Not saying that. The Nosler Partition was (and is) one of the better ideas to improve traditional cup-and-core bullets. So were the bonded bullets (Bitterroot) and even better the Swift bonded partitions.
They were an improvement but I never thought that improvement allowed me to drop down to a 120 grain, .30 caliber bullet fired at warp speed to take on an elk. I still use the same bullet weights and calibers I always have.....just with better bullets.
To me, that's the main flaw with the idea of modern "solid" bullets. I tried the "X" bullets when they first came out and found them to be so erratic I couldn't trust them. Adding more letters to the name IS NOT an improvement on a failed design.
I'd feel better if the trend was to use "traditional" bullet weights at traditional velosity.....but that's not the case. Most want to use very light bullets at extreemly high speed and depend on "technology" to save the day.
It's the same thinking that led some to use the .22 HP on Tigers and the .257 Weatherby on Cape Buffalo in years past. It DID work.....most of the time.....but a little experience proved this idea flawed and foolish for general use. That's the problem with "technology". Those with little experience get excited about the promised results and try things which should have never have been tried.
What about the big bores that failed, because of bullet failure?? Your arguement is flawed
SD is not the most important fator in penetration, bullet integrity and nose profile is
A Thread on AR in the Big Bore Form has conducted test were just by change=ing the nose profile allowed lighter bullets to penetrate the same and sometimes more than hevier ones
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
