im going to start another controversial thread

[lloydsmale]

The thread i did on the long range ability of my 240wby raised some hackles. This one will probably raise more.

It in refernce to all the barnes tsx cheerleaders and ill throw in bonded bullets and most premium bullets. Most here when arguing for the use of them talk about excessive meat damage with cup and core bullets. Now before i get jumped im going to freely admit that power level of the gun im using is on the top ends side of whats needed but with barnes bullets i think the same results would have happened with an o6. Secondly i know that IF I WAITED paitiently for the perfect broadside shot and shot them through the chest the results would be differnt. But then isnt that why many use these bullets so that a raking shot isnt an issue due to deaper penetration. If not they why would you bother with them.

Here we go. I shot 4 deer in the last two nights with the 300 ultra using a 165 barnes tsx. Ranges from 225 to 390 on my range finder. All were about 100 lb does give or take 10lbs. Two were shot at a raking angle and the bullet made complete mush of one sholder and blew out the back right in the hind quarter and destroyed it too. The one at 390 was kind of my fault i judged the wind a bit wrong and hit it high and right on the front shoulder that one destroyed both shoulders and about half the back straps. Now that outcome would have probably been the same with a cup and core bullet. But the two raking shots would have probably had me eating those hind quarters if i had used cup and core bullets as the bullet probably wouldnt have penetrated that deaply.

I guess it just comes down to how much penetration do you really need on deer sized game. I shoot alot of deer every year and do it with about every bullet out there eventually but still keep going back to good old cup and core bullets. I probably would continue to use them even if bullets like the barnes were just as cheap. They just kill as well or better and with more shots then not do less meat damage then a deap penetrating bullet.

By the way just to stir the pot a bit with the guys on the 240 forum. Each and every one of those 4 deer dropped on the spot even the one that was shot through the chest broadside.

Dont get me wrong im not totally against tsx bullets. I use them in this gun and my 300 win mag and my 300H&H mostly though because all three of those guns shoot them better then anything else and if i ever need to step up to bigger game im ready. Ive also found that they do actually kill deer well in the 30 and even in the 7s which is totaly oposite of my results in the 6mms and 25s.

So let the fun begin. You can start telling me i cant shoot, dont know how to load, or am a slob hunter

 

[mtmuley]

So you think a "normal" cup and core bullet at RUM velocity is a good idea? mtmuley

 

[lloydsmale]

on deer yes. Broadside behind the shoulder shots theyd would do like any bullet does and mess up the ribs but who cares. Front shoulder shot theyd do like any premium bullet would and that is destroy both shoulders. But a quartering shot like i was refering they would no doubt take out the front shoulder but very doubtfully would penetrate deap enough to take out a hind leg. Bottom line is cup and core bullets dont destroy more meat then premium bullets. Bullet placement is what causes meat damage and it really doesnt make a big differnce what bullet or even the caliber of the gun. Shoot them in the meat and your going to loose meat. I guess my point in this isnt really which destroys more meat its that you can spend four times more for bullets but your foolling yourself if you think you bought any advantage shooting deer sized game. By the way i shot aprox. 20 deer last season with my 7stw using 150 ballistic tips and was actually surpised that they didnt do any more damage then if i was shooting an 06. With either its like i said, shoot them in the meat and they will certianly ruin it. Shoot behind the shoulder and neither will cause much meat damage.biggest factor othe then bullet placement that will determine how much damage you get is how deaply the bulllet penetrates.

 

[trigger puller]

I agree with you in that if you shoot in the meat it does not matter what type of bullet it will ruin meat and yes you are in the upper end of power, but like you stated with proper placement any bullet will work. I have taken to shooting does with my 22-250 and 69gr SMKs 1 pill to the head and down they go.

 

[HARPERC]

If not they why would you bother with them

Because I don't do cull work, or meat hunts. Generally I hunt with multiple species tags in my pocket. Some of those tags take a decade or more to draw, and may be limited to one in a lifetime. I buy $4 a gallon fuel to get where I'm going, and at times paying lots of dollars for guides etc., and wish to be prepared for the toughest shot offered.

Question is why are you doing it? You sound like someone is making you do this. If you just like seeing the splatter, own it, or stop it.

