BobinNH,
I used partitions for 25 years as well and killed a pile of animals with them.
I cant see any significant difference between performance with an AB and a partition...including penetration.
Caught about the same percentage of partitions as AB's in animals.
I still haven't seen any violent expansion from an AB, even though I was really concerned about from reading the BS, lies. and half truths on the internet. As luck would have it, the first elk I killed with one was the bull at 25 yards...thought it was going to be a disaster. I guess it was violent enough to almost ruin 4 oz of top quality elk rib meat.
Buzz you're hung up on my use of the word " violent"...let me substitute by saying that expansion is more complete,more extensive, the jacket and core is more subject to the stresses of high velocity and high impact speed into something tough than if it were going slower.Bullets traveling fast also create more extensive wound channels than those that have slowed down at distance.
I tried to sum all that up by using the term "violent" expansion. In my language expansion means "expansion"...it does not mean "disintegration". Not if the bullet is designed to penetrate at close range. An AB has been built that way. But I think the 140's are a bit too light to withstand close range impact from a a 7 mag cartridge.
I think the 160 is a better choice in the magnum cases.
Your 160 from your 7 mag did what it was supposed to at close distances. I already said that in case you missed it.
You and i feel pretty much the same way about the Partition and AB. There isn't enough difference between them to persuade me to change. I have other bonded bullets I've been using for 30 years so have no need for the AB.
