cariboo_kid said:Vasoline to make penetration more pleasing, who'd a thunk it?
Smarta$$!
What would I use?
1.) A .300 Winchester, or larger just because.
2.) Nosler Partition in 180-200 grain.
3.) Barnes X
4.) Old Trophy Bonded Bear Claws.
Grizzly bullet for 30-06
- Thread starter todbartell
- Start date
Smarta$$!
What would I use?
1.) A .300 Winchester, or larger just because.
2.) Nosler Partition in 180-200 grain.
3.) Barnes X
4.) Old Trophy Bonded Bear Claws.
Republic of Alberta
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- ,location, location
stubblejumper said:
So you shot a Grizzly in the head with that bullet? Right between the eyes stopping shots is what I am talking about.
That particular bullet was recovered from an elk.However it did penetrate actual hide,flesh and bone not just newspaper.Looking at the bullet do you actually doubt that it would stop a grizzly if placed between it's eyes?As for my own grizzly,the shot struck the throat and stopped the bear in it's tracks.That proves to me that a stopping shot does not have to be between the eyes.Have you actually seen a tsx fail to penetrate a grizzly skull?If not,why do you assume that it would fail to penetrate a grizzly skull?Have you ever personally used the tsx on big game or even cleaned an animal that was killed with a tsx?
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
Stubblejumper -
My point was not whether you could stop a charging grizzly at 10 yards, but rather to illustrate the difficulty of trying to finish a wounded bear at 6'-10' in heavy cover without being mauled.
The debate over bullet testing medium will go on ad nauseum. In North America we do not have big game in sufficient numbers to support proper bullet testing like they do in Africa, but even if we did I am not sure this would be the best approach. If you are trying to compare bullets of different designs, or attempting to measure the effect of a small design change to a bullet, unless you shoot into a specific medium with a measured density, it is difficult to come to any definitive conclusion concerning your test. If you shot 100 big game animals under hunting conditions with your 180 TSX/.300 Ultra combination, you would have 100 different results. From testing the bullet in a specific medium, you can get a better idea of how that bullet will perform on a broad range of game animals.
According to the following report we've got it all wrong anyway. We should just get rid of our powerful rifles and get .22-250's, 220 Swifts, and resurrect the .22 Hi -Power.
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildlife/story/8801784p-8703028c.html
Should this single incident be our guide line for chosing a bullet, based on this particular bullet's performance on on a grizzly?
My point was not whether you could stop a charging grizzly at 10 yards, but rather to illustrate the difficulty of trying to finish a wounded bear at 6'-10' in heavy cover without being mauled.
The debate over bullet testing medium will go on ad nauseum. In North America we do not have big game in sufficient numbers to support proper bullet testing like they do in Africa, but even if we did I am not sure this would be the best approach. If you are trying to compare bullets of different designs, or attempting to measure the effect of a small design change to a bullet, unless you shoot into a specific medium with a measured density, it is difficult to come to any definitive conclusion concerning your test. If you shot 100 big game animals under hunting conditions with your 180 TSX/.300 Ultra combination, you would have 100 different results. From testing the bullet in a specific medium, you can get a better idea of how that bullet will perform on a broad range of game animals.
According to the following report we've got it all wrong anyway. We should just get rid of our powerful rifles and get .22-250's, 220 Swifts, and resurrect the .22 Hi -Power.
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildlife/story/8801784p-8703028c.html
Should this single incident be our guide line for chosing a bullet, based on this particular bullet's performance on on a grizzly?
Last edited:
Gatehouse said:This is getting silly....
A bullet between the eyes of a bear, of just about any centerfire rifle, using a bullet of any *reasonable* construction, is gonna kill it. Expansion isn't relaly an issue.
That and good luck putting a shot between the eye's of a bear, who's head is bobbing up and down, left to right on a charge. Small target, I'd say. You would aim for center mass, and hope for the best. If you don't stop it with one or two centershots on a charge, hit the ground, curl up and put you head between your knee's. This way your in a better position to kiss your arse goodbye.
Republic of Alberta
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- ,location, location
Gatehouse said:This is getting silly....
