In another thread I was reading about bullet construction being the deciding factor as to what bullet to use and it makes sense to me. Question is how should I know bullet construction? I mean I know the basics of ballistic tip, cup and core, bonded etc, and consider myself to know enough to get by. The thing that confuses me is when I read statements like " The old Nosler ballistic tips were terrible, but they later made the jacket thicker." I have read that about several different bullets. So then I go to my neighbor who has basically a reloading store in his garage, and he tells me that I should try some of his bullets. He brings out the box, and it is obviously not a new one. I did this, not with the Noslers but with 200 grain 35 cal. Hornady round nose that I was wanting to shoot out of a 358 winchester. So is it before the "thicker jacket or after"? Or maybe that specific round is worse, because I never know if the bullet was designed for the 35 rem speeds or for the 358/35 whelen speeds. Maybe I am over-thinking this. Or would a milk jug test tell me enough to answer whether they are suitable? I prefer not to do my testing on game, but rather rely on those who have experience.

While the "milk jug" test is not very scientific it will give you at least some idea how fragile bullets are.
I line up jugs six or seven at a time full of water and if the bullet goes through 24 to 36 inches of water and remains mostly intact it will penetrate a deer. For heavier game more testing required.
The thing about listening to a bunch of opinions is that they are just that opinions, some based on factual experience and some based in hearsay and folklore.
People on this forum rant and rave about how inferior Sierra bullets are (or Ballistic Tips or Barnes) and for the life of me I can't figure out how they've come to that conclusion. I use many brands of bullets and Sierra's are one of them. I've killed dozens of elk, more deer, a Bighorn Sheep and mountain Goat as well as a handful of Plains Game with Sierra's and their performance is exemplary.
Bottom line is you must come to your own conclusions....

all the milk jug test will tell you is that water doesn't compress.

I can simplify it for you.
up to about 2900 fps muzzle velocity use a Hornady interlock.
after three thousand FPS use a mono-metal.

in between those two?
use one of the fancy pants premium priced bullets at your own risk and do a little homework on their construction.

bonded is just a fancy word for glued or soldered to the same jacket their other bullet uses it doesn't make the bullet better.

tipped is just that a plastic tip stuck in the hollow portion of the nose.
it replaces the lead that stuck out before.

Contrary to what some think, shooting a bullet into a stack of water-filled milk jugs will tell you quite a bit about bullet performance RELATIVE TO OTHER BULLETS. If you have some bullets with known performance on game and some that are unknown. Line up some milk jugs and fire the bullets at various velocities into the jugs. a few things that you can do to add to the knowledge base: get a few bottles of food coloring, generally they are blue, red and yellow. Put enough in the first jug to turn the water really blue, the second really yellow and the third really red. Repeat in fourth, fifth & sixth. Then set a camera capable of high speed motion pictures off to the side to film(chip) the event.

so after each bullet is fired there are two results, the static and the dynamic. the static is the post-mortem of the bullet: how many jugs did it go through, its retained weight/percentage, its new frontal area and percentage increase. the dynamic is from the movie. what color is dominant in the splash? Where is the main center of the splash? Compare the splashes of the unknown bullet with the known bullet. the main point is the quicker the bullet dumps its energy by expanding and increasing its surface area/resistance the more of a varmint bullet it is. the more delayed expansion and big game type performance will result in the center of the splash being farther in the series of jugs and more yellow and red than blue in the splash.


As noted, whether a bullet is bonded or not has turned into more of a marketing ploy than actual performance. I have tested bonded bullets that had their jackets excessively thinned that completely came apart by the second jug and others that penetrated into seven jugs. also none bonded bullets that have sufficient jackets will do well in spite of losing their core if the core stays in place through most of the penetration process- in animal terms, if the bullet is intact through the first foot of travel through an animal what happens in the second foot generally won't matter unless your shot is lengthwise.


I hade an article published about 20 years ago dealing with this topic in Handloader's Digest. Several of the bullets then available are no longer made and several bullets now available were not at that time. the "mono-metal" bullets were just coming on the market- primarily the Barnes X bullet and it had significant problems but it appears that these problems have been resolved. the bonded bullets of the time were all sole-proprietor companies with limited production and sadly, these bullets such at the Bitterroot and Grizly are no longer available. In my opinion these bullets were the best combination of jacket strength, soft lead bonded core bullets ever made. The nearest presently available bullets generally have a solid shank and bonded core. (think Nosler Partition, but instead of a rear lead portion, it's solid jacket material and the front core is bonded to the jacket).


