Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Any good 338 Federal - .225 Nosler etips loads

Looking for a good 338 Federal - .225 gr Nosler etips load, the 225 gr e-tip with it's BC of .611 looks like a great load if I can find a 2450 fps load.

Not many sources for .338 Federal 225 grain loads.

I have loaded the 225 AccuBond up to 2450 fps in a 22" barrel with 44.0 grains of Ramshot TAC, but Nosler does not list the 225 E-Tip in their .338 Federal data, probably because it results in higher pressure than lead-core bullets of the same weight.

44.1 grains of TAC is the max listed by Ramshot for 225's in the .338 Federal, but Nosler lists 42.5 as max with lead-cored bullets.

I would also be a little skeptical of the .611 BC at such low velocities. Generally BC in highest in plastic-tipped boattail spitzers at higher velocities.

On a related note--I always thought the 338 Fed would be perfect in the Remington Model 7.

The e-tip will be a challenge since it is sooo long. It will take up a lot of powder space. A 200 e-tip is about the same length as a 225 AB. Leverevolution will get you 2500ish with a 225 Partition. Hodgdon lists 48gn with a 225 Hornady for 2518. I got 2450 with the 225 Partition at 46.5 and a 22” barrel. At 48 it was a little over 2500 but I felt that’s probably a little stout. 2000MR would be the other powder to try in my opinion.

thanks MD and others, I will lower my expectations on the .611

I have 200 gr etips and 160 gr t-tsx's on the shelf I will try first.

The 160 TTSX may be
The 160 TTSX could prove to be an interesting 338 Fed bullet.

It is a good one in the 338-06 at 3K+ fps.

DF

old willys,

My experience with the .338 Federal (and similar cartridges, such as the .358 Winchester) is that high BC doesn't help much. They're still moderate-range rounds.

Higher BC does help a lot as the same cases are necked down to smaller calibers. Not so much when they're necked up!

If you’re looking for a relatively good BC vs. velocity bullet, consider the 180 AB. Bryan Litz tested BC values are better than the Nosler published value. There are many great powders that will get you 2775-2800. Seeing your in CA and perhaps needing a mono, both the 185 and 160 TTSX shoot very well IMO. For the 160, try AA2230. I was told X-terminator was the exact same powder, yet published data is different. Check out Barnes load data, but work up. I’ve never settled on their max as they seemed a little too stout for me.

I just got in some 180 NAB's from SPS and MidwayUSA. Midway was higher, but I got free shipiping, which made SPS slightly more expensive.

In the 338-06, I should get pretty good speed, maybe in the 2,900 range with H-380. Reportedly it's a good bullet for general use. Will compare accuracy with that powder and Nosler's accuracy powder, Vv n-150, burn rate close to H-4350, StaBALL, RL-17 and H-100V. I have them all, probably won't try every one. Will go with mag primers with ball powders.

I'd like to see 338-06 data with StaBALL. In other rounds, such as the 7-08, charges are about the same as H-4350. I may need to work up loads with my chrono, starting with H-4350 load data. Start low and go slow, for sure, let the chrono do the talking.

DF

DF,
In my 338-06 with 180 Accubonds,I was able to get 3020fps with 58.0grs of Varget.60.0gr of Big Game gave me 2940fps,so yes 2900fps is achievable.

Good info. 3K is moving that sized bullet.

H-380 is another good one in the 338-06.

I like Varget with the 160 TTSX.

DF

So from what I've learned so far working with the 338-06,with the same case,going from 30cal up to 338cal it looks like you may be able to push the same weight bullet around 150-200fps faster out of the 338cal.So I would think in the case of the 338 Federal,I would think the 160 TTSX Should be able to get around 2900fps or maybe even a bit more.A 180gr Accubond should be able to around 2800fps or maybe a bit over.The difference between the 338 Federal and the 338-06 still looks to remain about the same difference between the 308 Win and the 30-06,giving the velocity edge to the larger 06 case.Powders that work well in the 308 Win look to be the powder choice in the 338 cases.

Yep.

Fed version should like faster powders than the ‘06 version.

As with the .308/30-06 comparison, there is less difference with lighter weight bullets. The ‘06 pulls away with heavier bullets.