A bullet between the eyes of a bear, of just about any centerfire rifle, using a bullet of any *reasonable* construction, is gonna kill it. Expansion isn't relaly an issue.
The issue is defection or funny paths, due to a bullet that acts as a FMJ. In this case it may not kill.
Last edited:
Republic of Alberta
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- ,location, location
stubblejumper said:
Yes an it was the poorest deer bullet I have ever seen. I posted about it.
Coincidently, I was reading a RIFLE magazine last night.
Phil Shoemaker (Alaskan Grizzly Guide of many years) was talking abotu his pet 458 Winchester Magnum, is main gun for digging big bears out of the woods.
He and his son happened upon 2 grey whale carcasses, washed up on the beach, so took the opportunity to do some bullet testing in them. (Gross, but I suppose it was effective)
I dont' have the article in front of me, but i believe they tried 500gr Hornady, 400Gr Trophy Boneded and 300gr X bullets.
The X bullets opened just as wide and penetrated just as deeply as the other bullets.
He said he still carries a handful of heavyweights when goiing into thick cover after a wounded bear, but he said it was for "moslty physcological reasons"
More food for thought....
Phil Shoemaker (Alaskan Grizzly Guide of many years) was talking abotu his pet 458 Winchester Magnum, is main gun for digging big bears out of the woods.
He and his son happened upon 2 grey whale carcasses, washed up on the beach, so took the opportunity to do some bullet testing in them. (Gross, but I suppose it was effective)
I dont' have the article in front of me, but i believe they tried 500gr Hornady, 400Gr Trophy Boneded and 300gr X bullets.
The X bullets opened just as wide and penetrated just as deeply as the other bullets.
He said he still carries a handful of heavyweights when goiing into thick cover after a wounded bear, but he said it was for "moslty physcological reasons"
More food for thought....
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
Now Gate's post brings up some interesting points, and some interesting questions.
Firstly, the .458 normally produces excellent bullet performance due to its lethargic velocity. Even the 300 gr bullet would of been traveling under 2500 fps, so one would expect all soft point bullets to open as designed.
In my test, all 3 bullets despite a spread of 500 fps penetrated to the same depth. Phil Shoemakers findings are the same. What Shoemaker does not say I find equally interesting, and that has to do with wound volume.
Perhaps the rotting whale carcass tissue was not firm enough to make any reasonable measurement, or perhaps it just smelt too bad to bother. Had measurements been made, I am sure he would of discovered that the heaviest bullet showed the greatest amount of upset, and also the largest wound volume, prior to the point where the permanent wound channel narrows to the diameter of the bullet.
As I've said before, I think the heavier the bullet, the broader the expansion - X bullets appear to be the exception to the rule as the nose cavity of X bullets remain the same depth within caliber, and the length of the shank determines the weight of the bullet. In other words, X bullets are built backwards, but this undoubtedly reduces cost, and the bullets do perform well on game under most circumstances.
A modern lead core bonded bullet has a solid shank of a fixed length, and the weight is controlled by the length of the lead core up front. Therefore, the heavier the bullet, the greater the expansion, and the larger the wound volume.
With regards to the X bullet, it would appear that within caliber there is little advantage to using a heavy bullet over a light one, except that the velocity can be held down with the heavier bullet with no loss of penetration. The lower velocity may or may not be beneficial in preventing the wings of the X bullet from breaking off.
Firstly, the .458 normally produces excellent bullet performance due to its lethargic velocity. Even the 300 gr bullet would of been traveling under 2500 fps, so one would expect all soft point bullets to open as designed.
In my test, all 3 bullets despite a spread of 500 fps penetrated to the same depth. Phil Shoemakers findings are the same. What Shoemaker does not say I find equally interesting, and that has to do with wound volume.
Perhaps the rotting whale carcass tissue was not firm enough to make any reasonable measurement, or perhaps it just smelt too bad to bother. Had measurements been made, I am sure he would of discovered that the heaviest bullet showed the greatest amount of upset, and also the largest wound volume, prior to the point where the permanent wound channel narrows to the diameter of the bullet.
