These were. I have never seen a bullet become as big a shadow of its former self than that one.
Bullet failures - What your experience has been.
- Thread starter Kelly Timoffee
- Start date
These were. I have never seen a bullet become as big a shadow of its former self than that one.
tacticalsixgun
Member
- Location
- Thorsby AB
I wasn't shooting but a buddy of mine used the deer season winchester xp. 200 yard shot 150gr out of a 300wm hit the front shoulder and never made it into the chest cavity. Recovered the deer but it should have been a heartshot and shouldn't have had to wait an hour and finish it with another shot.
Brassman66
CGN frequent flyer
The best Bullet wont help you if you take warning shots
Cheers
Cheers
Leatherstocking
CGN Regular
- Location
- BC Rockies
No. I recovered the carcass and put it in the freezer!
That's a really high velocity for a cup and core. I would expect it to come unglued personally. I'd say at that range, 180s at least if not heavier. Or switch to a bonded bullet like an Accubond.
The term "failure" obviously means different things to different folks. As I see it, the difference is: Did it fail to kill the animal,
or did it fail to work as it should have?
I expect an A-Frame, a Partition, or Accubond, or Scirocco II to penetrate well, to either exit with definite evidence of expansion,
or stay in, hopefully under the hide on the opposite side to bullet entry. If it stays, 60% retained weight is fine, more is a bonus if
expansion is adequate. This bullet worked as it was designed, and is not a failure. Game is usually recovered within a short distance.
Conversely, I view bullet failure as evident if a bullet designed specifically to hunt animals with blows up completely, or pencils through
without any evidence of expansion. Usually such animals will have to be shot again to anchor, or they travel a considerable distance
before dying.
I shot a Whitetail buck several years ago with my 270, and a well known 140 grain "hunting" bullet. The shot was 80 meters, and MV
about 3000 fps, so still trekking right along when it hit. The bullet disintegrated on the onside rib, with none penetrating into the cavity.
Made a large "bloom" wound on the surface, though. The deer ran about 50 meters, and then stopped, seemingly a bit dazed, so I sent
a second bullet his way. This one made it in, and killed that buck, but little of it made the far side of the deer. I consider that a bullet
failure, and since, have shot that bullet only on paper.
Yes, recovered, but the deer could have been lost, or at least a long tracking job to find and dispatch him. I consider the cost of a premium
bullet a small price to pay for consistent, reliable results. YMMV, lol. Dave.
or did it fail to work as it should have?
I expect an A-Frame, a Partition, or Accubond, or Scirocco II to penetrate well, to either exit with definite evidence of expansion,
or stay in, hopefully under the hide on the opposite side to bullet entry. If it stays, 60% retained weight is fine, more is a bonus if
expansion is adequate. This bullet worked as it was designed, and is not a failure. Game is usually recovered within a short distance.
Conversely, I view bullet failure as evident if a bullet designed specifically to hunt animals with blows up completely, or pencils through
without any evidence of expansion. Usually such animals will have to be shot again to anchor, or they travel a considerable distance
before dying.
I shot a Whitetail buck several years ago with my 270, and a well known 140 grain "hunting" bullet. The shot was 80 meters, and MV
about 3000 fps, so still trekking right along when it hit. The bullet disintegrated on the onside rib, with none penetrating into the cavity.
Made a large "bloom" wound on the surface, though. The deer ran about 50 meters, and then stopped, seemingly a bit dazed, so I sent
a second bullet his way. This one made it in, and killed that buck, but little of it made the far side of the deer. I consider that a bullet
failure, and since, have shot that bullet only on paper.
Yes, recovered, but the deer could have been lost, or at least a long tracking job to find and dispatch him. I consider the cost of a premium
bullet a small price to pay for consistent, reliable results. YMMV, lol. Dave.
