I hear the term thrown around slot, what exactly is bullet failure, and why? Thanks

Anytime you shoot a game animal and it doesn't drop over dead instantly (regardless of bullet placement), while simultaneously utterly destroying vitals w/o damaging a scrap of edible meat AND achieve two holes with a blood trail that looks like a red spray paint can was shot you have bullet failure.

It's never happened to me, but I've read about it on the internet.

David

When a “Hunter” goofs up a shot and wounds an animal and doesn’t want others to think he’s a bad shot.
It’s an excuse.

David, this whole internet thing is confusing... grin

This is why I’m asking... he tastes amazing... 1 and done


According to a couple members, this is a “failure “ that’s why I ask.... what constitutes a “failure”????

Ok. Not bullet failure. Just using a crap bullet on something other than varmints

Ken, what’s wrong with the bullet?

The only time I've experienced what I believe might could've been considered "bullet failure" was a factory Federal 30/30, 150 grain Silvertip that just 'penciled' through a deer.
The deer showed none of the usual characteristics of getting hit and just ran more like spooked by the sound of the gunshot.

It made it a good ways before falling dead, head downhill, in a soybean field. Bullet struck high on the left shoulder, passed through side of heart, through one lung, the liver, and exited just past the off side rib cage. No sign of expansion or fragmentation. Entrance and exit holes both looked as if it could've been shot with a practice target point arrow.

I've experienced what I think could legitimately be called bullet failure, though not often.

A case in point was two 35 gn V-max bullets, driven at about 3000 fps from a .22 Hornet. One blew up on the near-shoulder of a fox, without penetrating. Another blew up on the wing feathers of a crow, again without penetrating through the wing to the bird's chest. They were fairly close range shots, and the placement should have seen clean kills, but neither animal was killed by these bullets (both were dropped with another rifle). I think that it is fair to expect better than that. I've killed numerous foxes and crows (and other stuff, even pigs) with the Hornet with other bullets without the same issue.

On the other hand, I was equally disappointed with a lot of Woodleigh PPs on pigs - they drilled through without seeming to expand at all. I don't know whether you'd call that "failure", but they didn't do the job I expected of them. They did fine on buffalo though.

Federal doesn't make the silvertip, Winchester does.

well depends....Are you talking about objective or subjective aspects of bullet failure????????????... grin:

I consider it bullet failure when the bullet fails to perform in the manner expected given the design of the bullet, speed, range, and tissue/bone hit. I've had three times I'd consider the results bullet failure because the bullet didn't perform in accordance to it's design (or my intended implementation of it's design). All 3 times ended up with dead animals though. Just my simple definition of it and it's very subjective......I ain't webster's....

Call Sierra and ask them.....

According a friend I had a bullet failure Sunday. I shot a doe with a 300gr Barnes Original from my muzzleloader and had to track her. The bullet broke 3 ribs going in and center punched the off side shoulder on exit. She ran around 75-80yds with a massive blood trail, I've actually never seen anything like it. The exit hole in the hide was caliber size so "you didn't get no expansion" and since she ran "it didn't dump any energy".


I knew the bullet had performed excellent and when I skinned her out the lungs were destroyed and the off shoulder had a hole through it you could drop a golf ball through.


I got the "uhhh, errr, uhhh, I wonder why she ran so far?"


Some people don't know what a bullet is supposed to do and a lot of people don't process their own deer so they really don't have a clue what they're talking about.

I do not think there is a set definition per se. I do believe it's a very subjective matter in which the definition of same varies from person to person.

I think JCMCUBIC pretty much nailed it. I have had 6 times that I can remember where the bullet failed to accomplish what the design was intended - 3 times with a partition on the same deer. POA/POI was the point of the shoulder and the bullet penciled through but broke the deer's back. Caliber sized entrance and exit. Shot # 2 was through the neck at 75 yards - caliber-sized entrance and exit. Shot # 3 was through the ribs, breaking one on entrance and on exit with caliber-sized entrance and exit wounds. Ended up having to cut the deer's throat. All with a 25-06. Initial shot was 150 yards.
The other three were with Barnes bullets.
The original bullet out of the same 25-06. Through the shoulder on entrance and exit with caliber-size entrance and exit on a whitetail at 100 yards. Next two times with a 7mm-08 and the TTSX bullets penciling through the shoulder on a 125 yard and 175 yard shot on two different deer. All three deer were found the next day.

Doesn't condemn either bullet, just for some reason, they didn't do what they were designed to do. I still use the Partitions in a couple of rifles.

I’ll lean the other way as failure, not opening. Shooting a .338 215 Sierra into wet and dry media and having a resulting .338 hole through some wet and over 2’ of dry media. Shot another, same thing. I dug a few feet into the soil and still couldn’t find them. If that won’t get a bullet to open I’m thinking a Whitetail won’t either. Or at least I’m not willing to find out.

I've had 2 that I could say were failures. Strangely enough were 150 grain out of 30 06s. Hornady spire points. Not a hot load at all and both (what I call) splashed on the side of a deer. Both deer were recovered so some would say there wasn't a failure. This was about 10 years apart and different boxes of bullets. I went to other brands after the 2nd one.

A large percentage of bullet failure has more to do with the shooter than the projectile.
Experience, and, of course, reading the innernet, indicates that there is no shortage of shooters:
using inappropriate calibers and projectiles...some too small, some too large,
attempting shots that are low percentage,
using equipment with which that they haven't developed confidence, familiarity, or ability.

Humans have no limit in their of ability to justify poor judgement.

Bullet failure to me is when a bullet hit an animal in what should be a fatal location.blows up at entry,fails to penetrate as it should and the animal would have not been recovered if a second fatal shot had not killed the animal.

Bullet failure.....

Is that the same as Projectile Dysfunction?

Wisdom

R O F


Jerry

"Bullet failure" is the failure of a bullet to perform in the manner for which it was designed and marketed, My definition, others may vary.

For example:
* The tip falls out of a tipped bullet before it impacts a target (including before even being fired).
* A bullet designed to provide high weight retention, even if bone is hit, instead disintegrates and weight retention is low.

Massive exit wounds are NOT necessarily due to bullet failure. A bullet hitting bone can cause bone fragments to blow a fist-sized exit. BTDT, with monos.

Entrance and exit holes don’t tell the whole story. The wound channel in between them is a better indicator of terminal performance.

Rephrase as "bullet company failure".

When a company advertises a certain bullet as a "big game bullet", most will rightly assume that it will work fine for deer with any given shot opportunity. That just isn't reality. Hornady isn't the only one to blame. Winchester and Nosler have done it, Speer and Sierra have done it. It can be factory ammo or component bullets.


Or, in some cases it is the consumer, using the wrong bullets for the wrong application. Sure, a 130 grain hollow point out of a 300 Win. Mag. will kill a deer with a broadside lung shot, so will a 22 LR. That's not the point. Having a entrance hole you could throw a softball through isn't really great performance for a big game bullet.


You have to think of the worst case scenario, and the worst thing that could happen with a shot, or sometimes, the only shot opportunity that arises. Many bullets on the market will not get sufficient penetration when it is needed. Having a bullet stay in an animal has nothing to do with how much energy that animal "absorbed". The energy is transferring along the entire path, starting when the skin on the entrance hole is pierced.


Here in Michigan, the hot cartridge is the 450 Bushmaster. There have been probably 10,000 or more sold here in the past few years. However, 95%+ hunters are using the Hornady 250 grain FTX factory load in either the black or custom ammo box (same exact load, different marketing). They took a muzzleloader bullet, and loaded it in the 450. And the actual field results are not good. Numerous reports of lack of penetration, bullets fragmenting, and no exits, even on broadside shots. This is a 250 grain bullet at 2200 FPS. Pretty pathetic coming from a company like Hornady. Yes, the choice of that bullet was a failure, on the part of Hornady. The accuracy is great, but that can't be credited just to the bullet.

I have collected and studied terminal performance for decades. I have in excess of 200 bullets recovered from game animals. Many from clients when I was an elk guide. I use almost exclusively Nosler Partions after watching other types fail. In the last decade I have been trying conventional bullets just because. This year I has a failure in a 250 Savage used on a mule deer doe. I shot her facing me slightly quartering. The bullet was the world renowned Remington Cor-Lokt round nose. Impact velocity was estimated at 2500 fps. The bullet hit one small rib and then came apart. I recovered the jacket from the stomach cavity and after 3 attempts with metal detectors I was unable to find the core. And no it did not kill her. About a half hour later I tracked her down and finished her off as she was walking away.

Crap that's funny......

For me, varmint bullets that fail to come apart and big game bullets that do are both examples of "bullet failure".

Not what I want either of them to do and i try to choose accordingly.

X2 when an adequate caliber and bullet weight/construction was used for the intended game

I had a 7mm 140 grain Barnes TSX not open on a grizzly once. The tip got bent when it entered and it just bounced around in there like a FMJ. I recovered the bullet under the hide on the same side that it entered.

The bear still died, but it was a bit of a rodeo.

Thats what partitions are supposed to do. enter, expand and disperse the front half and the rear shank keeps on trucking with caliber size exit.

I had another bullet failure today here in Montana

I say the shooter decides what constitutes a failure. I have certain expectations of the bullets I shoot. If I shoot a Nosler Partition out of my 6.5x55 at 2800 FPS and it blows apart penetrating only 6 inches into the vitals, that's a failure to me irrespective of whether or not the animal dies. I know people who would be thrilled with the performance as long as the deer died. They wouldn't hold any curiosity of what became of the bullet after the deer dropped.

Federal didn't make Silvertips, Winchester did. I killed alot of deer with 170 gr. .30-30 Silvertips and always got quick kills with good expansion from them. They were my favorite until Winchester discontinued them a few years ago.

They were my favorites too.

Jordan, The wound channel matched the entrance/exit wounds.

Chet, I hear of more “failures” with monos than anything

There is really no such thing....it always fall back to the shooter....if a bullet fails it was still the shooters poor choice of said bullet for a situation.
I have had several bullets blow up on impact....always my fault , poor choice in bullet for that given situation...
Som say the old cor loc tend to fail but has not been my experience..