Nothing (even those tests where wet paper, bones, sheets of inner-tube and whatever in an impact box) can duplicate the impact of a bullet hitting an animal, nor are impacts of bullets with animals always alike- generally the opposite. But as noted, you don't want to shoot animals to develop your statistical base for which bullets work well/poorly in given situations. So the best that I have found is as noted, test a bullet of known success and use that as a benchmark to test others, and in order for the test to be valid the test medium must be as similar as possible, which is why I use plastic gallon milk jugs filled with water.

If you get a nice standing, broadside shot at 200yds, the bullet only has to penetrate 2-4" of hide and rib, so bullet construction isn't so critical.

You want to take a frontal shot at 20 yards on a big elk with a 300RUM, then bullet construction becomes more critical. How about a quartering away shot and your bullet has to punch through 30lbs of wet grass?

Putting truck tires on a Corvette would work, until you start to push the performance envelope, same as putting Corvette tires on your truck. They would work until you get off road.

Your 'delivery vehicle', be it tires or bullets, should be up to the task your asking of it.

Any of you take tire chains with when hunting in November?

The mono-metals, Partitions, A-Frames, etc. give you extra insurance, are the cheapest part of the hunt, and, arguably, have the most important job to do of any of our equipment.

You are obviously very savvy if you already shoot a 358 Win and trying out old Hornady 200gr bullets and wondering if it was made for the 35 Rem.

You are right, that bullet was designed for 2000 fps max. You will lose game if you run it at normal 358 Win velocities of 2700 fps for 200 gr.

Absolutely nothing wrong with traditional Cup & Core bullets for traditional rifle calibers like 270, 7X57, 7mm08, 280, 308, 30'06, 358, etc.

In the 358 Win the best bullet IMHO is the 225gr Sierra GK BT. The Barnes TSX 200gr should be great too but I never tried it.

Bullet construction becomes a REAL issue when
1. Velocity is increased beyond 2800 fps (3000 fps in some cases like the 270 etc)
2. You are targeting large animals like Elk, big pigs, bear, Red deer etc. You want a bullet that will not break up when hitting bone.

Again ANY standard weight for caliber cup & core bullet at standard velocity will kill any bear or moose or elk. Yes I know that the old ballistic tip and some Sierras had a suspect reputation. BUT, the problems were ONLY if driven FAST and often using light bullets.

quote:

Originally posted by James Yoder:
In another thread I was reading about bullet construction being the deciding factor as to what bullet to use and it makes sense to me. Question is how should I know bullet construction? I mean I know the basics of ballistic tip, cup and core, bonded etc, and consider myself to know enough to get by. The thing that confuses me is when I read statements like " The old Nosler ballistic tips were terrible, but they later made the jacket thicker." I have read that about several different bullets. So then I go to my neighbor who has basically a reloading store in his garage, and he tells me that I should try some of his bullets. He brings out the box, and it is obviously not a new one. I did this, not with the Noslers but with 200 grain 35 cal. Hornady round nose that I was wanting to shoot out of a 358 winchester. So is it before the "thicker jacket or after"? Or maybe that specific round is worse, because I never know if the bullet was designed for the 35 rem speeds or for the 358/35 whelen speeds. Maybe I am over-thinking this. Or would a milk jug test tell me enough to answer whether they are suitable? I prefer not to do my testing on game, but rather rely on those who have experience.

lots of Good logic here !
Bullet speed tells what to use , if you are shooting a .358 winchester, Most any rifle bullet will do pretty well.
A lot depends of the game. For deer a 200 grain should do great and you don,t need to spend a ton of money on anything fancy. Speer Hornady sierra Remington core locked even.
...tj3006

quote:

Originally posted by Lamar:
all the milk jug test will tell you is that water doesn't compress.