Last edited:
I used a Barnes XLC in my 470 NE double on a Cape Buffalo 4 shots to bring it down finally with a spine shot, recovered 3 bullets all 3 the hollow point closed up. Yes it did kill the Buffalo but things got really hairy. Second Buffalo was with a Woodliegh soft point put a whole in the heart you could put your fist through Buffalo went 30 feet. I guess it’s what your comfortable with as far as doing the job, I’ll never use mono metal bullets on Dangerous game agai
What sort of velocity were you getting with the XLC bullets, and impact velocity? I've always kinda wondered about using expanding mono metals in large diameter but relatively slow cartridges.
Northman999
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Southern Yukon
I’ve honestly never experienced bullet failure.
I never had a bullet pencil through an animal without expanding, or blow up on impact without penetrating, I agree those things would be bullet failures.
I do generally feel however, that any bullet that killed whatever it was shot at did its job; and I don’t pay any attention to what a bullet “should” look like after impact, or things like a bullet that does “too much damage” etc.
I’m fine with bullets that fragment entirely, or hold together entirely, or anything in between, as long as when I shoot something it promptly dies.
I never had a bullet pencil through an animal without expanding, or blow up on impact without penetrating, I agree those things would be bullet failures.
I do generally feel however, that any bullet that killed whatever it was shot at did its job; and I don’t pay any attention to what a bullet “should” look like after impact, or things like a bullet that does “too much damage” etc.
I’m fine with bullets that fragment entirely, or hold together entirely, or anything in between, as long as when I shoot something it promptly dies.
New Camper
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Lurking in the woods near SFRC.
^ pretty much this. I've used C&C, bonded, mono and those semi-jacket things that might as well be solid lead given the slow velocity... bullet failures? Zero. Without the "I screwed up the shot because I got nervous, stumbled, clumsy or took a chance and will still admit it" or "... too proud to admit it" options in the poll, I'm not sure it will provide any profound revelations.
Add me to the list of Hornady SST haters. The expansion is violent but also unpredictable in expansion in soft tissue.
Have had at least one Sierra #2155 target bullet come apart but 3000+ FPS out of a 308 just does that once in a while.
Have had at least one Sierra #2155 target bullet come apart but 3000+ FPS out of a 308 just does that once in a while.
I like Nosler for their Accubonds, which have never failed me and seem to be consistently accurate across a range of my rifles. I'm turning into a fan of the Swift A-Frames due to their partition style construction and bonded cores. I haven't used the A-Frames much yet to speak to accuracy or terminal performance, but I have a bunch loaded up waiting for the next trip to the range!
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
The bullet failures I've observed have been my own fault for choosing an inappropriate bullet for what I was attempting to do. At one time I thought that match bullets made good game bullets, and being slippery they reduced the amount of hold off I needed for wind. In practice they either grenaded or they didn't expand at all. When seal hunting, a bullet that grenades with a head shot is spectacular, but problems occur when a body shot must be taken. Those super accurate, wind defying match and varmint bullets with the tin foil jackets, and their tiny flight stabilizing hollow points, fail and the animal dies a miserable death. A good accurate cup and core game bullet is far superior to any advantage you might imagine from one of these. This little gem of wisdom though comes with a caveat, the bullet you choose for game must be able to withstand both the impact velocity and the rotational velocity its under. If you build a 6.5-300 Weatherby with a 1:7 twist barrel, its going to require a tough bullet to handle the forces acting on it, even on light game. Some bullet testing might be in order. It doesn't really matter what medium you use to test bullets as long as its wet. Choose a bullet like a Partition that is known to produce good results on game, and use that as the basis of comparison for your wonder bullet.
Good reading. I’d put bullet failure on a ethical scale. A bullet should impart enough energy to anchor or drop the game, a wound that bleeds to provide a quick kill and limited meat damage if its for the table. Expanding bonded Bullets that maintain weight retention are my go to. Partitions and the like. Terminal ballistics does a very good job showcasing the idea. And is worth the visit if you haven’t read the opinions already. I think some poor bullet experiences come from poor caliber choice for the target game. But a very surprising amount of terrible bullet selection for intended targets. a-tips a-max and the other paper punchers. This and shot placement should never add to the conversion of bullet performance.