Rainierrifleco. , the older Rem Cor-Lokts had a thicker jacket and kind of a thicker band at the cannalure. Stating around 1970 the Cor-Lokts just became a thin jacketed standard cup and core bullet. If you look at Remington catalogs from before and after the early 70.s they show pictures of their sectioned bullets and you can see the older had heavier jackets and a waist. Their round nose has a heavier jacket than their pointed bullets. I have had terrible luck with Remington bullets in the past and this years experience even with older round nose has left a bad taste in my mouth. I have seen maybe a 100 head of big game, mainly mule deer and elk shot with Partitions and have never seen a failure. Many people believe they didn't expand because the exit hole is small. They have a very thin jacket at the nose for rapid expansion and usually loose the front lead, and the jacket peels back to just barely larger than caliber for a deep penetrating flat nose solid. Judman had heard that some monos have failed. I had one fail on a broadside lung shot mule deer. The bullet was a VERY early Barnes and they had this problem that the supposedly have corrected.

That is a rather circular piece of logic. What you're saying is that it always falls back on the shooter's poor choice of bullet. Well, if the manufacturer would say to me "yeah, this bullet is pretty much rubbish really, don't choose it" then fair call. But if the manufacturer says that the bullet suits what I want to do, and I find that in practice that it won't, then is that still my fault, or theirs? And if a new design comes out, how are you going to know how it will work?

The admittedly fairly few bullets I've seen which really didn't work, didn't do what should have been expected of them. If you have a big game bullet rated to perform at an impact velocity down to, say, 1900 fps, and it simply isn't expanding on game even at velocities comfortably above that, or one rated for varmints up to 50 lbs which splatters without penetrating or killing varmints weighing less than that, then whose fault is it?

Of course, once you've found that a bullet really isn't up to the mark then, sure, you'd be pretty silly to keep using it. Conversely, once you've found one which works well you'd be well advised to lay in a supply of them (which is what I do).

Think the only one I experienced was a locally manufactured mono that broke up after it left the barrel of a 30-06. The animal had 3 entrance holes but not where I intended it to hit. I was amazed that the pieces of copper hit the animal. Took an hour of tracking to get the animal. Never thought a mono would break up as a result of spin but there had to be some issue with the constuction of that bullet. If I had mobile reception I would have phoned the manufacturer just before I started tracking.

I’m not sure if it was bullet failure but I recovered a 140gr .284 TTSX like Chet mentioned, almost looked like I could reload it. It was missing the tip and just slightly bent. It was a head shot on a deer and was recovered from the brain cavity. I don’t think it was necessarily bullet failure but rather a case of not being used in its performance range, but sometimes in Hunting situations you use what you got. In this particular case it was a follow up shot at over 700yds out of a 280rem, I don’t think the bullet was traveling at optimum speed.

On a separate occasion I had shot a buck in the front shoulder on a quartering towards me shot with a 165gr TTSX out of a 300wsm at 400yds. The deer dropped dead or so I thought, then 5 or 10 minutes later got up and hobbled away. After tracking it for 2 days it was obvious there was no exit wound, all the blood was coming from the left shoulder. I never did recover that deer but it was the last time I’ve used a mono metal bullet.

I think for the most part that bullet failure is a result of driver error. In most cases it says right on the box what the velocity is for proper bullet performance, when used outside of that there are no gurantee’s. I’ve had good luck shooting Nosler bullets, ballistic tips, partitions, and accubond have all worked well for me with no bad experiences to date.

Makes sense to me.

You're being too kind. Calling that post "logic".

The only bullets failures I have had was one 155 grain bullet which appeared to have the jacket separate right at the boatail/shank juncture. It did hit the target, twice(!) but both holes were eight inches away from the group and a foot apart from each other. The other failure was a Speer TNT which failed to make it to it's intended target (a ground squirrel) and blew up about twenty yards out. In fairness, Speer cautioned not to try and drive them too fast and I did.

My own definitions:

Varmint bullet that don't break up and shed at least 80% of their weight are failures. Their mission is either to obliterate a small animal, or in some cases to kill a fur-bearer with no exit to sew up.

Big game bullet used for game of 200 pounds or less are failures if they don't hold 45% of their weight or more. The Mission is to kill by destroying the vitals and to give an exit.

Big game bullet used for game of 200 pounds or more are failures is they don't hold 65% of their weight or more. Again the Mission is to kill by destroying the vitals and to give an exit

Solids that don't hold 97% of their weight or more are failures. it's mission is to penetrate in a straight line as deep and as straght as possible.

Will failing bullet kill?
Sure. They have done it for many many many years. Millions of times.

So why use better bullets?
Because they work better. The issue is not what a bullet does when all the circumstances are perfect, but what it does when they are a bit less then perfect.

You can haul a ton of bricks in a Crown Vic or even a Honda Civic and all the bricks will get moved. But a better tool would be a 3/4 ton pick-up.
A so-so deer bullet will kill a moose, just like the Civic will haul the bricks, but because the Civic will haul the bricks and because the so-so bullet will kill the moose is NOT any kind of proof that it's the best tool for the job.

So the argument that X has worked many times for many years is factual, but doesn't have any basis to say it's just as good as Y.
It becomes very glaring when tool X is not as good as tool Y and yet it cost the same amount and in the case of many bullets Y often costs more.

When discussing the "best choice" for anything, the focus of that debate is the question "What will work BEST," not just "what will work".

All bullet can kill. Elephants have been killed with 22 LRs. And yes you can haul a ton of brick in a Civic, or even a bicycle.

But that is missing the point and focus of the initial question.

"Best"!

This .224" 62 grain TSX was dug out of a mule deer, shot at about 80 yards.
It wasn't launched at warp speed, but it wasn't out of a .22 Hornet either.





Thoughts?

I've seen a lot claiming the issues with the Hornady ammo. The flip side is so many want to have an actual firearm other than a shotgun or muzzleloader in that zone, they think they now have a 300+ yard cartridge so those longer shots aren't helping either.

I'd consider that a legitimate failure. Reading through this thread I was thinking "X bullet" and my experience with them, similar to what you showed. Another that's given me similar experiences is the old Combined Technology "Fail Safe" bullet, that was sort of a hybrid cross of a Barnes X and a Partition. Sometimes they worked, and sometimes they didn't.




I'll say that most hunters don't know enough to accurately say if their bullet failed or not, especially those who don't dress and butcher their own animals, as mentioned above. Of course, it's often the less knowledgeable people who are the loudest about this sort of thing.

Last year my grandson and I came across a buck antelope that was wounded earlier in the day by a hunting companion. He shot it with a factory Federal fusion from a 270 Win. My grandson tracked it down and finished it off with a 30-30. Upon gutting it out the 270 bullet was found. It had zero expansion and could be reloaded and shot again. Range of the wounding shot was approx. 300 yards. I would classify that a bullet failure.

^
^
^
Yup, so would I.
I guess I should add that on big game bullets the weights I posted earlier were assuming expansion. NO expansion is not good either.


But having killed REAL BIG animals with solids I can say if I HAD to choose between a solid non-expanding bullet or one that comes apart 80% (or more) I'd take the solid every time.

Solids don't kill as quickly as good soft points in my experience, but they do kill reliably if the vitals are hit, be it elk, deer or sheep, and also for elephant, cape buffalo, hippo, kudu and wildebeest.

A buddy had the same thing happen with a 168 grain TTSX shot from a .308, looked almost new except for the rifling marks and missing tip. Luckily for him, he shot the bull in the heart with it.

He clocked it later, MV was around 2650, too slow for monos IMHO. So not really bullet failure.

I always assume the bullet went where it was intended. That leaves two varieties of failures ... bullets that are supposed to expand but don't and bullets that are supposed to hang together and penetrate but don't. If you flub the shot or take one beyond your accuracy limit, that's your failure, not the bullet's.

Tom

It is more a matter of the bullet not meeting the shooter's expectations. There is no such thing as a magic bullet.
I shoot bullets that a lot of people on the internet knock but they have always done what I expected them to do.
If I ever flub a shot I can always claim bullet failure and the sages on the internet will nod their agreement.
You gotta leave yourself an out.

That's exactly why I've started shooting Sierra Game Changers at 10-15fps over the minimum bullet impact velocities the Sierra tech told me.

David

Did these bullets fail?

Yep, it failed; it didn’t track straight😊

Jud kissed a goat and he liked it. LOL.

You should neck a 50 bmg to 243.

I’m thinking 25-300 bee... seen enough fuucking around with rangefinders, turrets, and drop charts last week to last a lifetime...

The only one that ever got away was a 10 point stuffing worthy buck that took a 140 Barnes TSX a little too high behind the shoulder to avoid getting brush deflection. Five drops of blood and two days of looking only got me more exercise. I'd shot a couple of deer with that bullet before and a quarter size hole through both lungs instead of the usual mush with with softer bullets should have taught me that those bullets were too hard at 7mm-08 velocity and that deer are too thin to expand those TSX's adequately. I'm in the SST, Interlock or Core Lokt camp now. Deer are NOT big game. Too late smart.

The mono "rule" I thought was to go lighter and faster.

I won't use .338 WM 210 NP on anything bigger than caribou ever again, nor Federal Power-Shok on anything bigger than a target, from good and sufficient experience. One failure to perform to satisfaction is one too many.

The combined technology Ballistic Silvertips are also a disaster in many cartridges

These came out of animals I killed on a Safari circa 2007....



I’ll never use the TSX line again though I know a lot of good men that use them. They are accurate and penetrate, I just prefer the bullet to expand.

I have tried and have loaded the LRX and TTSX in several calibers and use those without fear.

The thing is, we can’t have a bullet failure conversation on the Internet without the TSX being involved...

Todd

Damn X’s Have a cult like following too.... no wonder why the started tippin em...

I'd submit they just scream the loudest....

Give me a Berger VLD all day long....

My definition of "bullet failure" is a bullet not doing what it's designed to do.

With that as the definition, the only bullets I've ever had fail are monolithics - the Barnes X, TSX, TTSX and Olin Failsafe.

