http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwjL4vGkwZfRAhUD9WMKHeYXBcMQFggfMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhuntingwithnonlead.org%2FPDFs_Main%2FWI%2520DNR%2520Copper%2520Bullet%2520Study.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFyGVxgwRxh4lzPSs83pRcpeGBGVw
Granted this is media, but it jives with what I have seen.
I might also add many mention "eat up to the hole", "drop a weight", "shoot for bone", etc. Why do you suppose that is?
Yeah, I've seen that article before. I've also seen a lot of other tests performed with water jugs, ballistic media gel, etc, but I trust what I've witnessed on about 135 BG animals with mono bullets over what these synthesized experiments conclude.
As to your other rules of thumb- "eat up to the hole" refers to the fact that mono bullets often cause less bloodshot peripheral tissue than lead-cored bullets, IME. That doesn't mean that the permanent wound cavity is any different, just that the temporary wound cavity causes less hematoma in flesh surrounding the bullet's cavitation. We've all seen blood shot meat several inches away from the bullet's path. With mono bullets I've seen less of that. Not to say that mono's don't ever produce bloodshot meat, because they certainly can when they impact fast enough and cause secondary projectiles with bone fragments, etc, but it's less common.
"Drop a weight" is simply because copper is harder than lead, and requires more impact resistance to expand the bullet properly than an equivalent lead-cored bullet would. No mystery there, and no condemnation, either. A lighter bullet that is going faster, penetrates as deeply, and causes as much damage out to the distance where velocity falls off to near the level of the heavier bullet, works just as well.
"Shoot for bone" is also simple and logical. What hunter wouldn't break down the skeletal structure of his quarry if there were no adverse effects? If it consistently dropped the animal quicker, caused little to no extra ruined meat, etc, why wouldn't you? Well mono's seem to ruin less meat than C&C bullets, and major bone hits drop animals faster, so it makes a lot of sense to take that shot with a mono.
Anyway, we could debate this back and forth all day, but the fact is that you've seen enough deer killed with Barnes bullets to have a firmly-planted opinion of them, and I've seen enough BG animals from antelope to moose killed with Barnes bullets to have a similarly firm opinion. I suspect neither of us would be swayed or convinced by the logical arguments of the other, since observation of empirical results trumps theory and discussion