I can simplify it for you.
up to about 2900 fps muzzle velocity use a Hornady interlock.
after three thousand FPS use a mono-metal.

in between those two?
use one of the fancy pants premium priced bullets at your own risk and do a little homework on their construction.

bonded is just a fancy word for glued or soldered to the same jacket their other bullet uses it doesn't make the bullet better.

tipped is just that a plastic tip stuck in the hollow portion of the nose.
it replaces the lead that stuck out before.

I actually like that rule, the Hornady interlock has served me well from my 308 Win. and the Barnes TSX/TTSX have worked wonderfully in Africa and in my "fast" guns.

OP - For the 358 Win., any appropriate weight bullet will work well from that gun.

I learned a super butt ton of what's what by making my own hunting bullets.

one of my favorite deer hunting Rigs when doing cull work of Does for some of the Ranchers around here is my 358 win Hawkeye with a 250gr cast bullet moving along at 2350 fps.

the one I Deer hunt with in my 30-06 is with a 154gr bullet that's home made using a sierra jacket and 3% antimony core that's bonded together and has no exposed lead at the tip, pushed right to 2800 fps.


the third most favorite and the one everybody takes notice of is the bullet I make in a modified lyman cast bullet mold.
it uses soft 5/16th's copper tubing that is normally used for sending water to a swamp cooler as the bottom half of the bullet, and the nose/core is an alloy of 1% tin and 2% antimony.

this one is pushed to right around 2300 fps also in the 18" cut down 7.65 argentine rifle or to 2450 fps in the 7.7 jap rifle.
these ones are used to punch both shoulders to keep the Deer in the hay storage pens after they get over the fence, but without ruining any of the meat that gets donated to the local food bank.

If you wonder about the performance of a specific bullet, you can always call the manufacturer or visit their web site. They should have some info as to how the bullet is intended to perform. Cup and core, monolithics and bonded bullets do perform differently on game. So, it really boils down to what kind of performance you want to achieve.

quote:

Originally posted by James Yoder:
In another thread I was reading about bullet construction being the deciding factor as to what bullet to use and it makes sense to me. Question is how should I know bullet construction? I mean I know the basics of ballistic tip, cup and core, bonded etc, and consider myself to know enough to get by. The thing that confuses me is when I read statements like " The old Nosler ballistic tips were terrible, but they later made the jacket thicker." I have read that about several different bullets. So then I go to my neighbor who has basically a reloading store in his garage, and he tells me that I should try some of his bullets. He brings out the box, and it is obviously not a new one. I did this, not with the Noslers but with 200 grain 35 cal. Hornady round nose that I was wanting to shoot out of a 358 winchester. So is it before the "thicker jacket or after"? Or maybe that specific round is worse, because I never know if the bullet was designed for the 35 rem speeds or for the 358/35 whelen speeds. Maybe I am over-thinking this. Or would a milk jug test tell me enough to answer whether they are suitable? I prefer not to do my testing on game, but rather rely on those who have experience.

This has turned out to be one of the better threads I've read.....quite a few extremely good responses so far.

I have been operating under the opinion for the last several years that bonded bullets are a big step up from cup and cores and I still believe that preventing the jacket from separating from the core is a good thing and further have gone to using A-Frames, which are bullets similar to the Nosler partition but with the front core bonded to the jacket.

That said, the whole bullet world just got turned upside down and inside out for me as the ranch on which I hunt elk has recently required only lead free bullets to be used......and I have no personal experience with these bullets.

I've read several very positive accounts of the use of lead free bullets however and am completely willing to make the change.....specifically I'm talking about Barnes and the competitively priced Hornady and Nosler offerings which have been said to perform very similar to the Barnes.

So far I've tested (only for accuracy) Barnes, Hornady and Nosler lead free bullets in .308 caliber using the 308 Winchester, .30-06 and .300H&H in 150, 165, and 180 grain loads

At this juncture must say that the lead free bullets don't offer me any accuracy advantage over traditional bullets but that their accuracy is totally adequate for any hunting I do and I limit my self to 400 yard shots.

Given that the very large number of posts I've read concerning the terminal performance of these bullets is positive, I had to ask......"what is the purpose of lead in the bullet?".....and the only answer I can finds is that it's completely traditional.....there is no purpose for lead in the bullet except that bullets have always been made of lead.

