Berger, Ballistic tip, meant bone penetration, accubond control test.

[kman300]

I ran a little test today to satisfy my own curiosity. I've seen several threads where people strongly advise against using Berger bullets for hunting as they "blow up" and are really just for paper. I threw the 7mm 150gr nosler ballistic tip in there as well since it's a "beefed up" version and plenty of people throw the btip into the same pot as the berger in terms of being fragile and blowing up. Calibers used were 300 wsm and 7mm rem mag. Accubonds are generally considered a good bullet so I ran them as a control.

Test:
Leg bones from buddy who killed a rather large bodied buck.
Wrapped 2" of trim (fat, silver skin, muscle) around the knuckle (knee joint) of the bone. So it was 2" of trim going in, then the knee joint, then 2" of trim and then into the wet newspaper. That's about as realistic as I can make it for myself anyways.
Soaked newspaper over night and taped them together in stacks of ~5" with ductape.
Shot at 10 yards.
All penetration measurements are only of the newspaper. "Meat and bone" Measured approx 4" of muscle/fat/tissue and 2.5" of bone for a total of somewhere between 6" and 7".

Bullet: .308 200gr Nosler accbuond
Penetration: 16.5"
Weight retention: 135.7gr (67.8%)
Expansion diameter: .550"
Impact speed: ~2850fps

Bullet: .308 190gr Berger Hunting VLD
Penetration: 11.5"
Weight retention: 85.2gr (44.8%)
Expansion diameter: .921"
Impact speed: ~2900fps

Bullet: .284 160gr Nosler accubond
Penetration: 15"
Weight retention: 95.4gr (59.6%)
Expansion diameter: .490"
Impact speed: ~2950fps

Bullet: .284 150gr Nosler Ballistic Tip
Penetration: 12"
Weight retention: 77.2gr (51.4%)
Expansion diameter: .768"
Impact speed: ~3050fps

150gr Nosler Btip "entrance wound" (newspaper immediately behind meat,bone,meat)

190gr Berger VLD entrance wound

160gr Accubond entrance wound

200gr Accubond entrance wound

Some things I observed:
-Bergers don't blow up, neither do btips
-AB's do not expand very wide, nor do they make big wound channels.
-Bergers, btips expand rather wide and make huge wound channels. They do not penetrate as deeply but just for consideration the 200gr accubond had a frontal area of .24 square inches. The 190gr vld had a frontal area of ~.44 square inches. This is almost 2x as much. Not really a big surprise that it doesn't penetrate as deeply and sheds more weight.
-Bergers really do the "bunker busting" thing. They penetrade a few inches without expanding and then do so violently.

190gr VLD wound channel top and 150gr btip bottom. This is approx 2" into the news paper.

"Bunker Busting"
Number 1 shows the entrance into the bone, straight line penetration shown with other arrow.

Bullets L to R 200gr AB, 190 VLD, 150 Btip, 160 AB

Bullets in reverse order here (160, 150, 190, 200)

This was all done only to satisfy my curiosity. I conclude from this that I can use the 190 vld and 150 btip for my hunting needs and I won't lose one second of sleep worrying whether or not they are up to the job. My .02.

 

[rem338win]

So you proved a presupposition with 1 round from each. That is not surprising.

I would garner from your small test that All of the above are great bullets for animals ~500lbs. Above that only Accubonds passed for me.

 

[Cleftwynd]

I find it interesting that no matter how often, or how many people, or how many tests, or how many field proven results there is, people will still say the a Berger bullet is useless even though they have no experience with it on big game themselves. I have seen them work, extremely well, on many occasions myself on both moose and deer. All very very quick kills, some even through the shoulders of moose.

I was once one to tell people that Bergers for hunting was ridiculous, I have since changed my mind after seeing their effectiveness myself. However I do not use them too often as with proper seating depth they don't fit in the magazines of most of my rifles, sadly.

 

[bcsteve]

Pretty much what I would have expected. The more fragile bullets open wider and penetrate the least. The bonded ones open less but penetrate deeper. I also agree with the above comment about the Accubond for over 500lbs (personally I'm a TTSX guy). Nice test.

 

[Dogleg]

I had a 190 grain VLD fail to make it into the body cavity of a little whitetail buck, and a 180 Ballistic-tip pass through a big BC bull moose. Guess which one will never get another chance?

 

[bcsteve]

I find it interesting that no matter how often, or how many people, or how many tests, or how many field proven results there is, people will still say the a Berger bullet is useless even though they have no experience with it on big game themselves. I have seen them work, extremely well, on many occasions myself on both moose and deer. All very very quick kills, some even through the shoulders of moose.

The same could be said about a .44 or .458 cal hard cast bullet which is pretty much the extreme opposite of a Berger bullet. There's different school of though on how a bullet should perform on game and it's up to the hunter to pick a bullet that matches most what he expect from a bullet. I won't deny that a Berger can and will kill big game animal but FOR ME its not how I expect a bullet to perform.