Here's a failed .308 150 gr. TTSX I pulled from an elk. Apparently upon impacting the elk it didn't open, tipped, and was under the offside hide pointed the opposite direction.

Truth!! But they can eat right up to the hole Greg!!! Grin

Hmmmmm so even tipped they don’t expand.....

Hmmm, I've killed a bunch of deer with .243 Win. 100 gr. power shoks without a problem. Will be using them again this year without concern when I tote my .243.

when it comes to examples of failure, which would be the most offended and defensive,
the NP or Barnes X variety crowd..?

it can be like daring to question the reputation of someones favorite cult status tele evangelist.

Kinda funny no one has posted c&c failures....

John Nosler was inspired to invent the NP after shooting a Canadian moose 7 or 8 times with .300H&H
before it fell...

were hunting bullets really that bad in 1946.?

Here is a pic of the 140gt TTSX I recovered from that buck.

Looks like some "failed bullets" to me. Personally, I've never had the problem. Everything I shot with Sierra or Hornady cup & core ended up dead right quick. After going to completely cast bullets about 25 years ago evidently none have failed. Everything I shot died as quick if not quicker as when shot with jacketed bullets and I've never recovered one. Give me a big meplat, heavy for caliber cast bullet and I'm happy as a dead pig in the sun. Frankly, I am convinced expansion is vastly overrated.

I don't think ANY manufacturer makes a bullet that "always-works-under-all-conditions-no-matter-what".

The differences of impact velocity, penetration-point path and depth, percent of vital organs hit, major or minor bone structure hit, exit or no-exit wound, game-animal toughness and adrenaline level, yada-yada-yada, all contribute to a how fast and effective a bullet "seems to be effective" through our own subjective opinions.

If a bullet is popular enough to be used very-very frequently under all field conditions on all kinds of animals from all kinds of guns, by all kinds of shooters, there WILL BE "FAILURES" with all kinds of extracted sample bullets and all kinds of accompanying "conclusions" (opinions).

You gotta love it.

I just pick bullets that MOST hunters have had very good results with, in lots of field conditions, on my type of rifle, on my type of game animal, and go hunting.

Saw a cluster of epic proportions on an elk involving 7 mag and core-locks.
On skinning, there was a bullet that entered in front of the ham, completely fragmenting by the time in hit the spine.
This poor cow was ground up before she died. The hunter ran out of ammo, had to go get more, find it, and finish.
140gr. so choice wasn't optimal. But failure to penetrate 10 inches in clean meat is a failure in any big game bullet.
The failures I lauded to earlier were my dad's. 150gr core-locks, same time frame as above.. Elk and deer, pencils, or frag.
His elk was the same trip.
I shot an elk that trip. 7mag, Partitions. Shoulder to shoulder, bullet under the skin.
I was new to reloading, dad thought reIoad was a bad word.
Since then, I have loaded his ammo.

Totally agree with this definition.

Was hunting elephant in Zim (2010) and got an unexpected close range charge from a bull. Rifle was a .470 and ammunition was Federal Trophy Bonded Sledgehammer 500 grain solids. Perfectly placed frontal brain shot, but he didn't drop. Fortunately, he did turn to my left and I fired again. This bullet entered through his left ear and he went down hard, as dead as Marley's ghost. BTW, the distance between where he dropped and where my empties lay was thirteen (13) paces.

We did a necropsy afterwards and dug the first bullet out. The nose was riveted, the base was fishtailed and the bullet had bent about 80 degrees. This failure was why it never penetrated to the brain on the first shot. Took the bullet to the Federal booth at SCI in 2011 and they said they would open a file on it and get back to me. They wanted to test the metallurgy, etceteras. Never heard from them again.

After that experience, I only use Barnes monolithic banded solids (as loaded by Barnes) in my .470 NE and .416 Rigby. My experience has shown that any bullet can deform when punching through several feet of bone, but Barnes solid deformation is minimal compared to the Federal Trophy Bonded sledgehammer. I will never use Sledgehammers on DG again.

The above quote applies in spades to every mono bullet pictured in this thread but for one. In all of those bullets, they are plainly bent. It is almost impossible to bend them if they go in straight and these bullets show minimal tip deformity which provides further evidence of less than straight entry. I have a collection of bullets that show the same tip deformation that I removed from trees they embedded into butt first after striking only a plastic sign used as a target backer. One way or another every bent mono is a result of shooter failure rather than bullet failure. It is always on the shooter to deliver a stable bullet moving point first at appropriate velocity to the intended target. If you believe that it's possible to tumble a mono after point first entry, just try to bend one.

Anything less is always shooter failure.

Where I have trouble categorizing something as bullet failure is with deflections. Shooting a deer quartering away with an aimed bullet path to enter at the back of the rib cage and then through the chest to exit out the brisket area to the opposite shoulder can and does produce a situation in which the bullet never enters the chest at all. I have seen them proceed horizontally around the outside of the body without even entering the shoulder and stopping above the brisket. The last one I saw do this was a 30-30 LeverEvolution Hornady 160 grain. It hit Bambi on one of the last two ribs, at about 50 feet or so. It deflected off the rib upwards. It entered the backstrap and then went through the backstrap and out close to the spinal process but never touched bone after it deflected off the rib. Bambi had previously been shot through the right knee joint with a 30-06 and when I shot it was jumping over a dead fall. The dangling leg snagged on the deadfall and Bambi did a face plant which I suspect accounted for what looked like a vertical deflection and I believe was actually much more horizontal. The shot did Bambi no real harm, and it took another shot a few minutes later to dispatch it. I have seen similar deflections throughout my time hunting. Not a lot, but enough to realize that it happens. I have shot a fair number of deer with monos at steep angles hitting rig first and have not seen a mono do this. It does not prove they cannot or will not. I take it as neither, but I do note the difference in this regard of the monos and just attribute it to another difference between monos and cup &core bullets.

I have shot enough deer with .22 lrs to be certain I can make that work. I can also make them fail. I reload and do not have to push a soft lead bullet all that fast to insure very little penetration. This is in essence little to no different than shooting a "normal" hunting bullet into Bambi at inside of 10 yards. It might provide a hell of a thump to Bambi and it also may not penetrate much. That is not bullet failure, it's shooter error. I have seen the original Umbrella points do this, I have seen deer shot with bullets not intended for deer do this and I have seen normal deer hunting ammo do this. But there is no way that you can make that into bullet failure. that is shooter failure.

It seems like the common denominator to almost all the monometal bullet failures is not enough velocity, either due to long range or using a bullet too heavy to be started out at sufficient velocity by the given cartridge. The 168 gr TTSX mentioned earlier started out at 2650 fps from a .308 is a prime example. The 130 gr TTSX would seem to be a much better fit for the. 308. I try to start monos at 3000 fps or more. Even at that, I don't expect wide expansion at 400 yards. If I'm hunting out west where I might reasonably expect long shots, I don't shoot monos.

I'm guessing the bullet worked? you got it back.

That is why they came out with the LRX. Problem solved.

From toughest to softest would be TSX, TTSX, then LRX

Maybe, maybe not.

The buck stood there after the first shot, so I put another into him. This time he fell at the impact, and had a picture perfect hole all the way through his chest. The bullet that I recovered (and pictured) was dug out of his shoulder. I have no idea if he would have died from that wound or not, or if it was the first or second bullet (I assume the first, but who knows???).

Sorry, but I'm not following your logic here. Are you saying the only way a bullet can be bent is if it's not flying straight?

What about a bullet that's flying straight, but hits bone?

Other than tip deformation I have never seen a mono bent that hit bone. Cup and core, yes. happens often enough. Out of over 100 deer killed with monos My experience is that bone just does not make much difference to them, the go through bone about like they go through muscle, they are also vastly more likely to go through in a very straight line than cup and core bullets. AT LEAST AS LONG AS THEY ARE PROPERLY STABLE. I have a bunch of monos that hit oak in various degrees of butt first and they do not bend. When they hit oaks like that they typically do not penetrate very far, which means they stop very suddenly, putting a lot of stress on them.

IMO all monos that show up as bent got that way from some version of tumbling when the tip is not opened. Also IMO monos are so long that they much more often are unstable or marginally stable to begin with and tumbling at a little more distance is not so unusual. All the more so when people do not step them down in weight and shoot them in rifle twisted for lead core bullets, Example: I have a .223 with a 9 twist 20 inch barrel. I also had a 223 with a 9 twist 26 inch barrel. The 26 inch barrel would stabilize 70 grain TSXs out to 100. The 20 inch barrel never would stabilize 70 grainers no matter what I did. Depending on day, temperature, humidity and wind the 26 inch barrel would go unstable with them at various distances.

My opinion and others will likely disagree. A bullet that will double ( or nearly so) it’s original diameter, and maintain at least 90% of it’s original weight......constitutes a desirable bullet, Anything less is a failure! memtb

Maybe another “failure” same trip, 180 accubond, 3250 via 300 ultra. That’s the exit, zero expansion

i never knew what bullet failure was nor that sierra bullets wouldnt kill until i joined the fire

Geezus, I gotta quit reading these bullet threads before you guys bad luck rubs off on me. I've had a few bullets come apart and/or shed their jackets over the years but they all killed anyway and pretty quickly too. These were mostly .22 cal. cup and cores shot into deer at relatively close range and high velocity. The worst was a 55 gr. Winchester sp fired from a .22-250 into the shoulder of a big doe at 75 yards. That one blew to shrapnel on the ball and socket joint but still grenaded her lungs into soup and she didn't make it 30 yards. Did have a 95 gr. SST fired from a .243 shed it's jacket on the way through a forkhorn buck once but the core still exited the other side and he dropped in his tracks so again no problemo. Never had a bullet over .24 cal. give me a bit of trouble that I can recall and I've never shot anything but conventional cup and core.

