Pick up a copy of Handloader magazine #246, April 2007 issue. Flip to the back page and read John's article on North Fork bullets. Then you might see my point...
What JB wrote in April of 2007 has no bearing on what he wrote in the �Penetration vs. Frag� thread in late July of 2010, more than three years later. In that thread John repeatedly claimed I was judging the North Fork bullets by their cost, which is pure BS, and in spite of my statements to the contrary.
John is the one that brought up bullet cost, which eventually lead to his �inefficient manufacturing� statement.
...
If you're absolutely convinced that $1 or $1.50 bullets are necessary to kill deer or pronghorn on bad angle shots, then why it's your money. But there are a bunch of other bullets that will do what you describe.
...
(Really? I haven�t found any C&C�s that meet my criteria for accuracy with reliable but controlled and limited expansion and good weight retention in the calibers, weights and velocities used. Contrary to John�s claims about the problem being fixed back in the 1980�s, I still see reports of BT�s blowing up. Deer and antelope, for the most part, are an opportunity for me to practice using the loads I use for elk. Think I�ll stick with North Fork, Trophy Bonded, A-Frame, Partition, Grand Slam, TTSX, MRX, AccuBond and Scirocco.)
� bullets that would be way to cheap for you to consider �
(Play nice, John�)
�
Given all your previous insisting that ONLY premium (and the more expensive the better) bullets are suitable for the hunting you do, I believe my comment about cheap bullets is completely justified.
...
I challenge JB to point to any place where I have ever made a claim remotely suggesting I evaluate a bullet based on cost or �the more expensive the better� for the hunting I do. (Good luck on that one, John�)
The facts are I choose my bullets based on performance and often in spite of their cost, as I stated multiple times in that thread. JB seemed to be unable to grasp that concept.
�
One of the reasons some bullets cost a lot is because the manufacturing process is much slower than with bullets that are made in larger factories with faster machinery. Just because such a bullet costs twice as much as another bullet doesn't mean it's twice as good--and sometimes it isn't even as good as some bullets costing less. If you prefer to pay for inefficient manufacturing, fine, but don't try to tell me cost is the absolute criteria of any bullet, because it isn't.
,,,
Since I have never made any argument that cost directly affects bullet performance, paying for �inefficient manufacturing� is a red herring argument. That said, I don�t mind paying for low volume manufacturing (which is not necessarily �inefficient�, btw) if it is the only way I can get what I want.
Admittedly, bullet cost is a pretty minor issue with me � performance is what matters most. Because I hunt elk and deer at the same time, I tend to load for elk and use them for everything. JB claims cheaper bullets can kill deer quicker, but of the last 10 deer and antelope I�ve been directly involved with (and built the ammo used), 9 went straight down and one antelope made it 25 yards. The bullets were North Fork (1 mule deer), TTSX (3 antelope, 1 belonging to my son-in-law), MRX (2 mule deer), Scirocco (1 antelope) and AccuBond (3 antelope, 2 belonging to my nephews).
I fail to see how non-premium bullets could have worked any better -- unless the animals start dropping before the shot -- but have seen multiple cases of poor penetration with C&Cs. Berger even advertises what I consider poor penetration (13� to 15� per their web site), although they don�t call it that. Such results could have easily resulted in a long tracking job or a lost animal on the mule deer where I used a North Fork. But, gee, I guess I could have loaded Ballistic Tips for those 10 animals and saved almost enough for a cheap glass of wine with my dinner out�
===============================================
I�m more than willing to continue, but I suspect most would like to get back to the issue of North Forks and how they perform. For me they have provided outstanding accuracy in every rifle I�ve tried them in, best exemplified by a .262� center-to-center 3-shot group in my 1982 Ruger 7mm RM, a rifle that typically shot around .9�. In my .45-70 they provided excellent accuracy and the most consistently consistent loads I have ever seen in any cartridge -- period -- with single digit 5-shot Extreme Spreads typical and E.S. under 5 pretty frequent. (Mike Brady said in an email that the test loads I sent him were the most consistent he had seen.) (I know, small E.S. is not a guarantee of anything when it comes to accuracy.) On game, the North Forks have resulted in all but one animal going straight down. The exception was a cow elk at 260+ yards I shot with a 180g North Fork from my .300WM. That cow made it 25 yards and was on the ground before I could get another shot off. Penetration has been very good with the North Forks, although I have not always gotten an exit. Bullets recovered from dirt at 500 yards, elk at 25 yards and deer at 150 yards look so much alike I challenge anyone to tell which was which without additional information.
In terms of on-game bullet performance, I think they are pretty much identical to the Trophy Bonded Bear Claws (non-tipped) that my hunting buddy used until they were taken off the market as components. They also seem to work about like the older dual-core Grand Slams I used for 20+ years, but provide better accuracy and higher weight retention. They make much prettier mushrooms, too.