Follow the history of bullets....lead was used because it was relatively inexpensive and easy to mold.....because of a low melting temperature. Jackets were later added because higher velocities left serious lead deposits in the barrels and copper jackets solved that problem.

Folks like Joyce Hornady, Vernon Speer, Mr. Nosler, and others took the jacketing of lead bullets to a new science creating many improvements for us hunters.....but always with the base assumption that the chief ingredient of a bullet was lead......because it always has been.

Have a good look at bullets such as the North Fork.....there is very little lead in this style of bullet yet they are considered by many as the best of the best. I'm now looking at them as "transition bullets".....a part of the transition from all lead bullets to no lead bullets.

When it comes to such rounds as the .35 Remington, I can offer no opinion to assist you as I've never owned one but it seems to me that it is overwhelmingly a woods oriented deer rifle.....and a darn good one. Deer are truly not big game animals.....most dress out at 140 pounds or so and yes, some get much larger but even the larger ones aren't built of cast iron, their only difference s rarity......you go to the store and buy a box of Remington Core-lokts and go hunting....the biggest deer in the woods is easily killed by this old and highly serviceable round.....,to your queston....."Am I being too concerned about this"? my answer is YES.....in the world I live in it's called analysis paralysis....the failure to find answers to questions that never should have been asked....it's time to take a long had look at monometals.

quote:

bonded is just a fancy word for glued or soldered to the same jacket their other bullet uses it doesn't make the bullet better.

I don't agree. I shoot A-Frames out of .375 H&H, friend shoots Norma Oryx from 8x57 Mauser.

Very best weight retention
=> great penetration
=> kills great, instantly
=> much lower amount of lead dispersed in venison
=> low meat damage

And this is not medium bore of course, but:
750gr .585 Woodleigh Weldcore fired into water jugs, at about 300 fps more than it is constructed for. Hold together nice. Try this with classic SP bullet. You will find jacket separated and handful of lead mess.

Jiri

Bullet construction is my main consideration, caliber is next..a poorly constructed bullet in ANY caliber is a disaster as a rule.

Vapdog

A minor clarification on what you said.

The main reason lead was used is that it is soft and expands inside an animal and transfers energy to kill better.

Yes lead is easy to mould and cheap.

The mono metal bullets have mostly high copper content and this is because of their ability to be swagged through rifle barrels better than most other metals.

Modern mono metal bullets are effective on game because the design makes them expand with the 4 petals in Barnes and 6 petals in the CEB etc.

One would not recommend non-expanding solids for deer & similar sized game or even bear, big cats, moose etc.

quote:

Given that the very large number of posts I've read concerning the terminal performance of these bullets is positive, I had to ask......"what is the purpose of lead in the bullet?".....and the only answer I can finds is that it's completely traditional.....there is no purpose for lead in the bullet except that bullets have always been made of lead.

Lead was used because it is dense, so can have a greater sectional density compared to other metals and it was soft so that it formed easily to the rifling (compared to solid copper bullets), and that on impact its shape easily changed so as to develop maximum resistance to the animal. Mono-metal bullets have to make accommodations to approach the performance of lead. the bullets are longer to obtain a similar weight, they need to have ribs to prevent excessive pressure and they need some form of collapsible point to generate drag.

ALL bullets will fail to perform as advertised sometimes.

For hunting, I would really advice using nothing but copper bullets with a hollow point.

They perform very well, even when they "fail" to expand.

You are not limited to waiting for a broadside shot on an animal.

You can shoot from any angle, and providing you are using an adequate caliber, the bullet will get to teh vitals.

We have used Barnes X for many years, with no failures at all.

Then we made our own Walterhog bullets, on our CNC lath.

Again, we have been using them for many years, shooting several hundred African animals up to buffalo and hippo, and everything else.

Never had a failure.

Bullets makers are obsessed with doing something new - regardless of the outcome.

Adding plastic tips, steel jackets and all the other silly things they dream of, adds absolutely nothing to the usefulness of the bullet.

quote:

it was soft so that it formed easily to the rifling

Lead was being used as a projectile long before rifling was introduced in firearms.

quote:

They perform very well, even when they "fail" to expand

Wouldn't the same be said for FMJ's and cup and core bullets the do not expand.