You have a comeplete lack of understanding of high velocity projectile performance in tissue. When a rifle bullet strikes a denser medium than air, it wants to travel base first as the majority of mass is in the base. If the bullet expands, fragments, or otherwise upsets it can resist tumbling and continue point on. If it does not upset it will tumble and travel base first. A monolithic bullet that doesn’t adequately expand, will tumble in tissue and travel base first just as with a FMJ that doesn’t fragment.




Bullets such as TSX/TTSX, E-Tip, etc. can work very well. They also have the highest rate of failure to upset in properly conducted terminal ballistics tests.

More or less, that's what I've been saying for the last 15 years... when they work, mono's work very well. But they fail at a higher average than all other bullets - and possibly all other bullets combined.

Bullet failure to me is lack of penetration.

I put a 500gn Hornady SP into a scrub bull's shoulder once and the bullet expanded and stopped in the membrane between the shoulder and the rib cage. That is bullet failure as the damage is not fatal with no organs perforated or disrupted in any way.
I got expansion, I did not get penetration.

If a bullet did not expand but penetrated the chest cavity, much as a solid would, it would still be fatal. I have also seen solids push and spray bones ahead of its path and cause immense damage to surrounding organs.

I've never felt the need to have at least 90% retained weight. I like a bullet that sheds some weight and I don't need it to blow out the other side. If it does that's fine too.

OK. explain tome FMJs and solids and then tell me aqain about a complete lack of understanding.

I don’t agree with Mem either. By that definition Partitions regularly fail.
NOTE, I have NOT shot ONE n p at game.

I prefer 2 holes but I don’t demand it. I also can’t think of ANY bullets with the rep. of

“doubling original dia. AND retaining 90% of its weight.”

I’m listening for names of such bullets.......


I’ve been considering Monos at warp speed - BEEN - however there has been TOO much evidence (pix) of monos failing, here on the ‘fire’.

ALL examples of bullet failures I’ve had were from fragmentation, aka blow up, core/jacket separation.
Fortunately I’ve not lost a deer from that...that I know of... over the years it has been very few deer that I didn’t find.
Those few were from poor shooter performance.

Jerry

Originally Posted by JCMCUBIC
I consider it bullet failure when the bullet fails to perform in the manner expected given the design of the bullet, speed, range, and tissue/bone hit. I've had three times I'd consider the results bullet failure because the bullet didn't perform in accordance to it's design (or my intended implementation of it's design). All 3 times ended up with dead animals though. Just my simple definition of it and it's very subjective......I ain't webster's....


I used Power-Shoks one week to take a ram at @330 yards and a moose 4 days later at @60 yards. Both animals were hit twice, all 4 bullets violently expanding and coming apart on contact, tho all 4 wounds were fatal, or would have been. The largest piece I found was a jacket just under the hide on the far side of the high hit on the ram (just above the spine, behind the shoulder- maybe 6-8 inches of penetration - lead portion apparently caused the exit wouund there). The second round through the lungs shrapnelled both lungs, with a small exit wound, probably the jacket again, I think.

This was with .30-06, probably 180 gr. Maybe 165 -- been a lot of years. Not the performance I am looking for, tho on coyotes or fox, OK. But I was thinking big game.

Highly accurate ammo, tho., at least in that rifle, and several others where I've used it for initial sighting in. It's cheap.

The 210NP blew up on a moose shoulder blade at about 100 yards, shattering the blade and peppering the near side lung with BB size lead and bone, without reaching far side lung. I never did find the back half- I think it must have gone back out the rather large entrance wound, either ricochet or falling out when the bull jumped back to it's feet when I was 10 feet in front of it. (don't do that!) A second round more or less up his nose did the trick tho.

I don't need that kind of "sport"....

jwall, I can say nothing “bad” about a “partition”....only that there have been technological improvements in bullets, and it’s no longer the “best”. Though for smaller big game, and/or reduced impact velocities.....it may still be the best! On my comment at or near double the original diameter....I’ll have to get home and measure the “only” two Barnes X bullets, I have recovered. I don’t think that they are “double”.....but guessing, pretty close.

I also, do not “demand”, an exit wound.....if I am shooting “full-length” an animal, larger than a mature Whitetail Deer. Though, on any angling shot or broadside ,only anything smaller than a bison, moose, or large bear..... I expect it!

If the mono’s had not been developed,I’d likely.....still be using “partitions”! memtb

What is it that you would like me to explain? That there is a difference between FMJ and solids? That they do not act the same in tissue?

I don't hunt moose or rams as there aren't any around here. The last deer I shot with a 100 gr. power shok from my .243 was quartering to at 50 yards. The bullet hit the ball/socket joint and blew it to pieces, continued on through the chest cavity pulping the lungs and exited at the last rib on the far side. Plenty good performance for me.

I would like you to explain how bullets like FMJs and solids designed for the deepest straight line penetration tumble, but not expanding bullets.

Edited to add:

Never mind. The only time what you are peeing down your leg about comes into play is if the bullet is not stabilized or is only very marginally stabilized, Even at that, with a pointed bullet the front has far, far less resistance upon entering an animal if it has not expanded so the tendency for tumbling based on a heavier base is substantially offset. Further, the whole argument you are trying to put forth falls on it's ass when boat tail bullets are the subject since in their case that base is lighter.

Bent monos are a very, very strong indicator that the bullet was traveling sideways at impact. Monos tumbling because they are considerably longer than lead core bullets of the same weight is a pretty common occurrence. People think they need to shoot the heaviest bullet available for the caliber and they quite often to not have a barrel twisted to stabilize them. The same people who talk the kind of nonsense you are talking often enough don't even bother to sight in at 100 yards much less any further.

I have carefully examined a lot of deer shot with monos and have yet to see evidence of them tumbling once inside an animal. I have seen a lot of instances where they managed a side profile impact on paper even at as little as 25 yards. Far more with monos than all the rest of the lead core bullets I ever used in my life and I started loading them in 1956. A mono after going through a plastic sign backer and striking red oak 15-20 feet back hasn't shed enough velocity to make much difference, and I have seen them already tumbled enough to go butt first into the tree and when they do that they usually have a very characteristic tip deformation that looks just like some of the pictures in this thread, and typically do not bend..

Bullet Failure



It didn't expand.

It didn't make two holes.

It didn't butcher and package the pork.

It didn't ricochet off bones making a huge gory wound channel.

It retained over 90% of weight







Don't EVER use CB shorts. It is a heavy burden but I'll do what I can to dispose of current production.

Thanks, Miles, for showing us a perfect example of confirmation bias. And a perfect example of social Marxism before you edited your comment. Most of us look at results and try to draw conclusions, rather than having a set value in mind that cannot be altered, regardless of the outcome, thus it was "shooter error". I could tell you some stories that were not shooter error that involved a couple boxes of 22 cal 53gr bullets and very close range shooting. But then you'd have to give up your set value of Barnes bullets being fail-proof.

I never had a Corlokt fail.....reckon the clock is ticking on that one.

Not all FMJ and solid bullets are designed for or achieve straight line penetration. In fact pointed FMJ and/or solid bullets tend to tumble (or more accurately, swap ends) in flesh, as the centre of mass is well to the rear. As the bullet decelerates rapidly on striking flesh it starts to yaw and eventually swap ends, as the heavier base overtakes the point. This effect was first noted over a century ago, and also noted to dramatically increase the wounding potential compared to earlier round-nose designs which tended to maintain stability and a point-forward track, though the results were and are variable. Some bullet designs were modified to accentuate this propensity, such as the British Mk VII .303 bullet.

The tumbling puts a massive bending stress on the bullet too, enough with some designs for bullets to break at the cannelure and even fragment as a result. These results have been well documented.

A bullet which is is comparatively blunt - more or less a cylinder - will have a great deal less propensity to tumble, and more likelihood of travelling more or less straight in flesh. This is because the weight is further forward. You'll notice that solids intended for really big game tend to have a very blunt form, and it is for this very reason.

A bullet which mushrooms on impact effectively adopts a weight-forward form, again enhancing the likelihood of travelling more or less straight, rather than tumbling.

I see no reason why a monometal bullet of pointed form which does not expand won't behave like a pointed FMJ when it comes to tumbling. It might have less propensity to come apart than a thinly jacketed FMJ with a cannelure, but that would be about it. Non-expanding monometal pointed bullets aren't new, and their propensity to swap ends after entering flesh, just like the FMJ counterparts, was first noted over a century ago.

The man from Oz makes a good point, no pun intended.

300 grains for the .44 mag



Stuff dies and the bullets resemble this, day in, day out.



97% retained weight, pure lead.

Bullet failure is when I miss the animal and blame the bullet.
I switch bullets, shoot and animal, it dies, and I confirm my conviction.

This is how I eliminated Berger VLD hunting bullets from my act and now use NAB, NBT, and HNDY SST.

When I shoot a deer I don't want violent expansion and a big area of bloodshot meat. I want the bullet to travel through and make a hole in the offside. I shot one last weekend with a 30-06 Remington Core- Lokt 165 and the bullet didn't exit. It bruised up too much meat. Bullet was half the original weight. It did kill the deer within sight so it wasn't a total failure. But I prefer a bullet that stays together better and won't use Core-lokt again. I retired my 243 over code lokts.

To answer all of the people who think a rifle bullet is designed to tumble in one post.

Air is a fluid medium and bullets that tumble in air are poorly or not at all stabilized. Bullets striking flesh and bullets striking water behave quite similarly. Line up a dozen milk jugs of water and shoot them. If you blow up the first one and the bullet deflects out and never touches another do you want to shoot Bambi with it? Not if you have half a brain! I test EVERY bullet in EVERY rifle I use in milk jugs like this To prove to myself that they will open at a minimum velocity and that they are spinning enough to be stable. If you do not have enough spin on a bullet it will indeed tumble and deflect as a result which is useless for hunting BECAUSE IT BECOME POKE AND HOPE THAT IT GOES WHERE YOU WANT IT TO, not where you are intending it to go. That by definition is shooter error. Either you choose a bullet for that rifle at that a speed and rotation that stabilizes it in flight and through the target or you live with the consequences. Blame yourself, it's up to you to make sure that it works right. That applies to factory ammo just as well as hand loaded ammo. Testing it to be sure it does what it is supposed to in your rifle is what teaches people that a 58 grain VMax at 3600 FPS is not a Bambi killer any more so than a 70 grain .224 TSX in a 12 twist .223 is. Neither works for [bleep] and it is always on the shooter for those kind of failures.

