Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters .243” 92gr. Cavity Back Bullet experience

Good luck trying to order them off their website, I haven't been able to!

What issues are you having Jim?

I just ordered some and had no issues. I am using Chrome if that makes any difference.

FWIW CBB does make plastic tipped bullets, at least in 30 caliber.

To many many of their claims seem like BS. Also the three petal design will have less frontal area than a four petal mono like a barnes TTSX or Nosler E-Tip. Less frontal area=less cavitation=less tissue damage.

Which claims "seem like BS"?

As for the continued comparison to Barnes bullets, they were not designed to compete with Barnes. Barnes bullets were designed to provide a mono-metal solution for people wanting to push bullets to extreme speeds, so the goal was to hold together better than a cup and core at those velocities.
Cavity Back bullets were designed to be used in small capacity chamberings (6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendal, 300 BO, etc), hence the cavity at the back allowing for a bit more powder space when loaded to max mag length. The goal was reliable expansion at lower impact velocities, while still maintaining good integrity at higher. The reason for the three petal design was to allow for larger petals, which will provide more cutting while transversing the animal. They don't rely on cavitation to cause a wound channel. They cut as they travel (remember lower impact speeds). They still do a tremendous amount of tissue damage.

Again, I suggest that if you are wondering how well they kill, head over to the 6.8 forum and do a search. Plenty of first-hand experience shared there.

Handgun- I can click on add to cart but it doesn't "add to cart", ha. I'm on Explorer. I'm in no rush.

Most all of them.
And bullets dont cut as you described. This was proven some time ago as it pertained to Keith Style pistol bullets.

Yes, it was proven that Keith-style bullets don't "cut". That should be quite obvious based on the fact that they are not designed to expand. Their primary bullet channel is mostly created by crushing the material in front of it. So, your claim is that the entire wound channel created by expanding rifle or pistol bullets is caused by cavitation?

As for the continued claim that "most all" of the claims are BS, I can say for a fact that most of them are not.

The BCs listed are pretty much dead on, as confirmed by Doppler and actual field experience.
The expansion claims are based on ballistic gel and field experience as well. Multiple animals have been shot and the wound channels clearly prove out the expansion of the bullets (see also the picture I posted earlier). If necessary I can provide zoomed in pictures of the entry and exit wounds to help with understanding.
The claim that you can get a bit more powder into the casing while seating the bullet to the same OAL as other monometal bullets is also true.

HandgunHTR,

My 92gr. CBB for my 243 should be here today and I for one am excited to try them! I've run numbers comparing them to other bullets out there in 24 caliber and it is no contest!

If they are accurate in my gun I will order another 100 and will load them with utmost confidence they will do the job for deer and antelope and I may try them on a cow elk hunt planned for next fall!

Shoot straight!

Elk Country

And greater penetration.........

Not like a mono really needs greater penetration though.
If the CBB bullets really do expand to 2.5x their diameter than I wonder much that would limit penetration. Frontal area after expansion is primarily what determines penetration, there's no magic involved. Monos with their petals may expand to 2.5x their diameter, but the area between the petals means their is less frontal area to limit penetration. Which is why monos generally "penetrate like crazy".........

I never claimed that cavitation is the sole wounding mechanism.. However, the crushing action you mention is caused by cavitation starring shortly after the bullet encounters flesh.
As for the claims. Of the 5 made on the alleged benefits only one holds any water to me.. I could be wrong, but in the least they sound very fishy.

And one of the reasons monos tend to have smaller wound channels.

I've shot a bunch of deer and coyotes with the 243Win/85TSX combo @ 3200fps. Longest kill on a deer so far is 425yds and the wound channel looks just like it does @ 100yds.

What did they look like? size, etc?

I shot one with the tipped 80 from a 243 at 125 yards, broadside through both lungs and centered the heart. The wound channel was very narrow with little cavitation at all. That deer went over 100 yards with no blood trail.

The only way that's true is if they're putting more bullet weight outside the case, and that would be from nose design, not the hollow base. Doesn't look to me like the nose is designed that way though, given the bullet shape. The hollow base does nothing to increase powder capacity compared to the same weight with a solid base. There still has to be that same volume of copper inside the case, regardless whether it's a short solid base or a longer hollow tube, or triangular with a picture of Elvis inside. The only thing a hollow base does is make the bullet longer for more bearing surface or boat tail.

I took a look at their 6.5 Grendel bullets, and am super skeptical about some of the claims as well. There is no way that 118gr hollow point has a .501 G1 ballistic coefficient. Not a chance. Compare that to Hornady's 123gr ELD, which is a MUCH sleeker bullet with a finer tip, more weight than that 118gr, and field-proven ballistic coefficient between .496-.510 G1 depending on the gun and other details. The 120 SGK and 120 TSX are only .421 and .386 respectively; I think a realistic number for that 118gr would be closer to those, and at least lower than the 120 SGK.

These certainly might be decent hunting bullets, but it's wise to be skeptical of claims that are over the top like many on that website. Seems to me that they've implemented some very generous marketing, at best. Over selling stuff like that is way worse than underselling IMO; it means you're willing to lie to me to make a buck, AND think I'm too dumb to figure it out.

LOL I can't help it, some of the claims are pretty fun. Link here for those who want to read them. Cavity Back Advantage

This one is pretty good:
2. BY INCREASING EFFECTIVE CASE CAPACITY THE CAVITY ALLOWS THE CARTRIDGE TO “BREATHE” BETTER. RESULTING IN A SLIGHTLY COOLER BURN AND SLIGHTLY LESS VIOLENT ACTIVITY INSIDE THE CARTRIDGE CASE DURING PROPELLANT IGNITION.

The cartridge "breathes" better with this bullet, and burns cooler too. Sweet! Why aren't we all using these?


This one is good too, for those who understand pressure vs. surface area and the resulting forces:
6. THOROUGH TESTING HAS PROVEN THE CAVITY BACK SMOOTHES OUT THE PRESSURE CURVE BY CREATING A HEMISPHERICAL POWDER CONTAINMENT CHAMBER. AS THE POWDER BURNS AND PUSHES ON THE CHAMBER INSTEAD OF A FLAT OR DISHED BULLET BASE THE BULLET STARTS ITS MOVEMENT SOONER DUE TO THE INCREASED SURFACE AREA. THIS LESSENS THE PRESSURE SPIKE AS THE BULLET ENTERS THE RIFLING.

Cool, so drilling a hole in the bullet base means more surface area for pressure to push the bullet. It should go faster then, right?
(Yeah, that's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.)

Whoever wrote this stuff has made a fool of themselves, and doesn't even know enough to realize it.

Venturi effect? I doubt it, but Weatherby gets some mileage out of it.

Anyway, I'd care most about the terminal performance of light bullets pushed fast. I may try some to see how they work.

The claims are laughable, really..

Proof would be in the pudding.
Just may try some for the 762x39