DF

Check the Western Powders reloading guide for a few loads using their powders (X-term, 2230, TAC) with the Nosler 225 accubond. Alliant has loads for the A-bond and for the Speer boat tail 225 and one for the flat base 225. Overall, I think, you will do better with a shorter, lighter choice, like a 200. I like the Speer flat base 200 as it will hold up well at Fed. velocities. Its BC of about .45 isn't so impressive today but higher velocity with it vs. the 225s help offset any BC advantage of the slippery stuff at lower velocities. Additionally, you most likely won't use a 338 Fed for those 600-800 yard shots so the BC isn't critical.

baldhunter,

Due to the larger bore in a smaller case, the .338 Federal is capable of just about the same muzzle velocities, with the same-weight bullets, as the .30-06. Which is why I wrote in the first GUN GACK book that the. 338 Federal (like many other cartridges) approximates the .30-06. Of course, .338 bullets of the same weight as .308 bullets have a lower ballistic coefficient, when of the same make/design.

The .280 Remington Ackley Improved also does the approximate -30-06 thing with smaller-diameter, higher-BC bullets. The big differences between the .338 Federal and the .280 AI are BC and recoil: The .280 AI kicks harder but with the "right" bullets shoots flatter and drifts less in the wind. Which is also a general principle of ballistics, when necking various cartridges up and down.

So it depends on what you want. Out to about 250-300 yards the .338 Federal provides ballistics about like the .30-06, with somewhat less recoil. Of course, this is judged by muzzle velocity, but I have never found the magic killing power in .33-caliber bullets over .30 caliber bullets that some other hunters claim.

I wouldn't overlook the 200gr Silver Ballistic Tip or 200gr Accubond.Both of these bullets are very tough.I'm running both these bullets at 2800fps out of my 338-06 to take a couple of red deer.
200gr Accubond exit neck

200gr Silver Ballistic Tip Red Stag at 200yds

Entry

Inside entry

inside exit side

outside exit

Nice.

BTW, that background looks like a cowboy action range...

DF

baldhunter,

Among other animals taken with the 200-grain .338 Ballistic Tip/Ballistic Silvertip (they are the same bullet with different colors) lengthwise through a 450-pound bull gemsbok, which have 1" thick hide on the shoulders and heavy, tough bones. The cartridge was the .338 Winchester Magnum, and the muzzle velocity around 2950 fps. The bull was standing quartering toward me at 150-175 yards, and the bullet not only broke the near shoulder but the spine, ending up under the hide of the opposite ham, retaining a little over 60% of its weight. Yes, they are pretty tough bullets....

I had a 200gr ballistic silvertip shed it's core out of my 338-06 on a mature mule deer buck this past season. Tremendous damage, tough is not what comes to mind. Example of one.

I had tried it specifically because MD stated it was tough. Going to try some 185gr mono's this weekend. I think a 200gr AB would be better.

I have always thought a 338-06 is pretty close to like a 300 magnum.

I have Combined Technologies, black 200 gr bullets (NBT's) that shoot really good over a warm dose of H-380. Not quite a gunner500 dose, but pretty close.

I'm thinking those would be good for WT's. I try to stay out of shoulders to save meat. Where I hunt, we can find them if they run a few yards. Most don't go that far, often leave a blood trail that Ray Charles could track at night...

I have excellent 160 TTSX and 180 NAB loads ready to go. But you know how a Loony thinks...

DF


Edited to add, a good 210 NPT load, too. All three loads sub MOA.

CRS,

I hear stuff like that all the time, and yes, 200-grain Ballistic Tips do tend to shed the core.

So what? This is NOT the same thing as a typical thin-jacketed cup-and-core shedding its jacket. The reason? The jacket of 200 BT's is around 3/4 of the original bullet weight, and the core is only about 1/4 of the original weight. This is exactly the opposite of typical C&C's, where the core is most of the bullet's weight.

Did you weigh the jacket you recovered? I would guess (based on plenty of past experience) that it was around 60% of the original bullet's weight. Which is exactly what the "empty" jacket of the bullet that penetrated around 4 feet through the gemsbok weighed.

Yes, they do tremendous damage, precisely because they do lose around 40% of their weight. So do 210-grain Partitions, because they lose 35 % of their weight. Which is why both both bullets tend to kill quickly, yet penetrate well. And "tremendous damage" is why expanding bullets kill better than non-expanding bullets.

My definition of a "tough" bullet is one that always penetrates sufficiently for the animal hunted, whether or not the bullet loses "X" amount of weight, or ends up under the hide on the far side rather than exiting. If you try the 200 AccuBond, you'll find it also results in "tremendous damage," because it will lose maybe 5-10% less weight than the 200 Ballistic Silvertip.

