast you're smelling, so maybe its time to read your own signature line.

When you can routinely shoot in a decade what I've done in a day, I might care what you think. Probably not though. In the meantime, pleace carry on, I'm enjoying the laughs.

Enjoy your stroke.

All spin stabilized oblong (length > width) projectiles with CG behind centre of form will tumble ! That is why we spin them ! Even FN bullets. The only difference between various shapes is the distance at which it happens in target. A round ball is statically stable because the CG coincides with the centre of form.(CF)


If this were not so we would not need fret about the twist rate in our rifles , we could simply use smoothbores.
For our ballistics system the effect of spin is negated by the density differential between air and target (1000 fold)

The FN bullet will usually not overturn at the distances in target we use them because in the infinite dense target they come to a stop before they tumble. When we look a water tests with these projectiles ( and they have been tested extensively because the military use them as sea mine busters) they have a effective penetration limit in which they behave as intended but after that they also exhibit the behaviours of their pointed counterparts.

No where close to having a stroke, because you do not have sense enough to understand, that,

quote:

When you can routinely shoot in a decade what I've done in a day, I might care what you think.

, that I do not care what you think no matter how much you shoot, regardless the time frame.

I do not care how much experience Anyone, including YOU have had. I do not hold yours or anyone else's experiences against them, but, They Do NOT Negate MY OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCES!!!!!!

I don't care if you shoot 1000 animals an hour, it does not impress me, it is interesting that you get that opportunity, but in my book, it does not make you an EXPERT on bullets.

I do not claim to be an expert on anything, but like others, I like the performance I get from Barnes Bullets, and do not mind stating such.

You're a funny guy, please keep going.

quote:

Originally posted by Fury01:
Alf
Seeing the 308 220 in the list which is a rn solid, I would not have expected overturning. The 160 carcano the same? Does this mean our modern rn solids are likely to overturn? I can't see their numbers being much different than the above two listed. Thanks in advance for your reply.

I believe that Alf's answer was Yes, but he wanted us to know that the depth at which overturning occurs is complicated by medium, shape, spin, center-of-gravity, and other concerns. It would be nice to hear some data on the extremes of what to expect.

quote:

You're a funny guy, please keep going.

We are all funny, if we weren't we would be out doing something meaningful instead of getting into meaningless over the "attributes" of bullets.

To each their own, your opinion of Barnes bullets is not going to change my opinion and vice versa!

Various students of the subject have sought the answer to the question.

So as a empiric rule the following formula has been proposed and it was done in correlation to findings in ballistic simulants.



The Lnc refers to the measured or in this case calculated narrow channel distance of the bullet in question ie that distance where the bullet has not yet started overturning.

Those who seek to understand how to design bullets of war or to impose limitations on bullets of war or alternately how to treat bullet wound have a vested interest in this data.

We see that it ( the Lnc) is inversely proportional to the transverse moment of inertia of the bullet and directly proportional to the longitudinal moment of intertia

This is derived in part from the gyro theorem where we see that Stability or the stability factor is directly proportional to the longitudinal moment of inertia and inversely proportional to the transverse moment of inertia.... these moments are nothing other than measurements of the effectiveness of spinning mass around a point of rotation

Thank you. That is a first step but does not give ballpark direct lengths, minimum and maximum estimates for hunters. But the low transverse-moment-of-inertia for the .224" 55g suggests that the 55g 223Rem might penetrate farther than the others before flipping out.

Our collective problem as mere hunters is that we are not given the critical data which constitutes the measurements of a projectile

We are given caliber weight and derived BC but then also a often undefined BC.
We can measure length

It should by all accounts suffice for our purposes as mere users but the minute we want to deal in the how and wherefore we need more information !

Those who design load bearing projectiles or small arms projectiles of war routinely deal with the specifics of geometric measurement such as GC and Cf position and all importantly the distribution of mass and its effects

Here is a example of data gleaned from actual shooting vs calculated Lnc values



What was not mentioned in this study and that has since been proved is that the angle of attack of the bullet varies from shot to shot ( it is totally random within a upper and lower limit )
This greatly influences the Lnc and accounts for the differences between the calculated Lnc and observed Lnc



The calculated Lnc assumes a angle of attack of 1 deg


This finding of randomness also explains the differences in wound profile seen in close up shots. It speaks to intershot variation in wound appearance and bullet behaviour when the same lot of ammo is used.

