Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Energy or bullet diameter most important?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Broz" data-source="post: 1235876" data-attributes="member: 7503"><p>First off... Thanks B&G and Harper. I appreciate the consideration and kind words.</p><p></p><p>Steve, we were talking bullet design, and performance, not brand names. Maybe go back and read how many times I used the company name of what I choose. That was on purpose. Others have also named other manufacturers. So to lump us all as "The Berger Crowd" and accuse us as "Coming in fighting" might be a stretch. But to use you words "Whatever" Now Steve, if your looking for me, and everyone else with a different opinion to move out of your way so you can only represent one side of a discussion, (and I don't believe you would want that) how will anyone learn the difference in these two types of bullet constructions? Now maybe look at my later posts where I tried to get back to the OP's question. I even offered the work I had done with the 215 thread so he could see actual results from one design. I ended it saying " This might help you to decide if this is the type of performance you desire, or not." Leaving the possibility he may prefer a non fragmenting design. I never said there is only one way. That I believe came along with someone saying something to the effect that sooner or later the fragmenting bullets will fail. Well, I think many of us here know ANY bullet design can fail. I never came here to attack you, if that's how you took it, you have my apologies. But I don't think its fair to discredit experience from anyone who has worked as hard as I to relay honest data. And I did it, and still do it, with no compensation from anyone. It is done out of passion for what we both care deeply about. Documented terminal performance and quick kills.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I have stated many times, and again in this thread. Sure less fragmenting could be fine at higher impact velocities. But extensive fragmentation still kills quickly for me. But I use what I do to be sure I get expansion at long range slowed velocities. Why? Because I have seen the results of no expansion at slower impact velocities. Again, if we have a bullet that will work perfect at 3000+ fps and work equally well at 1650 fps and below. I am all ears and would love to hear this. But until then, I will use what I do to improve my success percentages, and make the quickest kills under the worst scenarios. That being slowed bullet velocities from long distance shots.</p><p></p><p>Jeff</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Broz, post: 1235876, member: 7503"] First off... Thanks B&G and Harper. I appreciate the consideration and kind words. Steve, we were talking bullet design, and performance, not brand names. Maybe go back and read how many times I used the company name of what I choose. That was on purpose. Others have also named other manufacturers. So to lump us all as "The Berger Crowd" and accuse us as "Coming in fighting" might be a stretch. But to use you words "Whatever" Now Steve, if your looking for me, and everyone else with a different opinion to move out of your way so you can only represent one side of a discussion, (and I don't believe you would want that) how will anyone learn the difference in these two types of bullet constructions? Now maybe look at my later posts where I tried to get back to the OP's question. I even offered the work I had done with the 215 thread so he could see actual results from one design. I ended it saying " This might help you to decide if this is the type of performance you desire, or not." Leaving the possibility he may prefer a non fragmenting design. I never said there is only one way. That I believe came along with someone saying something to the effect that sooner or later the fragmenting bullets will fail. Well, I think many of us here know ANY bullet design can fail. I never came here to attack you, if that's how you took it, you have my apologies. But I don't think its fair to discredit experience from anyone who has worked as hard as I to relay honest data. And I did it, and still do it, with no compensation from anyone. It is done out of passion for what we both care deeply about. Documented terminal performance and quick kills. I have stated many times, and again in this thread. Sure less fragmenting could be fine at higher impact velocities. But extensive fragmentation still kills quickly for me. But I use what I do to be sure I get expansion at long range slowed velocities. Why? Because I have seen the results of no expansion at slower impact velocities. Again, if we have a bullet that will work perfect at 3000+ fps and work equally well at 1650 fps and below. I am all ears and would love to hear this. But until then, I will use what I do to improve my success percentages, and make the quickest kills under the worst scenarios. That being slowed bullet velocities from long distance shots. Jeff [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Energy or bullet diameter most important?
Top