Yes, monolithics in the same weight-range will retain more weight, and exit more often, and result in less "damage." Which is why they don't kill as quickly, on average. This is a basic fact of expanding bullets: The more damage they do to "vital tissue" inside the chest. the quicker they kill. I have data from hundreds of big game animals to back that up, and so do some ammo/bullet companies.

MD,

97gr is what the remaining jacket weighs.

I was just surprised, at the results. I though it would be tougher and did not think I would recover one on deer size game.

Here is my thought process. Son and I are going to SE for a spring Black Bear hunt. Both of us are taking 338-06's. I wanted a softer bullet due to the extremely thick cover if the animal makes it off the beach. More damage, quicker kill. I would also like two holes IF the bear makes it to the thick stuff. This is a bucket list hunt, so I am having fun preparing.

I have really liked the 210gr TSX, has worked fantastic on elk, but seemed a little hard for deer. Black bears are not considered tough on bullets. Hence trying a softer bullet. I wish Hornady still made the 200gr IL, worked very good on deer. I do not know if the SST is as tough as the old IL, as I have some SST's on the shelf.

There are other options, a 210gr NPt is always good, shot deer and elk with it. A 225gr Hornady SP if I want to go up in weight. I do have some 210gr TTSX's that I have not tried yet. I have until June to have fun sorting it all out.

I know I am being a looney, and most any bullet is going to work as long as we put it in the right spot.

Not MD, but for me it would be hard in that scenario to not have the 210 NPT at or near the top of the list. It covers both ends of the spectrum, expansion and penetration.

Don't think I'd use an SST. Just me.

DF

Muledeer,
Did you mean to type "...the more quickly..."?

Thanks for the catch. Actually probably meant to type "the quicker they kill."

The bowhunter in me always wants two holes.
The game processer in me wants less meat loss.
The hunter in me wants a clean kill.

Where I normally hunt in western South Dakota, a 50-150 yard death run is no big deal. Hence my heavy use and preference of mono's.

I have always been hesitant of Partitions because I have had trouble getting them to shoot to my satisfaction.
I have tried them in:
270, 130.150.160
300 H&H, 180.200
9.3x64, 286
338WM and 338-06, 210

I totally agree!

IMO, shedding a core does not make it a tough bullet. Especially a 200gr on deer.

Just differing definitions of tough.

On the 338-06, 61 gr H-380 will group the 210 NPT around .8”, at least in my rifle.

Some guns don’t like the NPT, some do. For example my .240 Wby shoots the 100 NPT best of any bullet I tried.

DF

I'm gluing some wood together to make a .338 Federal on a Vanguard action. By the time it's finished, this thread will be long gone so I'll start a new one. The TTSX bullets have spiked new interest in short action guns.....at least they have in my world.

CRS,

You're free to define it however you want.

I tend to regard any big game bullet as pretty tough if it consistently penetrates deeply enough to kill pretty big animals, regardless of whether the core leaves the jacket or "petals" break off.

I have killed, and also seen killed, a bunch of big game with the heavy-jacket Ballistic Tips. The first introduced was the 200-grain .338, because Nosler realized some people would hunt game larger than deer with them. The .338 was successful enough that later Nosler turned all the Ballistic Tips from the 165 .30 into heavy-jacket models, meaning the jacket was the majority of the bullet's weight. I have used several of them, not just the .338, and so have friend.

The one I shot lengthwise through the bull gemsbok is the only one recovered from all the animals I've personally killed with heavy-jacket Ballistic Tips, but friends have also recovered a couple. One was another 200 .338 a local friend used to kill a cow elk, which was angling away at around 200 yards. He had to place the bullet a little higher than usual, because the elk was standing in brush. It landed in the lower part of the left shoulder blade, broke the spine, and then went through the far shoulder just above the big joint. The jacket was found under the hide of that shoulder.

The other recovery was a 180-grain .30 that another local friend used to kill another mature cow elk. He'd handloaded it in a .300 Weatherby, and the cow was standing facing him directly, as I recall at around 250 yards. At the shot the elk collapsed, because the bullet had gone through the bottom edge of the spine. He found the empty jacket under the hide of the rump.