 

[Pdvdh]

The answer to bullet damaged meat has already been provided. The majority of the time, my experience has been that the game animal will provide the broadside shot, allowing the ribs to be targeted. Especially at longer ranges where the animal is generally out in an open area.

Even then on rib shots, I've experienced less meat damage with the Barnes TSX than with lead core cupped jacket bullets, unless they're of the bonded core variety.

 

[lloydsmale]

some may call me a sinner but i dont fool with ribs anyway. With the ammount of deer we shoot it isnt worth the bother and the critters in the woods have to eat too. Harperc nobody makes me do a thing. Ive just shot enough deer through the years that ive learned not to buy into the hype that is with many premium bullets. IMO a premium deer bullet IS a cup and core bullet. They are bullets designed to open up on thin skinned game like deer

 

[varmintH8R]

I like your threads. I'll post in this one similar to my post regarding your 240 WBY. I don't think this is super controversial. You are wasting 100lb deer with a 300 Ultra. There is meat damage.

Other thread: you are shooting a 240WBY with cup and core bullets at ranges where energy drops below 1000. The deer are running off before they drop.

Maybe I over-simplify things, but in my opinion neither of these are "bullet tests" and neither are really unexpected and/or controversial.

I shot a groundhog with a 300WSM with a 168 TSX and he exploded. I shot another with a 17HMR V-max and he flopped around a bit. Controversy? Bullet performance questions? My 2C.

 

[MudRunner2005]

I like your threads. I'll post in this one similar to my post regarding your 240 WBY. I don't think this is super controversial. You are wasting 100lb deer with a 300 Ultra. There is meat damage.

Other thread: you are shooting a 240WBY with cup and core bullets at ranges where energy drops below 1000. The deer are running off before they drop.

Maybe I over-simplify things, but in my opinion neither of these are "bullet tests" and neither are really unexpected and/or controversial.

I shot a groundhog with a 300WSM with a 168 TSX and he exploded. I shot another with a 17HMR V-max and he flopped around a bit. Controversy? Bullet performance questions? My 2C.

I agree with your conclusions. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[jkupper]

I like your threads. I'll post in this one similar to my post regarding your 240 WBY. I don't think this is super controversial. You are wasting 100lb deer with a 300 Ultra. There is meat damage.

Other thread: you are shooting a 240WBY with cup and core bullets at ranges where energy drops below 1000. The deer are running off before they drop.

Maybe I over-simplify things, but in my opinion neither of these are "bullet tests" and neither are really unexpected and/or controversial.

I shot a groundhog with a 300WSM with a 168 TSX and he exploded. I shot another with a 17HMR V-max and he flopped around a bit. Controversy? Bullet performance questions? My 2C.

This makes good sense to me as well, as does bullet placement. If you shoot in the meat you are going to waste some, plain and simple.

I do not consider rib meat a waste of meat, so that is the shot that I prefer. Having said this, I also prefer a bullet that is going to use all of it's energy on a deer on a rib shot, like a VLD, or a Hornady BTHP.

I shoot VLD's through my 30-06 and 7RMand have had no problems. I shoot an 87 gr Hornady BTHP through my 243. Also, no problem. I do not worry about a dead deer running 60 yards, and I do not worry about wasted rib meat, or for that matter wasted foreleg meat. They do the job.

 

[MudRunner2005]

I'm a rib shooter myself...I refuse to take a shot into the shoulder. Too much can go wrong. I am all about precision (humane) kills, and shooting a deer in the dimple right behind the shoulder in the ribcage will kill one just as effectively, and ruin virtually no meat. I will shoot them with a .257 Wby mag all day long. And once I get my .25-06 AI, I won't be hesitating to do the same. But in my defense, I do shoot the heavier pills for the .257 like the 110 NAB's and 115 Bergers.

I really wish Berger would produce a 130gr .257 VLD...That would be nasty!

 

[benchracer]

This is an interesting discussion. My take on this is that bullet design/construction/composition may be a factor, but it is not the most important factor in terms of either the relative decisiveness of a kill or the amount of meat damage. Neither do I agree with the conclusion that greater penetration destroys more meat.

In the last season that I was able to hunt (2010), I took two deer. The first deer was taken during modern gun season and the second was taken during blackpowder season. Both were taken at short range (12 and 30 yards, respectively).