Alf
I now know exactly why the 275 grain Speer 338 bullet was the "best" most reliable killer on elk that my observations at the time told me it was. I also know why it is vital for modern monometals to open quickly to be reliable. So thank you. What I still don't have a complete handle on is why that 173 grain solid that Bell used was so reliable for him. I am guessing that it's lack of forward Cg was simply overcame by spin until after the elephants brain was fatally penetrated. Or why the 220 308 krag is not as reliable. I am guessing spin as influenced by rpm differences: velocity and twist generated.
Best regards,
Fury01

Bell's 7x57 was successful not because of spin or caliber or bullet design per se it was successful because he understood the anatomy of the skull of the african elephant.

The classic frontal shot leaves the bullet with a path which offers very little physical resistance thus even lesser calibers would suffice.

The classic frontal shot traverses trunk muscle, nasal cavities ( air) and the very thin cribiform plate that separates the nose cavity from the brain cavity. You do not need much to penetrate this.

Professor van der Merwe at the veterinary school at Ondestepoort Petoria studied and published a detailled paper on the anatomy of the skull of the African elephant and then did the same for the Southern African buffalo. They then did so specifically with reference to the most desired shot path for a quick kill. This was done specifically to design the best method for elephant control and cull operations in the KNP

Spin is only of value for stability in low density targets or environment. Once the density goes up the gyro effect is negated.

The "problem" is the push back of the environment that the bullet finds itself. We can call this the "tip force". This force offers resistance to forward motion. It is directly proportional to the mass density of the material the bullet meets.

The density of air allows the gyro principle to work, up the density and the gyro no longer has the ability to stabilize the bullet because the magnitude of overturning force overpowers the "gyro force".

If I've read the table correctly, all of the bullets begin to tumble in 4 inches (100mm) or less.

That kind of information is what leads to flat-nose-solid hunters.

Alf
Memory tells me that Bell shot quite a few from other angles and still had success with the 173 solids. I understand the math and am a convert. For example the "bending" Bell described with the 6.5 solids is now easy to understand as is comments about the shorter 318 solids being even more reliable. It also makes be think the design and performance of the softer cooper fn solids with the expectation of deformation was a wise choice.

ALF
From what I see in the tables and data that you provided, that information is for non-expanding, full metal jacket, military bullets.

Although I had classes in physics and calculus in college, I have a basic understanding of physics, but I am by no means a physicist or a ballistician. But as a hunter, shooter, and reloader for over 50 years I have observed the effects that thousands of bullets have had on paper and game animals.

Almost weekly, I shoot paper out to 430 yards. I have never shot a key-holed bullet into any of my targets, however I did see bullet key-holes in military cardboard silhouette targets when I was in the Army. My guess there was that those bullets hit the ground in front of the target which caused them to tumble into the target.

I have shot or have been present on around 200 big game animal kills. I have never observed a key-hole exit hole in any game animal. The only two animals that I have seen with same size (caliber) entrance and exit holes were an African Civet and a Cape Grysbok that I shot with .30 caliber 150 grain FMJ bullets that I used to reduce damage to the skins.

All of the bullets that I shot through animals (up to and including bull elk) had a caliber size entrance hole and a larger that caliber size exit hole. The bullets expanded inside the animals.

All of the bullets (jacketed and cast lead) that I have recovered from game animals showed expansion or mushrooming of their tips or front half, and no damage to the bases of the bullets, and only a scrape or gouge on a side of a bullet if it hit bone.

I have recovered a dozen or so Nosler Partition bullets and other bullets from elk that went through the elk and stopped just under the skin of the off side. These bullets had all expanded back to the partition or center of the bullet, and none of them showed any damage to their bases, indicating that they did not tumble inside the animal.

I do not disagree that a bullet could tumble inside an animal, I just have never observed it. But unless I want to minimize pelt damage on small animals, I don't hunt with FMJ military bullets.

I've shot a few deer with tsx. My experience is only with .338 and up. I do know that the 338 and up have larger hollow points and they've never failed to expand in animals, water, dirt, gravel and a variety of crap.

Like I said, these all have bigger openings than the 30 cal and under, so they should open more reliably. They do cause less shock than softer bullets, but that's the price you pay if you want to be able to hit vitals through any bone at any angle. I shot a deer with a .375 270gn TSX and it did expand and the deer still ran 50 yards, even though I hit a lung and grazed the heart.

My personal feeling is the smaller caliber TSX would shine more on tougher bigger animals such as elk, moose, bear, etc... and the big bor bullets would more reliably expand on the smaller stuff.