 

[Eagleye]

As has been stated already, the real test is on a large cross-section of game under many different presentations.
Those who want to use the Bergers, I suggest you fly right at it.

I prefer a bullet that has proven, time and again, that it will penetrate well, regardless of angle, to reach vitals.

This means Partitions and similar designs, bonded core bullets, and monometal bullets like TXS, GMX, etc.

VLD's CAN and DO disintegrate without penetrating from time to time, and I do not want to take that chance.

Regards, Eagleye

 

[Raton57]

I would never use a Ballistic tip bullet after hunting with the old Saber Tip IVI Dominion brand years ago and blowing up a few pounds of meat or in one case half a bighorn sheep. I used the olf X bullets one year and had bad luck with them also so use normal eveyday bullets now. Berger didn't exsit back then.

 

[stubblejumper]

I would never use a Ballistic tip bullet after hunting with the old Saber Tip IVI Dominion brand years ago and blowing up a few pounds of meat or in one case half a bighorn sheep. I used the olf X bullets one year and had bad luck with them also so use normal eveyday bullets now. Berger didn't exsit back then.

The current Ballistic Tip, has very little in common with the old Saber Tip, and the TTSX/TSX, are very different than the old X bullet. Avoiding either the current Ballistic Tip, or the TTSX/TSX because of your long ago experiences, is no different than avoiding a new GMC truck, because you had one in 1990 that was a lemon.

 

['Boo]

. Avoiding either the current Ballistic Tip, or the TTSX/TSX because of your long ago experiences, is no different than avoiding a new GMC truck, because you had one in 1990 that was a lemon.

Actually using the CIL - Nosler comparison is like saying you won't buy a new GMC because you had a crappy Ford in the past .....................

 

[kman300]

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind about anything. Just passing on what I observed today. This test confirmed to me Berger are good to go and mirrors what dozens of people post pictures of on hunting forums with big game animals. Imho if people worried about making perfect shots as much as they do about bullets blowing up there would be a lot less deer wounded regardless of bullet used.

 

[stubblejumper]

For deer sized game, most bullets will work, most of the time. However, when I am after a large bull elk, I am much more particular as to which bullet I choose to use.

 

[kman300]

Iirc you were rather fond of the 180 btips in your 300 ulltras and had them going 3400fps or so. You killed several elk and moose with that combo. Since the btip is not considered a "premium" bullet by many and does not have the characteristics many associate with premiums (high weight retention, deep penetration, reaches vitals from bad shot angles) nor are they recommended my nosler for elk or moose and nosler recommends speeds less than 3100fps for best performance, I'm curious why you decided to use them not just once but many times. Partitions were certainly around during this time.

 

[stubblejumper]

Iirc you were rather fond of the 180 btips in your 300 ulltras and had them going 3400fps or so. You killed several elk and moose with that combo. Since the btip is not considered a "premium" bullet by many and does not have the characteristics many associate with premiums (high weight retention, deep penetration, reaches vitals from bad shot angles) nor are they recommended my nosler for elk or moose and nosler recommends speeds less than 3100fps for best performance, I'm curious why you decided to use them not just once but many times. Partitions were certainly around during this time.

I drove the 180gr Ballistic Tip at 3340fps, and it produced well under 1/2moa, which was much better accuracy than the Partition in that rifle, so I thought that it was worth doing some research. I actually spoke with a tech at Nosler before trying theBallistic Tip on big game, and he assured me, that since the jacket thickness was increased substantially, the 180gr .308" Ballistic Tip was a much tougher bullet than the previous versions. He did warn me that the lighter .308" Ballistic Tips were much softer than the 180gr version, and that he would not recommend them for use on heavier game. After seeing the results on the first couple of elk, I began to use the 180gr Ballistic Tip exclusively in my 300RUM rifles. Then the TSX came along, and offered accuracy very close to the Ballistic Tip, but with an even tougher bullet, so I switched to Barnes. Now with so many good premium bullets available, I am usually able to find an even tougher bullet, with comparable accuracy, so I no longer bother with the Ballistic Tip for hunting larger game.

 

[Northman999]

I drove the 180gr Ballistic Tip at 3340fps, and it produced well under 1/2moa, which was much better accuracy than the Partition in that rifle, so I thought that it was worth doing some research. I actually spoke with a tech at Nosler before trying theBallistic Tip on big game, and he assured me, that since the jacket thickness was increased substantially, the 180gr .308" Ballistic Tip was a much tougher bullet than the previous versions. He did warn me that the lighter .308" Ballistic Tips were much softer than the 180gr version, and that he would not recommend them for use on heavier game. After seeing the results on the first couple of elk, I began to use the 180gr Ballistic Tip exclusively in my 300RUM rifles. Then the TSX came along, and offered accuracy very close to the Ballistic Tip, but with an even tougher bullet, so I switched to Barnes. Now with so many good premium bullets available, I am usually able to find an even tougher bullet, with comparable accuracy, so I no longer bother with the Ballistic Tip for hunting larger game.