Have also seen heavy-jacket Ballistic Tips break both shoulders of 500-pound animals and exit, both in North America and Africa. Have also recovered various monolithics and other "controlled expansion" bullets that lost considerable weight from suddenly dead animals. These bullets have included a 130-grain TSX from a .308 Winchester that broke the near shoulder of a quartering-on cow elk my wife killed a couple years ago--the biggest cow either of us have ever taken, as large as many mature bulls. The range was about 250 yards, and at the shot the elk staggered 20-25 yards, obviously dead on its feet, before collapsing. The bullet broke the near shoulder just above the big joint, went through both lungs, and was found under the hide in the middle of the ribs on the other side. It only retained 61% of its weight, due to losing ALL of its petals.

Another example was the 150-grain Nosler Partition Eileen used from a .270 Winchester to kill a medium-sized Shiras moose. This was not a giant moose, but still probably weighed more than 800 pounds on the hoof, as large as any big bull elk I've seen on the ground. The moose was quartering away to the left at about 125 yards, and the bullet entered the middle of the left ribs The bull took a step and a half and folded up, dead. We found the bullet under the hide next to the right shoulder, where it stopped after penetrating around three feet of moose. It only retained 54% of its weight, the lowest percentage of any Partition I've ever recovered, yet somehow killed the moose not merely dead, but really most sincerely dead. That was 31 years ago, and despite having seen quite a few other moose taken since then, is still the quickest-deadest bull shot with any bullet and cartridge--and the cartridges have ranged up to .375 H&H.

Those are just a few examples of big game animals taken with bullets that did not retain even 2/3 of their original weight, yet died quickly, because the bullets penetrated completely through the vitals, despite not exiting. Have also seen plenty of big game animals stay on their feet a lot longer after being center-punched through the heart/lung area with bullets that did exit. The last was a big mule deer doe I killed last fall at around 200 yards with a 140-grain TTSX started at around 2850 fps from a 7mm-08. The bullet landed right where I intended, just behind the shoulder about 1/3 of the way up the chest, yet the doe ran just about exactly 100 yards before falling.

I have also shot two buck deer, one a mule deer and the other a whitetail, with cup-and-core bullets that shed their cores at the ENTRANCE hole--yet somehow the bullets still killed the deer on the spot, because the core kept on penetrating, because in standard cup-and-cores the lead weighs more than the jacket. The mule deer was angling away at about 100 yards, and the bullet was a 130-grain Sierra GameKing from a .270 Winchester. At the shot the buck collapsed and didn't move, and when I skinned it later that day I found the jacket just inside the entrance hole, and was was left of the core in the opposite shoulder. The whitetail was broadside at around 200 yards with a 105-grain Speer Hot-Cor from a .243 Winchester. It also collapsed and never moved, despite the jacket again being found lying against the ribs at the entrance hole, because the core kept going and broke the spine.

Have also seen bullets that retained at least 90% of their weight fail to exit deer-sized animals, all of them retaining their cores because they were bonded. This is because some (not all) bonded bullets open very widely, which reduces penetration considerably.

All of these examples, along with others, are why I quit worrying a long time ago about whether some bullet doesn't retain at least 90% of its weight, or loses the jacket or all its petals, or exits--as long as it consistently penetrates through the vitals.

Obviously this is just an opinion, as is calling the 200-grain .338 Ballistic Tip a "pretty tough" bullet, but it comes after observing the results from close to 1000 big game animals.

I've yet to kill a critter with the 160 TTSX in the 338-06, but at 3K+ fps, it reportedly is pretty destructive. And, tissue destruction kills, hopefully without ruining too much meat. I'm thinking it may be a better choice than even the 185's due to extreme accuracy (at least in my gun) and terminal performance on WT sized game.

It should be a good one in the 338 Fed for the same reason. I've found that Varget seems to be the best powder with that bullet in the 338-06, not sure about the Fed. I'd check Barnes load data for their accuracy load.

DF


Edited to add, I just checked the Barnes site for 338 Fed load data with the 160 TTSX. Their accuracy powder if RL-7 and the fastest RL-7 load was 44 gr. at 2,923 fps, That's giving up around 100 fps to the .338-06. But, I doubt there would be that much terminal performance difference. Those aren't necessarily long range bullets or LR rounds.

I am getting a ballistic tape for my 3-9x40 Conquest with elevation turret. I think the most accurate bullets in the 338-06 would do good whacking stuff at a distance. Maybe a big arc, but something to play with.

As with the .308/30-06 match up, the difference is greater with heavier bullets, not as much with lighter ones.

