It's an interesting study. I'm not sold on a couple of things however. It doesn't show what happens when speeds began to drop. Metal does not imitate real-world hunting bullet applications at all, and water jugs, though fun - and open the monolithics reliably and perfectly, don't demonstrate very accurately what bi-metallic bullets do in hunting situations, therefore aren't very applicable for comparisons.
If all my shots were inside of 100 yards or my rifles fired bullets at between 4000-5000 fps I would not be concerned with these monolithics working well at the distances I've used them in hunting.
My impression of the GMX is that it is the hardest of the four commonly available component monolithics we can presently obtain. Of them, the TTSX seems to act the softest and may be the best bet for lower speed impacts. Kudos to Barnes for working toward that end.
Monolithics have obviously had some serious hurdles to overcome in their development. The TSX did an outstanding job of overcoming some of the fouling accuracy problems encountered with the earlier XFBs. What they didn't do, in my estimation, was improve in reliability of performance nor did they open better. In fact, in attempting to overcome some of the ballistic deficiencies of the less dense copper materials, the frontal portions of the bullets were streamlined which also affected the resulting (diminished) shape and area of the mushroomed bullet. But the TTSX, perhaps not quite the finished product, is very close to what is needed in a monolithic for 'all-purpose' applications.
I have no issue at all with the use of monolithics on heavier animals (like moose) at reasonable distances and speeds. I do have some concerns with lighter animals such as caribou or deer, but I have always had acceptable results when placing the bullets into significant bone structures, as long as the bullet had adequate momentum.
