Tipped VS OTM/HP

[Canhunter35]

There's not much left of that Accubond at 150 yds, not sure what the bonding process achieved?
If a bullet doesn't do it's job I always figure, "chute'em again' lol

 

[codyadams]

Here's a data point to consider (see picture.) It looks like three of the four "tipped" bullets opened up at 800 yards, albeit one didn't open up much, whereas the OTM (Berger) did not. But to be fair to Berger, many have reported that they've had to check and be sure the hollowpoint was actually OPEN and they've used needles or sharpened-straightened paperclips to be sure the 'hole' was there before using them in the field on game. That's not hard to do if the bullet then 'works' as desired.
View attachment 141216

I saw that comparison as well, and was somewhat surprised at the lack of information. They do give velocity loss, but fail to mention the initial starting velocity amd impact velocity for most of them, and also do not compare similar bullets. They used the 212 eld-x, the highest bc 30 cal eld-x hornady makes, but then compare it to bullets up to 30 grains lighter. For comparison reasons, a Berger 210 vld (or 215 hybrid, if they researched what berger bullet is used more for hunting), and 210 ablr would have been a better example of individual bullet types in the same catagory, but instead they cherry picked the eld line (which was somewhat newly introduced at the time....hmmmm....) and selected sub par bullets from Berger and Nosler. Not saying that the tipped vs hollow point argument is invalid, just pointing out, I do feel that was somewhat aimed at a marketing strategy. It would be interesting to have more info on that specific test though, such as the density of ballistic gel used, initial velocity/impact velocity of each bullet, and also see a more apples to apples comparison of the three top bullets usually chosen for long range hunting. Barbour creek is doing a better job at that though, and remaining more transparent. They also have some interesting results.

 

[Frog4aday]

Hey CodyAdams,
I like your analysis. I, too, was struck by the 'variety' of weights chosen. As you pointed out, it would have been more interesting to see a closer 'apples-to-apples' comparison. They did give velocity loss at 800 yards, BUT...what was the STARTING velocity? Weird they opted to not include that. It was still thought provoking.
https://www.fieldandstream.com/long-range-shootout/

No bullet is a 'sure thing', all the time, at all ranges. Get something that will still expand at 800 yards (or 1000?) and it will likely evaporate on an animal shot 90 yards away...or pencil right on through.

That's the genius of the Partition bullets - works well in 'all' conditions (high impact speeds down to 1800fps.) But it is not an aerodynamic, long-range projectile. I think that's what Nosler was trying to achieve with the Accubond/LR Accubond - great weight retention, but better BC with still 'good' performance in 'most' conditions. Berger, too, with the VLD Hunting bullets.

I like the HP/OTM style more than the 'tips' as long as the HP/OTM is OPEN and can 'work'. I like the IDEA of the 'heat-shield' tips used in Hornady bullets because I don't want the tips to be melting on their way down range. The old Bronze Tips from Remington surely didn't melt, right?

I don't envy the bullet designer his/her job. Trying to make a bullet do 'everything' is impossible, and wherever you 'compromised', the competition is ready to pounce and make their bullet seem so much better IN THAT AREA. Whaddya gonna do?

I like that people TEST bullets, in gel, and share the results. People's anecdotal reports on animal performance is 'good', too, but tainted with bias (pro or con.) You know a bullet is good when it has become 'the reference point' for all other bullets to be judged against. For now, and for some time now, that has been the Nosler Partition. Examples:
"This bullet has a better BC...than the NP"
"This bullet expands at lower impact velocity...than the NP"
"This bullet punched through more bone without shedding the front half...compared to the NP"

What is interesting is now that "long range" shooting and hunting is growing in popularity, the reference point is shifting. Which bullet is most ACCURATE? Which bullet has the highest BC? These are not strong suits of the Partition (not that it is inaccurate or that it has a horrible BC) so people are trying to find a 'new reference point' for comparing the LRH-type bullets. And this is why (I think) people 'fight' so hard over these things. They want their 'favorite' to be the new reference standard. Only time will show us which bullet stands the test of time.

But technology and development moves so fast now, even if a bullet starts to get a reputation for excellence, it isn't long before someone else comes out with something to better it, shifting the reference point again and again. That's all good for us! (I think...)

