Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Barnes vs Partitions vs Ballistic Tips

thanks 4 the info!!!!

Bob is correct. Nowhere I have offered opinions on what bullet should be used for what game.


I picked three bullets to illustrate the differences in projectile selection and that even though they all have exactly the same "energy" they perform very, very differently. The Barnes is used because it is one of the deepest penetrating, narrowest wound channel bullets, the AMAX because it is one of, if not, the most violent heavy for caliber expanding/fragmenting bullets, and the Accubond because it is right in the middle and approximates what almost all controlled expansion bullets will do.




This is how I select what bullet to use in what cartridge and caliber and on what animal. First I want to be able to use the rifle to its limit. Which for just about all normal centerfire, bolt action rifles is +/-600 yards. So for me that bullet has to be able to expand/upset at 1,600 to 1,800 fps. Then I want it to exit the animal most of the time on quartering shots. I'm talking from the back of the ribs, to the offside shoulder.

Once those parameters have been filled I will choose the bullet that offers the biggest wound channel available while still meeting the expansion/penetration I want.


Quite a few have asked what bullets I use and so below are the cartridges and bullets I use the most for deer, for the results I want. That doesn't mean I'm saying they are the best for you.



223/5.56- Just about any of the controlled expansion, blind to barrier 62+ grain bullets available (Federal 62gr Fusion, and the identically constructed Speer 64gr Gold Dot, 60gr Partition, Federal MK318 SOST, 62gr TBBC, etc. The Barnes TSX (esp. the 53gr, and 55gr) offers good performance out to 200 or so yards as velocity drops too low past that. The Hornady 75gr AMAX is good in bolt actions and at long range.


243Win/243WSSM- 95gr Nosler Ballistic Tip. This bullet offers nearly perfect penetration and expansion for deer in my experience. That bullet was designed, made, and tuned for the 243Win by Gail Root from what I understand and deer just collapse at the shot. The Barnes 85gr TSX with its narrow wound channel does not damage enough tissue for me and we get a lot of runners. In addition past the 250 to 300 yard mark wounds are small due to low expansion. It does offer great penetration for bigger game, though oddly enough we have caught more 85gr TSX's in deer then any other bullet. For specific LR bullets the 105gr AMAX and 105gr HPBT from Hornady, the 105gr Berger VLD, and the 115gr DTAC have all worked well.



7mm WSM- these are our dedicated LR guns and we use bullets for that. Mainly the 162gr AMAX and 162gr HPBT from Hornady.



308Win- 168gr AMAX. This bullet performs like a larger 95gr NBT in the 243. Nearly perfect IMO. If I wanted a bit less expansion and more penetration the 165/168gr Nosler Ballistic Tip is wonderful. Of course almost any bullet works great in this cartridge though.



300Win Mag- 178gr AMAX. Most devastating cartridge/bullet combination I have seen. I rarely use it anymore as the meat damage can be extreme.







Those are what I and the group I hunt with tend to use for deer. For Elk and bigger things might change. When I have an Elk and deer tag in my pocket I use a bullet that is good for the bigger animal and it will work on the deer too. Even though I can specialize a bit because I mostly hunt Whitetails and Mule deer, Bob, Mule Deer, etc have it right. For an all around bullet the Partition, Accubond, Bitterroot, and other similar bullets are most diffidently the best performers across the board from Moose to Antelope. if I had to pick one type of bullet for everything those would be it.

Good illustrations, good contrasts and good basic information for those w/o much experience.
It's long been known that the better or best deer bullets are those that expand quickly. Add enough mass to make sure you get some penetration and you are good to go.
If more penetration might be needed, one then has a choice to make as to how far one needs to go in choosing a bullet.
Good stuff. E

I have been using Barnes TSX since 2004 with excellent success. I have no plans on changing but there are plenty of good bullets to choose from these days.

Respectfully, you're speaking from a position of ignorance. That's your choice and I have no problem with it. For those who care to advance their understanding of terminal ballistics the info is readily available. Furthermore, you're the only one who said anything about gel "duplicating" anything.