Also water is a good test media.

It shows a bit different performance the flesh but not much.

Thanks for all the response guys. What I am thinking at this point is to keep those Hornady roundnose bullets at 2400-2500 FPS and use them for regular deer season where 75 yards is the absolute longest a shot will be. ( I plan on shooting them into test medium first, but should be ok) For anything else, I got some Hammer bullets (178 grain sledgehammers). They should be the ticket for longer shots/larger game animals.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:

quote:

They perform very well, even when they "fail" to expand

Wouldn't the same be said for FMJ's and cup and core bullets the do not expand.

Also water is a good test media.

It shows a bit different performance the flesh but not much.

No. I seen cup and core bullets separated, lead spread to small particles, game wounded (not enough penetration to vital area). Also if you can, do X ray of venison shot by "old good" bullet. Full of lead particles. Not only close to wound channel.

Jiri

If one wants to know how tough a bullet is then shoot it into DRY magazines, and compare bullets, it works pretty darn well..

I would suggest using a bullet that's has the lead soldered to the jacket such as the Accubonds or Woodleighs, a partition like the Nosler or Swift, a Barnes or GS Custom monolithic...The event of a failure isn't likely but its always possible, but you will get penetration no matter what with the above.

Todays bullets are not likely to fail, we
ve never had it so good, yet were still playing the bullet choice game of yesteryear when most of them failed half the time. Today pick a premium or super premium bullet and get after it.

Atkinson:

Very good point.

We have now a great selection of very best hunting bullets. Bonded/soldered or monolithic. In globalized world, we can order bullets from another continent easy if we want.

How much we hunt? Is the price point so important?

Jiri

Hornady 200 gr RN bullet could blow up at 2500 fps. Originally designed for 2000 fps.

I would keep that bullet below 2200 fps.
JMHO.

Sierra GK BT 225 gr would work great at 2400fps.

quote:

Originally posted by James Yoder:
Thanks for all the response guys. What I am thinking at this point is to keep those Hornady roundnose bullets at 2400-2500 FPS and use them for regular deer season where 75 yards is the absolute longest a shot will be. ( I plan on shooting them into test medium first, but should be ok) For anything else, I got some Hammer bullets (178 grain sledgehammers). They should be the ticket for longer shots/larger game animals.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Hornady 200 gr RN bullet could blow up at 2500 fps. Originally designed for 2000 fps.

I would keep that bullet below 2200 fps.
JMHO.

Sierra GK BT 225 gr would work great at 2400fps.

quote:

Originally posted by James Yoder:
Thanks for all the response guys. What I am thinking at this point is to keep those Hornady roundnose bullets at 2400-2500 FPS and use them for regular deer season where 75 yards is the absolute longest a shot will be. ( I plan on shooting them into test medium first, but should be ok) For anything else, I got some Hammer bullets (178 grain sledgehammers). They should be the ticket for longer shots/larger game animals.

I for one miss those round nose bullets that seem to have gone away. Ever since the long range fad hit most companies have quit making them. The notable exception being Woodleigh.

I've also used them enough to be convinced that they transfer energy a little better than a pointed bullet does. They give up a little trajectory but it's only really noticeable at long range. Far beyond what most animals are actually killed at.

quote:

I for one miss those round nose bullets that seem to have gone away. Ever since the long range fad hit most companies have quit making them. The notable exception being Woodleigh.

There is strong evidence that round nose bullets are far more reliable than pointed bullets when it comes to the cores staying in the jackets.....they are excellent bullets as a group.

That said.....I don't think it was long range shooting that killed off the many round nose bullets supply.....rather it was the demise of the tubular fed magazines. "Bucks only" laws greatly increased the demand for scope sighted rifles to see horns better.....and the US Military dumping many thousands of 1903 Springfields and 1917 Enfields in .30-06 spelled the rapid reduction of M-94 (and other models) Winchester rifles used for hunting deer. The longer range capability just came with the territory.

Yes the old RN bullets performed very reliably.

I have used the 6.5 cal 160 gr RN in 6.5X54MS as well as the Swede and they were lethal on deer.

Those were the bullets (156gr and 160gr RN) that killed so many thousands of moose and polar bear and walrus as well as African big game including the real big stuff like buffalo and lion. The solids were used on elephant etc.