As I've said before, I think the heavier the bullet, the broader the expansion - X bullets appear to be the exception to the rule as the nose cavity of X bullets remain the same depth within caliber, and the length of the shank determines the weight of the bullet. In other words, X bullets are built backwards, but this undoubtedly reduces cost, and the bullets do perform well on game under most circumstances.
A modern lead core bonded bullet has a solid shank of a fixed length, and the weight is controlled by the length of the lead core up front. Therefore, the heavier the bullet, the greater the expansion, and the larger the wound volume.
With regards to the X bullet, it would appear that within caliber there is little advantage to using a heavy bullet over a light one, except that the velocity can be held down with the heavier bullet with no loss of penetration. The lower velocity may or may not be beneficial in preventing the wings of the X bullet from breaking off.
- Location
- South Cariboo, BC
Interesting comments on the difference in performance of varying weights of the tsx within caliber. Your conclusions would tend to support the opinions of many tsx users, who feel the lighter tsx compares well with a heavier bullet of other design.
From all I've read, not personal experience, it seems that the tsx does an excellent job of dropping an animal even if the petals do break off. It transfers a lot of energy as that happens and the petals create minor secondary wound channels.
What is left is a slug with a wide flat meplat that penetrates deep, and as any cast bullet shooter knows this bullet profile is very effective. What we are used to thinking of as bullet failure, still results in an animal going down very fast.
Perhaps we should place less emphasis on the loss of petals at high velocity?
From all I've read, not personal experience, it seems that the tsx does an excellent job of dropping an animal even if the petals do break off. It transfers a lot of energy as that happens and the petals create minor secondary wound channels.
What is left is a slug with a wide flat meplat that penetrates deep, and as any cast bullet shooter knows this bullet profile is very effective. What we are used to thinking of as bullet failure, still results in an animal going down very fast.
Perhaps we should place less emphasis on the loss of petals at high velocity?
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
There are a number of problems with that theory, and I'm not picking on just X bullets here, but any mono metal bullet makers which use the argument, that once the petals break off what is essentially left is a cylindrical bullet which then acts like a solid. This is a big selling feature of GS Customs HV mono-metal tapered base, banded hollow point.
The X bullet has four petals that fold back. What happens if three petals break off? If that happens, the bullet is unbalanced, and straight line penetration is lost.
The suggestion that an X bullet with lost petals simply becomes a solid is a compelling but flawed argument. There are many elements that must be correct for a solid to work properly, and many solids fail due to the lack of even one of these elements. A good solid has parallel sides, and so does the de-petaled X bullet, and the slightly expanded frontal area might even act to keep fluids from exerting pressure on the sides of the bullet which would aid in straight line penetration. Once the petals have broken off, the shank should be short enough that it is unlikely to turn, which is another important element of a successful solid. A successful solid has a flat or hemispherical nose, and it could be argued that the failed X bullet shares those qualities as well
There are 2 elements which make up a successful solid that the failed X lacks, one is serious the other is less so. First is, with the petals gone, the X now is 30% lighter, but the impact velocity is not optimum for the now lighter bullet, and loss of penetration could result. Real world shooting suggests this is not the case, but the theory remains.
The serious failing of the X bullet when compared to a successful solid, is that the solid is made of a hard alloy, where as the X bullet is copper. Lead core solids have a steel jacket which is then covered with a copper jacket to take the rifling. Mono metal solids are usually lath turned bronze. Anyone who has fired a bronze solid at a steel plate will acknowledge that the bullets will shatter on impact. The reason the solid must be hard is to prevent bending. And here is where the argument that the de-petaled X becomes a solid runs into trouble. The shank bends. It might not bend on relatively light framed animals, but on heavily boned animals with dense muscle, they bend. The bullet may very well still kill the animal, but if you loose straight line penetration due to a bent bullet, performance has not been optimal. This is not be an indictment against all X bullets. Barnes has lengthened the shank to make their bullets heavier, rather than lengthening the expandable nose, so the lighter bullet now becomes the better choice, since there is no disadvantage in penetration, or wound volume when compared to the heavier X.
