Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Observations of bullet performance

There have been a couple of threads here lately where commonly used bullets that are generally accepted to be good performers, haven't expanded as expected.

I am just wondering if the loads used may have been the issue?

Where I shoot at the range I am usually the only person using a chronograph and as such get really often asked to check loads by people.

Almost without exception they are at least a couple of hundred fps short of what the owners were expecting, and of course me and my gear are always to blame.

When I first started graphing book loads - 1981 - it was uncommon for my loads and or my guns to give the expected (listed) velocities.

Over the years I've noticed improvement in the accuracy of book listed velocities. All of them are not as expected but MORE are at least closer.

We must remember that none of us are using the same...
Rifles/Barrels
Brass
Primers
Powder
Bullets - that are used by the loading manuals.

Some or Many don't notice that some pressures are listed - CUP - not PSI.

They're not the same and 'usually' velocity will be less because the CUP pressures are lower than PSI.

Jerry

Castle Rock,

I had the same experience a number of times after buying my first chronograph. They were very rare back then, and every guy who asked me to check the velocity of their loads was disappointed (and as you noted, often somewhat angry). But I doubt the loads used were the issue, or are today.

Instead the problem is a common condition called Velocity Optimism. Those who refuse to spend a hundred bucks on a basic chronograph instead check several sources of data for their approximate load, then pick the source listing the highest muzzle velocity--even if the data used a different bullet make, primer or barrel length than they're using. All they care about is whether the powder and bullet weight are the same.

This method of velocity estimating is bound to fail, because test barrels that provide the highest velocity normally do so because the chambers and bores are usually tighter than the average factory rifle, so tend to provide higher velocities for the same charge.

Some companies use test barrels for determining pressures, then chronograph the loads in what they sometimes call "typical" factory rifles. But there is no such thing, since factory chambers and barrels vary from pretty tight to very loose. But Velocity Optimists, by definition, don't pick speeds from loose-barreled factory rifles.

Yep funny how it is our fault that their loads are a bit anaemic.

I generally use light for calibre good quality bullets, for example in my 260 AI 100 grain Ballistic Tips or TTSX and the performance is consistently good and repeatable on pigs and deer.
I have no need to use low wind drift bullets because everything around here seems to be shot at 100 to 300 yards

"There have been a couple of threads here lately where commonly used bullets that are generally accepted to be good performers, haven't expanded as expected.

I am just wondering if the loads used may have been the issue?"

I agree that most reloads do not match advertised manual velocities, but I doubt that a few hundred fps is seriously detrimental to a bullet's performance unless your are already on the low or high end of the scale

Saddlesore, I was always under the impression that a few hundred fps can make all the difference in how, certain bullets in particular, perform on game. I started out using Hornady interloks- which I think are decidedly unfickle. I used a few Noslers but now use mostly Sierra's. Seeing as they have a rep for being fragile - and given most my shots will be inside 200 yds, I load accordingly. Meaning on the lighter side. I have had discussions with others I trust who find accuracy comes in, goes out, and returns, as you step up the charge ladder. I can almost always find more than one load with a single powder that works. a low load and a high load if you will. I just use the lower one of those.

Not sure how many might agree with this notion. Most seem bent on max velocities and I understand the need many have for this. I do wonder sometimes how many reloaders feel cheated if their best load isn't at max velocitiy?

As an example. Sierra Game kings work well in the 2000 -2800fps range, but tend to come apart at 3000+ fps.However you get fairly good expansion and terminal performance on game in those ranges. It took a lot of convincing for people to realize that a Sierra Game King is not a 3000 fps bullet and a lot of folks still use the bullet at those velocities.
Notice I did say " unless you are at the high or low end of the scale.

Hunting bullets are designed to usually work in a fairly wide range of velocities.If they were not, you would be selecting a different bullet for every different range you intended to hunt.Hence,my conclusion.

Of course you can't use bullets designed for a 3 0-30, for example, in a 3000fps chambering and we have to be somewhat diligent in selecting a bullet for the distance, game, and velocity we intend to use for.

Velocity will indeed effect accuracy and I have found a grain or two under a max load usually yields the best accuracy in my rifles and magnums that I have owned usually performed best at max or near max loads.

As I interpreted it,the OP was referring to some of these mono bullets like Barnes where more than a few users have complained that their chosen bullets had note expanded as advertised . My belief is that there are enough of these complaints that it can't be attributed to a lower than expected velocity compared to book values. If a Barnes bullet, for example, works at 3000fps, and your rifle yields 2800 fps velocity with a load that a manual advertised 3000 fps,it should still work. Obviously from the number of complaints, that isn't always true.