It is not uncommon for 180 grain, 30 call bullets of any line to be sturdier than their 150 and 165 grain counterparts, as the 180's are most often build for magnums. The Sierra Gameking line is the same; just because the 165 is fairly fragnible in a 30-06 doesn't mean the 180 will be fragnible in a 300 winmag.

I regards to the OP; I posted a detailed account of my one experience shooting a moose with a 210gr Berger VLD at 30-06 velocities and was very impressed overall. However, I would not shoot it it my 300 winmag unless I was secifically going on a long range hunt. There are quite a few horror stories about Bergers out there, but it seems to me every one I read is about Bergers being shot at magnum velocities at targets at close range. I'm fairly confident that when impact velocties are kept under 2600 fps or so, Berger VLD's do perform as advertised. Nothing against the Accbonds either, of course, I've got few of them loaded for my 30-06 as well...

 

[sorth]

I shot both my deer with Bergers this year. The first one was a whitetail at 350 yards with a 190gr hunting VLD out of my 300 win mag going 3100fps. The deer was shot broadside and made two steps and flipped over dead. Going in it hit a rib and made about a 2-3" hole through the rib cage, took out the heart, through the rib cage on the off side making a 1.5" hole and was found just under the skin. All that was left of the bullet was the jacket and it weighed 35gr. The second was a mule at 317 yards with a 140 Hybrid out of my 264 win mag going 3200fps. This deer was also shot broadside and went 30 feet and fell dead. Going in this one hit the front shoulder knuckle, completely shattering it and sending big bone chucks flying around in the shoulder. It then went through the ribcage with a 2" hole, through the heart, out the ribs on the off side with a 1.5" hole at the shoulder but the bullet was not found as it must have deflected down and out of him. Both bullets did what they are suppose to do, BUT the big issue I see with them is that neither deer bleed a once of blood out of their bodies. The whitetail fell down on the in hole side and layed like that for 20 minutes until I made it over to him and there was absolutely no blood on the ground. I loaded him in the truck and hauled him to the skinning pole which probably took another 30 minutes and I did not have a drop of blood in my truck box. The mule was the exact same as the whitetail with not a drop of blood leaving his body. I did love the way the bullets put the deer down but what would have happened if they did not drop right where I shot them. It would be pretty hard to track a deer when no blood is coming to the out side of the body. I am on the fence whether or not I will use them again next year or not.

 

[Longwalker]

Your test is interesting, but means nothing much. In any valid test, the variability of results must be measured and analyzed. If a bullet performs adequately half the time, but fails the other half, what would your test of ONE shot each tell you? Repeat that test with each bullet a minimum of ten times and do a standard deviation, mean and max/min analysis and you might be able to draw valid conclusions.

 

[paperslayer]

It is nice to see experimentation. The bergers were never designed as a hunting bullet, they were match bullets that flew apart at high RPM because the cases were too thin. This frangibility caused them to be remarketed as hunting bullets. Don't get me wrong. I took a whitetail buck this year with a 105 hunting VLD using a target rifle 6BR and a rempel bipod. It is accurate enough that I can almost choose which chamber of the heart I want to hit, but I don't trust them to make a clean ethical kill on large game. I use TTSX now, and what they give up in BC, they more than make up for with kill certainty.

 

[kman300]

Your test is interesting, but means nothing much. In any valid test, the variability of results must be measured and analyzed. If a bullet performs adequately half the time, but fails the other half, what would your test of ONE shot each tell you? Repeat that test with each bullet a minimum of ten times and do a standard deviation, mean and max/min analysis and you might be able to draw valid conclusions.

I'd be interested to know what bullets you use for hunting and how you were able to shoot 10 animals with the same parameters (distance, angle, shot placement etc) in order for you to determine whether or not your chosen bullet is actually a good hunting bullet.

My test results mirror what many people have posted about the bullets I chose to test.

 

[Longwalker]

I was talking about "tests", not hunting experienece, but I think my personal experience could meet your criteria with a few bullets, but not many. .308 150 gr. Hornady, @ 2800 fps on deer, .257 120 nosler partition @ 2800 fps on deer, .358 250 gr. Speer GS at 2500 fps on elk, but that's about it.
I have studied statistics, and remain unconvinced that you can draw any valid conclusion from a "test" of one shot each, and it does not matter that other people have reported similar results on the internet. It takes a lot of repetition to draw valid conclusions from anything, one of the reasons I tend to use "tried and true" bullets rather than the flavour of the week. But if someone does a valid test, and applies statistics to the results to show that they are repeatable, I adopt that new technology without doubts or reservations.