 

[JustMe2]

I'd like to see a better comparison also and not just using "hunting" bullets, since I've had great luck with "target" HP bullets expanding almost perfectly. How about a test using all 150gr or all 180 grain bullets: hunting HP & Tipped, target HP & Tipped, copper only HP & Tipped, copper/lead core HP & Tipped, etc. all in the same weight from the same rifle.

 

[Frog4aday]

JustMe2,
It would be great to see an objective test like that. Shoot them all into 10% ballistic gel at varying velocities and see what happens. But then when people didn't like the results, they'd be all, "Well, gel isn't fur and muscle and bone, so that's all ridiculous anyway." And...they'd have a point (sort of.) But we need some way to compare side-by-side to establish a baseline. Gel is the best thing...so far.

 

[Canhunter35]

JustMe2,
It would be great to see an objective test like that. Shoot them all into 10% ballistic gel at varying velocities and see what happens. But then when people didn't like the results, they'd be all, "Well, gel isn't fur and muscle and bone, so that's all ridiculous anyway." And...they'd have a point (sort of.) But we need some way to compare side-by-side to establish a baseline. Gel is the best thing...so far.

Nathan foster at terminal ballistics did a lot of study on bullets in game, but it is getting a little dated.
Imo only the Barnes bullet performed poorly. I'd be comfortable with any of the rest.
I think if u shot enough into ballistic gel I bet you could place their expansion results on a bell curve with under expanding to over expanding

 

[LVJ76]

Nathan foster at terminal ballistics did a lot of study on bullets in game, but it is getting a little dated.
Imo only the Barnes bullet performed poorly. I'd be comfortable with any of the rest.
I think if u shot enough into ballistic gel I bet you could place their expansion results on a bell curve with under expanding to over expanding

Canhunter I agree with you on staying away from the Barnes bullets. I think the only monooithic bullet I woukd try is prova ly a Hammer and that is it.

And you are correct on Nathan's research, it is all done on game and not gel for those that don't trust the gel results, although they do give us a pretty good idea of how a bullet works.

Here is the link to Nathan's website and he has also written several great books for both new and experienced hunters and shooters.
https://www.ballisticstudies.com/

There is free and great cartridge and bullet research on the website.

 

[NEMTHunter]

When Hornady discovered, during doppler BC testing of bullets, that the plastic tips in these 'tipped' bullets were melting downrange, and that was jacking up their 'advertised' BCs, the next question I had (which they did not answer as far as I know) was - "What happens to the plastic tip?"
Does it:
1) melt and fall out? (that would seem to be a 'good thing' for game performance as it then becomes a nice hollow-point.)
2) melt and and flow into the hollow cavity inside the tip? (that would be a 'bad thing' for on game performance as the bullet is more like an FMJ, in a sense, at that point.)

I'm assuming neither happens every time, which is why performance and reports from people are so VARIABLE on how the 'tipped' bullets work. Frankly, I'd just as soon use the OTM bullets and avoid the "what's the plastic tipped bullet going to do THIS time?" suspense. But when you make an OTM bullet aerodynamic, there sure isn't much of a hollowpoint there! And if that isn't open enough, fluid can't get inside to open it up. And it can get 'bent' on entry, making it perform more like an FMJ at that point. Again, VARIABLE performance.

It seems lead tipped bullets are more of a 'sure thing', but they aren't "sexy" nor are they as aerodynamic. Trade-offs - they are everywhere.

https://cuttingedgebullets.com/blog/post/case-of-the-melting-tips/

 

[Frog4aday]

NEMTHunter,
That was an interesting read. Not sure what material Cutting Edge is using for their plastic tips, but it is apparently working. If the bullets go 3 miles and the tip is still there, in the nose cone, then you figure it will be fine at whatever range the rest of us are using them.

 

[NEMTHunter]

NEMTHunter,
That was an interesting read. Not sure what material Cutting Edge is using for their plastic tips, but it is apparently working. If the bullets go 3 miles and the tip is still there, in the nose cone, then you figure it will be fine at whatever range the rest of us are using them.

Thats what I thought. I think they even started out between 3200 and 3400fps. So it not like it did not have some friction.

 

[Calvin45]

Ha, it's still a toss up! I guess this shows what we already knew, they all work reasonably well most of the time. 16 votes each, an even 50/50