Years ago I loaded the Nosler Partition trying to replace the Remington Cor Lock bullets we used for elk in our 270's. I spent considerable time working on load development, because at the time the Partitions were supposed to be the end all beat all. I finally gave up because accuracy in my opinion was unsatisfactory. 1 3/4 to 2" @ 100 was good enough for elk, but I was searching for the perfect load. A while back I tried again and was surprised with the results, Groups averaged 7/8" shooting the same old Model 70 as before. I think the manufacturing of these bullets have improved over the years and now I really like the bullet.

However I seldom used them and tend to use more "fragile" bullets as I do not believe a bullet shedding its core is a problem with deer and elk sized animals. The game that I've shot or witnessed being shot that shed the jacket or "come apart" are dead on the spot or stumble a few steps. I believe this to be because all the energy of the bullet is expended inside the animal and not in some distant tree. I admit I don't have as much experience as others, just my observation. I've heard the horror stories of bullets "blowing up" on a entrance wound rib, but have not had that experience with the 100 to 180 grain bullets between .243 and 308, that I generally shoot.

This was my thinking for a long time.....until I discovered that the energy in most bullets is sufficient to kill many deer...not just the one fired at.

What caused me to rethink this philosophy was a deer squarely hit with a ballistic tip.....I darn near lost the deer as I had no blood trail to follow. Since then I like bonded bullets as I find they greatly increase the likelihood of an exit hole that gives me a much greater chance of following a blood trail. Further they seem to penetrate deeper if they don't exit.

I now prefer the monometal bullets and, yes, they too don't always exit but the record is for five elk and four mule deer.....all bangflops….there is no jacket to shed and they penetrate superbly and often exit.

Steve Hornady is fond of saying "at what point in the death of the animal did the bullet fail?" He makes a good point....but my answer is at the point that I took several hours looking for it after the deer was dead.

I once subscribed to the hydrostatic shock theory......I no longer do.....I want penetration and I've had accubonds fail to exit as well....A-Frames too!!!! So go with the best probability available.....for me it's spelled TTSX

Yeah, love to hear bullet failure stories from the skinning shed.

One famous study showed that WT’s shot with harder, premium bullets traveled farther than WT’s shot with softer C&C bullets, the ones not DRT that is.

But, there are lots of variables not addressed, such as monos at very high velocity and their destructive terminal performance, C&C bullet types, speeds, where hit, etc.

Lots of science, but with a good bit of snake oil thrown in.

I’m a proponent of matching bullet construction with velocity and game being hunted.

There may not be any right or wrong answers, just opinions and experiences.

Loony stuff. Don’t ya just love it...!

DF

I do not think the bullet failed at all. I was just expecting it to be tougher. Is it tough enough? Yes

I know this thread is about E-tips, but I would not hesitate to use the 200gr BT out of a Federal.

Another thing I just thought of. This rifle has a 1:9 twist. That could have some effect on bullet performance also.

A bit off topic, but this IS the Fire....

Another mono option is the Cutting Edge mono that sheds it's petals.

I've not tried them in anything other than the .308. Here's the link to that bullet. Check out the reviews; I wrote one about a hog I killed. They are accurate
https://cuttingedgebullets.com/308-135gr-er-extended-range-raptor

Checking their web site I did find this .338 version that would probably work very well in the Federal 338. It's light enough to move pretty fast and from my experience with the 135 ER in the .308, should have impressive terminal performance.
https://cuttingedgebullets.com/338-176gr-er-extended-range-raptor

They are expensive, but how many do we actually shoot at game. My deal, work up the load and save them for hunting. Practice with something else.

DF

To me the 338/06 was at it's best...IMHO with 200 NBTs for deer and similar game, and 225 PTs for everything else.

In the 338 Federal, My belief is the round shines with 185 - 210s. The 185 Barnes and 200 Sp loads can do a lot of killing within the window of this round, which I would put out to around 300 yds, same size game as any other 33 bore, like the Win Mag. I'd use a Mono or PT on anything really big and/or dangerous. Just me. Lighter bullets give up BC so sizzle out faster downrange, heavier bullets don't fly as flat.

What range you shoot and game does matter. 200 BTs are long and might rob capacity in this SA round.

CRS,

I have indeed seen rifling twist make a difference in terminal bullet performance. The most obvious was almost a decade ago when Nosler introduced their Varmageddon bullets. They invited me on a prairie dog shoot, and among the rifles I took was a Ruger 77 .220 Swift with the traditional 1-14 twist, handloading 55-grain tipped Varmageddons to 3800 fps. The Nosler guy I accompanied used one of their also-new AR-15's in .5.56/.223 with the same bullet in a Nosler factory load, muzzle velocity 3100 fps.

