I was on canadiangunnutz last night and read that some people recently had some "failures" with the 308 cal 180 grain interlock. The posters also mentioned that the bullets had a slightly different physical appearance (no little ring above the cannelure that the 180s always had) and that the sectioned bullets seemed to have thinner jackets than before.

Has Hornady changed these bullets? Anyone else seeing anything different in terms of performance?

Thanks!

I would propose that any failure is likely due to poor shot placement.

What kind of "failure" are they talking about? Did the deer/carribou/bear/critter "run" after the hit? No "bang-flop"?

I seriously doubt they have changed the Interlock, could be just a cosmetic change to the outside of the jacket.

Or it could be its performance once it hits the animal. Lack of penetration or more destructive of tissue then used to. I personnally haven't had an animal move forward when hit properly with a 180g Interlock. So let's hope they are still the same.

The reports that are coming from CGN include core jacket separation, core fragmenting, and some guys have even sectioned the old IL and a new IL, and the jacket does appear to be thinner and has a smaller IL ring and no cannelure. This hasn't happened to me, but is reported by others.

thanks jordan. I think the op on CGN sent some samples to hornady for an explanation.

Complete fragmentation and shallow penetration at 200 yards (30 06 at 2800 fps muzzle vel) after hitting a rib was one example. That lead to sectioning and comparison of jacket thickness between the older and newer bullets and these fellows are say
ing there is a noticeable difference.

How about a 270 gr .375 spitzer that failed to penetrate a black bear neck at at 35 yd. Is that failure enough to demand attention?

Ted

I recently shot a coyote, through the ribs, at about 40 yds with a 250 grain Hornady interlock out of a 35 Whelen. I was really surprised at the size of the exit (about a 4 inch diameter hole)in an animal that light. I really didn't expect that much expansion from that bullet. A similar shot with a 220 RN out of a 308 Norma left a golf ball sized exit.
Subsequently,in the 100 yard backstop, I compared some bullets. The old Hornady 250 grain RN bullets typically expand to where there is about 1/4 inch of shank left. Old Hornady spire points typically retain about 1/10 inch more shank. The new bullets fragment. I have to think there has been a change and not for the better. I'll have to section some and see what's what. GD

Well the problem is they weren't designed for up north of the 49th, something to do with so far up, so cold all the time, they say not to store them in your igloos, and I guess the rotation of the earth that far north.

But yes, it would be something for Hornady to look at, maybe someone can find out if they did in fact change things.

Was thinking of the Fisher family the other day, hope they are all doing well.
My dad is now 87 and just had one eye done for cataracts, don't know when they will do his other, so he may not get out this year, and I don't think I will either.
Bill

I shot a fox with a 190 30 cal BTSP close to 30 years ago with the same result. I've seen more damage and fragmentation - sometimes- with them over the past 20 years than I'd like. 375s in 270 SP or 300 RN all work. They are a cup and core bullet for Pete's sake. It's how this type of bullet works. Then again, 25+ years or <3 years ago, the 190 BTSP has also run itself through moose completely for me so what's not to like.
They're cup and cores; they expand, sometimes a bit much, but very rarely not at all. Know thy bullet. Just remember, if you can't kill it with a properly chosen modern bullet, most likely you wear some or most of the fault.

Before I was old enough to hunt, I watched three 150 gr. .308" Hornady Interlocks explode on the surface of a single deer's shoulder fired from my father's .30-06. We had to track the deer through 18" of snow in a forage sorghum field. Dad's hunting partner was the one that got the killing shot at the deer and he killed it on the run with a shot to the neck from a .270 Win. The deer's shoulder looked like it had bloody water balloons tossed at it from dad's .30-06. They didn't penetrate, the range was around 100 yds. I'm sure Hornady makes a good bullet, but dad must have gotten a bad batch for some reason. But that experience caused dad to NEVER shoot a Hornady again, and has caused me to never hunt with one. Again, I'm not running down Hornady, but one freaky incident can certainly change a hunter's opinion of a bullet. I'm sure folks had similar experiences with early Nosler Ballistic Tips, which is my favorite deer bullet in .30 caliber, but I haven't had that type of experience.

I'm running my own experiment or tests this deer season '10.

The last couple of years I've killed 5 deer with 180 Speer Hot cores in 300 Win Mag @ 3000fps.from 100 to 260 yds. All were MISERABLE failures as far as I'm concerned. They killed the deer but bullet performance was totally unsatisfactory to me. EVERY ONE fragmented or totally seperated. More than one DIDN'T exit.

Before this thread started, I had ordered Hornady 180 s.p. I was disappointed to hear of this rumor. They do not have the small grove above the canalure but that is the only difference I can see. I can't figure how to section one with my tools or lack thereof.

I switched the bullets, no difference in group size OR POI. Today I shot my first deer w/H180 s.p. at 260 yrds. lasered. The 140 lb.doe DRT and had normal entrance and REASONABLE exit. Bullet entered behind right shoulder and exited THRU the left shoulder. When I cleaned & butchered, the lungs were well ruptured & the left shoulder WAS NOT disentergrated. The bullet busted the left shoulder exactly where the scapula joins the upper leg bone.(humorus?) Some blood shot but not excessive. Exit wound in hide was about 1 1/2" dia. (way over penetrated) lol. This was EXCEPTIONALLY BETTER than any of the S.H.C's.

This is ONLY one bullet so far out of one box. We're allowed 5 deer limit in the zone where I hunt.

IF ANYONE IS INTERESTED, I'll report future results thru this deer season in Arkansas. It ends 12-19-10. (modern gun) I'll be off work all next week and SHOULD have more results. I HOPE the others bullets give similar results. Jerry

Changing the Interlock? Tell me it isn't so..........

JWALL,

I am interested in all your on-game bullet performances. It is that type of real field data that counts for many of us.

It would truly be a sad day if they did!

THANKS for the responses: First an EDIT (aka correction) I mis-spoke about distance for the first 5 deer taken w/180 SHC's. The longest was 289 yds. lasered. Even at that distance the bullet performance was LESS than desirable, only part exited.

Since Monday I could have killed 2 more does, HOWEVER, our rut is getting into good swing and I was HOPING a good buck might be on their trail. I KNOW I have 2 GOOD bucks working the area but in the rut they could be anywhere. I still have more than 5 weeks left.

We have TOO many does, I have been seeing 5 to 1 doe to buck ratio the last 3 yrs. That's not scientific but my actual sightings. Yes, some of those does COULD be RE-COUNTS, I have NO way of positively knowing. I KNOW I am NOT double counting the bucks.

I have taken 3, 1 each the last three yrs., top of the representation for our area. A 6 pt w/ 17-1/2 in inside spread,wt of 175 lbs. on scales. A 10 pt.w/ 15 in inside spread and wt. of 195 lbs. on scales. AND an 8 pt. w15 1/2 in inside spread and wt. of 178 lbs. on scales--140 class score.
We have some decent bucks BUT if we don't reduce the doe population ALL our deer will begin getting smaller.

I said all that to show that we have ENOUGH deer to justify a bag limit of 5 AND I shouldn't have any trouble testing BULLET PERFORMANCE. Be patience and PRAY for me to have success.

Even IF I take 5, I only have ONE LOT of Hor. 180 s.p.i.l.s I would like to be able to try more lots but even if I order more nothing says I would GET different lots. Sometimes we have to deal with what we have. Good Hunting for now. Jerry

Steve Hornady has enormous respect for his Father's bullets. It's extremely unlikely that he would mess with their design.

Not to say it isn't true....just extremely unlikely IMO.

They've certainly changed the old .277" 140 a time or two. The first box had the cannelure quite a bit back from the current location, and the bullets fragmented on typical whitetails.
On a plant tour, I asked them about that. They denied they'd changed anything at all.
I had the evidence on my loading bench at home.

I simply refuse to use them any more. I had pretty good luck with the first box I'd tried, but that latter bunch was like a hand grenade. I've gone back to Sierras.

The new batches of 30 cal. 180 Interlocks that I have are a bit different from the old ones. Most obvious is the absence of the groove above the cannelure, which Hornady assured me when I phoned them about it that it was an ID ring, which wouldn't affect performance. I assume this was so you could tell loaded 180s from loaded 165s.

The heels on the older bullets also had a slightly more rounded (larger radius curve) edge than the new ones. Perhaps more related to possible performance is the apparent change of the tip design. On the new ones that I have the copper jacket extends a bit further and the obvious "scalloping" of same, which I think would be the result of the "innergroove" feature, is not visible. So maybe the jackets are thinner, at least at the tip, and these changes at the tip are to compensate. Purely conjecture on my part as to the reason for the changes, but one could likely safely assume that cost of production is the main factor behind the changes. Why else tinker with something that worked so well? If it ain't broke don't fix it.....

I did shoot a large bull moose, broadside, high through the ribs a couple of years ago at about 250 yards with the "new" version. He took two steps, fell down and died quickly. Bullet diameter entrance hole, exit hole around an inch. Launched around 2750 fps in '06, impact velocity would be around 2250 fps. I shot a coyote at 50 yards through the chest with the same bullet � 2 �� exit hole. I think if I was shooting a rifle with higher velocities I would be looking at a tougher bullet.