He's good at that.

A lot of gacking going on here, hunt season can't be too far away is it...grin

I saw take a good bullet, put it in a good place and good things will happen. Cepting of course for the volunteer who took the slug.

Pick your poison, and go fill up some arks. And, on a side note, personally I feel that as bullet testing medium goes elk is the way to go. Gel and deer don't take much for killing. Or at least that's the way I see it.

Dober

Well, except for a .270 win. We all know those will just bounce off. Hard for a serious rifleman to bring himself to carry such a turd.

Formidilosus �

�Energy transfer is not a �myth�. Without energy being transferred to the target (or momentum if you prefer, the two are inextricably related), absolutely NO damage is done to the target. That means not the slightest wounding - zip, zero, nada � and the animal walks on totally unscathed.

Bullet mass and velocity determine the momentum and energy possessed by a bullet. A bullet may not transfer all its energy/momentum to a target but no bullet can transfer more energy or momentum than it possesses. Fackler acknowledges this when he states the following:


Fackler then goes on to acknowledge the role that bullet shape and construction play in energy transfer:


Tools are only as good as the person that uses them. Energy and momentum figures are no different but they are hardly useless. Taking things to extremes for the purpose of demonstration, consider the following loads:

.17 Mach2 with 15.5g bullet @ 2050fps, 149fpe
.30-30 with 150g bullet @ 2050fps, 1400fpe

Knowing nothing else about the two loads, which would you choose for elk? The velocity is the same so velocity can�t be the determining factor. If you accept �energy transfer� is a �myth� and �momentum� is �junk-science� then energy and momentum don�t matter and the difference in bullet mass is irrelevant. That leaves you with the .30-30�s larger diameter as the only reason left for choosing the .30-30. Not even VP Biden is that dumb.

Now consider the following:
.30-30 with 150g bullet @ 2050fps, 1400fpe
.270 Win with 150g bullet @ 2840fps, 2686fpe

Both are acceptable for elk at close range but which one are you going to want at 500 yards where the .30-30 load retains 907fps/274fpe and the .270 Win retains 1929fps/1239fpe? The .270 Win is smaller diameter so greater diameter isn�t the determining factor. If you are like most people the .270 Win would be the easy choice but since you�ve already stated �energy transfer� is a �myth� and momentum �junk-science�, just what are you going to base you decision on?

The truth is that energy/momentum (take your pick) must be transferred to an animal to create wounding. The laws of physics demand �equal and opposite� reaction � the more energy/momentum that is transferred the greater the wounding.

Choosing between two bullets with different velocities but the same mass, the one with the greater velocity has greater wounding �potential� per Fackler and the laws of physics. The construction of the bullets determines how and how much of that �potential� (which is actually momentum and kinetic energy) gets transferred to the target. A fast, sharp spire-pointed solid with lots of energy may zip through with little effect (not much energy transfer) while a slower expanding bullet may transfer much more or all of its energy and create far more wounding.

Energy/momentum figures are just tools to be used for comparison. Bullet construction, weight, velocity and energy figures, when taken alone, don�t begin to tell the whole story. They are all just tools for comparison but are far from useless.

Wish I had your artistic skills. Still laughing!

But I still prefer my .45 for serious work...

Wow.grin

Energy transfer *as a wounding mechanism* doesn't exist. That's the point, not that energy can't be used as a technical data point to compare *potential*.

Accelerating flesh and bone past its limits of elasticity is what causes wounding. (That includes compression or crushing.) The bullet delivers the energy but it is the transferred energy that accelerates the flesh and bone and does the wounding work. Some bullets are more efficient than others at transferring their energy. If the bullet passed through without transferring energy no wounding would occur.

Many high energy sub-atomic particles pass through us every day. Only rarely do they collide with the particles that make up our body and therefore pass through us harmlessly.

