Energy or bullet diameter most important?

I will agree with this wholeheartedly, If you think those 70+ elk we took last year, shot by people who sign up for management hunts, from 12 yrs old to 80+ all placed their shots perfectly, then you don't have enough real world experience.

I have posted this same thing before, fragmenting bullets make huge wound channels and cover our butts. I have never seen one fail to get through both lungs, and have seen many even penetrate the 50lb mulched feed bag inside elk and still kill them in the immediate area. If you have not seen this wet mulched bag you need to get inside more elk. It is a bullet stopper for sure.

I am no scientist, I am only a guy that takes a lot of elk,and helps other take a lots of elk, each year and have done so for literally 100's of elk.

It is a sad day when we can not consider actual real world experience as valid data. I am proud I do not choose to live in that world.

Jeff

Hey Jeff,

I never said that field data is useless. I did say that the physical science backs up my position. There is not any physics that I know of that backs up frangible bullets as a better option to high weight retention hunting bullets.

I could have 100% success on hundreds of animals using fmj bullets and claim that they are the best option for me. That would be field experience not backed up by physics.

I am open to learning how a highly frangible bullet will out perform a weight retention bullet designed to deform shot to shot at different impact velocities. I will market a bullet like this. As I said before I will not take a bullet to market that has a higher potential for failure.

As far as field data goes, we use field data all the time to make decisions on our bullet design. Data from shooting media and animals. We use this data along with the science to get our end product.

.338 300g bullets and bigger are big enough to make up for inadequate bullet performance. Size does matter.:D

Steve
 
I suppose if I had 8 kids to feed and ruining meat was a major issue, I'd be hunting from a blind and taking head shots.
But this is a long range hunting forum, and I'd just assume that's what most here would be interested in discussing.

I discuss long range hunting on this forum all the time. I've never excluded ruining meat from my thoughts or discussions. Never knew the subjects were exclusive. Never heard anyone else suggest that long range hunting means ruining edible meat becomes irrelevant to the discussion. Which is what your Post implies. Turn on the lights...lightbulb
 
If ruining meat is a problem, you need to look real hard at where you choose to shoot your animals!

Originally Posted by RMulhern
I'm fully convinced that when I 'poke' a big muley or whitetail behind the shoulder with my .308 Winchester from 800 yards that I've got meat on the table!

Ask me how I know!

Yup.

If you shoot an animal in the meat, and blame the bullet for meat loss, im not sure what to tell you.
 
If ruining meat is a problem, you need to look real hard at where you choose to shoot your animals!

If you shoot an animal in the meat, and blame the bullet for meat loss, I'm not sure what to tell you.

You could tell me that long range hunters never shoot game animals in the meat, and therefore the inclusion of bullet caused meat damage is irrelevant to this Thread or any other bullet discussion Thread.

You could tell me that long range hunters never hunt and shoot game animals at close range, with less than perfect animal exposures.

You could tell me that long range hunters never wound an animal due to perfect shot placement using perfect bullets, and therefore never take follow-up shots with less than ideal broadside profile shots.