I think that you nailed it. I think that it's unlikely as well.

It's likely one of three things: isolated QC problem, poor shot placement, CGN teen spirit

I've only had one Hornady bullet fail to exit: a 165gr .30 from my '06, shot downhill into the cervical spine of a buck. It shattered three vertabrae, blood-shot the neck and shoulder meat, and the base of the bullet fell out when I gutted the deer. I use them in all my .25s, 6.5, 7x57, '06, my brothers' .308 and .270. Guess I'll stick with them.

These are tough bullets. Yesterday I shot at an 8 point buck. The .30 caliber 150 grain bullet went though two inches of maple tree sapling before hitting amidships taking out the liver and a piece of the right lung. The deer ran a hundred yards and piled up. I was lucky. A lesser bullet might been a real problem.

THANKS, you have come up with the best answer yet concerning the Hornady I.L.s That is for ALL here on the fire and this thread that ARE USING interlocks to post their RESULTS, whether good or bad.

Sometimes I wonder about "haters". Some people hate chevy or ford or dodge w/o any personal experience. The same thing can happen with guns, bullets, powders, etc.

I hope we have enough INTEGRITY to be truthful based on experience and not PRE-CONCEIVED or TRANSPLANTED negativism.

There is one brand of bullets I refuse to use because of reliable refrences and personal experience YET I will not mention that brand. If someone is satisfied with them, it's fine with me. I won't MISLEAD anyone or LIE about a PRODUCT for any reason.

How about it? Will you Hornaday I.L. users tell of your results THIS YEAR, not 4,5,or 10 yrs. ago??

Colin Matchett;
I can't say whether the current 180gr Interlock has changed or not as we've not shot anything this year with a 180 Interlock that was newer than about 3 years old.

That one worked fine on a friend's son's mule deer - an 80 lb spike - as evidenced by the internal damage, entrance and exit holes. As a by the way we cut and wrapped it at our place so I got to perform a fair necropsy on it.

Another friend shot a 4 point mule deer that went 116lbs into our fridge with a 140gr. Interlock out of a .270. If memory serves we bought that box of bullets either late last year or early this year.

He's been cutting meat at our house for about 20 years and I've been helping him load 140gr Interlocks for the same amount of time. He's brought at least one deer a year here, most years two actually and if there's been any change in the performance of the Interlocks, it has escaped our notice.

As you might have guessed, we watch quite carefully as to which bullets work what ways when they hit game. It's part of the fun for me. Thus far there's been no change that we've seen, but as mentioned, we didn't specifically use 2010 manufactured 180gr this fall.

Hopefully that was some use to someone. Good luck on your upcoming hunts.

Regards,
Dwayne

This thread got my curiosity up, so I went through my stash of Hornady Interlocks. I currently have:

.257 100gr sp approx 5yr old

.257 117gr rn approx 3yr old

.264 129gr sp approx. 6mo old

.264 140gr sp approx. 2 yr old

.264 160gr rn approx 2 yr old

.284 154gr rn approx 3 yr old

.284 175gr rn approx 4 yr old

None of them have the external "ring" on the shank. All but the .284 175's have been used to take deer, and performance has been typical Interlock, holes in and out, with major disruption of soft tissue in between.

I do have a few boxes of Midway blems, 150gr .284's. They are obviously Hornady's (secant ogive) and they do have the external IL ring. Probably an overrun of bullets manufactured for another ammo maker, since Hornady has never cataloged a 150gr .284. They work just fine, as well.

The interlock feature is scraped into being on the inside of the jacket; you won't see it on the outside. It's on the inside to help hold the lead core in place.

The shallow groove above the cannelure is just an ID mark, at least on the .308 180 grainers, which is where the thread started.

Exactly..

Here is a cutaway pic from the Hornady site-


The Interlock ring is the "V" shaped ring at the bottom of the core. It has nothing to do with any cannelure or crimping grooves, etc.

Hey, I'm glad you have joined this discussion. I'm NOT being rude and don't intend to be. If you read the thread from the beginning, we've already discussed and understand that. We're simply discussing PERFORMANCE and appearance of H. I. L.

We're trying to determine IF there's any difference in terminal performance in NEWER lots of H. ils. Any actual observation of bullet performance is requested. We're ESPECIALLY interested in newer lots COMPARED to older lots.

Myself and a few others were responding to THIS quote by Gadfly just a few posts up-

" I do have a few boxes of Midway blems, 150gr .284's. They are obviously Hornady's (secant ogive) and they do have the external IL ring. "

I'll throw my data points in here. I shoot the 165 grain Hornady IL SP in a bunch of rifles, both 30-06 and 308 WIN. I just received a shipment of new from Grafs. They came in the new-style box. I compared them to some bullets from 2008 and 2003 and they all look identical.

Performance? I've had this bullet in service since 2001. All my deer have laid down within 80 yards of where they were shot. Some died in their tracks. The only reason why the 80 yards is two fell down into ravines. To date, no bullets have been recovered.

The last one was shot at approx. 100 yards with a bullet from the 2008 batch. I estimate the bullet to be traveling at 2469 fps when it hit the boiler room of the buck in a near -perfect broadside configuration. The animal bucked, walked 30 yards, and stood. I was able to shoot again. The animal tried to jump a fence and expired-- probably in mid-air.

Upon examination, I found two entrance holes 3 inches apart. A rib was shot in each instance. There was only one exit hole. From the damage to the two lungs, I would surmise that, if there was any deviation from my expectations, it would be towards not enough expansion rather than over-expansion. One lung looked pulped; The other only looked sliced. That there was only one exit hole, remains a bit of a mystery, but it would be possible for both bullets to have exited through this hole. I found no fragments. I'm not complaining, mind you; a dead deer is always a sign of proper performance.

In the past several years, the batches of bullets I've purchased in 2003 and 2008 have functioned flawlessly on deer-- .30" entrance holes, thumb-sized or larger exit holes and lots of destroyed lung and heart in between. Ranges have been from 20-100 yards with the 308 WIN (downloaded to 300 Savage levels) and 150-175 yards with the 30-06.

I just hope the new Interlock flat base 30 cal. 180s are just as good as the older ones; they shoot well in my rifle and I�ve stockpiled a few boxes. Probably really no issue as far as killing deer goes, but where I hunt there is always the real possibility of an unsolicited visit from a grizzly while taking care of the animal. Then bullet terminal performance could take on a whole new significance. I have some 220 gr. Interlocks loaded at 2525 fps on hand just for that possibility, however remote, and I hope never to have to use them, on a grizzly anyway.

I apologize if my post re: Gadfly seemed disrespectful; that was certainly not my intention. It is merely my opinion that it doesn�t hurt to try keep all the information that we can as straight as possible, whether or not in direct reply to the initial post. I�m not sure if there is an ID ring on Hornady�s other than the .30 cal 180s. In both Hornady manuals I have (#3 and #7) the only bullet listed with it is the .308 180 gr.

I only re-visited the 30-06 a couple of years ago, so have limited experience with the 180 Interlock, old and new. I�m sort of saving the older ones with the ID ring, why I�m not sure, certainly not for my �older� age � I�m already there�maybe for when and if I decide they�re better on game than the new ones. But with the newer ones I have killed 2 coyotes, one large black bear, and one moose � admittedly a small sampling. They have however worked well requiring one shot each with only the bear and moose moving after being hit, and less than ten feet at that. But it takes an awful lot more experience than that to come to any meaningful conclusion. In my .270 I�ve used both 140 and 150 Interlocks for many years, and I think they�ve been great. I also had very good results with the 100 gr. BTSP Interlock in my 6mm Remington over the time that I used it.

As an aside, similar to meddybemps�s experience - when I was a kid I took a running shot at the biggest mule deer I�ve ever got to date. The el cheapo no-name 174 gr. .303 bullet went dead center through a 6� aspen and hit the deer in the ribs. He kept running but ran out of gas after about 200 yards. The bullet or what was left of it exited the deer, so I don�t know what it looked like. But it was enough to kill the deer, however not quickly.

Good luck with your hunting, hope to hear reports of good results if you use the Hornadys!

Longleader- No offense taken. I should have been more clear in my statement. I am aware of how the IL is constructed, but was just noting that the external ring, which used to be the visual identifier of an Interlock is no longer present. I never really noticed when that feature was dropped, but judging from the performance of these bullets on game, the internal construction is still the same.

Stopped using them in 1991 after 3 solid hits to a big moose at <100yds. Tipped the moose over, field dressing revealed two disintegrated bullets and one that weighed 70grs. This was a 175gr at MV of 2800fps outa 7 Rem Mag. For deer sized game I would not hesitate using them and they are accurate and excellant for practice. I use Barnes FBX/TSX and Nosler AccuBonds (lately) since then. I know that many use cup & core bullets with good success, for me the price differance is not worth the chance of a lost animal.