The problem comes when we try to correlate 'X' amount of bullet energy to a specific amount of wounding. Bullets transfer their energy with varying efficiency depending on impact velocity, bullet construction and density of the target (mud, hair, hide, bone, flesh, contents of the stomach and bowels, etc.). The infinite permutations of circumstances make it impossible to create a formula that accurately predicts the amount of wounding a particular amount of energy will cause. About all that can be said is that the amount of wounding is positively related to the amount of energy transferred.

Substitute "momentum" for "energy" above if you choose.

Formi and all - I've enjoyed the heck out of this thread and the comments pro & con. Thanks for posting. BTW, I tend to agree with your observations, particularly on that terrific little 95 gr Ballistic Tip - what a great bullet.

I've used several different bullets on deer, from little .22 cal 55 gr soft points up to 385 gr lead .50 cal bullets from the muzzle loader & 405 gr JSP from a .45/70 - it's been real interesting to see the different results on game.

Best of luck to all this season!

Regards, Guy

Easy example:

.30 180 gr varmint bullet impacts at 2,000 fps and immediately shatters and fragments into a million little bits in the first three inches of flesh outside the scapula transferring 100% of its energy.

Or

.30 180 gr monolithic bullet impacts at 2,000 fps, expands to only 2x diameter, penetrates from one shoulder through the other and keeps going across the bean field having transferred only 15% of its energy to the deer.

Easy choice between those two examples.


The detail that you're missing is that *energy transfer* is not a wounding mechanism. Read in depth some of what Fackler et al have written and you'll understand what I'm saying. Tissue that is crushed, cut, torn, etc., forming the permanent cavity is the only effective damage done that will reliably cause incapacitation. The energy transfer/hydrostatic shock as a wounding mechanism theory has been soundly proven to be non-effective. With the exception of a couple tissue types, temporary stretch /hydrostatic shock is not a reliable wounding mechanism.

Not missing anything. Without energy transfer there is ***NO*** wounding, period. NONE. It is energy/momentum transfer that accelerates flesh and bone past the limits of its elasticity and causes wounding, whether by crushing, cutting, or tearing, etc., whether temporary or permanent. Although the mechanics of transfer and the wounding characteristics are very different, this is as true for arrows as it is for bullets. (The transfer mechanism for the arrow is simply far more efficient at delivering the required wounding energy to a particular and particularly small area, a scalpel�s razor edge versus a bludgeon.)

I agree 100% that the wounding has to be effective to be effective � 100% energy transfer is of little use if the wounding isn�t in the right place. The largest bull I�ve ever seen walking was shot in the hind quarter with a .243 Win but was still easily outdistancing the youth that shot it.

Your example is a good one and why I prefer bullets that provide reliable but controlled and limited expansion across as wide a range of impact velocities as possible. I don�t much care if a bullet transfers 100% of its energy in the target as long as it transfers ***enough*** in the right places. A bullet that blows up in the ham 3� after impact isn�t going to transfer ***any*** energy to the heart/lungs. The same blow-up bullet on a broadside will generally do a good job as long as it gets through the ribs.

Bottom line is: Who cares Any sane hunter does not choose his bullets by this horse pucky..He chooses from experiences from yourself or even outfitters who have seen what works and what don't.

Never seen two old timers talking elasticity.Elasticity is what keeps your swimming trucks up not what kills game.

Jayco

i'll take Formid's word on this schitt LONG before i'd take yours.

Hey old friend, old timers may not have used the word �elasticity� and the concept may have been foreign to them, but they certainly observed and discussed the results of the limits of elasticity being exceeded or not when they discussed bullets that expanded versus blowing up and small wound channels versus large ones.

So Coyote...Explain why a .458 flat nosed bullet penetrates farther than the same in round nose or why that flat pointed cast did more damage than a 180 grain Core-Lokt on basically the same shot.

Everything I read here say's it ain't true or never could be,but it is and was.

That old saying you can eat right up to the hole with a solid bullet with a wide meplat is pure bs.

I don't understand the physics of it or anything but I do know what I see.

Jayco