Or you could mellow out, turn on the lights, and get real... lightbulb
 
I've read the Terminal ballistics study over the years, IMO there is some info to be gleaned from it but on the whole it adds nothing to our knowledge that we already don't understand although terms and definitions of effects get jumbled and miss used it's not very hard at all to see what happens in the field. There is some laughable stuff in that study that makes it real hard to read, there is a lot of personal issues trying to be covered in science which basically make a person have to sift through the entire work and decide where the science is speaking and where it's there to support personal feelings. All he's doing is shooting into wet paper and measuring stuff and acting like it translates to anything on game, anyone who has shot enough wet phone books or jugs then taken them to game understands that sometimes you get something similar and sometimes your not even close!! A scientific approach is interesting and worthy of the effort but in the end each animal is different, each shot is different, we have no set control or media that is in fact the same as shooting a game animal, we never will because we can not replicate the systems at work in a living being.
We can all skew results with easy, I can take a light copper bullet and shoot it at a range that the impact will open it nicely but it won't have enough momentum behind it to over come a shoulder or neck hit on an elk and will deflect, that does not mean all copper bullets are crap, that means I exceeded their operational capability, I'm then left with a decision, to just say their all crap or to learn what operational parameters I can run them in to get my desired out come.
If someone thinks there is any bullet made that is immune to failure or operator failure their smoking some good stuff. I can load a variety of bullets, copper, bonded or cup and core and either make them look like rock stars or complete dudes just by choosing launch or range velocities and shot placements that do not favor that bullet.
I've seen the "just wait" line used a lot from guys engaging someone who shoots a Berger bullet, 12 years ago I was done hunting, I was just over having to shoot elk multiple time, cutting their throats because of small wound channels and since the Barnes bullet and how it function was in my mind the best and only way to do it I had come to the point I'd rather not hunt than do it this way. The ONLY reason I'm hunting today is because of Berger bullets, I was done until I heard a rumor about these bullets and saw a short video of guys crushing elk, turned out to be John Burns.
For me the change was so stark, not only in lethality but in the meat quality when I changed from Barnes to Berger it was amazing, it still took me a couple years to stop packing two loads and just shoot the Bergers but the final point came when I shot an elk with bonded bullet and she was still on her feet and while not well she was not expiring, it was a close shot that I did not want to take with a Berger but I did not want to take the time to change, I shot her a couple inches lower from the first round and she immediately fell and didn't move. When I gutted her, the bonded bullet simple made a small wound channel through her lungs and exited, she was dead but was taking her time, blood shot was more than I like. The Berger bullet did not exit, the entrance looked like you shoved a nail into her with so little blood shot I just trimmed the hole out to the ribs. Her heart and lungs were minced, not a hole but utter carnage inside a 4 inch path ending on the of side where I could see cuts from bullet bouncing of the insides.
All this to high light for every guy with a lot of experience you will get different answers, different methods, different shot placement and different needs how we get there may be completely opposite from each other, which proves that having a solid science based single solution is impossible in this situation.

Just to be clear meat quality is of paramount importance to me, I've cut over 12,000 MT big game animals and not only quality of the meat was held to the highest standards but we also tracked yields so quantity is also very important but I will trade a couple pounds of meat loss for quick clean kills, I also will trade a little meat loss for no game loss, you loose an elk with a broken shoulder because of a bullet that won't shed frontal area and penetrate and you could have afforded loosing 10-12 lbs by using a bullet that will shed that frontal area but has the mass to continue penetrating into the chest cavity. One of the most interesting things I've seen was a bullet I caught in a steel plate, it was a Cutting edge bullet, mid way though the plate there is the bullet, next to it are a bunch of holes from frangible bullets that cut nice clean holes and penetrated completely, the CEB just had to much frontal area vs mass and stopped, always though that was interesting.
This year we are shooting very few Bergers, we like testing bullet and enjoy learning so this year will be ELD-X and Hammers getting air time, maybe we'll add some more bullets to what we already have confidence in but I like making decisions based on my personal requirements, I think this is the only way to be completely happy with what you do!!
 
Hey Jeff,

I could have 100% success on hundreds of animals using fmj bullets and claim that they are the best option for me. That would be field experience not backed up by physics.

Is this a real viable comparison? You know , or you should know , this is a highly unlikely scenario. So are you only posting it to discredit what others have done?

I am open to learning how a highly frangible bullet will out perform a weight retention bullet designed to deform shot to shot at different impact velocities. I will market a bullet like this. As I said before I will not take a bullet to market that has a higher potential for failure.
I have offered this before to you. No, not out perform in all circumstances or impact velocities, shot angles etc.. Impact velocity is the key and you know it. Have you studied real world performance of bullets under 1800 fps impact velocities? 1700? 1600? Are you confident that a Hammer Bullet would have exited the bear I shot at a close to a mile, with a 1 to 1 1/4" exit hole? Impact velocity under 1650 fps? If you are saying you have a bullet that will work as well at 3000+ fps as it will below 1600, then by all means I am here to learn how this works.