Well, my 300 WM with Hornady 180 s p ils scored again this morning. This was a 1 1/2yr 6 pt @ 115 lbs. @ 150 yds. These bullets are going @ 3000 fps. I didn't notice any reaction to the hit due to recoil, however I know he didn't fall and get up. He didn't have to go far to reach timber and I marked a tree where I saw him last. This cut over and now regrowth has sage grass knee hi and sparse pines from waist hi up to 8' tall. When I walked down to the area I immediately picked up the blood trail and basically walked right to him. He didn't make the tree line.

I've been hunting this cutover and now regrowth for 5 yrs and have lasered MANY distances. I'm not far off on this one. I have had game scales for many years and weighed A LOT of deer. Our club has scales set up attached to a boat winch and normally I weigh my deer. Today tho I needed to get to work and didn't have the time to range the exact distance or weigh the deer.

The first thing I noticed was he was lying on his left side with his right front leg over his head. "That ain't exactly normal."

Upon cleaning, the bullet severed the 4th & 5th ribs from the back on the left side, damaged the left lung, passed under the spine, and tore up the right lung then went between two ribs on the right side and seperated the right front shoulder and exited and kept on trucking. It was more of a raking shot than I thot .

There was virtually no edible meat destroyed or severly blood shot. I know that he was young (tender) but I sacrificed him for food and bullet terminal performance investigation. I am part of a lease and we can't get the members to institute a management program. If it's legal they're gonna shoot at it.

I can still harvest 1 buck & 2 does. My wife can take 1 or 2 bucks depending on the type of license I buy her. She likes my 300 WM (tongue in cheek) too.

I hope more of you will report success OR failure w/Hornday 30 cal. 180 s p il. OR other caliber & Hornady interlocks too.

I had planned to hunt my Tikka 270 Win. more this year but this project has taken priority. This Win. 70 300 WM has a boat paddle stock and even w/26" bll. is an ultralight. I'm not too disappointed to make this sacrifice for the hunting brotherhood.

Good Hunting and Recovery Jerry

My father shot a buck a couple of weeks ago with a 139gr BTSP IL from his 7mm-08 at about 40 yards quartering toward. Bullet entered the point of the shoulder, put a 2 inch hole through both sides of the ribcage, and exited the opposite side paunch. Exit hole was about 1.5". Worked great.

I find that to be a highly unlikely conclusion.

Really?

exactly what hard facts- other than internet conjecture- do you have to make such a claim?

FURPICK: I agree with your assesment and conclusion about using premium bullets for Elk, Moose, etc. 1. The animals deserve our best for a clean, quick, humane kill. 2. I don't relish a long difficult trailing job anywhere but especially in RUGGED terrain often inhabited by those animals. 3. The price of a box or two of premium bullets is minimal compared to the cost of the trip and license.

I have the opportunity of hunting elk here in Ark. by drawing and I would use premium bullets in 7 RM 300 WM or 8 RM (calibers I have). And ESPECIALLY if I made a trip out West or up North for Elk, Moose, or Caribou, premium bullets are CHEAP insurance as long as I do my part shooting.

The magnum calibers really DESERVE premium bullets to stand up to their high velocity and mass and resistance of large animals.

Evidently there have been some failures with interlocks but SO FAR the majority have performed well on whitetail. There is a lot of hunting season left this winter and I'm hoping more will report their success or failure THIS YEAR with interlocks.


GOOD LUCK, GOOD HUNTING & RECOVERY Jerry

In contrast to my earlier post in this thread, here's a 225 gr .338 Interlock taken from a bull moose shot by my buddy this fall.



Muzzle velocity 2850. Range less than 50 yd. Retained weight 198 gr.

Ted

FIL shot a nice doe whitetail last night at around 400 yards with one of my hand loaded 130gr Interlocks out of his 270. Bullet entered last rib and exited through the front rib on opposite side. Both holes were about the size of a quarter on the inside. Deer dropped in her tracks. Bullets were bought this fall in the new style box.

Apparantly you need reading lessons. I have stated an opinion and clearly so. There is no conclusion here at all.....

"IT'S ME AGAIN MARGARET" I got lucky again today! My 300WM and 180 H.ils harvested a NICE 8pt. 17 1/4" inside spread, 174 lbs. buck at 145 yds. lasered. This body size is average of the decent bucks killed on our lease. Few heavier, some less.

The bullet struck left side rib cage CENTER MASS. It went between ribs on entrance discombooberated the lungs and hit one rib on exit. The exit in rib cage and hide is about 2" dia. There was blood on ground between footprints and an easy blood trail to follow. He traveled about 40 yds. sliding the last 12'. All of it DOWNHILL.

IF I KNEW HOW, I have some nice pics of deer and terminal damage, I could post here. They can be posted later if someone would give me instructions how.

Well, now my wife will have to do the shooting. I'm buck tagged out. I still have 2 doe tags and till 12-19 to hunt whitetail with modern gun.

I don't know if I'm just lucky or NOT. I've been using Hornady bullets since BEFORE they were interlocked and I have NOT HAD ONE bullet failure. I've used 6mm 100 gr, 270 130 & 140, 7mm 139, 30 cal. 150 & 165. This bullet today would have done well on elk at least with a rib shot and I CAN NOT say what it would have done on a shoulder or 1/4ering shot.

I just know I'm HAVING FUN! I hope all of you do too! I hope you will continue to post SUCCESS or FAILURE with interlocks. JWALL

My son took a few whitetails with the 165 gr Interlock in a 30-06 this year. He had nothing but good to say. He said he has never seen a deer hit the deck so fast.
whelennut

Sorry, nothing new to report. I haven't quit hunting. I hunted ALL DAY Sat. Mon. & Tue. this week w/o seeing ONE deer. Our weather warmed into the 70's a few days before Thanksgiving then we had storms and winds. It was the second week after Thksg. before we cooled down.

Our deer have gone NOCTURNAL. I talked with a friend today who has property, feeds corn, and uses trail cams. They can't keep corn in the feeders & ALL pics are from 7:00p.m-3:00 a.m. It's kinda hard to kill a deer in daylight under these circumstances. I have been seeing deer REGULARLY at night when traveling.

RE: Hornady interlocks, I was going to order more 180 s.p.ils. last week and INTERESTINGlY, Midway has SOLD OUT of em and are back ordered.

Do ya think this thread has had any influence? Don't know, but obviously people still USE them. If you've read all of this thread, most have reported good success w/interlocks.

I had planned to hunt my Tikka T 3 270 win. this year but I committed to using these 30 cal 180 gr. ils. in my 300 w.mag. This is my 3rd year to hunt it exclusively. The previous two years I used a different brand of 180s. Deer were killed but the bullets did NOT perform satisfactorily.

Even IF I don't get another deer this year, I have no reservations about the H.30cal.180gr.ils. Hopefully, things will change. We have 1 week, Saturday before and aft, before our modern gun season ends. Then we have 3 days after Christmas. I will be hunting A M A P, I would like to get 1 or 2 more. Good luck to all of you.

JWALL
______________

An Old Handloader with all his fingers and both eyes,

Just Deaf in Left Ear.

Glad I stumbled onto this thread - I was scratching my head recently...3 medium size Pennsylvania deer 100-120 lbs with a .375 Ruger Alaskan using factory 270 gr SP-RP interlocks...not one exit wound and not one DRT, even though the shots were spot on...what gives?

I know my experience is anecdotal, but with that much bullet weight I was shocked to not get better penetration nor a single exit wound.

Additionally, for a bullet promoted as recoil-proof, the tips get smashed to bits in the magazine and get set back slightly for subsequent rounds. To be fair, they still shoot accurately at 100 yds, but they sure look like hell.

Anyway, just my $.02 to add to the discussion. -Joe

JOE: Am not sure, but isn't SP - RP REMINGTON core lokt?

If they are Hornady ils, there must be something different in differnt claibers. Very interesting ANYHOW .

JWALL

These are to which I refer:

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/?productNumber=741546

-Joe

JOE: WOW, that's disturbing! DANGEROUS GAME huh? I have seen one hunt on "Under Wild Skies" where that bullet, caliber?, went THRU a 2" tree and still killed the animal. Tony Makris was impressed.


Obviously the lot you have is suspect! ! (to say the least).

I'm disappointed. Maybe someone on the fire knows who you could contact at Hornady.

JWALL

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year

I posted on what I thought to be a retooling of the 7mm 139 Interlock a year or so back. The ogive was slightly different and the interface between the top of the copper jacket and the lead core was noticeably neater and more even. The newer bullets are easily more accurate. I have several hundred of them stockpiled and no I won't sell them. :p

On game? This year my deer was maybe 175 or so at about 30 to 40 yards. Muzzle velocity for the load is almost exactly 2800 fps. I got a neat entrance wound on a broken rib, a quarter sized exit through a broken off shoulder, and a big mess in between. Also one very dead deer.

Last season this same load and bullet pulled my bacon out of the fire when I screwed up an easy 100 yard shot. Still no idea how that one went so wrong. Anyway suffice it to say the bullet had to do far more than I should have asked it to do. And it came through perfectly.

I would not hesitate to shoot this load into anything south of a big bear. I have heard some very knowledgeable folks say the Interlock 139 is a bullet that punches way above its weight and I believe it.

Will

Ordinary Joe: Check out Hornady.com/bullets They say "DGS bullets have tough copper clad steel jackets deliver deep penetration and will not deform"

It doesn't sound like these are "interlocks".

I suggest that you contact Hornady and report your results hunting deer NOT DANGEROUS GAME. Obviously you are not getting satisfactory bullet performance.

Just trying to help. I don't have a 375 Ruger and DG ammo so this is news to me, disappointing to say the least.

I have ALWAYS had very good results w/Hornday interlocks and WOULD NOT say so if it were not true.

JWALL
________________

An Old Handloader with all his fingers and both eyes

Just Deaf in Left Ear

That's ridiculous right there!

Not all bullets were created equal. Proper bullet selection will have a bigger effect on results that you give credit to. You could use the wrong bullet at very high velocity with good shot placement and still have bullet failure (rapid fragnentation w/o good penetration).

.

For the record, this cartridge, same lot #, blew clean through an 8" tree stump, pine, one year since cut, and was dug out of the tree behind it w/ 70% weight retention. Shooting through wood is not the same as flesh and bone, I had high hopes for this load after that tree observation, and again, my sample size, scientifically, is not definitive...but I sure was expecting something closer to 'bang flop.'

On paper, the .375 Ruger Alaskan is a lot of gun for whitetails - I expected more dramatic results.

-Joe

Hello
I'm one of the guys on CGN who had problems with the Hornady 180gr Interlock. I was informed that this discussion was occuring on this site by a friend, and I thought it prudent to chime in. First some history; about 18 years ago I had been using the Speer Grand slam with good success, but it was mentioned to me that the hornady interlock was just as good of a bullet for a fraction of the price. I decided to look into this. Both bullets shot well in my then current 30-06, but when I sectioned both bullets, I found that the speer grand slam core didn't even stay in the jacket until both halves where seperated, yet the interlocknot only stuck to the jacket, but I broke a screwdriver trying to get the core out of the jacket. The jacket itself wasvery thick and robust, with what Hornady called the interlock. deep expansion grooves in the tip, and a ring on it that they called the ID ring. I used this bullet to good effect up until this year, when on my elk, I took a broadside chest shot in the ribs, then a frontal shot to finish the bull off. neither one of these bullets exited (something that I had come to ecpect), and upon skinning the animal found two jackets under the skin.......with no cores. I thought to myself that this must have just been a fluke until a friend of mine said that the same bullet totally came apart on a whitetail buck at about 80 yards (this was witnessed by abother friend of ours). About 4-5 years ago (I think in the same phone conversation) when Hornady had just brought out the interbond, I noticed that with the current lot of hornady 180gr interlocks that there was no longer the ID ring, so I called hornady up and was assured that they had changed nothing else on the bullet; I also asked if it was worth it to change to the interbond, and the guy on the phone asked why I would do so if the interlock was working. On his word, I bought at the time over 2000 bullets, and figured that I was set for a long time. When I noticed that these bullets where no longer working the way that they used to, I first called Hornady, and asked what was happening. The guy on the phone swore up and down that they had not changed the bullet, and that if I was having a problem, to send some bullets in for evaluation. There was a lot of dead air, and tension on that phone conversation. I had an old interlock kicking around, so I sectioned it, and it acted the same way that I remembered it. upon sectioning the new bullet, the first thing that I noticed was that the core no longer stuck to the jacket. The jacket was thinner; to the point that the expansion grooves seemed in the new bullet to only be superficial scores in the jacket. The cannuler appered to be more shallow in the new bullet, and if I remember correctly, the interlock seemed less robust. I sent one of the failed bullets, both sectioned bullets, and a few new unfired bullets off to Hornady about early October........I have not heard back from them.
Mike

Mike,

If Hornady is lying about whether they have changed the bullet, you won't hear from them next week, next month, or next year, as I'm sure you've concluded, as well.

Hmmmmm.......

Thanks for sharing your story. Very interesting.

Welcome to the fire!

Steve

Joe, I'm curious - what did the bullets look like?

MIKE: Welcome to the fire. I believe your account and yet I have used a new lot of 30 cal.180 ils. this deer season to drop 3 deer so far with complete satisfaction, expansion & exit, with destruction of innards to boot, ranges from 145-260yds.

I don't understand the diff in your exp. and mine. ??Diff.lots??
I wouldn't worry about using my 300WM and THIS LOT on elk.

I too think it's unlikely you'll hear anything of importance from Hornady.

Have you read most of this thread? MANY are reporting of good success. That's NOT to discredit you!! I'm GUESSING and hoping it's lot to lot variation. That's not good either. What's the next lot I buy going to do?

SCRATCHING MY HEAD

JWALL

Not sure if this helps but I just examined the two different lots (lot numbers on each side) that I had in my cupboard.

As a note, I actually bought the plain box on the right from Mike because it didn't match his other 12 boxes of single lot #... I bought the fancy 4-color printed box on the left from my local gun shop this past summer.

Clearly the tips are quite different in design. There is vertical cyping (spelling?) on the smaller tip but none externally seen on the larger tipped one.

Small external differences mean nothing. They have been common in Interlocks for a long time.

You've got to section the bullets to find out if the jacket actually varies, then test the core for relative hardness.

Wish I had the tools to perform a decent section on these bullets.

Actually it isn't too hard. Put a bullet lengthwise in a good bench vise, then file on it until you're close to halfway down.
Sometimes you have to adjust the bullet in the vise a few times to get the sectioning right, but once you do, "polish" it with a piece of sandpaper.

The core hardness can be checked with a cast bullet tester. Checking the cores of a few bullets will give you a relative idea of hardness--which makes as much difference as the jacket.

I'm embarrassed to say that I lost my bench vice in the last move... about 2.5yrs ago! Christmas has come and gone twice with no dice... or vice. Maybe I can get up to my dad's shop sometime this weekend. His vice hasn't moved in 30 years.

Aletheuo: CHECK THIS OUT!! I got my box of H. 30, 180s out of
curiosity. My box has THE SAME LOT NO as YOURS on the left.

#2090196 I bought these from MIDWAY Sept/Oct this yr.

Whatever diff/likness you find will tell us something between these 2 lots.

AIN'T THAT A COINCIDENCE? ? Waiting to hear.

JWALL

Ok JB - you know I'm a computer jock (spelling g-e-e-k), right? This shop stuff ain't my forte. This is the best I can do and I can't get the end of the shank because I held them down with a fencing staple driven into my bench. I also don't have access to a hardness tester. Left and right are the same as in the above.


JWALL - It is interesting as I bought these in Western Canada. I have no idea how many bullets are made per lot so it's hard to know what the chances are... sounds like a fair mathematical pursuit.

Hey Jamie
I'm thinking that I might have actually sold you my last box of good ones.........dang! Is it just me, or can you actually see a difference in the interlock on these two bullets? It looks to me like it's quite prominant on the one on the right, yet just a change in the thickness on the one on the left. It also looks like the one on the right has a slightly thicker jacket, also the more lead exposed on the one one the left would initiate expansion more. I would guess that these would all be small differences, yet I wonder if small differences would be a big difference upon impact.
I think that I made the right choice in going to the 168gr Barnes TTSX, yet I'm still having a hard time swallowing the fact that I'm paying twice as much for a bullet that should be half as hard to make.
P.S. Ya notice that I used a separate paragraph on this post?
Mike

In terms of any difference in jacket thickness, I think you are seeing what you wish was there, instead of what actually IS there..

Mike - no, I don't see any difference actually. I think the section of the one on the left is not quite down to half so it appears thicker. But if you have an open box of the lot you have we can section one of those as well. I'm an experienced sectioner now LOL.

That said - as Mule Deer pointed out, hardness of lead is also an important factor.

The one on the right seems to have a more uniform jacket. Note the jacket difference near the top on the LH bullet.

.

SC:

edit - I had another look and it does appear that the section is good in that area so your observation is valid - there is a lack of uniformity in the jacket at that point.

There is also a lack of uniformity in the way the bullets were sectioned.

Not exactly lab quality work and a poor basis to pick apart a perfectly good design.

Just sayin'.

All I can see is the cannelure, no interlock ring visible to me...

The Interlock ring is normally down near the base, and the bullets weren't sectioned that far--though the one on the right may show some of the top of the ring.

Another test would be to shoot some into newspaper, alongside some older Interlocks of the same weight and diameter.

Or better yet, the Interlock critics here could just get some Corbin bullet swagging equipment, some copper bullet jacket material and lead wire and set up shop and show us all- including Hornady- how to make a "good" .30 hunting bullet.

And then set back and watch others tear apart there handiwork, both literally and figuratively.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to get at. There are comments about how the IL rings compare in the photo, but I beleive they are really referring to the crimping cannelure.

Ok - you guys dun made me set up my bench grinder. This is getting equivalent to butchery now. But... I dun see an interlock ring on either bullet. edit: the one on the left appears to have some sort of bulge but it's ain't. It's a "finesse" issue with the grinder.

You should put in your application at the meat counter at Safeway.

The interlock ring on the first sectioned picture is about an inch down from the cannular. I can see a little spur on both sides at this point on the right hand bullet. but it's only a change in thickness on the left hand core. The origonal bullet with the ID ring showed it very obviously, so yes, the bullet on the right is different from the origonal, but not as different as the one on the left.
Mike

Ok - I should stick with being an IT guy - knives and tools dangerous LOL. There is clearly an interlock ring in either bullet but one is quite a bit smaller - to the point you can't hardly detect it with your finger it on the core. The other one is way more pronounced. I offer this up to the experts to determine if it's simply lot-to-lot variation. I would also encourage someone else to do this as I'm pushing the limits of photographic and shop abilities.

DING. DING. DING.

We have a WINNER!

By the way- there ARE no "experts" here on making Hornady bullets- only the folks AT Hornady qualify in that regard.

Nice job peeling those 180g bananas , though..

It would have been nice if we had an interlock with a ID ring still, as I'm sure that we would see a more pronounced difference. Jim62; none of us are experts, but we are the ones that have to count on these in the field. If they have changed, and in fact they have, and if they no longer work as they did, which is unfortunately my findings, we should be obligated to point this out.
Mike

OH CONTRARE my new friend: My & Aleth's LOT is newer than the ones that failed for you (NEWER BOXES). My lot worked as desired even at 300 WM vel. at 145 & 260 yds. lasered.

It SEEMS to me that this is lot/lot variation. HOWEVER I know and understand I'm only looking at PICS.

ALETH: Can you compare the jackets toughness,flexibility,or brittleness??

Is there a crude,UNSCIENTIFIC, way to COMPARE the hard/soft diff. in the LEAD CORES?? Any differences in jackets and or cores would contribute to performance.

I would be glad to help or do some of this but I don't have the other lot to campare. I didn't expect you to work on this in the wee hours of the morning.

Also I'm certain we CAN NOT determine the exact diff.

I am NOT signing off on this subject but I want to THANK everyone who has contributed, esp. Mike, Aleth,& M D. Any pertinant observations and suggestions are appreciated. We have had MANY to participate w/reports of success or failure. More have had success than failure among those responding.

Scrathing My Head LESS:

JWALL

Sorry, but nothing you Cannucks have posted on this thread in ANY way qualifies you to cast dispersions about the quality of Hornady's bullets.

The length of time it took you guys to figure out how to even FIND the interlock ring in the sectioned slug tells me how far up your backside you heads truly are.

Good luck with those Barnes bullets. Really looking forward to some "report " from the Cannuck ballistic scholars as to how the Barnes have failed you or have been "changed" in a few years.

The only "impressive" thing about this thread is what an impressive waste of bandwidth it has been.

Peace out.

jim62 - Unfortunately I think you are grouping us Canucks together. We each think differently because we are individuals like yourselves. I am in this simply to determine the truth in the Interlock. Although I haven't posted much on the fire I certainly have been around long enough to know that the Interlock is the sacred cow of the 'fire. In fact, I still use them as my go-to bullet to this day because of the great reviews on from other fire members. I have not given up on them yet. Others have.
But I do now submit for your consideration another two samples. Mike just sectioned these and asked me to post the pictures. Lot numbers marked.





I certainly notice a few things about the 208 lot (last pic)
1) Thicker jacket
2) ID Ring
3) More substantial interlock ring
4) Lower interlock ring.

Thoughts?

Quite frankly, I was supprised to find the ID ring on a lot that I presumed to be a newer lot. If you look at the core carefully, you can catually see the indent that the ID ring leaves on the core. Also, I was supprised to find the interlock lower on 2080037 as well. Those two things, all else beig equal will change the performance of the bullet markedly. What I find more supprising is that out of 4 different lots, we have 4 markedly different bullets. Where is the consistancy in that? How much of a performance difference is there going to be from lot to lot?
Mike

All bullet manufactures have been changing bullets from time to time and not telling the public. This is not new.

I used to use a slide of Hornady bullets in my ballistic seminars to illustrate up to 5 changes in the external differences noted to teach people that we are only noting the external changes.

Remember Nosler Ballistic Tips when introduced?

Barnes copped flack becuase most of their changes were obvious but still largely external.

What about when Speer bullets were the hardest C&C bullets of the major names?

These variances can be planned and also sometimes, not planned, and therefore not admitted to.

JW

Ok but did you read and look at the INTERNAL pictures of that 208xxx lot? What would constitute a "design change" if this does not?

My point was it doesn't matter what they change, they will not admit it.

JW

ahh, gotcha - I guess I didn't read clearly enough. I am glad that the truth is the truth no matter if anyone admits it or not. And no matter the legacy of one's father, character and true honor is demonstrated one decision at a time.

One of the things that concerns me is that the Interlock ring has been moved so far forward in one of the bullets.

I've sectioned a bunch of Interlock bullets (as well as other bullets) over the past 25 years or so, and all had the IL ring a short distance above the base of the bullet. This was so consistent that I quit section Inerlocks maybe 10 years ago.

The Interlocks I've recovered from game were mostly expanded back to the ring, with the core intact. A very few, however, separated jacket and core, because the jacket expanded back beyond the ring.

This only occurred at close range, at relatively high impact velocity, when something very hard was hit. One example was a pronghorn buck my wife shot at 100 yards as it faced us, with a .270 Winchester and a 130-grain Interlock. The bullet hit the spine at the base of the neck and came apart--though not without killing the buck instantly.

However, with the Interlock ring higher in the bullet it would seem to be more likely for the jacket to peel back beyond the ring, as the jacket isn't all that thick. This might be the cause of the problems mentioned early in this thread.

I will also note, however, that even before Hornady started putting the Interlock ring in their Spire Points, Hornadys had a better reputation for holding together than most other cup-and-cores. This was because the lead alloy used in the core was harder than in most other bullets.

Cub.

Clever, but girlish.

About what I expect out of a Cannuck.

I imagine you keep a reference photo handy, since you can't find your own azz with both hands?

I'm surprised you got it. More than I would expect from an idiot.


.

Hey Guys I have a polite request. Let's not dejackulate..er I mean degenerate the thread please.

It may be near its end but I don't know that. I don't know who or what else may have important bearing on the subject.

A New Friend

JWALL

SuperCub,

My apologies. Truly.

I have some very good friends in Western Canada.

So, it's not right for me to paint with such a broad brush. I do know that the friends I have up there- all of which who hunt- would never whine about the performance of a very inexpensive Non-Bonded cup and core bullet like the Interlock.

Also,if they ever did, they would darn sure present better "empirical evidence" than I have seen here on this thread.

That was my reaction when you finally found the Interlock rings after hours (days?) of you and your peeps claiming they were not even there...

At any rate I am glad you finally "got to the center of the tootsie pop"..

jim62:
Clearly it was a fumble your way thru it kinda thing. Mike had the experience, I had the guts to tell him he was a nut job in claiming that the interlock was not the same as it was (casually offering numerous times to buy his extra 12 boxes at a reduced rate because they were "defective") and then this thread appeared so I mentioned it to him in passing. He decided that what was here-say should be explained in firsthand.

It's interesting that what was "thought" was the real issue (external appearance at the tip) was not the issue at all. It's funny how many things in life are like that.

And what's a credit to all the folks here is they quietly walked along the way as I made my first abortive-like attempt at a section.

I am nearly positive any changes in the bullets were intended to be improvements- not just change for change sake or as cost cutting.

Hornady probably has the MOST dynamic and solid track record of any ammo/component maker in the last 20 years for bringing out innovative, high quality products. They also have a lot of common sense up there in Grand Island, NE.

Muledeer/JB mentioned something very pertinent here about Core hardness. It is very important as is the exact composition of the lead alloy. Certain elements such as antimony can make the core brittle and cause fragmentation.

Another thing to consider is the composition and consistency of the jacket alloy. Copper is expensive these days and and a bullet maker's sources of supply are probably moving offshore more and more everyday- just like steel and other industrial raw materials. The consistency of those alloys may be an issue they are fighting.

I have often thought of this when I have read report of very odd expansion with other bullets such as Nosler Accubonds and B-tips, etc. "Bad batches" of certain bullet many have more to do with material composition rather than changes in design from lot to lot.

I think that it's high time for me to chime in here. I don't think that it's unreasonable at all to expect a bullet that always did hold together and penetrate, to continue to do so. If someone thinks that I'm an idiot canuck for conveying my findings, so be it. If someone thinks that i'm over-reacting when I ask questions and expect answers so be it.
I have expectations of a bullet that I take into the field after animals; if I can get performance at a good price, I'll do so. If a bullet is failing to perform, I will pay the money that's needed to obtain that performance.
historically, the hornady interlock performed to my expectations; so much so that I recommended them to others without hesitation. I now find myself in a situation where I have to tell others that my recomendation has been wrong due to the poor performance that I have personally found. If anything makes me an idiot, that is it.
But to convey my findings so some other person doesn't find out the hard way that the bullets may fail, is, in my oppinion, the right thing to do. Do I care what a certian person on this site feels about me........no. If he has issue with my findings he's more than welcom to continue to use whatever bullet he wants. I personally want full penetration from any angle, fallowed by an exit hole if possible.......I don't ever want to loose the biggest bull I've ever seen due to the bullet blowing up on the shoulder.
Mike

I'm curious Mike.

After reading though all your hand wringing here, exactly how many game animals did you not recover due to Hornady Interlock "failures"?

it's not the ones that I "did not" recover that I'm concerned about........which is none. it's the ones that I "might not" recover. A person can drive thousands of miles without a spare tire, never needing one, thinking that only a fool would carry something that was so useless......until the day that they needed it.
The same holds true for a bullet. There will be a day when that bullets hits the heavier bone, and when that day comes, if the bullet that you are using seperates when it hits the ribcage, a person could find themselves unable to recover an animal that will eventually die due to it's wounds.
Up until a short while ago, my experience with the hornady .308 180gr interlock, was that it was a bullet that would hold together in difficult situations. My, and others experience over the last season has shown that this is no longer the case. If you so choose to continue to use this bullet, that is your choice, BUT, when I see a problem with a product that could potentially wound animals and wreck hunts, I feel obligated to mention something about it; to the company that is producing the product, and other hunters that may be effected by this change.
Mike

Interesting.

How many total big game animals of all kinds have you killed with Hornady Interlocks(all calibers)?

Jim and others:

I would like to know why you do not even remotely suspect Hornady has changed the design of the interlock to be less sturdy to so nearly coincide with the introduction of their interbond bullet to sell more premiums? Clearly the upper end of a product line always has more markup and the bottom line tends to drive business in our capitalistic economy. I would like to know what you know about hornady's track record for altruism rather than self sustenance because it may help me understand better your stance. Looking for "empirical evidence" here please.

Jamie

Jim........rest assured that i have taken enough animals, with enough bullets to know the difference between good and poor performance.
Mike

WHAT verifiable proof, sir do you offer to support your silly little marketing conspiracy theory?

Please continue.

I'd really love to hear this.

Boy, Mr Mike.

If the figure was less than pathetic, I'm you would have named it.

An impressive basis for an indictment of Hornady Interlocks ..


How old are you 25 ? 26 ?

Jim... Please continue your worship at the altar. I'm sorry to have disturbed you. You may want to try to right some of the cows on the way out, however, because they may die in that position.

Jim62

I've shot at least a dozen animals (deer/bears) with the 165 gr interlock with zero issues. I have confidence in that bullet both in terms of accuracy and killing. I love them. Others have had the same results with the 180 grain. When I hear that there may have been some changes made to a bullet, that concerns me. Years ago remington thinned the jackets on the corelokt spitzers so it is not impossible that hornady may have changed things for whatever reason.

Why is that so difficult for you to consider?

Is the 62 referring to your age or your IQ? You have added nothing to this thread. Go troll somewhere else

No worshipping here.

I am just not keen on 20 something 'net wankers like you and your buddy here smearing good products or companies with baseless rumors and "conspiracy theories"...

Your "evidence" presented here has been pretty impressive for how absolutely SILLY it is.

Colin,

Minor design changes happen in the life of any product. No proof has been offered here that Hornady has actually done anything that would adversely affect the performance of the Interlocks.

I am glad to see you are so open to conspiracy theories based on rumor and sheer opinion offered up as "evidence".

Maybe your age IS your IQ. It sure seems that way.

Mike, you are one of FEW who have reported any problem with this bullet. Obviously there has been some l/l variation. Show me ANYTHING where this CAN NOT happen.

OTOH, I and others have had EXPECTED success THIS year with NEWER lots than yours which DID NOT perform acceptably. I don't agree with your CONCLUSION that ALL H.ils. are NOW unreliable.
(? do you work for S. or S.?)

My point in this is; all things are not as they appear. We can not SEE the diff. in alloy, tensil strength, softness/hardness etc. I suggest that you CONSIDER the majority of reports in this thread. ?Have you read ANY of the other reports from this year? I'm NOT being critical, one report of il. failure was NOT an il. after investigation.

I suggest that you are painting a BROAD stroke with thin paint. I would ask that you give more consideration to ALL the evidence.
I too WOULD NOT use any more of the LOT that has failed you,for hunting, but I would compare any other lots I had in something OTHER THAN ANIMALS.

Broad Generalizations are by definition wrong more often than right.

I submit these things for consideration for a more fair assessment. Let's try to give EVERYBODY a reasonable representation. FWIW I'm not on any gun industry payroll.

JWALL
_____________

An Old Handloader

Deaf in Left Ear

Actually, I'm 40, and no, that is not my IQ, and no, I find no reason to drop to your level and ask if it is yours. My dad started me hunting when I was 6. I think I might know when things are working right, and when they are working wrong. I suspect that at this point it is no longer worth my time to attempt to discuss anything with you. You have said nothing in any of your posts to prove otherwise.
Mike

Jim - I'm 37.

Cheers,
Jamie

The 30 cal 180 Interlock #3070... before and after.

I believe JB's suggestion would be the most accurate assessment. When that inner ring is relocated it can lose the core if expansion goes back that far either with close shots or higher velocity loads.

I also remember the .416's when they were released, the bullet available to handloaders was not the same as used in Weatherby Factory ammo. It happens, always unannounced.

JW

check out Aletheuo's pics. Still think there is no change?

When I hear stories like that, I start to question the sanity of whoever is reporting it.

All I Want For Xmas Is a BJ From Jim62!!!
Hawooooooooooooooooo Ca'monnnnnnnnnn Jimmy...Dont Be Nervous Ya Bagbeat!!

You have had good luck with the interlocks.. I'm happy for you. Have you considered that maybe you have been pushing the envelope with this bullet for years. It has held up beyond expectations for you. After all it is just a standard cup and core rapidly expanding frangible bullet with an added bonus feature that on occasion sometimes helps retain the core. All this for the same price or less than other bullets of similar design without this feature. Your experience of complete penetration up until now just goes to show what an exceptional bullet the interlock is, holding together beyond what can be reasonably expected for that design of bullet. You have been getting premium bullet performance from a non premium bullet. Finally your luck ran out, you had an experience where it came apart or failed to completely penetrate your animal, that is to be expected from this type of bullet, Instead of complaining you should be praising your experience with these great bullets. Apparently your expecting more penetrating performance than this bullet is designed for. If you want complete penetration everytime then perhaps spend more $$ on tougher bullets, even premium bullets designed to penetrate deeply don't always do so.

Bridgetowner
No idea who you are but my suspicion is you are from NS. This ain't 54-40 or fight, man. We've got lots to learn from these guys and stuff like that ain't looking so good or classy. It's no wonder that even if you're the most experienced guy in the camp that you ain't nothing until your post count is 1000+. We're all cut from the same cloth.

It dont take 1000+ posts to realize an "A-HOLE" when ya see one!!
You worry about you, and I'll worry about me Ca'mon!!!

Bridge Tower.

It's only taken 11 posts to see you are an idiot.

Really impressive. And quite a pitty party you girls are participating in here.

Some people here cannot take the truth.

They bounce from 'net forum to net forum bashing a maker's product- only offering VERY flimsy "evidence" to back it up. Then, they combine it with really offensive insults against the company, it's products and it's customers and then top it all off with a silly "marketing conspiracy theory".

Brilliant.

Are you preparing to return to your village for Christmas?

.

Nope, you'll be there

Hahahahaha!!!!
Hawoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

What are you laughing at, hillbilly?

You are the MAYOR of that village.

Mr. 13 posts..

Ca'monnnnnn Up To Canada Pal...Your Hearse Is Waiting!!
Ahahaha 4 Shhhhhore Hawooooooooooooooooo

Ahhh, that's what I thought...

Another mentally defective Cannuk.

And, your request for a BJ a few posts back was very typical of your type.

No farm animals around to have sex with, so you have to go online "looking for love".

You'll find that most heterosexual Americans such as myself are not interested in your homosexual advances.

Do try some of your countrymen here. I'm SURE they'll oblige.

Dont Be Nervous!!

Then stop asking folks on this forum for BJs..

I've been using Hornady bullets for 30 years almost exclusively and the new ones have worked just as well as the old in my 270. If they have changed them it hasn't changed their terminal performance in my experience.

ORION 03: THANKS for getting back to the subject. I had decided to fade but you have the proper perspective.

There are MANY of us, who THIS YEAR with NEW LOTS of H. ils., have had the dependable results we EXPECTED. There have been FEW to report of failures.

I have one last suggestion for CONSIDERATION. Could it be that even tho Hornady moved the location of the interlock ring, they also CHANGED the alloy, tinsel strenght, whatever of the jacket
AND or the hardness of the LEAD CORE and still MAINTAIN the performance desired? ? ? These are things we can NOT SEE.