During modern gun season, I hunted with my .375 H&H loaded down to 38-55 level loads with hard cast lead bullets. I took the "meat saver" shot on a doe that was quartering away, placing my vertical crosshair on what I could see of the off side leg to angle my bullet for a pass through of the far shoulder. The bullet entered high behind the on side shoulder, took off the top of the heart, and exited the off side shoulder. There was NO meat loss on entry or exit, unless you count the caliber sized bullet hole itself.

The buck I took during blackpowder season was hit at about 30 yards with a Hornady XTP pistol bullet. He was quartering toward me and I took the behind the shoulder shot (I realized afterwards that I should have moved my placement forward to account for the quartering angle). He went less than twenty yards and fell over. The bullet entered behind the shoulder, destroyed the on side lung, splattered the liver, and exited the ribs in front of the off side hind quarter. Again, no meat loss on either the entry or exit, except for the bullet hole itself.

Neither bullet was recovered. There was very little evidence of expansion. The first kill was decisive. The second kill was not instantaneous (I believe that to be the result of my error in shot placement), though the deer didn't go far. In both cases, the impact velocity was well below 2000 fps.

My hunting partner during modern gun season took a deer moments after I did with a 30-06 using a cup and core bullet. He lost meat, though the damage was not severe.

I believe the difference in behavior of the respective rounds was primarily due to impact velocity rather than bullet construction. The decisiveness of my first kill was a direct result of shot placement.

I am convinced that the most important factor in a quick kill is where you put the bullet.

I am also convinced that impact velocity is the most important factor in meat conservation, with shot placement second on the list.

I saw no evidence in either case that bullet composition or behavior influenced the outcome whatsoever. On larger animals that might be different. On deer sized animals, adequate penetration to and through the vitals is what allowed me to bring meat home. The rest is an exercise in hair splitting, IMO.

 

[lloydsmale]

you guys think your disagreeing with me but your not. SHot placent is paramount. thats a given whether it be for quick kills or lack of meat damage. Bullet performance is second and velocity is a major factor. What works for a a bullet, load and caliber for a quick kill at 200 yards may fail miserably at 500. My point in this post was mostly that some guys think barnes bullets are the greatest thing since smokeless powder. My point is they may be great but its a very narrow margin of conditions that there great in. LIke shooting game larger then you should be looking at with a smaller caliber, Holding together at 50 yards out of a 7stw, or having enough penetration to take what would normal be a @@@@ shot. Many here do believe that a cup and core bullet is more sutible to deer hunting covering the most possible senerios best. A cup and core bullet will still give enough penetration to kill at close range and enough expansion to kill at longer ranges without having to hit bone. Like most said meat loss isnt a much of a consideration for chosing a bullet because bullet placement is what determines that. Seems like we agree on more then you think.

 

[benchracer]

My first preference for most applications is a standard cup and core bullet. I generally agree with you about the circumstances that might favor a Barnes type bullet. I haven't shot anything but paper with a monometal bullet yet. I tend to see monometal bullets as having specialized applications.

When it comes to premium bullets, if I feel I need something over and above a standard cup and core bullet, my first preference is to reach for Nosler Partitions. I will be shooting them in my .264 Win Mag this season with reduced loads.

A few years ago, a friend of mine took a buck at relatively short range with his .308 loaded with Hornady Light Magnum 150g SST factory ammo. He took the standard meat saver shot. He later told me that it was the most violent and decisive kill he had ever experienced. The deer had collapsed forcefully enough that it broke its lower jaw when it fell. He said he would never use that ammo again because it destroyed a lot of meat on entry and exit.

Here again, I don't think the results would have been markedly different with a controlled expansion bullet. I believe the damage done was a direct result of high impact velocity. That is one of the reasons I tend to favor heavy bullets. The lower muzzle velocity of a heavy bullet tends to be less destructive at close range but maintains its effectiveness at longer range.

I don't think the comments made in the original post are all that controversial. There seems to be a fair bit of overlap in people's thinking on this subject. While my own experiences have shaped my thinking on bullet construction and terminal performance, I don't feel my experiences represent anywhere near a broad enough cross section to definitively tell someone else that their ideas on the subject are right or wrong. About the best I can do is state that I agree or disagree and why.