Back to the problem at hand. If I am going into the willows after my wounded grizzly, and my rifle is a .30/06, based on what we have discovered about mono metal soft points, the best TSX bullet I can use is the 165 gr. We know that if the bullet performs as designed, it will expand to .65", it will create a large wound cavity, it will penetrate well, and it will probably exit on a broadside shot. If the wings break off in a uniform manner, the slug will continue to penetrate, in a straight line, because the shank is short enough that it won't bend. In all probability the bear will be killed on the first follow up shot.
But I have another choice. I can choose a 240 gr solid shank bonded core bullet which will expand to .80" will penetrate to the same depth as the faster X, create a wound cavity which would approach triple the size of that created by the X bullet, and cannot fail due to it's moderate velocity.
I'll stick with slow and steady.
The X bullet has four petals that fold back. What happens if three petals break off? If that happens, the bullet is unbalanced, and straight line penetration is lost.
The suggestion that an X bullet with lost petals simply becomes a solid is a compelling but flawed argument. There are many elements that must be correct for a solid to work properly, and many solids fail due to the lack of even one of these elements. A good solid has parallel sides, and so does the de-petaled X bullet, and the slightly expanded frontal area might even act to keep fluids from exerting pressure on the sides of the bullet which would aid in straight line penetration. Once the petals have broken off, the shank should be short enough that it is unlikely to turn, which is another important element of a successful solid. A successful solid has a flat or hemispherical nose, and it could be argued that the failed X bullet shares those qualities as well
There are 2 elements which make up a successful solid that the failed X lacks, one is serious the other is less so. First is, with the petals gone, the X now is 30% lighter, but the impact velocity is not optimum for the now lighter bullet, and loss of penetration could result. Real world shooting suggests this is not the case, but the theory remains.
The serious failing of the X bullet when compared to a successful solid, is that the solid is made of a hard alloy, where as the X bullet is copper. Lead core solids have a steel jacket which is then covered with a copper jacket to take the rifling. Mono metal solids are usually lath turned bronze. Anyone who has fired a bronze solid at a steel plate will acknowledge that the bullets will shatter on impact. The reason the solid must be hard is to prevent bending. And here is where the argument that the de-petaled X becomes a solid runs into trouble. The shank bends. It might not bend on relatively light framed animals, but on heavily boned animals with dense muscle, they bend. The bullet may very well still kill the animal, but if you loose straight line penetration due to a bent bullet, performance has not been optimal. This is not be an indictment against all X bullets. Barnes has lengthened the shank to make their bullets heavier, rather than lengthening the expandable nose, so the lighter bullet now becomes the better choice, since there is no disadvantage in penetration, or wound volume when compared to the heavier X.
Back to the problem at hand. If I am going into the willows after my wounded grizzly, and my rifle is a .30/06, based on what we have discovered about mono metal soft points, the best TSX bullet I can use is the 165 gr. We know that if the bullet performs as designed, it will expand to .65", it will create a large wound cavity, it will penetrate well, and it will probably exit on a broadside shot. If the wings break off in a uniform manner, the slug will continue to penetrate, in a straight line, because the shank is short enough that it won't bend. In all probability the bear will be killed on the first follow up shot.
But I have another choice. I can choose a 240 gr solid shank bonded core bullet which will expand to .80" will penetrate to the same depth as the faster X, create a wound cavity which would approach triple the size of that created by the X bullet, and cannot fail due to it's moderate velocity.
I'll stick with slow and steady.
Last edited:
And I will stick with a bullet that expands to the same diameter,penetrates just as deep,has a much flatter trajectory,drifts much less in the wind,and produces noticeably less recoil.It will kill just as good at close range,yet performs superbly at long range as well,in other words,the best of both worlds.You can go on theorizing about how the tsx might possibly fail,while I will continue to watch it provide quick clean kills on actual game animals.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
stubblejumper said:
I hope you are right, although I think it's a shame that your life experience has closed your mind to other possibiliteis. Still, I want to see you take that 46" long rifle and 10X scope into the the willows after a wounded grizzly.
I did use heavy conventional bullets when I started hunting over 30 years ago,but I was open minded enough to try something new.Apparently you are too closed minded to do so.
I did post 3x10x42 scope,which means that it is a variable that can be adjusted to 3x.But then again a variable scope may be too new and unproven for you to use.