If your loads chronographed at 2500 fps and the book says they should be 3000fps, there is more of a problem thanjust book to actual velocities

7mm Mashburn.
168g Berger hunting bullet.
Freezer doe at 200 yards.
I hit her about 5 inches farther back than i wanted.
Thats on me.
Doe went down at the shot.
On the off side its stomach was totally outside of the deers body.
About a 7 inch exit hole.
Stomach wasnt broken.
I pushed it back through the hole and gutted like normal.
Exploding bullets work well in the chest cavity.
Not so much farther back.
dave

I'm a fellow who likes to muck around with the easiest, simplest, cheapest solution I can find in my reloading. As a result, most of my favorite loads are a few percentage points off the MAX. I take sure-bet shots at whitetails at fairly close ranges, and usually the biggest challenge I look for is how close I can run the pickup truck to the carcass. As a result, I am not an expert on bullet failure.

I am also not a big expert on bullet success. I have recovered exactly 1 bullet in 15 years. It was a pure-lead .54 cal muzzleloader bullet recovered out of a doe. It had flattened to a pancake under the far hide. Hunting success? Plenty. Bullet success? Frankly, I am at a loss.

However, I will throw my $.02 in on this subject regarding one narrow point. It has been my experience on a few occasions that the first shot does not always bring them to a proper toes-up configuration. I've never recovered a bullet in these situations, but I have noticed that sometimes even the best shot at an optimally situated animal can produce absolutely nothing.

"Ah HA!" you say. "Shaman, if only you'd loaded for better velocity. You would not have had to take that second shot."

I say piffle! If I'm shooting my 308 WIN 165 grain load and it hits a deer at 2600 instead of 2700 fps inside 100 yards, that is no different than the target being 50 yards further out. Furthermore, if I'd taken that shot with a 300 Savage instead of a 308 WIN, I'd be told it was perfectly adequate. Still, the deer paid no attention and went back to munching grass.

Now, here's the odd part. Over the years, I've discovered that it is ill advised to try to go back through the same hole. Once you've plowed that furrow, you're basically sending a bullet through open air. On the other hand, re-targeting an inch or two away inevitably puts them down. I've seen this happen on a 30-30 WIN, a 35 Whelen, a 30-06 and a 308 WIN. All shots were inside 100 yards. All first shots were well placed broadside or slight quartering shots aimed to take out both lungs and the top of the heart. No bullets were ever recovered and the far side of the animal inevitably showed signs of proper expansion.

My reason for bringing this up is that, given any reasonable bullet in any reasonable situation, you're going to have days where stuff just happens. If I've sent a round through the heart and lungs and nothing happens, I don't suspect the bullet. On the other hand, I do suspect that under the right conditions whitetails can have absolutely devastating damage done in the boiler room and show no outward effect.

Without a carcass to examine, there is no valid point that can be made for bullet failure. Even with a carcass, without the bullet to examine, there is no bullet failure. However, the fact that you have the carcass negates the argument of bullet failure.

shaman,

Yeah, you can come to some conclusions about bullet performance even if the bullet isn't recovered in the animal. In particular a small hole, with almost no peripheral tissue damage, indicates the bullet didn't expand much if at all.

But that's far rarer than most people think, and is not usually due to lower velocity except at very long ranges. Most expanding bullet open fine as long as the impact velocity is anywhere close to 2000 fps, and softpoint or plastic-tip bullets will open down to 1600-1800 fps, depending on the design.

Bullet rotation has an effect as well. That's slower at reduced muzzle velocities, but again, at ranges out to 200 yards (where 90% of big game is taken) a muzzle velocity 100-200 fps slower isn't going to have any meaningful effect.

My experience is that Sierra Game King will not hold up at 2700 if the bullet hits solid material in 30 caliber. However, I have little experience with Sierra bullets in other calibers on game animals. I've wondered about the 300 grain 375 bullets that some have promoted.

2500 fps vs 2700 fps with many bullets should not make much difference. I'd worry about a higher velocity with fragile bullets. Plus I've read (but not experienced) about poor bullet performance on monolithic bullets at lower velocities.

Each bullet has a window where it's performance shines, IMO. Some bullets have a wide window (such as partitions and similar bullets), others -- too high a velocity or too low may cause poor performance. At least that's my point of view.

I could not agree more. However, I'd say that if one is able to measure the bullet hole, then the bullet did its part.