.338 300g bullets and bigger are big enough to make up for inadequate bullet performance. Size does matter.:D
Steve
You know as well as anyone, I shoot a large portion of the dozens of elk each year with a 30 cal and a 215. So, this is just a dig to discredit my experience again? I have always been eager to help you, and also eager to learn about your products. I have kept my posts fair and supported. No digs or references to the size of you or anyone's penis. Why do we feel the need to degrade one product to elevate another? My interest would be in learning how your bullets work and your actual performance tests conducted. Not so much about how you feel anyone who is not using your bullet is destine for failure. Just a suggestion from a nobody. But try impressing with performance, not debate by insult to users and other companies.

Just a lowly deplorable.
Regards.

Jeff
 
Last edited:
I'm currently using Bergers for my long range hunting bullet in three different calibers. I don't use Bergers in any caliber for my close range hunting bullets.

I give complete credit to Broz for sharing his experiences with the 215gr Hybrid in the 300 Win Mag for my current use of that bullet for long range hunting. Only shot two animals to date with that bullet, but was happy with their performance.

No matter what everyone else experiences and reports, none of those reports are prioritized over my own experiences with any hunting bullet. After my first 5 years of use, the Berger 210 VLD underperformed by either exploding / shrapnelling on impact or the other extreme - failing to expand or tumble - thus passing thru the game like a FMJ and leaving a relatively healthy animal on its feet. And me scratching my head. "Underperform" is in the context of comparison to the bullets I'd used in the prior 40 years, prior to any significant reporting of Berger target style bullets being successfully used for hunting. I've had other Brands of expanding bullets FMJ thru game animals also, but not at the rate of occurrence with my early 210 VLD experiences.

I now believe my experiences with non-expansion were related to some of those bullets having the J4 jacket tips pinched solidly shut from the factory bullet forming die. Because since I've ensured the tips on the bullets I shoot at game are open, I haven't experienced a failure of a Berger bullet to expand in game. So for the time being, I believe the non-expansion concern may have been resolved, or at least greatly reduced.

However that does nothing to alleviate my other experience and concern - shrapnelling at higher speed impacts resulting in shallow penetration - too shallow to ensure the vitals will be reached on larger game animals. Yeah, I know. Use heavy for caliber bullets when hunting with Berger-style bullets, so that by the time the bullet slows enough within the animal to stop shedding weight - there's still a sufficient bullet mass remaining to ensure adequate penetration. I consider a 210 grain bullet in .308 to be a heavy for caliber bullet. So I load a different bullet for close range use on dangerous or non-dangerous game animals.

Berger manufactures a lot of different bullets in a lot of different weights and calibers. Some designs, shapes, and weights in some calibers seem to perform more reliably than others. How do I know which is which? I guinea-pigged it once with the 210 VLD and had some bad experiences. I'll forego the possibility of getting the often repeated and photographed dramatic, Berger dropp'em in their tracks kill, for bullets that my own experiences demonstrate have performed more consistently and reliably at closer ranges. It's the closer range shots that increase the odds I won't be able to wait for the perfect shot angle and profile. And it's the closer range shots that may preserve health and life.

I still prefer two different bullets - one selected for short range high velocity impacts and the other selected for long range lower velocity impacts - because I have yet to identify a single bullet Brand and design that can perform both short range and long range performance duties better than either of my two selected bullets perform their single duty.
 
Let's say you are hunting for elk sized and smaller game and are targeting 750 yards or less. Would you say it would be more important for lethal, ethical kill to be the size of the bullet (just an example 30 caliber vs 25 caliber) or the ballistic energy the bullet gives out to that range (just an example 1200 vs 1800 lbs regardless of bullet size)?

I am trying to leave this somewhat open ended to avoid only comments from those who love a certain caliber, but I am considering a future rifle and am hopeful with plenty of practice I could possible do what I listed above. So many calibers out there, I just want to start with the right base and get proficient from there.

Thanks in advance.

You now have quite the task to decipher this thread and formulate your own decision/opinion. :):Dgun)

Good luck and happy safe hunting/shooting!

Ed
 
Last edited:
For the record, I'm providing my bullet use experiences, and what I've done to optimize my bullet selections going forward, in the aftermath of those prior experiences.

Expressing my experiences may or may not degrade a product, in others' views. That's beyond my control. I value others expressing their own bullet use experiences. Good and bad. The bad experiences are often more valuable and beneficial for me. And if it weren't for the expression of negative experiences, there would be no motive to improve bullet quality.

