Which bullet you say? well Check out this test...

[Predator56]

http://www.gunsandhunting.com/bulletshootout.html

The author tested six different 150-grain, .308-caliber bullets in the test media.
From left to right: Nosler Ballistic Tip, Nosler AccuBond, Nosler Partition, Hornady InterBond, Combined Technology FailSafe and Barnes Triple Shock.

If you'd like to ask the author questions or have comments click here.

Understanding the terminal performance characteristics of different bullets helps you select the best one for the job at hand. Bullets are all about a balance between expansion, integrity, penetration and tissue destruction. These things are difficult to learn when hunters only shoot a few big-game animals each year. What’s more, it’s near impossible to orchestrate exact conditions for every shot on game to allow a meaningful comparison.

I have been evaluating a bullet-testing medium from Rooster Laboratories that should be commercially available in 2006. Understand that no test medium can perfectly replicate the hide, bone, muscle and soft tissues a bullet will encounter in animals. But a medium that on a consistent basis illustrates the differences between how bullets expand, penetrate and impart their energy to tissue can teach us many things.

I tested six different 150-grain, .308-caliber hunting bullets. Each was fired into a 12-inch cylinder of medium backed by another 12-inch cylinder. Bullets were handloaded over 46 grains of Ramshot TAC; then fired from a Ruger M77 Compact, .308 Winchester with a 16.5-inch barrel to help obtain a target impact velocity of 2,650 feet per second replicating the muzzle velocity of the .300 Savage, 100-yard velocity of a .308 Winchester from a standard barrel and the 250-yard velocity of the 300 Winchester Magnum. Finally, each load was fired for velocity and accuracy from a 21.5-inch barreled Sisk custom .308 Winchester.

An obvious question is how penetration in this medium correlates to penetration in animals? Ten-percent ordinance gelatin has long been considered by many experts as a reasonable replication of soft animal tissue when it comes to bullet penetration. In fact, 10 percent ordinance gelatin is the medium specified in FBI and Department of Defense testing. The medium I used from Rooster Labs will show approximately half the penetration expected in 10-percent ordinance gelatin.

Expansion occurs almost instantaneously upon bullet impact, but the deformation—like any other work—takes time. Granted, at the speed bullets travel, this time is measured in milliseconds and equates to a very short distance. This distance will differ due to bullet design, and the wound cavity in the test medium provides a snapshot of this distance. This cavity also gives a glimpse of a bullet’s propensity for “deep” tissue disruption incidental to what is actually crushed or physically touched by the bullet as it travels through an animal. Wound cavities were measured to include volume in the first cylinder and overall penetration through both.
Sectional density is commonly referred to in any discussion about bullet penetration. It is nothing more than the unfired bullet’s weight in pounds divided by the square of its diameter in inches. Sectional density does not reliably predict penetration especially when comparing bullets of different designs. This is perfectly illustrated in this test because the bullets all have the same sectional density, and penetration varied by almost 10 inches. Some also claim retained weight is a good indicator of penetration potential. This is only true when considered in conjunction with expanded diameter. All bullets were recovered from the media, weighed and their expanded diameter was measured.

I found that regardless of caliber, you could determine a bullet’s penetration potential (PP) by dividing the recovered weight in grains (RW) by its recovered diameter in inches (RD). Given similar impact velocities the remainder, or penetration potential (PP), will directly correlate to actual penetration (AP). This (PP) might also be called terminal, sectional density. The formula was applied to the recovered bullets in this test and the margin of error with regard to actual penetration (AP) was within +/- 10 percent. The formula was confirmed by testing several other bullets in the medium from calibers as small as .257 to as large as .375, fired at near identical velocities. The reason this formula is important is because it demonstrates how the relationship between weight retention and recovered diameter along with velocity, consistently and reliably determine actual penetration depth.

Calculating Penetration Potential

The BarnesTriple-Shock had an RW of 150 grains and an RD of .62 inch. Plugged into the penetration potential formula it would look like:

RW/RD = PP or 150/.62 = 241.93

The Triple-Shock penetrated to a depth of 16.0 inches. If you divide the actual penetration (AP) for the Triple-Shock by its PP, which is 241.93, you find its AP of 16.0 inches is 6.6 percent of its PP at a muzzle velocity of 2,635 feet per second.

Experiments like this can reveal trends in bullet performance and help hunters select the most appropriate bullet for the intended purpose. I would encourage hunters to conduct similar experiments to help with bullet selection and to gain an appreciation of how bullets work.