140 gr PSP corelokt were making pencil holes in deer with my wife’s 260 remington.
with the short barrel the muzzle velocity was barely 2600 fps.
it made for long runs and no blood trail.
after her 4th deer with the same results, i began reloading the 120 nosler BT to about 2875 fps.
problem solved immediately. mostly bang flops now, with the occasional 30y run.
with the short barrel the muzzle velocity was barely 2600 fps.
it made for long runs and no blood trail.
after her 4th deer with the same results, i began reloading the 120 nosler BT to about 2875 fps.
problem solved immediately. mostly bang flops now, with the occasional 30y run.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
I have a bit of an issue with the context of bullet failure being an ethical consideration, when you then suggest that the terminal performance is related to energy alone, with no consideration bullet construction beyond bonded, or of the density of the intended target. Bullet choice can be complex issue, that when answered simply, implies a lack of esoteric knowledge. People make mistakes, and if they do so when acting in a lawful manner, with the best of intentions, its unfair to label that unethical. By contrast, choosing a bullet, or shot placement you know has the likelihood of causing unnecessary suffering is unethical. Then as a wild card, pieces of metal alloy that impact at high linear and rotational velocities sometimes react unpredictably, even though we anticipate specific performance from a particular bullet design and construction.
Let's consider a .308 168 gr match bullet. When fired from a .30/06 with a barrel length of 20" or more, a muzzle velocity of 2800 fps can be anticipated, which produces a bit more than 2900 ft-lbs of energy. Given the velocity decay over distance of this particular bullet at sea level, the accepted required energy of 1200 ft-lbs to kill a deer extends to something like 500 yards. If due to the construction of this bullet, it fails to expand, the deer will still die if the bullet placement was good, but it will take a long time for death to occur, during which time the deer is in distress. But from the standpoint of energy on target, this situation is ethical. Now, if that same hunter first annealed his match bullet, then shot his deer at 600 yards and the annealed bullet violently erupted in the deer's lungs, destroying both the heart and lungs and severing the arteries which provide oxygenated blood to the brain, the deer dies quickly, yet because the bullet produces only 900 ft-lbs of energy, and is not bonded, by your measure the shot is unethical. See the problem here?
Roy Weatherby was of the opinion that it was velocity alone that resulted in a clean humane kill, and urged hunters to stalk close so that impact velocity was as high as possible. He placed little emphasis on bullet construction. It was not long until complaints flooded across his desk that his bullets were miserable, and that something must be done. His response was to tell his customers they were free to switch to Partitions if they preferred, but he did not mandate a change to the bullets being loaded in his factory cartridges until much, much later. The trouble with his point of view was that its entirely dependent upon a classic broadside shot. If your quarry is quartering away, a high velocity impact requires a bullet of very tough construction to produce the penetration necessary for a clean kill. Yet it often happens that a game animal will turn and bolt just as the hunter fires, and the impact is a quartering shot rather than a broadside. If you choose a bullet that is tough enough to penetrate through the compacted vegetation in the gut, with enough retained velocity to damage the heart and lungs, fair to say it might not produce optimum, pull the rug out from under them, results with a broadside shot, particularly on an animal of light density. A 270 yard shot with a bonded bullet on a broadside pronghorn antelope, could leave you to believe that a .338 was required to anchor them, but a .25-06 loaded with Ballistic Tips rugs them with boring regularity with that same shot.
A Square ws a company that produced hunting rifles and ammunition, and produced what they referred to as a bullet triad for big game. These bullets included the Dead Tough, which was a bonded soft point, a mono-metal solid featuring parallel sides and a hemispherical nose, and what they called the lion bullet. The lion bullet was an extremely hard bullet that was intended to grenade after initial penetration. When I was in Tanzania, I heard about a hunter who opted to use these things on a lion. The trouble was the lion was facing the hunter, rather than being broadside; the bullet hit the lion in mouth, subsequently broke up on his teeth, resulting in a horrible facial wound. The lion, promptly took his displeasure out on the hunter; I don't know whether he survived or not, if he did it was in no small part due to the fact that the lions jaws were broken, and only damage he could inflict was with his claws, or a crushing injury by his bulk. Being mauled by a 400 pound lion is not an experience I would relish. Either of the other A Square bullets would have solved the problem instantly. This is one of those situations where a concept sounds better on paper than it works out to be in practice. Yet the bullet was specifically designed to kill lions, so I don't know how the hunter's choice of bullet could be criticized as unethical, despite the unfortunate outcome.