Bullets are always a hot-button topic. If everyone always had good experiences, how could that be?
 
You could tell me that long range hunters never shoot game animals in the meat, and therefore the inclusion of bullet caused meat damage is irrelevant to this Thread or any other bullet discussion Thread.

You could tell me that long range hunters never hunt and shoot game animals at close range, with less than perfect animal exposures.

You could tell me that long range hunters never wound an animal due to perfect shot placement using perfect bullets, and therefore never take follow-up shots with less than ideal broadside profile shots.

Or you could mellow out, turn on the lights, and get real...

Kinda surprised at this one. Ive always respected your post.

I suppose a debate is just way easier when you can put all the wrong words in the other persons mouth.

Lets revisit what i actually said.


If ruining meat is a problem, you need to look real hard at where you choose to shoot your animals!

Originally Posted by RMulhern
I'm fully convinced that when I 'poke' a big muley or whitetail behind the shoulder with my .308 Winchester from 800 yards that I've got meat on the table!

Ask me how I know!

Yup.

If you shoot an animal in the meat, AND BLAME THE BULLET FOR MEAT LOSS, im not sure what to tell you.

Ive done the three things in the conditions you described. The difference between me and someone who needs to "mellow out, turn on the lights, and get real," is that after the fact, i dont hop on a forum and blame a bullet for a decision i made in order to harvest an animal.
 
I'm currently using Bergers for my long range hunting bullet in three different calibers. I don't use Bergers in any caliber for my close range hunting bullets.

I give complete credit to Broz for sharing his experiences with the 215gr Hybrid in the 300 Win Mag for my current use of that bullet for long range hunting. Only shot two animals to date with that bullet, but was happy with their performance.

No matter what everyone else experiences and reports, none of those reports are prioritized over my own experiences with any hunting bullet. After my first 5 years of use, the Berger 210 VLD underperformed by either exploding / shrapnelling on impact or the other extreme - failing to expand or tumble - thus passing thru the game like a FMJ and leaving a relatively healthy animal on its feet. And me scratching my head. "Underperform" is in the context of comparison to the bullets I'd used in the prior 40 years, prior to any significant reporting of Berger target style bullets being successfully used for hunting. I've had other Brands of expanding bullets FMJ thru game animals also, but not at the rate of occurrence with my early 210 VLD experiences.

I now believe my experiences with non-expansion were related to some of those bullets having the J4 jacket tips pinched solidly shut from the factory bullet forming die. Because since I've ensured the tips on the bullets I shoot at game are open, I haven't experienced a failure of a Berger bullet to expand in game. So for the time being, I believe the non-expansion concern may have been resolved, or at least greatly reduced.

However that does nothing to alleviate my other experience and concern - shrapnelling at higher speed impacts resulting in shallow penetration - too shallow to ensure the vitals will be reached on larger game animals. Yeah, I know. Use heavy for caliber bullets when hunting with Berger-style bullets, so that by the time the bullet slows enough within the animal to stop shedding weight - there's still a sufficient bullet mass remaining to ensure adequate penetration. I consider a 210 grain bullet in .308 to be a heavy for caliber bullet. So I load a different bullet for close range use on dangerous or non-dangerous game animals.

Berger manufactures a lot of different bullets in a lot of different weights and calibers. Some designs, shapes, and weights in some calibers seem to perform more reliably than others. How do I know which is which? I guinea-pigged it once with the 210 VLD and had some bad experiences. I'll forego the possibility of getting the often repeated and photographed dramatic, Berger dropp'em in their tracks kill, for bullets that my own experiences demonstrate have performed more consistently and reliably at closer ranges. It's the closer range shots that increase the odds I won't be able to wait for the perfect shot angle and profile. And it's the closer range shots that may preserve health and life.

I still prefer two different bullets - one selected for short range high velocity impacts and the other selected for long range lower velocity impacts - because I have yet to identify a single bullet Brand and design that can perform both short range and long range performance duties better than either of my two selected bullets perform their single duty.


A perfect example of a hunter who worked on learning to understand his bullet and how it works by what it was telling him. Then proceeded to use it effectively as possible.

Regardless of the bullet you choose to shoot. This should be your end game.
 

Recent Posts

Top