Rifled barrels are there to stabilize the bullet! Twist rates are the critical item in that equation. You have to stabilize the bullet for the target!

Now those I do NOT trust. Seen them blow up, up close and at distance.

Love to hear the details of the bullets "blowing up"...

Both out of a 7mm rem mag. 168 gr VLD. Blew up on a mule deer shoulder shot under 100 yards. The other was at 350 yards. Both superficial wounds about the size of a small paper plate. No penetration to the vitals. Had to be put down by shooting them again.
Do not ask me how but when they were shot again they worked ok.

Sigh.....


Educate yourself-

https://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/

http://www.rkba.org/research/fackler/wrong.html


Google Gary K. Roberts and Martin L. Fackler. Read.






You doubled down on your ignorance. Are you going to triple down and run into stupidity?

After years of avoiding this site for all the BS published, I now drop in every few days to see how long you can endure it, Form. It says nothing good about my character that I enjoy it, but really do wonder how long you'll keep trying. I hope you're making a difference.

Before there as a www, there was usenet with a gun forum, rec.guns.


Before the www got going and there were gun lists ~ 1995, I had already realized a gun forum could not discuss terminal ballistics in a civil way.

Over 20 years ago the fight always seemed to be the FBI reports.

From 1989:

There is no valid, scientific analysis of actual shooting results in existence, or being pursued to date. It is
an unfortunate vacuum because a wealth of data exists, and new data is being sadly generated every
day. There are some well publicized, so called analyses of shooting incidents being promoted, however,
they are greatly flawed. Conclusions are reached based on samples so small that they are meaningless.

http://gundata.org/images/fbi-handgun-ballistics.pdf

He certainly is for me. How I select, mount, zero, and use scopes over the past year has been styled off of reading his posts, doing what he says, and marveling at how well it works. I hope he keeps it up for a long time.

"Data from ballistics studies 10, 13, 14) show quite clearly that:

Bullets fired from a properly designed rifle yaw no more than a few degrees in flight, regardless of velocity.
In their path through tissue, all nondeforming pointed bullets, and some round-nos"ed ones, yaw to 180 degrees, ending their path traveling base forward (Figs 3 and 5).
Anyone gullible enough to believe Fackler in any way after reading the following"

Is too stupid to hold a discussion with. All it takes is a very few videos of bullets going through ballistic gel to demonstrate Fackler is FOS. Just like you.

Laughing....

Laughing....

David

Geez, I wonder how I've gotten along all these years without milk jug testing all my bullets.


Do you line up the pebbles in your driveway too? I've heard that can cause some issues if you're not on top of it.

I shot a very large bodied bull last year at 200 yards with the same bullet, quartering to, in the shoulder....

I got an exit....

Have seen Hunting VLDs blow up on shoulders, have seen the same with an Amax. Would most certainly call those failures.

One mans treasure is another mans trash sounds like to me

That's unfortunate.....

Best hunting bullet, including Scenar's, bar none I've ever used as long as you don't have an impact above 2700 I'd say with context to penetration, BC, etc. And the country I hunt is also context. Sometimes getting closer than 500 is simply not possible....

THE best low impact bullet I've ever used....

It depends on what the bullet fails to do.

Agreed love em in my “6.5 ai....

Greg, most things in life are a bit of a compromise.If I was certain, that all of my shots were to be at extended ranges.....I would use a bullet suitable for reduced velocities. But....backing up to say, 500 yards or so seems counterproductive.
As some of my game has been taken well under 30 yards, I must consider that in bullet selection. I also, will not wait for the “classic” broadside shot, that may not be offered! I have confidence that I will get, at least partial expansion out to around 800 yards....about 200 yards farther than I am confident in “my” abilities. So, at least in theory....I’m good from 3100 fps to around 1800 fps. That should cover most any hunting situation I should ever be in! memtb

I am in about the same boat memtb, but I'll never poo poo others choices since we all have different requirements in our gear. I see it and hear it from my buddies. Some want thru and thru penetration, some want a big, disruptive hole, and others want the least expensive thing they can stuff in the chamber. Pretty awesome time to live in to have so many choices out there for our favorite rifles..

Correct...
I agree, everything (bullets, gear, etc.) Is a give or take...

It is the magic time for bullets no doubt...

I would call it performance as expected.

Son-in-Law shot an antelope with a 168g A-MAX, .30-06 at about 100 yards. Shooting downhill, slightly quartering towards. Shredded part of the left strap and ham.

Wouldn't use them on game if paid to do so.

I had some bad experiences with the bergers when they first came out, including the dreaded shoulder bone grenade, and swore off of them. I decided to retry them last year in my 6.5x284 NORMA when the AMAXs were discontinued and the ELDs weren't readily available yet. I changed my mind regarding bergers after killing 3 elk and 1 mule deer with them in the past 2 years.

Same with AMAXs; nothing but stellar performance for me with 3 antelope, 2 elk and 1 deer before they were discontinued. Wish I had tried them earlier.

168 VLD Bergers out of a 308 have been very effective on large hogs on my deer lease. No failures to penetrate to the vitals.

I just dug a 162 Amax out of a Mule Deer... it’s the second 162 Amax that’s been rather unimpressive. Both deer died... but both times the shot situation was ideal. I wouldn’t call it ”failure” in any way... other than failure to exit... I’d just like to see a little more penetration out of a 160 grain 7mm bullet.

And I have seen this also......

I wouldn't say I am super impressed with the AMAX's performance, but they've worked just as well as anything else. With a solid lung or shoulder blade hit, the critters run 10 or so yards and fall over dead, just like with core lokts, partitions, grand slams or anything else. One bull elk fell over instantly but the other critters acted like normal when hit.

I don't believe I ever hit a critter directly on the humerous with an AMAX though.

The bloody spot below is an exit hole from a .264" 140 berger VLD; 2 weeks ago. I have no idea what the velocity was, but it was from a hot loaded 6.5x284 at 600 yards.
I was a bit surprised to see it exited, to be honest.

Gleaned from another forum concerning NP failure... excuses people will use to defend NPs are worth a laugh and nothing more.



Anyone else have a Nosler Partition fail?
160 Grain, from a 7MM Remington Magnum, at about 40 yards.
It just shattered in the shoulder joint of a wild hog. Mangled the joint, but it didn't penetrate.
Probably impacted at 3000-2900 FPS.
I would have expected it to stay together and get into the lungs.


responses;

# "Any bullet , driven above or below its design range, can fail to perform as it should ...I would ask why
do you use a magnum at a 40 yd range ?

# "at that range and at that velocity, there was nothing the bullet could do, but to fail."

# " This is a classic case of pushing a bullet too fast for the circumstances it was used in..
That same load would have performed EXTREMELY well at 250 yards."


>>>>
Then there is this here marathon 15 page mess covering 6.5 Needmore 140 NP failure at 325 yds....

https://www.longrangehunting.com/th...ler-partition-with-6-5-creedmoor.208904/
>>>>

I can understand mankind making a less than perfect bullet, but why did a perfect God make
so many malfunctioning people......??...??..

I’ve seen VLD’s blow up on a shoulder shot. A 140 pour of a 264 Win mag.

Have never seen a Partition “fail” but have seen them lose their front-end lead. Those, of course, came from very dead animals.

1. “… why do you use a magnum at a 40 yd range ?”
Because it is what you have in my hands at the time. Set up for a 400-600 shot on cow elk one day and ended up taking it at 25 yards – after passing on a shot at 25 FEET. You don’t always know at what range your shot opportunities will come. This with a 30-06, but I’ve taken other shots under 40 yards in open country with my .300WM and 7mm RM. Bullets did a fine job and performed as expected.

2. "at that range and at that velocity, there was nothing the bullet could do, but to fail."
I would expect a Partition to hold together, at least from the partition back, even at those impact velocities. There are certainly other bullets that can do so.

3. “This is a classic case of pushing a bullet too fast for the circumstances it was used in..”
Nosler claims an “Unlimited” maximum working velocity for Partition bullets. I wouldn’t hesitate to use a Partition at 2900-3000fps impact velocity, but I wouldn’t expect a classic long-retained-shank mushroom, either.

I do have to question what path the bullet took to “mangle” the shoulder joint when the expectation was it would then get into the lungs. Same kind of zig-zag bullet Oswald supposedly used on Kennedy?

Oswald was a stunt shooter.

Pigs supposedly have their lungs a bit further forward than deer/elk...at least that's what I have been told, so if true, the lungs would be more in line with the shoulder.

Even if this isn't true, an angling to shot can put the shoulder directly in front of the forward portion of the lungs.

To further “stir the pot”....I would prefer an “unexpanded” (failure) bullet that penetrates the vitals and exits, over, a bullet that “completely comes apart” (failure), failing to reach the vitals....causing a very nasty, slow death, superficial wound. Even a bullet “penciling through” the lungs, will likely cause death fairly rapidly. If the hunter has “any” tracking skills, and patience....the animal “should” be recovered! As usual.... JMO! memtb

Oswald was innocent.

Have you not seen "The Shooter"?

Paper patched bullets RULE!

I question the value of anonymous fourth-hand reports of "bullet failure" that were "gleaned from another forum." Isn't that akin to "the guy at the gun shp told me that this happened to his brother-in-law's neighbor?"

It's hard enough to sift through the BS on this forum where you can at least develop a sense of someone's credibility by having read what they've posted in the past.

I think the whole point of Starman posting what was wrote on another forum was to show the ridiculousness of such....

This tells me he bought the concept of "bullet failure" hook, line, and sinker:

Amen to that SP! My group and myself have driven that very same Partition through elk knuckles at pretty short range and haven’t “blown up moving a few 100 FPS faster a few times. Not saying it didn’t happen but I have a tough time believing it.

Oswald was a tool.

Yes.

Fact.

Boom.

You can question the credibility of the failure all you like, but the absurd excuses given for NP failure are still what people gave.

The members of that forum defending the NP believed him , otherwise why would they have submitted
excuses for the reported failure...?



How so...?

All I did was point out the absurdity of NP fans defending a NP failure which they believed to be true.

Were we drawn into a Ponzi scheme of meaninglessness?

Will gun forums ever learn about terminal ballistics discussions?

With no disrespect meant, I did a PG cull hunt in SA (Aloe Ridge Safaris) on the East Cape in May & June of this year. Rifle was a Blaser R93 in .30/06 with a 22" barrel. Ammunition was factory loaded Barnes 168 grain TTSX, which shot 200 yard groups of just under an inch. Except for a poorly shot warthog, all the animals were DRT. Most shots were 200 yards or under. With the exception of the warthog, no second shots were required.

All I can say is that the 168 TTSX worked just fine for me. The factory loaded Barnes ammunition proved to be more accurate than my carefully assembled handloads. It is now my go too load in .30/06, but if hunting leopard, I'd employ a 180 grain Partition. Ditto for shooting impala for bait or camp meat.

I failed to find the 150 Sierra pro hunter from the 270 my daughter killed a 4x5 buck with a couple days ago. It went thru both shoulders the heart was touched and one lung destroyed. Someone forgot to tell that bullet it was no good. Ed k

How many animals were shot? Not a single one took a step?

Any bullet, can “fail” to live up or down .....to it’s reputation! memtb

I use monos exclusively now due to paranoia with feeding my kids lead tainted meat. I shoot for bone and when that works out they kill very fast and predictably. If you dont hit bone they are erratic in the time it takes an animal to expire.
A friends daughter shot a small muley buck the other day with a 100gr TTSX out of a 25-06. The shot was quartering such that only one lung was hit and no bone. My friend said the animal had little reaction to the shot, left no blood trail and ran off over a hundred yards were it stopped and laid down. He was going to shoot it again but had no shot due to proximity to houses and cows. Said it took a long time to expire.
I have no doubt a 100gr Nosler BT would have not had the same result.

Btw Shooting water jugs is just playing around and isnt representitive in any way of what a bullet does when it hits flesh.

It’s likely better than believing everything you read on the internet! . memtb

if nothing else water media is a 'hard' test of a projectiles integrity-construction and not what one typically encounters
(so is crash testing cars into controlled environment immovable walls not the conditions drivers usually encounter in
an impact)
but Large vats of water are valued and very effectively used as a practical bullet stop method when doing other testing.

Wet telephone books can provide for extraordinarily impressive wound channels and exit -holes , despite the fact
shear and tensile properties of wet paper are far from that of live tissue.

Ballistic gel is also another somewhat deceiving test.



there's an explanation Ive heard on forums for shot animals taking steps

,...' looking at the internals and blood loss - they were already dead but didn't know it.'

Is there ANY test that accurately represents what a bullet will do in flesh and bone? I’d say no. Gelatin can be correlated to the density and viscosity of muscle tissue but doing so requires careful preparation and calibration. Even then it is not an exact match for flesh, let alone bone. The best that can be said for it is that properly calibrated gelatin is better than some/most other media for some test types.

The downsides of gelatin include the time, effort and cost of preparation and calibration. While uncalibrated gelatin can be used, any test results obtained with such gelatin are much less informative because there is no way to compensate for differences in density or viscosity.

Enter water jugs. They are quick, easy, consistent and cheap (often free) and no calibration is required. Density remains virtually constant over a wide range of temperatures – from just above freezing to too hot to handle. Viscosity is about 50% higher at 50F than 90F, so if that is a concern simply choose a narrower range of temps in which to do your testing. (I prefer hot summer days.) The downside is, well, things get wet. Wear your mudders. (I wear my hunting boots.)

Over the years I’ve tested a lot of different rifle bullets in water jugs, as well as some for handguns. (I’ve also used cinder block and other media and find water to be much more informative.) Water jugs, in spite of being a “hard” media, do provide useful information regarding bullet performance, as do “soft” media targets. What I’ve found is that while results are not identical for water and flesh/bone, there is a decent correlation. My goal for big game bullets is reliable, controlled and limited expansion with high weight retention. Some bullets provide this behavior over a wide range of impact velocities in both water and flesh/bone, others not so much.

One test I ran sent standard cup-and-core bullets through single one-gallon milk jugs filled with water with witness targets a foot or two behind the jugs. Anyone concerned about lead ingestion should give this a try. Almost every C&C bullet target looked like it had been used as a shotgun target.

Another guy wasting their time..

Your statement that the results obtained of shooting water jugs "isnt [sic] representitive [sic] in any way of what a bullet does when it hits flesh" is demonstrably wrong. I've recovered bullets of various designs from both water and animals and challenge anyone to tell which are which. Other bullet designs that have come apart in animals have also come apart in water jugs. Water jugs may not be the best test media for all purposes but it is an excellent media for some - especially for informal testing for the reasons stated in my previous post - and there is in fact a positive if less than perfect correlation between the results so obtained and those one that are observed in flesh and bone.

There is, in fact, NO media, including calibrated gelatin, that has a perfect correlation with results obtained with flesh and blood. None.

It's my time and whether or not it is "wasted" is for me to decide, not you. From my perspective, the time spent shooting water jugs with friends has been highly enjoyable and provided results quite similar to what we've seen in the field. "Wasted"? Not at all, although I will say the results were pretty much as expected.

Could you please elaborate on this? Is this based on qualitative observations, or did you record measurements and do a comparison of data from jugs vs. animals?

Coyote Hunter, I agree with your thoughts. While water jugs do not perfectly replicate animal tissue....it does give some idea of what to expect from the bullets reaction upon contact with flesh. If a bullet comes apart, or dramatically sheds weight when penetrating a few water jugs.....what will it do when contacting heavy bone or is required to penetrate “many” inches of animal due to the shot angle required.

I’ll take a bullet that will repeatedly retain a high percentage of weight, while penetrating more than two or three jugs. If I could be guaranteed a perfect broadside shot every time, and at distances where the “diminished” velocity will help keep the bullet from “grenading”.....I might, just maybe, consider that bullet! Upon reflection.....”He’ll No”, I wouldn’t! Water jugs may not be the perfect test medium.....but they beat the heck out of hoping and guessing! memtb

Penetration and weight retention is one way people choose to judge bullet perfromance. With an FMJ being the ideal bullet, I guess?

I am not exactly sure if I am reading this correctly, but I have seen water jugs and recovered bullets and compared them and they seem to work for me. I don't really care that jugs aren't animals, they are decent enough to know what to expect most of the time. They aren't infallible by any stretch, but it is better than guessing and gives me a point of reference.

Just as one example I have of similar results.





That was shot into a bull elk at about 150 yards from my 338..

Here is the same bullet from the water jugs.





Partitions, Accubonds, BBC's and similar have all been about the same. I don't mind wasting my time to be honest. I'd rather have an idea of how something works than take the larger chance on an animal.

Beats the heck out of bullet that comes apart, and fails to reach the vitals! Hard cast bullets, and solids (used for the large African game) seem to kill pretty well. The don’t expand, or do so minimally, and yet are relied upon by those who are knowledged hunters! memtb

Ideal for what purpose? Compliance with the Geneva Convention, to which the USA is not a signatory, perhaps. Certainly not for what I want in a hunting bullet, whether for varmints or big game.

Ideal for penetration and weight retention, obviously. But it's not what I want from a bullet either so we agree on that.

How much actual experience do you have with testing in properly calibrated ballistic gel?









To all-


The problem with water jugs is they VASTLY overstate expansion of bullets. So hard bullets come out looking much better than they really do in tissue, and soft bullets look worse.

That’s all you can get out of jugs- looks. What wounds they will create and how well they kill can not be correlated from jugs. Performance in ballistic gelatin can be correlated to tissue, however.

Jeez, talk about "thin-skinned game." First, I didn't say anyone was "wasting their time," because how you spend your time is none of my concern. Second, my question was not directed to you, it was to CH and it was very specific. If you want to say "I shoot bullets into water jugs and I shoot them into game and they look the same to me" that's a qualitative anecdotal observation and that's not anything I questioned; your observations are your observations.

But if someone wants to describe the correlation between two data sets, that's a different ballgame, hence the question.

The only bullet failure I ever experienced was the very first generation of Nosler Ballistic Tips in the mid 60's.
I found tips on the outside of the entrance hole and the bullets failed to penetrate leaving many wounded animals.
I initially tried them in 2 Weatherby Mark V's .257 Magnum, a 7x57, 7mm Remington Magnum and a .300 Winchester Magnum.
Tried some 200's in a .338 during the early 90's with similar results then dropped them until the new century.

One of the reasons I favored Woodleigh's is that all bullets are tested on game before release and Aussies have no idea what ballistic gel is or any other synthetic substitute. There is enough feral game over there to test everything on muscle and bone with no seasons or bag limits. This was very helpful for a writer who also had a very experienced readership.
Things change, in my time, Speer was the hardest, Sierra the softest, Hornady and Nosler at the top of the tree with standard cartridges.

In today's market, we have the very best bullets in ballistic history so whinging about it and trying to score points is really quite silly, as it doesn't sway opinion or create friendships.

SP, that was absolutely not directed at you in a poor way. I apologize if it looked like I was pointing out what you said, I was just quoting you with the comparison of jugs versus animals taken. I have a pretty decent amount of game recovered bullets and jug recovered bullets that I have collected over the years, so I meant its easy way for different folks to test bullets all over the place and have a cheap medium which we all have access too. No issues here man, I listen to learn from all of you and love to see what bullets do and how they act on animals. It's looney'ism to the nth degree, but I enjoy learning from everyones experience.

It's all good B, and by the way, what were those bullets in your photos?

None. Nor do I ever expect to do so as I would consider it an unnecessary waste of my time and money.


You just correlated water jug testing to actual performance in tissue.



That may be all you get out of jugs.

Most of the bullets I've recovered from game look similar to those recovered from water jugs. Works for me.

Laughing....