Case in point: Last weekend's groundhog succumbed to a 117 grain Hornady Interlock SPBT at 100 yards traveling about 2900 fps at the muzzle of a 25-06 It had a hole going in, and a hole going out, but it appeared the groundhog just didn't have enough there to impinge on the bullet. Bullet failure? I'd say not. Was the bullet the best choice? No, but it got the job done.

Case #2: 165 grain Hornady Interlock fired at 150 yards from a 30-06 at a coyote. .30-ish hole in the brisket and a dime-sized hole out the back. Bullet failure? No. Best choice on a coyote? No.

Case #3: 165 grain Hornady Interlock fired at 20 yards from an M1 Garand at a small buck. First round did absolutely nothing. My son, young Mooseboy, was advised to aim an inch rearward and send another round downrange. This one caused an explosion the bottom seam opened up and the animal spilled the contents of its abdominal cavity on the ground. Deer ran 60 yards before tripping over its innards and piling up. Bullet failure? I found neither bullet. Baseball sized hole in the ribs on the far side.

Mind you, this is just a down and dirty whitetail hunter talking. Folks on this august forum have called me a booger eating moron for using a 30-06.

Funny thing is I always get more velocity out of my 220 Swift than the book says, but only get two reloads out of my brass, can't figure it out.

The flip side, is that a controlled expansion bullet wouldn't have dropped the deer.

Mostly detrimental to egos.

Simple solution!

Tell all those Dickheads to go buy their own chronograph!!

Some people are stringent idealists where a 100% successful hunt/carcass at there feet is not enough,
they also want the spent projectile looked identical the one in the carefully crafted product advertisement.
..

You are not serious ?


Jerry

shaman,

One of the animals I've shot where the bullet apparently didn't open was a big mule deer, standing broadside on the edge of a 15-foot rimrock with 3-4 does and fawns. I was on top of the plateau just about 100 yards from the deer, and at the shot the buck turned and disappeared over the rimrock. My shooting position wasn't the steadiest, but the crosshairs had looked to be on the buck's shoulder when the rifle went bang.

I walked over there, and below the rimrock was at least 250 yards of cured fall grassland, ending in ponderosa pine timber. I expected to see the dead buck somewhere in the open grass, but didn't, so looked around for some sign of a hit. Couldn't find any until I got down on my hands and knees, eventually locating one drop of bright red blood about the size of a wooden match-head. And that was it.

It took a while to find a way down the rimrock, and a search of the hard dry ground along the base found a bunch of partial deer tracks but nothing sufficient to be identified as the buck's. Didn't find any more blood, so started working back and forth in a fan pattern from the spot where he'd jumped down. In places the grass was somewhat taller than it looked from above, so it took a while. Luckily the shot had been taken late in the morning so there was plenty of daylight.

After 45 minutes (which seemed longer) I still hadn't found any trace of blood or even a track to follow. Was skirting the edge of some taller grass when I noticed an odd branch rising out of the grass. When I walked over to investigate it turned out to be the dead buck, with the side that had been facing me on top.

There wasn't a drop of blood around, and in fact I couldn't see any entrance hole, but found it during field-dressing: The bullet had entered the muscle at the rear of the shoulder, gone through both lungs, and exited the far ribs, but the hole through the ribs was tiny, with the bruised tissue around it in the lungs no larger in diameter than a quarter, and mostly smaller. The exit hole was almost as small as the entrance. The buck had traveled at least 200 yards after being shot through both lungs, and the only blood found along his path was that tiny drop on top of the rim.

Had something similar happen with a pronghorn buck about 20 years later, the range about 250 yards. In that instance the buck went at least 250 yards, and only started leaving blood on the ground about eight feet from where he died.

In both instances the rifle was a .257, on the mule deer a Roberts and on the pronghorn a Weatherby. (The bullet used in the Roberts is no longer made, but the one used in the Weatherby is.) Luckily the country was wide-open, and both bucks were eventually found, though both should have been dead within 30 yards. Or at least that's my experience on quite a few other mule deer and antelope killed with both rounds, since 30 yards far as any of them traveled after being hit broadside through the center of both lungs.

I would not, however, have liked to try to find a whitetail buck killed in the same fashion in typical Montana riverbottom brush, or in some of the thickets in our western mountains, or in many other places I've hunted whitetails in several other states. Yeah, I could "measure" the bullet hole, but it was tiny and didn't leak much blood at all, despite a wound channel through both lungs and an exit. So no, I don't think the bullet did its part in either instance. Which is why I never shot another animal with either one.

Not just 2800fps, if Barnes quotes a minimum expansion velocity like 1800fps, the user should be reasonably entitled to expect
the bullet to work as designed (expand in some reasonable way relative to impact velocity).