When choosing a game bullet, the best we can hope for is a compromise between penetration and expansion, and accept that the target presentation we end up will, in all likelihood, not be optimal. It is unhelpful to imply that a bullet failure is the results of unethical behavior of either the hunter or the bullet manufacturer, who are simply people attempting to make the best decisions they can with the information they have.
Last edited:
Boomer you make valid points but have misinterpreted my comments. My take on bullet choice is bonded. As my hunting is typically within 300 yards and I have very good performance with such.people make mistakes and have have had them myself that made for a poor kill or even a loss of a animal that wasn’t necessarily the bullet or caliber choice as human error. The example of making a purpose built 600 yard deer bullet is strange too me. But perhaps the hunting you do only presents such opportunities at what I would consider too far. I’d take my chances at making a stalk to close that range. Nevertheless if that’s the chosen type of hunting you do then I suppose your annealed bullet is what would be the ethical choice. The point being it’s important to choose a bullet that will produce fast kills in real world hunting. There are lots of jokers out there that think they are American sniper. They chose to shoot these long range Bullets and like most hunting a deer shows up at 150 yards making a less
Than ideal performance. Conversely the same can be said with a bonded or cup and core like you said at long range. This is of course the wrong choice both bullet wise and ethically by the hunter. The idea I’m trying to get across is don’t say the bullet was a bad performer if you didn’t do your part to choice the right situation for it. As you probably know there gets to be bad reviews on products from users not using them properly or good reviews on others that then get used in wrong situations.
Than ideal performance. Conversely the same can be said with a bonded or cup and core like you said at long range. This is of course the wrong choice both bullet wise and ethically by the hunter. The idea I’m trying to get across is don’t say the bullet was a bad performer if you didn’t do your part to choice the right situation for it. As you probably know there gets to be bad reviews on products from users not using them properly or good reviews on others that then get used in wrong situations.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
Due to small bag limits and short hunting seasons, very few North American hunters have shot enough game with any one bullet to enable them to develop an informed opinion of its suitability for use on a particular game animal, under any given circumstances. Thus hunters base their bullet choices upon what is allowable under law, by what has been expressed to them in media, on the internet, and by other individuals, and by what is available to them when buying ammunition or components. When considering which game bullet to choose, it behooves us to consider under what circumstances our favorite bullet has failed for other people, and determine if we are setting ourselves up for similar failures. While we might make the best decisions we can, few of us can draw conclusions on bullet performance on game based upon our own observations and experience.
Does this mean that we cannot make an ethical choice of which bullet to use? Ethics are a personal matter, keep in mind that a significant portion of the population doesn't think we should be shooting any animals at all, and that doing so is cruel and unethical. So perhaps ethics is the wrong measure, but we should be choosing bullets that have an expectation of killing game without causing unnecessary suffering. Yet we accept the possibility that the shot we make might wound rather than kill cleanly for any number of reasons outside of our control, yet we press the trigger. If pressing the trigger presents an ethical dilemma for us, we shouldn't be hunting.
We can make reasonable choices of which game bullet to use, and still see a failure. There are circumstances where solids are the only reasonable choice, circumstances where they are one among other reasonable choices, and circumstances, such as when hunting in North America, where they are for the most part illegal, and therefore unreasonable, for use on any big game. The same can be said of the design suitability of monos, bonded, and cup and core game bullets, with respect to when their choice is reasonable one. Each bullet style has design parameters that are optimized for muzzle velocity, impact velocity, and target density. There is no "one size fits all" game bullet that performs optimally at all velocities, on all sizes of game, in all circumstances. To suggest otherwise might be unethical.
Last edited:
