To many many of their claims seem like BS. Also the three petal design will have less frontal area than a four petal mono like a barnes TTSX or Nosler E-Tip. Less frontal area=less cavitation=less tissue damage.
Which claims "seem like BS"?
As for the continued comparison to Barnes bullets, they were not designed to compete with Barnes. Barnes bullets were designed to provide a mono-metal solution for people wanting to push bullets to extreme speeds, so the goal was to hold together better than a cup and core at those velocities.
Cavity Back bullets were designed to be used in small capacity chamberings (6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendal, 300 BO, etc), hence the cavity at the back allowing for a bit more powder space when loaded to max mag length. The goal was reliable expansion at lower impact velocities, while still maintaining good integrity at higher. The reason for the three petal design was to allow for larger petals, which will provide more cutting while transversing the animal. They don't rely on cavitation to cause a wound channel. They cut as they travel (remember lower impact speeds). They still do a tremendous amount of tissue damage.
Again, I suggest that if you are wondering how well they kill, head over to the 6.8 forum and do a search. Plenty of first-hand experience shared there.