Alan Carr the gunsmith in NZ shot a water buffalo in Australia with one.

Old Cup and core RN's worked because for the most they were shot at or impacted at moderate velocities at distance !

As a side line interesting work on the ideal nose shape for anti material penetrators. In the theory of long rod penetration and long rod erosion the hemispherical nose shape is "best" and when a long rod erodes during penetration the nose assumes a hemispherical shape.

This however must not be confused with the "ideal shape" for penetration of soft solids or fluids

quote:

Originally posted by James Yoder:
Maybe I am over-thinking this. Or would a milk jug test tell me enough to answer whether they are suitable?

Suitable for what? Even if they were made for a 35 Rem, those bullets will still knock the snot out of a deer. I personally wouldnt use them on an Elk though.

the only way I know is to use them on game and come to your own conclusion..If they don't work to your requirements try another, but if you stick to premiums and the super premium and they fail, I suggest you just poked the bullet in the wrong spot..

If I were to pick a bullet for everything under all circumstances in any caliber it would be a Nosler partition in mid weight, as they open up quickly to the partition, and either make a perfect muchroom or loose the front but the rear section penetrates enough has been my experience over the last 60 or 70 years or thereabouts. Over the last 8 or 9 years I guess, the accubond has been a total success for me and in all my rifles that Ive used them in. My thinking today is some folks are living in the past and reading old magazines or articles by young men who do not have the experience and are scribing the old time gun scribes opinnions as fact and they were at the time, but not today.

I convinced a mate into buying a 358 Win in a BLR. He used to own a BLR in 243 and loved it. So he took the 358.

I suggested my load of 225gr Sierra GK BT. But Barry got hold of some 200 gr Hornady RN.

Barry is a very seasoned hunter and shot probably over 200 deer in his hunting live of 45 years. He has 3 or 4 Sambar stags to his credit - 24 inch plus. He decided to take the 358 BLR for sambar with those 200 gr RN.

Neck shot at 30 meters and the yearling ran away. He searched for hours with his dog! Finally they found it dead a long way away. When he cut it up, he found the bullet in the neck, core separated, and the lead flattened. On closer inspection, the vertebra had a crack! Yet that deer ran away.

I have seen 100gr RN Hornady bullet fail in a 243 Win with shoulder shots on goats. We got into a mob of goats and the two of us took out about 15 animals at ranges from about 40 meters to 150 meters. We took all the legs. I was using a 6.5X55 with 139 gr Hornady.

When skinning the legs at home, I found a front shoulder with a flattened bullet of just the lead - about 1.25 inch diameter - on the shoulder blade area but still outside the skin. There was some mud on the skin which probably started the bullet failure. The killing shot was obviously not this one.

You are sure to kill deer with a 200gr 358 RN at 2650 fps+ if you hit them in the ribs or the neck. But you will definitely lose deer as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:

quote:

Originally posted by James Yoder:
Maybe I am over-thinking this. Or would a milk jug test tell me enough to answer whether they are suitable?

Suitable for what? Even if they were made for a 35 Rem, those bullets will still knock the snot out of a deer. I personally wouldnt use them on an Elk though.

Should have clarified what I meant by "suitable". I look for a bullet that will hold together, penetrate the entire way through leaving 2 holes leaking blood. I do not plan on running the Hornady roundnose at full capacity. i was thinking of < 2400 fps.

There's a limit to how much thought I'd give to an old box of mystery bullets from a neighbour's garage. That limit would be about whatever an afternoon's worth of plinking is worth. Why go through any effort to learn about something you can't even get more of? Blast it off and have some fun.

What would one think the minimum impact velocity to be for the solid bullets (like the Barnes TSX and such) to reliably expand?

Clem, you can find that velocity information specific to each bullet on Barnes website.

solids are designed to penetrate not expand.

stuff like the TSX [a 'mono-metal', which they ain't they are pretty much cartridge brass] is pre-cut and then nose shaped to help them expand reliably.
I personally would use a TTSX versus the plain tsx.
the Tip will push back on the nose initiating expansion exactly the same as it does for a regular C&C bullet, but it gives you an edge at the lower velocity's.