Why be more concerned with what a bullet was originally designed to do than what it actually does ?
Now, that's a quotable...
DF
In thinking about this, how many bullets have you guys seen that don't preform as they were designed?
JG - I'm of the opinion that chit happens. One experience doesn't sway me including those who have had bad Berger luck used as intended, like my man TInman....
Honestly, I've killed stuff with TSX, TTSX, and even Accubonds. The Barnes is always a poor blood trail if any at all, but they exit, and a giant chase with perfect shots. No more. Others swear by them.
I've shot 3 mule deer with 7mm 140 Accubonds and haven't had an exit with any. It's weird. And wound channels poor. Others swear by them.
I'm not discounting other folks experience who have BTDT.
Chit happens, we all make equipment calls....
What is silly are lots of folks who look at a bullet, or optic, or pant and think it looks like a target bullet and make decisions, or read an article in Field and Stream from a test into newspaper and get on here and say silly stupid stuff that based on the design I'd never use that silly thing. They've never even killed anything with the bullet on question. Some are on this very thread. I just laugh at that stuff....
The point is chit happens and sample size of everything matters. I've settled on VLDs heavy for caliber with MVs no more than 2900....
Fly great, great in wind, mostly exit, and 90 percent of my kills are dead right there up to 850 yards. Many, many hunters who I know and respect who get chit done have exclusively gone to VLDs or Scenars. But it's a target bullet.....grin ..
But chit happens.