Both qualitative and quantitative observations. The quantitative (measured) results that have been made were superfluous but done out of curiosity. In every case a visual inspection of the recovered bullets told me what I wanted to know, whether from water jugs or game.

So when you talk about "positive correlation" you're just talking about your personal observations of what the bullets looked like?

No, I'm talking about both visual (qualitative) and measured (quantitative) characteristics.

While I agree whole-heartedly that gelatin can provide information that is unobtainable with water jugs, such as size of the temporary and permanent wound cavity, I think you will agree that a bullet that does not expand in water isn’t likely to do so in tissue, either. That’s a correlation.

Conversely, a bullet that blows up in flesh can be expected to do so in water as well. Another correlation.

There are plenty of good bullets that expand well with good weight retention and penetration in both water and tissue – yet another correlation – and it isn’t that hard to find them. I’ve recovered North Fork bullets from elk, deer, dirt and water and you would be hard pressed to tell me which came from where. Barnes X bullets disappointed on game and varmints so I water jug tested the MRX and TTSX before using them. They have not disappointed, with about 50% straight-down results on game and soup in the chest cavity. Same with the no longer available Hornady 220g FN for the .375 Win – no animal went more than a leap and the result on water jugs was to blow up the first jug and blow a hole in the plywood supporting it. Speer Grand Slams are (or at least were when I was using them) a fairly hard bullet that was lethal to animals from prairie dogs to elk and was devastating to water jugs.

I could go on, but the point is that while water jug testing is not fully deterministic (and neither is gelatin testing, btw), to say that there is no possible correlation between water jug testing and on-game performance is incorrect.

Swift Sciroccos 210’s started at 2950 from my old Alaskan.

X2

There's the understatement of the year.

Ha ha.

when it comes to testing for expanded frontal area , penetration and weight retention.....How many water jugs equal a bull elk?

What bullet? (Type, diameter, weight?)
What impact velocity?
Point of impact and angle? (i.e. amount of bone and tissue between POI and something vital?)

Answer these questions and a correlation can be made, even if a specific, universally correct minimum number cannot be provided.

The situation is the same with gelatin results - how many gelatin blocks equal a bull elk?

Coyote Hunter, You’re wasting your time.....some folks choose to believe what they choose to believe! Continue to use a better bullet bullet for larger big game....and continue to effectively, efficiently, kill said game! Good Luck with your hunting! memtb

OK, so which of these characteristics did you measure, record, and compare in order to demonstrate the "positive correleation" between how bullets behave in water jugs vs animals?

And which bullets did you compare?

Which bullet failed?

L-R:
510 gr .45 caliber with 506 grains retained weight
185 gr .30 caliber with 183 grains retained weight
7.62x39 AP core that bounced off my boot heel. 55 grains; .76" L x .225" dia



Are boot heels a valid test medium??????????

Ill let you nominate all that specific input data you desire including the hunting bullet -
are you good with that?

AND from that model of your making , tell us how many water jugs = bull elk...?




Can you shoot a vessel of water from an angle to simulate or correlate to an angled shot on live game?




What part of an animals anatomy would you correlate to behaving like a dramatically exploding water jug?
and same question with the effect on the plywood?

[

Depends on what kind of testing I was doing. For some water jug testing I made and recorded a variety of measurements, for some I photographed witness targets placed behind a single jug, and others I merely looked at the recovered bullets before tossing them. I’ve also kept every bullet I’ve ever recovered from game. Some got measured and weighed, others have not.

For those water jug tests where I made measurements, I captured the following information:
Velocity
Original Weight
Retained Weight
% Retained Weight
Original Length
Retained Length
% Retained Length
Original Diameter
Expanded Diameter
% Expansion
% Increase in Frontal Area
Energy
Relative momentum
Jugs penetrated
Comments

Bullets tested in water jugs with measurements recorded:
.458”
North Fork 350 FP
Speer 350g JFN
Cast Performance 460g WFNGC
Speer 300g UCHP
Speer 500g African Grand Slam
Laser Cast 300g FP BB

.429”
Speer 240g JSP
Speer 300g Gold Dot

.375”
Hornady 220 FN
Sierra 200 FN

.355”-.357”
Magtech 85g JHP Guardian Gold
Hornady 90g FTX Critical Defense
Hornady 115g XTP
Hornady 125g XTP

.338”
Nosler 225g AccuBond
Hornady 225g SST

.308”
Barnes 180 MRX
Winchester 180g Power Point
Remington 180g Core-Lokt
Sierra 165g GameKing
Hornady 165g SST
Federal 165g Trophy Bonded Tip
Winchester 150g BST
Barnes 110g TAC-TX

.284”
160g Speer Grand Slam
160g North Fork SS

.243”
Hornady 95g SST

.257”
100g TTSX

.224”
Hornady V-MAX 50gHornady V-MAX 50g


If you want more information on my test results feel free to search the forum – I’ve posted quite a bit of it over the years.

Have a good thanksgiving . I just got home from Toronto and am going to spend my time with my grandkids, who are currently in the kitchen.

Grandkids in the kitchen, look out!!!

Happy Thanksgiving, Coyote Hunter, and all.

CH, sounds like you recorded a lot of data on bullets shot into water jugs. I guess my question and what I'm more interested in is your data from animals, and how you correlated the jug data with the animal data.

It would seem that you'd need just as many (if not more) measurements of bullets and/or wound channels from animals to draw any conclusions about the quality of the correlation between jug data and animal data. Animals being non-homogenous and non-uniform, it would seem that bullet performance in animals would be much more variable than performance in jugs, and it would seem that the most important data set as far as numbers of data points would be your data from animals.

Retained weight and expansion were the primary criteria. Some of the bullets recovered from game got weighed and measured, most got only a visual comparison.

For those that say water jug tests cannot be correlated to on-tissue performance, I would refer them to Gary Sciuchetti's "The Best Hunting Bullet" article in the June 1998 Handloader magazine - where he did exactly that in his first chart, along with ballistic gel and other test media. Where tissue penetration was 5" to 32" depending on amount of bone encountered, penetration in one gallon milk jugs (i.e. no bones) ranged from 30" to 35".

Penetration is only one thing I look for because there are some loads I would not consider hunting with - even though they penetrate 11+ water jugs they do little damage. The amount and violence of jug destruction therefore becomes an important factor as well, along with expansion, retained weight, etc. In the end it becomes a fairly subjective comparison, but one that has worked for me for years.

Failures?


168 Berger VLDH, mature whitetail buck, 110 yd impact.




139 SST 125 yd impact

I'm not saying that, I'm just asking how you did it.

Bet ya those fell over JG

Understand. Was not referring to you, my apology if it sounded that way. One or more others have made statements to that effect.

I bet they did....but some folks like to eat their game killed! memtb

The question remains, how did you do it? That is, how big were your sample sets for bullets recovered from game for a given bullet, and what measurements did you compare to the jug data?

I thought a previous post pretty well answered the "how" part:



Sample sizes recovered from game varied from one to several per bullet type recovered from my game animals. Bullets recovered by members of my hunting party and other friends were only compared visually. Every time I see a post of a recovered bullet I tend to do a comparison with my results, where applicable, if nothing more than to conclude it more or less agrees with my water jug and game experiences or not.

Have my water jug tests adhered to the best scientific procedures? No. Hell no. Does that invalidate the results? Not from what I've seen.

Some people here have claimed you need to shoot 100 animals to tell how a bullet will perform. I say BS. If a bullet blows up on the first animal, I'm not likely to give it a second try, especially if no heavy bones are hit. It the first doesn't expand, I'm not likely to give that bullet another chance, either.

My game shot opportunities have measured from spitting distance to well beyond my comfort range. I want a bullet that will hold together and expand at both extremes. Bullets that come apart in a single water jug fail the close-range test. What I've found is that bonded bullets retain more weight and fragment significantly less than bonded-core or mono bullets, so they are my preference for close range shots.

For long range expansion I rely on lead cores or tipped monos. I've tested Barnes bullets and found 213% to 218% expansion from 2400fps to 3100fps respectively. Federal Trophy Bonded Tip at 2800fps (Federal's claim, not chrono'd) gave 92.8% retained weight and 219.8% expansion. I use the Barnes TTSX a lot, along with Nosler AccuBond.

Other bullets I use a lot are North Fork SS and HP. Although I have no measured water jug test results for them, I have no doubt they fare very well. The North Fork bullets I've recovered from elk, deer and range dirt look very similar - to the point no one could look at them and positively determine which came from where.

You fellas seem to have your own theories, at least in some cases. Just to show my generosity I'm going to give you a reading assignment, free of charge!

http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html

Interesting read and I didn't see much I disagree with or that contradicts the what I've contended over the years. One area where I do disagree with the author is when he states "The energy required to expand or fragment a bullet is not used to penetrate or cavitate." Without expansion, spitzer bullets cause less cavitation.

He then goes on, however, to state that "a larger diameter, flatter expanded bullet is more effective in producing cavitation from hydrodynamic pressure than a smaller diameter, steeply sloped bullet shape", a statement with which I agree and one that seems to contradict his earlier statement quoted above.

I also agree with his statement regarding bullet energy - bullet energy is a measure of its ability to do work (destroy tissue and bone) but does not alone indicate the lethality of a bullet or the amount of destruction that the bullet will do. Lots of other factors are involved.

He is simply stating that energy used to expand is not available for other purposes.

True. But an amount of force to that used to expand the bullet is also expended in tissue. You can't have one without the other.

You can't have it both ways. Something about energy conservation comes to mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

I'm not saying it does not result in greater tissue damage, nor that there isn't a relationship, just that the force required to deform a projectile is just that and nothing more. The force required to further damage tissue comes from the remainder of energy carried by the bullet.

Thanks, that was my question all along. And in my opinion, a sample size of one to several does not a correlation make.