The fast-twist AR blew up PD's noticeably more violently than the slow-twist Swift, despite the 700 fps difference in muzzle velocity! This wasn't just a time or two, but consistent over a couple days of shooting.

Dunno how much a 1-9 twist .338 would make over a 1-10, but it could be a factor.

MD,
Didn't you do a bunch of bullet testing with the "bullet tube" or something like that. Did you happen to notice any difference in the damage to the ballistic gelatin in regards to twist rate?

I had my last 338-06 built with a 1:9 specifically because of my preference to mono's and the extra length.

I have access to a 338-06 with a 1:12 twist. Maybe I should test the theory. What do you think would be the best way?

Have you read any ballistic studies exploring that theory?

I settled on the 210 grain Partition as the all purpose load in my 24" 1-10" ROT 338-06.

I'm still playing around with the Ruger Hawkeye in 338 FED that I bought in 2017, but like the 180 grain AB so far.

I agree with your comment that the 338 FED runs into COAL issues with many of the currently available component bullets in short actions. I have occasionally thought about having JES rebore a spare Savage 99F in 308 to 338 FED, but haven't yet done so because of COAL restrictions in that action.





'

CRS,

Haven't heard of any formal studies involving bullet expansion in different twist rates, but would imagine ballistic gelatin or something like the Test Tube would provide some info.

One of the interesting things about Test Tubes (which were made of relatively soft candle wax) is that unlike ballistic gel they left a permanent wound channel. When sectioned, you could actually see the marks left by the bullet as it twisted through the wax. With lead-cored bullets this normally matched the rifling twist, with one turn in X inches, but with petal-type bullets the rate of turning increased as the bullet penetrated.

Some people (including me) guessed that the increased rate-of-turn was due to the slight propeller angle of the expanded petals, which "grabbed" the wax. Others suggested it was simply due to the bullet slowing down, while it continued to turn at the same rate. I would then ask, "Why doesn't the same thing happen with lead-cored bullets that don't expand in the typical petal shape?"

But I suspect the best test would be to shoot a lot of animals, and record as much data as possible. It wouldn't surprise me that some of the effectiveness of 6.5 rounds (whether the old-timers like the 6.5x55 or newer cases) is due to the typical twist of 1-8 or so.

Very interesting information, the twist difference in bullet construction gives pause for thought.

There is no way that this idea has not been tested by a bullet manufacturer, military, FBI, etc in the past.

I like the idea of shooting lots of animals, but then you have a meta analysis study, without all the proper controls in place.
My science background does not always like those types of studies.

I agree on the effectiveness of fast twist rounds. I thought of that last night while pondering before sleep.

We have shot a lot of deer/antelope with a 1:14 22-250 and Barnes 53gr TSX. I had it rebarreled to 1:8 after shooting the first barrel out. Might have to revisit it again. But our deer populations are not as high as they once were and with both boys being gone, the hunters and demand for venison is certainly decreasing. For quite a few years it was nothing to put 10 plus critters in the freezer between archery, rifle and muzzleloader.

One would think a larger caliber, heavier constructed bullet would be less ROT sensitive than a faster, lighter built bullet. Now, wonder what the actual truth may be.

DF

CRS,

At least one major European ammo manufacturer does tend to test new bullets on animals--partly because in much of Europe wild animals belong to the landowner, and the meat can be sold commercially. Thus a lot of hunters want bullets that will put animals down quickly, before they can cross the property boundary where they belong to another landowner. Many hunters also like using lung shots, to ruin less of the profitable meat. Many property owners also cull considerable amounts of game, both for the meat and to reduce damage to young trees, another commercial consideration.

I had an interesting talk to one of the ammo company's representatives in the U.S. about a dozen years ago. He said they'd shot around 500 animals during the development of their latest bullet, designed to put down game from roe to red deer quickly with lung shots. It turned out that in their trials, bullets that fragmented considerably, as I recall losing at least half their weight, proved to do the job best--and that was how the bullet they eventually introduced was designed (and tested) to act.

This can also be done on a lesser scale in some parts of the U.S., especially Texas, and more American bullet makers are doing more pre-testing on actual animals rather than relying purely on laboratory pre-testing as many used to do. But generally such testing isn't done on the scale of that test in Europe, and often "our" bullets are designed to perform somewhat differently, with more emphasis on deeper penetration and weight retention.