IF that is true, with the il. ring forward it would make the remaining SHANK a little LONGER and have more weight to promote penetration. If ANY OF YOU could have seen the terminal performance I had on THREE deer this year with this NEW LOT, you would have NOTHING to complain about.

THE ONLY reason I offer this suggested possibility is: I KNOW I have used a NEW LOT of ils. and they worked as DESIRED. So, if they changed the design SOMETHING has to be right for it STILL to perform properly.

This thread has reached the point that we can not DETERMINE the real difference by LOOKING at the bullets. NOTHING is to be gained by name calling, insulting, and accusing of immoral acts.

If someone with access to TECHNICAL equipment to test alloys and hardness and flexibility, etc. could and would run test THEN we might have real EVIDENCE to work with.

Otherwise we need to test bullets in mediums (media) to compare performance. I need NOT to test my lot, I already have, IT IS GOOD. When I get another lot I will test for comparison. Let's spend our time in productive activity and discussion.

Scratching My Head for ANOTHER REASON

JWALL

JWALL,

Great post. I've been watching this thread and wholeheartedly agree with everything you said.

I've thought this has been a worthwhile and very interesting thread. Kudos to Aletheuo and the rest that have actually contibuted to the discussion.

The rest of the commentary by the fuggin' trolls posting here is ............................ well, BULLSHITE. Find something else to waste your time on.

FISH HEAD; THANK YOU ! ! !

JWALL

I could not agree moore.

I'm definitely not detracting from the IL, but moving the IL ring forward doesn't necessarily mean that they lengthened the bullet. If all they did was move the ring forward, that would promote core loss, not additional penetration, due to the fact that the locking ring will be lost due to jacket expansion sooner in the expansion process. If the old IL could expand almost down to the base of the jacket before the ring was disabled, the new bullet only has to expand the jacket down half the length of the bullet before the ring is disabled.

Again, not arguing one way or the other, just pointing out the consequence of moving the ring forward (which JB also pointed out above, but just briefly).

JWALL,

I guess the only way to settle this once and for all is... a dry newsprint penetration test and an examination of the recovered bullets. Anyone else have some ID ring interlocks hanging around?

And I want to reiterate my point: People in both Canada and the US used the old design interlock on elk and moose all the time without the need of a premium bullet. And they continued to do so because they got decent performance. They trusted the interlock and hornady in general.

Now some feel they can not trust hornady because they made a change to their favorite non-premium without ever informing anyone about it. It certainly causes me to ponder the situation. If I can't trust that the same bullet DESIGN (externals aside) is inside the same box today, tomorrow, a year or ten years down the road then what's a guy to do? I can't rightly walk into the store and ask the owner if I can have one bullet to section before I buy the whole box, can I?

Let me tell you why I want to continue to use the Interlock on Elk and at the range. I'm a reloader and my local shop has a box of Interlocks on the shelf for $34.95 - that's 35 cents each. They also have Partitions. They're 71/box - that's $1.40 each. And you wonder why us Canadians are so ticked? Don't anymore. Often, it ain't double for premiums up here. We're paying like 3.5x as much in some cases. Rant over! (oh please don't get me talking canadian leupold pricing)


My theory is this - and it is simply a theory. "This is simple capitalism. The interlock was too good a bullet to have alongside the newly introduced interbond so they had to dumb it down so that they could make more money on premiums instead as premiums make them more money."

If Hornady had done this and told consumers, fine. But the silence is deafening.

More baseless slander and NUTJOB conspiracy theories.

You have provided not ONE SHRED of evidence that ANY changes to the Hornady Interlock bullets- whether imagined or real- have in ANY way changed their performance on game. Period.

No ballistic media testing. no lost game animals. no recovered "failed Bullets. nothing- nada.

Just your mindless little rants against Hornady and how they are responsible for high bullet prices in Canada?

It's your utter stupidity here that is deafening.

Jim

Prove that the new bullets hold up just as well as the old ones did using a dry newsprint test and I will withdraw my theory and eat all the crow necessary. And all I'm expecting is 30-06 velocities of 2800 with the 180 #3070.

That is really special of you.

Let's recap, shall we?

You come on this forum claiming the new Hornday Interlocks are schit in terms of performance on game, yet you provide NO proof of same. Then you have the balls (sans brains) to accuse them of a "marketing conspiracy" to overcharge Canadians for bullets. THEN want OTHERS to provide the proof by testing bullets you cannot?

YOU are the one indicting Hornady bullets here, skippy- YOU provide the proof to back it up.

BTW, here is one of MANY good replies to your "problems" with the Hornday bullets. It was posted a few pages back by an Albertan. You need to read it again and let some of it's wisdom sink in the cement filled skull of yours..

Quote-

"You have had good luck with the interlocks.. I'm happy for you. Have you considered that maybe you have been pushing the envelope with this bullet for years. It has held up beyond expectations for you. After all it is just a standard cup and core rapidly expanding frangible bullet with an added bonus feature that on occasion sometimes helps retain the core. All this for the same price or less than other bullets of similar design without this feature. Your experience of complete penetration up until now just goes to show what an exceptional bullet the interlock is, holding together beyond what can be reasonably expected for that design of bullet. You have been getting premium bullet performance from a non premium bullet. Finally your luck ran out, you had an experience where it came apart or failed to completely penetrate your animal, that is to be expected from this type of bullet, Instead of complaining you should be praising your experience with these great bullets. Apparently your expecting more penetrating performance than this bullet is designed for. If you want complete penetration every time then perhaps spend more $$ on tougher bullets, even premium bullets designed to penetrate deeply don't always do so."

Unquote.

Jim - I really don't understand why you insist on this being a pissing match? I'm a scientist and I'm not interested in winning here - just discovery truth. I've submitted a theory - it ain't my ego I'm putting on the line. It's a thought, an idea. And I've been wrong about ideas before, too. I freely admit that.

I currently cannot test the theory because I don't have anymore ID ring interlocks. I'd go buy some more but... ummm... well, they aren't around anymore. And I can't ask anyone from the US to send me of US export laws.

It's not a "pissing contest".

I am GENUINELY offended by the lack of overall intelligence you have brought to your little Hornady witch hunt here.
You are smearing the rep of a GOOD product made by a GOOD company all on the very flimsiest of evidence.

As a user of Hornady's products for the last 30 years, I am offended by that. And also because I have a pretty good sense of basic FAIRNESS and LOGIC which apparently you do not.

If I saw any REAL evidence here posted by anyone to back up your accusations and theories, I would be right behind you on this. As it stands- Not at all. Sorry.

As far as testing old vs "new" Interlocks...

What makes you think Hornady does not have TONS of ballistics gel in their lab. And, what makes you think that EVERY TIME they make even the SLIGHTEST design tweek to their bullets that they do not then test the old version vs the new before moving forward?

It's a sick form of delusional arrogance to think anything qualifies you to know more about how Hornady's products perform than they ALREADY do.

It's like you trying to tell me that just because you bought a plane ticket on an Airline flight, that you are now qualified to fly the plane.

In the words of a famous gunwriter "you are a hard headed horses ass" Ignore on.

Dude, you must be looking in the mirror.

If you think you've got more bullet building know how than Hornady, you are ONE funny guy.

JORDAN: I'm being NICE, not arrogant, sarcastic, or incorrigible. Please re-READ my quote that YOU POSTED. Find where I said they "lenghtened the bullet". YOU WONT.

I said," the remainnig shank" would be a little longer." That is different. NO REPLY NECESSARY.

MIKE & ALETHEUO; It WAS nice meeting you BUT in the words of

JOHNNY CASH to Rodney Crowell, "Son I don't know you well enough to miss you..."


JWALL--OUT ! ! !

JWALL - Personally I think your writing and ideas are well thought out and I give you credit for that. I also think you are flexible enough to change your mind if you would need to. Give it some time - ideas brewed in the crockpot of life tend to be the better quality ones. This has come like a fastfood meal from Raunchie Ronnies. Perhaps I'll wake up tomorrow and realize that it was just a bad Big Mac from the night before and interlocks are just as good as they've always been.

But seriously, you don't know how many times I was over at Mike's house and he would pull out the weatherby catalog and show me how they loaded up interlocks for years and years for the 300 weatherby mag. He would always say that if they are good enough for weatherby (both the company and their high velocities) then they are good enough for his -06. He is quite a bit more hard headed than I am and really set in his ways and he'll freely admit that. So when he showed me the jacket of the 180 that he shot at that elk at 2800 fps from his -06 I thought whatever buddy and I kept using interlocks throughout the season.

So he did his brief study and mailed it off to hornady which he never heard back on. Then he put his stash of interlocks up for sale and bought 168 TSX's - that's when I really took notice. When he knows something works he sticks with it, that's the character he is. He's pretty stuck in his ways. But he was willing to look at his idea and change it because he felt it was wrong even though he already had 1200 interlocks on the shelf.

Mike still doesn't know that the TSX isn't the best bullet to use on deer cuz they go further (I'll let him figure that out himself - but our deer and elk seasons always are together here so you always needs an elk bullet) but for elk I think he's done himself a favor even if it does mean he only has 300 bullets on the shelf rather than 1200.

I don't want to smear hornady. I want answers to questions and currently they aren't giving any. The only way to determine this is by doing testing ourselves.

Jamie

Why you like that anyways?

While I don't have any scientific research up to your standards to add to the thread, I was watching this thread cuz I like and shoot Hornady bullets in a couple rifles including the 180s in a 30/06. You lose it with me when you start running down Canadians as a group, something you wouldn't put up with, I'm sure.

There's a couple guys in this thread trying to have a conversation and maybe learn something. Why not leave them be and find a thread more your speed with more learned shooters?

.

SuperCub,
You should cut him a little slack. He is so proud of his IQ that he posts it after his name and it appears to be accurate.

Jim has been an azz on several threads and I'm putting him on ignore before he goes on another rant.

WTF??? I think you should re-read my post. I'm also being nice. There's a whole lotta testosterone floating around on this thread. All I did was point out that moving the IL ring forward did NOT promote deeper penetration, but rather it promotes core loss, as JB pointed out before me. Lengthening the bullet has little to do with the majority of my post.

Guys on this thread just need to calm down. This doesn't need to be anything but a friendly conversation...

I really like to do a thorough post-mortem on the game I've killed, but I was hunting with friends and didn't want to hold up the rest of their hunt lolly gagging with my field dressing. No bullets (or fragments) were recovered from the hides or carcasses, so my best guess is that what was left of the bullets was left in the gut piles.

Again, while I understand that it's not a large enough sample size to be statistically relevant, these animals were shot well (placement was basically quartering to, shoulder hit square in all cases) with a really big bullet (for whitetails) going pretty fast. (chrono'd 2725 fps 10' from the muzzle) I expected 'Hammer of Thor' results on these critters. I actually *was* afraid I would get massive meat damage, which I did on each shoulder, but without the benefit of DRT performance.

It would be fair to ask me what the hell I was doing deer hunting with a 375 Ruger? no one has, but I will answer anyway:

I plan to do some hunting in Alaska for Moose and other species in big bear territory, that's why I bought the rifle, but I wanted to carry it afield for a while to get used to it and put it through it's paces before I was REALLY counting on it. It's a great gun and (amazingly) well sub-MOA accurate with all of the factory offerings, but I don't think I will carry it afield with this bullet in the chamber anymore.

To be clear, this bullet *is* cataloged as an Interlock by Hornady. (not sure if that was being taken to task by someone or if they were mentioning another post.)

This is the round:
http://www.hornady.com/store/375-Ruger-270-gr-SP-RP-Superformance/

Loaded with this bullet:
http://www.hornady.com/store/375-Cal-.375-270-gr-SP-RP/

I will pick up a bullet puller the next time that I have the chance and try my hand at sectioning...I'm pretty curious now...

-Joe

"My theory is this - and it is simply a theory. "This is simple capitalism. The interlock was too good a bullet to have alongside the newly introduced interbond so they had to dumb it down so that they could make more money on premiums instead as premiums make them more money." [quote]

I don't mean to start a flame war (though that work seems to already have been done here!) ;-) but there is no sound marketing reason for Hornady to make one of their products worse to promote the Interbond. They are in much tougher competition with other bullet and ammo manufacturers than they are with themselves.

They simply (and only) must promote it as 'better than' an 'already excellent' bullet for that product to succeed with the 'must use/have the latest and greatest' crowd which I have long-suspected drives the shooting-sports industry. (among others)

-Joe

Joe,

Exactly my thoughts and well said. I've used the Interbonds enough in the last 3 years to see Hornady does NOT have to "dumb down" their lesser bullet designs to make the Interbonds look good.

Which brings up a point as to your Interlock experiences with your .375 Ruger.

I would use either an Interbond or GMX slug in that cartridge to get the kind of penetration you seek.

Many of the .30 cal Interbonds I have used on deer have contacted heavy bone at less than 100 yards. I have seen Interlocks complete blow out spinal vertebra on deer and go out the other side several times. Other than the shoulder and hip knuckle joints in the shoulder and ham, there is no denser bones in a deer than the vertebrae. Any slug that can stand up to that and hold together is a tough bullet.

I am a fan of the Interbonds and GMX's but I am not (yet) set up to reload, so either I pay through the nose to have Superior load something up for me, or I use factory ammo.

I have a stash of previously available 300gr Round Nose Interlock ammo, which should do better if for no other reason than the extra mass. The currently available 300gr Dangerous Game Expanding load, with it's steel core, should hold together just fine, but I am afraid on lesser targets, like whitetails, they might not expand enough...though since it starts out as a .375" hole it doesn't have to expand much (er, at all) to punch a big enough hole, and I am well assure of pass-through shots.

Thanks for the thoughts and suggestions!
-Joe

Thanks for sharing. I hate to hear that. I'm fond of the .30 190 BTSPIL.

Expat

Well, it was quite a few years ago, and I was the shooter. To add fat to your fire, I was shooting a 375-06 that only started the bullet out at around 2500 fps, and that bullet still completely disintegrated on the neck vertebrae.

It did kill the bear, however!

Ted

I don't have much of a dog in this fight since I have only killed a couple of animals with the interlock, with no problems. I think the post in quote really added a whole bunch of impressive useful intelligent info about Hornady interlocks to this discussion. How old are you about 12?

I've got about 20 of them if anyone wants to do the experiment.

Does anyone know if the change was specific to lots beginning with 208 or was it those lots and all others after.

Not sure about internal differences. I have had fine results with interlocks in .270, 7mm and .308. Unless impact velocities were very high- maybe 3000, they performed very well.
Exterior appearance-wise they seem different today than say 25 years ago?... Cannelure/exposed lead... I recently uncovered some old (c. 1985?) reloads with 165 gr. .308 IL's. When I pulled the bullets and compared them to some purchased 4 months ago, they were a little different. I haven't sectioned any though, and the new ones shoot as well as the older version.

I know this is an old thread but I will post this anyway.

Last year I did some wet newspaper testing with six different 270 Win bullets. These included 130g Interlock, 130g Nosler BT, 130g Hot Cor, as well as a 150g SST and 160g Partition. A 90g HP was thrown in for fun.

The 130g Interlock penetrated further than the NBT and Hotcor of the same weight by a considerable margin. Retained weight was about the same for all three.

These Interlocks were from a batch bought after this thread was originally started, so they are definitely a recent batch.

I admit it was just a dinky little experiment, which I did for a bit of fun. Don't buy or sell stock in any of these companies based on it!

Having said all that, I was impressed with the way the Interlocks performed, being as cheap as they are to buy even in this country where they gouge you at every opportunity.

BUMP -

EZEarl - I found the thread from 2010

LOT # 2090196, There's lots of discussion. I'll be glad to refresh myself.

Jerry

An Update:

The quote above is from P 7.

There were several pics in the thread but I found none today.

Also this thread took a normal Campfire turn. The results are what counts.


Jerry

Oh well. Mine doesn't have that many digits(02-034). It sure made a mess of that doe though. THANKS Jerry.

Don't believe the Interlocks have changed. Been killing deer for years with them and have only caught one in a buck shot straight up the rear and found in the upper chest.

Also have cut a few in half, got a few 20 years old and they closely favor the newer Interlocks.



.33 WCF 200 gr. FP Texas heart shot at 100 yards.







30-30 150 Round Nose



.30 and .25 cal

I've got a box of .308 180gr flat base IL's that I bought no less than 5yrs ago. 1/16th of a inch above the crimp groove is a thin groove that circles the bullet. Anyone know what it's about? Doesn't show it here:
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/41...iameter-180-grain-spire-point-box-of-100

Chrome -

I didn't intend (mean) to open an 'old' can of worms. There are 2 threads currently on this subject.

This thread is FROM 2010, I bumped it to get some info for another member and to refresh my own memory.

The following is a quote from Mule Deer and answers the question about any possible interlock change.

Originally Posted By Mule Deer
"I found out the problem was somebody on the assembly line trying to hurry things up. This resulted in a few oddball bullets with the Interloclk ring higher than usual, but there never was any intentional change to the design--and the problem was eliminated quickly."
------------------------

There is no new discussion per internal design change of the interlock. There is a discussion in another forum per the ogive and cannelure location. That's totally diff.

I'm NOT trying to stop any discussion but the question about Hornady changing the internal interlock design has been answered.

Just for clarification

Jerry

They eliminated the ring 5-6 years ago. I havent shot the new ones into anything, but the old ones with the ring were stellar on deer to brown bear in my 30-06 pushing them at 2700 MV.

Thanks for the info,Tom. I can believe they work good at 2700 or so. Not so good at 3100+ when game is close though. Of course I don't know if I'd trust any cup and core under those conditions. I plan on downloading the 180 IL's for this season.