What I can't figure out is why so many match/LR shooters have this aversion to shooting animals with bullets designed specifically for that purpose?
Puzzling.
I don't think they do. I don't.
I simply like the way a softer bullet performs on big game. I prefer to shoot big game with a rifle the same way I shoot big game with a bow; behind the shoulder, broadside. When you do it this way, you don't need a stupid Barnes X solid copper bullet. Soft points, Ballistic Tips, etc result in animals that drop right there most of the time.
If you load heavily constructed bullets in preparation that you will take any shot regardless if the animal is going away and showing his A$$, there's some problems that probably should be addressed in the "When Hunting Becomes "Shooting"" thread.
A-Frames, Barnes, and other bullets constructed similarly I have no use for unless I go to Africa or plan to hunt something that can kill me.
rcamuglia �
There are clearly some folks who think �soft� bullets or those that are designed to fragment are the best way to go, just as there are those like myself that have an aversion to such bullets, especially at high impact velocities. For some reason many of those who espouse the use of soft bullets seem to feel threatened by the choice of others, as you seem to be. Use whatever bullet you are comfortable with and I will do the same with no reflection on you or your choices.
In 31 years I�ve taken exactly one big game animal with a bolt rifle and standard cup-and-core bullets, a Hornady 162g BTSP that retained less than 48% of its original weight even though the challenge to its integrity was minimal. For the next 20+ years I used 160g Speer Grand Slams to good effect with elk, deer and antelope consistently going down at the shot or within a few steps. The one memorable exception was a cow that made it about 40 yards and struggled for every step. It wasn�t until the last year that I recovered a Grand Slam as they had a habit of making two holes in the hide. The recovered Grand Slam had destroyed both shoulder joints of a 5x5 bull, a far greater challenge to its integrity that that experienced by the Hornady BTSP, but still retained over 70% of its original weight. The lesson learned in those 20+ years is that a well-designed hunting bullet can put animals on the ground very quickly and very reliably while retaining a high percentage of its weight for deep penetration if needed.
Which bring us to �A$$� shooting. First, my hunting buddies and myself do not �take any shot� that is offered � we try for broadsides and often wait for them, sometimes losing opportunities as a result. Quartering shots are also very acceptable and I�ll take one if that is all I can get. There is a very different mentality, one you don�t seem to understand, involved in preparing for the worst and working for the best.
What would you do if an animal, rather than going down at the shot, turns tail and heads for the next county? Would you let a possibly wounded animal run off to die horrible death or would you take the shot offered, confident that your choice of bullet was up to the task? The Grand Slams exited with such regularity that I never worried about such situations. The same is true with Barnes TTSX and MRX, neither of which my hunting buddies or myself have ever recovered, even with frontal shots on mulies. In the one case where the buck moved and a quartering away shot became a ham shot, the North Fork I was using was more than up to the task where a �softer� or fragmenting bullet might have failed to reach the vitals.
That said, why is it that people tend to think frontal/broadside/quartering shots are more ethical, even if a tail-end shot has the exact same results? The buck I unintentionally shot in the A$$ wouldn�t have gone down or died any quicker regardless of what angle or bullet was used. Answering my own question, I think there are two main reasons, those being a) people rightly have an aversion to dressing animals with the contents of the digestive track exposed and contaminating the meat and, more importantly, b) many �A$$� (or extreme quartering away) shots have resulted on long tracking jobs or lost animals. Addressing �b� further, those cases can be broken down into two classes � those where a different bullet would have made no difference in the outcome and those where it would. This is why in �preparing for the worst and working for the best� I choose bullets I believe can make a difference in such situations, as I believe the North Fork did on that buck.
As to �stupid� Barnes bullets, I�ve found the Barnes TSX and TTSX (and Swift A-Frames and North Fork SS) to be extremely accurate in my rifles � more so than many �soft� cup-and-core bullets � yet very effective on game. If/when Murphy comes knocking, I�d much rather have one of these in the chamber than any cup-and-core bullet.
Swift A-Frames are the bullet of choice when my .257 Roberts goes on an elk/deer hunt. The same rifle gets Nosler AccuBonds or Barnes TTSX when antelope hunting � no need to have a bullet blow up and destroy more meat than necessary as antelope don�t have much to begin with. North Forks SS and Barnes TTSX/MRX are the choice for my 7mm RM and various .30�s and Nosler AccuBonds get used in ,my .338. They have all proven themselves as reliable game droppers and if Murphy knocks I�m comfortable I�ll be as prepared as I can be.