The tipped version for the smaller calibers should expand more reliably because the polymer tip will actually push back into the bullet helping it initiate expansion.

I also tried a softer bullet in .458 on a deer and saw it splash off the hip and spine without puncturing or breaking the bone. A lesson learned that just because a bullet is a big bore, doesn't mean it can't be destroyed by a deer because it's too soft on a bad angle shot.

If you have had bad experience personally, I would decide based on your personal experience. I would give the tipped version a try just to see if it works better for you.

buffybr:

Lets go back to the original statement:

Barnes TSX do not open up as they should and some contend they then Pencil trough.

So from that perspective:

if the nose of the Bullet gets plugged or the nose gets damaged so that the cavity is occluded then that bullet is effectively a FMJ !

Then if it is a FMJ with a cavity in the nose then it will tumble in a dense visco elastic target and it does so rapidly and end up arse forward because now the CG is in front of the centre of form.... ie it has not attained a different mode of stabilization namely "dart stablization" So when it exits it exists back to front.

Does it mean that bullet is not lethal ? far from it because you have a bullet with huge drag when it is side on.

I will show you what I mean:



Bullet Goodnel 416 cal 400 gr monos

All retrieved from buffalo

Barnes TSX on the left dug out of dirt after passing through a warthog



not my own sent to me by a buddy
This was one a GS custom 375



Another TSX: The only way this bullet could get side on damage is because it turned.

Now as to the issue or "Toothpasting" or bending of old style british FMJ's
The mechanical event that causes the bullet to toothpaste or bend is because it turned.

Now there is the case of PMP's mononmetal solids



They had a single cannelure groove and reports came in that the bullet would break in two at the groove, from a mechanical perspective the only way this could happen is if the bullet turns side on

PMP solids

Alf
Thanks for your solid answers. I appreciate your sharing with us. As always in acquired knowledge, further questions are raised. I laugh when I hear some complex issue described as "settled science." Yes science is settled by the Creator of all things. However our understanding of that science is often just a glimpse. We see this proven over and over in every generation.
Best regards Sir.

It seems that threads discussing the efficacy of Barnes bullets are fairly common on gun and hunting related forums. There are often those who question the efficacy. Comparatively many. Rare, very rare is it, that a thread arises where the efficacy of Nosler Partition bullets is questioned. I'll drop this link here for those who are interested in additional discussion of Banes Mono bullets. https://www.24hourcampfire.com...hp/topics/12175865/1

quote:

Rare, very rare is it, that a thread arises where the efficacy of Nosler Partition bullets is questioned.

That may speak more about forums and inertia than the NP itself. The NP was the standard for more guaranteed penetration, but it did have a small downside: the nose would often "blow", leaving a fairly small frontal meplat and about 65-70% retained weight. Still, that was much better than when cup and core bullets would shred themselves down to 35%. The 'solution' to the NP was the A-Frame, with a bonded nose.

Could it possibly be that some folks just never used Nosler's that much?

I have been hunting/reloading/handloading since 1968, and I tried Noslers only one or two times and just wasn't that impressed with them.

They have a well earned reputation, but just never flipped my trigger. In fact it has been so long back since I tried them that I can not remember why I did not like them.

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:

quote:

Rare, very rare is it, that a thread arises where the efficacy of Nosler Partition bullets is questioned.

That may speak more about forums and inertia than the NP itself. The NP was the standard for more guaranteed penetration, but it did have a small downside: the nose would often "blow", leaving a fairly small frontal meplat and about 65-70% retained weight. Still, that was much better than when cup and core bullets would shred themselves down to 35%. The 'solution' to the NP was the A-Frame, with a bonded nose.

Which is exactly the way nosler designed the partition to work, which is hardly a downside. It is still the standard by which all hunting bullets are judged, 65 years later.

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:

quote:

Rare, very rare is it, that a thread arises where the efficacy of Nosler Partition bullets is questioned.

That may speak more about forums and inertia than the NP itself. The NP was the standard for more guaranteed penetration, but it did have a small downside: the nose would often "blow", leaving a fairly small frontal meplat and about 65-70% retained weight. Still, that was much better than when cup and core bullets would shred themselves down to 35%. The 'solution' to the NP was the A-Frame, with a bonded nose.

That's what it is supposed to do. The widest, most violent wound you can make would be to blow the whole bullet up, but then the fear would be that in some cases it might not be deep enough so a compromise is made. Blow up half of it and keep the base intact, just in case.