I never considered myself inept, yet the Berger failed at an unacceptable rate and I stopped using it in factory form. Expressing my experiences added to the pool of knowledge. For example, on this Forum it led to the now common practice of checking the tips of the VLDs to ensure they haven't been sealed shut during manufacture prior to hunting with them. In that manner I believe my critique improved Berger VLD user performance and satisfaction. Just the opposite of bashing for the sake of bashing. Critique for sake of improving user experiences. If the negative is never shared, how can other users ever reach the stage of knowledgeable enough to actively choose to reduce their risk of disappointing bullet performance?
I find it a real stretch to conclude that the majority of members set out on a mission to bash any specific bullet. Most simply don't have the interest. If they have an active interest, the majority still won't invest their time, and many won't risk the wrath of counterattack from dedicated Berger VLD users. Are some members upset over a bad experience. No doubt. Would I expect them to sound off on the Threads in this and other Forums, still ticked off and simmering down from "upset"? Yes I do expect that.
One perspective that's been repeatedly expressed is that poor bullet performance is never the fault of the bullet. Therefore it must be the bullet user's fault.
I use my best personal judgement in selecting my choice of bullet, without exception, and agree that the user can improve their odds of satisfaction thru education and being proactive in their bullet selection process, based on their bank of knowledge. But blaming the user diminishes (completely dismisses) the obvious evidence that a lot of very experienced hunters have reported terminal performance disappointments with the factory VLDs under very common hunting experiences. The majority of the less than desired VLD terminal performance experiences aren't a consequence of extreme, exaggerated hunting and shot conditions. Many (most) are the consequence of common day-in day-out shots taken by the average large game hunter on average big game animals.
So if a VLD PhD is required to reduce the potential for disappointments when using VLDs on game animals, then some user education is in order. Which leads to the obvious - who's best positioned to provide that user knowledge? I'll focus for a moment on the best VLD educational issue I'm aware of. I've yet to see an acknowledgement from Berger that sealed VLD tips could compromise terminal performance. Yet every "expert" VLD hunter/user I know checks the tips of their VLD bullets to ensure the jacket tip wasn't pinched shut during the manufacturing process. These expert VLD users don't use VLDs with sealed tips for hunting. They open up the sealed tips prior to use, or they shoot the sealed bullets during load development and for target practice. Additionally, the experiences and intuition of people that have manufactured and tested VLD style bullets on a custom basis for either personal use or commercial sale have also expressed their belief that the smaller the opening in the VLD tip, the less reliable the expansion. They no longer ponder the possibility of a cause and effect. They accept it as fact. Persisting with the position that any effect of sealed VLD tips remains unknown, that sealed VLD tips don't increase the odds that VLDs will fail to expand on game, is akin to holding on to the position that smoking cigarettes doesn't cause cancer.
I could live with some VLD blowups, because I target the ribs, and an exploding VLD will normally still get into and destroy the internals between the rib cage. I couldn't, however, continue using the factory VLDs based on my early initiation to non-expanding VLDs.