I haven't witnessed a lot of bullet failures. I have seen a lot of people fail to know anything about bullets. Frustrates the [bleep] out of me too. They'll spend 365 days of the year and thousands of dollars on hunting, then pick up a box of "whatever's cheapest" to shoot. It's no wonder that so many people shoot cannons at whitetail deer

Modeling the situation and discussing it in terms of conservation of energy and in terms of Newton’s 3rd law are two separate views of the same problem. Yes, when the tissue applies force to the bullet, the bullet also applies force to the tissue. But what the author is describing in that comment is Conservation of Energy. If the bullet is carrying a given amount of kinetic energy as it arrives at the critter, that energy cannot be “lost” or destroyed, but it can be converted to other forms of energy, or used to do mechanical work. Some of that energy is converted to thermal energy (not much), and most of it gets used to do work (apply a force with a component in the same direction as the material that is being displaced). Some is used to deform the bullet, and some is used to displace tissue.

have been reading Rathcoombe for some yrs now...

was impressed* how 308win 165 Failsafe showed = 26" penetration against 30/06 220 NP = 20.5"

(* as far as shooting into wet telephone books goes).

Not trying to have it both ways. Had Newton's 3rd law in mind when I wrote what I did. Equal and opposite. I fully understand that energy and momentum are conserved.

Exactly right.

We can disagree on that point. When I see bullets perform in a similar manner in water jugs and game, I see a correlation. Especially when I've seen such evidence across multiple bullet types at a variety of speeds.

Perhaps you are confusing correlation with correspondence? They are different. Think of correspondence as more of a one to one relationship described with the proposition "to", as in "single digit numbers correspond to numbers in the teens by a fixed offset". Think of a "correlation"as a general relationship that is described using the preposition "with", as in "the size of a truck correlates with its weight". In general, a bigger truck will weigh more than a smaller one, even if the exact sizes or weights are not known. Think scatter plots.

I don't make any claim that water jug tests predict lethality. They do help me determine which bullets I want to use based on expansion and weight retention and the bullets that pass my water jug tests have in every case performed well on game. Bullets that provide what I consider poor performance in water jugs (what that means depends on bullet type) have performed in a predictable and similar manner on game. Bullets that have shed a lot of fragments in a single water jug, as determined by a witness target behind the jug, have shredded game meat. Bullets that have held together and expanded well, whether penetrating 4 jugs or more, have resulted in equally dead animals with less wastage of meat, generally with exits.

I'll continue to use water jug tests for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is they are a lot of fun for everyone involved. The results are pretty much as expected based on bullet design and impact velocity, with very few exceptions, so the tests are for fun than anything resembling scientific research. The exceptions in the results tend to be velocity related - heavy, slow bullets provide exceptional penetration even though they do little damage to the water jugs. A 300g .45 hardcast at 1167fps, for example, will blow through 12 round, one-gallon jugs. A Barnes 185g TAC-XPD +P load (Barnes # BPD45AP1) penetrated 6 jugs when fired from my Kimber Compact at 975fps. That's the same humber of jugs as a 225G .338" AccuBond fired fat 2742fps but the faster .338 bullet did FAR more damage.

i don't think anyone here would consider a .338" 225g Nosler AccuBond as a poor choice for elk. My .338WM load fires them at 2742fps. Water jug tests show they will penetrate 6 jugs with a retained weight over 60% and 185% expansion. The same rifle shoots Hornady 225g SST bullets at 2707fps. The fragments of one (43.6% of the original weight) were recovered from the third jug. Curious, I shot another. That one penetrated to the fourth jug, 62.3% retained weight, 219.8% expansion. The SST's get used at the range, the AccuBonds go hunting, with range use limited to sight-in and trajectory verification. Have not recovered any AccuBond bullet from game, whether taken with .257", .284", .308" or .a 338" bullet.

There are about 100 water jugs stashed in my garage, and the number is growing. Should be fun.

I'm not questioning your qualitative observations, just the use of the term "positive correlation" which has a pretty specific meaning in statistics:

"Correlation is a statistical measure that indicates the extent to which two or more variables fluctuate together. A positive correlation indicates the extent to which those variables increase or decrease in parallel; a negative correlation indicates the extent to which one variable increases as the other decreases."

So for your own purposes, firing bullets through water jugs and seeing how they perform can be useful to help you decide which bullets you want to use on large animals like elk, but without some more data on bullets recovered from animals or wound measurements from animals, I don't think you can say there's a "positive correlation" between bullet performance in water jugs vs in animals.

I'm not the least bit interested in the statistical definition of "correlation", which is different from the colloquial meaning. A statistical correlation is a measure of the extent of interdependence, resulting in a coefficient of correlation ranging from -1 to +1. In the colloquial case, "correlation" simply means a relationship exists.

Bullets that have performed well for me in water jug tests have also performed well in animals. And vice versa. That is a positive correlation and it is good enough for me. If it is not good enough for you, don't use water jugs as a test media.

No worries there. Your jugs are safe.

Twas'nt ( .277X )

Did you not read Gary Sciuchetti's article in the June, 1998, Handloader magazine I referenced earlier? He graphically correlated penetration in animal tissue to the results in water jugs (one gallon milk jugs) and other media.

Yes, but as I said earlier, penetration measurements are not of much interest to me. I'll say it again, if penetration was the goal, we'd all be shooting FMJs. Which is why I asked which parameters you measured.

Since you can’t let this rest.....I’ll bite. Minimum of 5 water jugs(7 preferred), 90% + weight retention (every time), at or near double caliber expansion. If it is a cast bullet....driven as fast that is reasonable, heavy for caliber, with a wide metplat. Similar to your “full metal jacket” but much more effective on animal tissue. However, generally with the cast bullet, the effective ranges will not be as versatile.....as with a high velocity projectile, with the above criteria! Cast Bullets are very effective used within their limitations, similar to bows and arrows.

Many of us choose to choose to enjoy the performance of the vastly improved technology, that bullets have received over the last several decades. I’m sure that some folks didn’t believe in the Nosler Partition when it was introduced. Now, and for many years, it was the “benchmark “ by which other “game bullets” bullets were measured. Much the same, as we (well most of us) enjoy better automobiles, computers, televisions, etc. Sometimes technological advancements are a good thing! However, some of us, prefer to live in the “Dark Ages”! To each his/her own! memtb

Penetration is of great interest to me. Not too little, not too much. No FMJs for game, thank you very much.

I

This looks right to me.

I'm sure that every bullet makers puts out a bad lot from time to time.

I used to swear by 2 Sierra Gameking BTHP bullets, the 85 grain .243" and the 90 grain .257", until I had 4 of them come apart on impact, 2 of each style, without penetrating through the rib cage on whitetails. They caused shallow wounds of tattered flesh and hide about the size of a dinner plate, but no part of the bullets penetrated through the rib cage and into the pleural cavity. The animals appeared to be in shock and, barring infection, might have survived their wounds if I hadn't delivered a prompt follow up shot. This experience soured me on Sierra bullets, I no longer had confidence in them, so I quit loading them for hunting game. I still use them for shooting varmints and particularly like the 75 grain .257' HP for shooting coyotes.

EDIT: I had the opposite problem with the Speer 220 grain .358" FP fired from a 356 WIN. It penciled through a deer with little or no expansion. The deer went farther than it should have with a bullet through both lungs. My solution was to switch to Speer's 180 grain .358" FP when deer were the intended target and they have performed flawlessly.

As far as correlating penetration between animal tissue and water jugs, A .308" Barnes 180g MRX @ 3100fps got captured in the 7th jug with retained weight of 166.2g, 218.8% expansion. (Lost a petal.) Same load has twice passed through mule deer does at ~300 yards, front to rear with exit. Both deer went down instantly, total lights out.

A 350g North Fork FP launched from my .45-70 @ 2189fps got captured in the 6th jug. Hit a 6x6 bull elk @ lasered 213 yards. Obliterated sections of the near leg bone and a rib, shattered a far rib and came to rest under the hide on the far side. Expansion in the water jug was 174.7% with retained weight 340.1g. When I get home I can weigh the bullet recovered from the elk.

A .338" 225g Nosler Accubond @ 2742fps gt captured in the 6th jug, 62.3% weight retention, 185.8% expansion. Have used them for broadside shots on elk but never recovered one, just dead elk with two holes.

A .375" Hornady 220g FP launched at 2230fps was recovered in the 6th jug, 67.5% weight retention, 169.9% expansion. Pass-through on an antelope buck at 175 yards, broadside.

A .429" Speer 240g JSP @ 1467fps was captured in the 8th jug, 97.9% weight retention, 115.2% expansion. Hardly any damage to a coyote at 3 feet, other than a caliber-sized in and out hole through the chest. Very disappointing, as a head shot was needed to end it's suffering.

A .458" 185g Barnes TAC-XPD +P got captured in the 6th jug, 100% weight retention, 164.5% expansion. Wouldn't use this load for big game even if it was legal here (Colorado), defense of self or others being an exception.

How many jugs does a bullet need to penetrate to be lethal? Depends.

How many inches of calibrated gel to be lethal? Same answer.

One more thing about the advantage of water jugs as a test media.

Ballistic gel, which some here seem to think is the holy grail of test media, is expensive, difficult and very time consuming (days) to prepare and calibrate. Even properly calibrated gel will have a degree of variance depending on how it was prepared and temperature of the gel blocks.

Using one gallon milk jugs, on the other hand, is cheap and they are easily and quickly filled with a hose. Better yet, water does not require calibration. Water density is pretty constant across a wide range of temps and regardless of source, so in that sense it is self-calibrating and results are consistent across tests made at different times and places.

LOL, was that for me, or coyote hunter?

CH, what jumps out at me from your post above is the use of the word "A," meaning singular. You seem to be comparing "a bullet" shot into water jugs to "a bullet" either recovered or not recovered from game. You can call it whatever you like, but comparing one of something to one of something else does not establish a correlation. What you have is a series of anecdotes.

While I gave specific examples, I made no attempt to provide every example. Nor do I.

BTW, the examples provided for the 180g MRX and 225g AB are for multiple animals, not just one. I’ve never recovered either bullet type from game, regardless of angle, including at least five of the AB and four of the MRX. The 350g North Fork was an example of one because it is the only one I’ve recovered – the others were pass-thrus. Etc.