Relevance Of Penetration Potential

Applying this formula to the bullets tested you can see in the table below that the results vary from 6.2 percent to 7.3 percent. This is a margin of error of less than +/- 1 percent with regard to the calculated penetration potential (PP) and no more than +/- 10 percent when compared to actual penetration in the test medium. This verifies the validity of the formula and the consistency of the test medium. It also shows that given the same velocity, the bullet with the higher PP will always penetrate deeper.

I have used this bullet in calibers from 6mm to 9.3mm on whitetails with excellent success. Still, reports from trusted sources tell me Ballistic Tips sometimes come apart and fail to penetrate deep if heavy bone is hit or with impact velocities above 2,900 feet per second. This bullet expands fast even at moderate velocities loosing speed soon after impact. It produced the shallowest wound cavity of any bullet terminating at a depth of 6.5 inches. Keep in mind that Nosler (Varmint) Ballistic Tips do not perform like the (Hunting) Ballistic Tips.

When I hunted in Africa I used AccuBonds in three different calibers and no bullet failures were experienced. The fact that the core of this bullet is bonded to the jacket allows it to retain its integrity, spread its expansion over a greater distance and maintain a compacted mushroom. This protects against the bullet being torn apart.

Considered by many, the bullet all others are judged by, Partitions initiate expansion soon after penetration but travel deep before expansion is complete. This aids penetration. However, if the front core is lost too soon due to impact with bone or from tumbling, the remaining rear section can develop into a non-uniform projectile with poor hydrodynamics and veer off course. A Partition did just that on a Montana black bear I shot. When expansion occurs uniformly these bullets penetrate deep. The Partition produced the second largest wound cavity of those tested.

I used this bullet to take a whitetail buck in 2003. The deer was quartering away and the bullet entered well behind the ribs, passed thru the paunch and one lung, exiting in front of the off side shoulder. These bullets create a large wound cavity, the largest of any bullet tested. They retain weight well and expand to a wide diameter. They will not penetrate as deep as bullets that develop smaller frontal diameters.

I gave up on X-Bullets because I could never get the accuracy I wanted. The Triple-Shock changed that, and I expect excellent accuracy from them. These bullets expand well, hold together and penetrate deep. Like the Fail Safe, they do not have a frontal lead core and retain a long shank which gets longer as impact velocities drop. This means the Triple-Shock shares some of the Fail Safe’s characteristics like a long, narrow wound cavity.

 

[Predator56]

check out the interbond cavity volume

 

[Predator56]

Wouldve liked to have seen a corelokt tested as well.
Obviously a hole through the lungs or heart will kill, but those wanting DRT w/o shooting spine/shoulders should check out wound cavity. On deer sized game, that's the ticket

 

[WTM45]

It's getting almost impossible to find .308 and .277 Fail Safe bullets for my handloads. I am sadly down to around 100 rounds for each rifle.

He fired single rounds of each bullet tested? That's hardly a valid test. Not even nearly enough for a statistical review, but informative.

 

[whitworth]

I suspect all these bullets will harvest a deer

if fired in a rifle handled by a competent shooter. As I've and others have said, the deer won't know the difference. Only the statisticians.

I still use Hornady SP and roundnose bullets in reloads. They're manufactured in the tons at a good price.

My reloads for deer always worked. 200 grain roundnose bullet in a Marlin 35 Remington; some Remington, some Federal, some Hornady. I bought a 30-06 just to have a back-up rifle. Kills deer good.

If you become a competent shooter with good range time at practice, the bullet is probably the least of your problems.

 

[Predator56]

-Sure would take a lot of ballistic gelatin to shoot samples of 10-20 each.
-Shot placements counts most sure.

I thought the results were interesting.

Heck a full metal jacket will kill a deer. The test appears to have tested for penetration, weight retention, expansion, & cavity volume when one bullet was fired into gelatin. I guess we can all draw our own conclusions. I'm sure we can poke holes in most any reviews or testing methods but I thik this is as good as any you'll see in a magazine.

 

[Predator56]

It's getting almost impossible to find .308 and .277 Fail Safe bullets for my handloads. I am sadly down to around 100 rounds for each rifle.

He fired single rounds of each bullet tested? That's hardly a valid test. Not even nearly enough for a statistical review, but informative.

fwiw the interbond had over twice the cavity volume of the failsafe...

 

[Predator56]

good picture showing difference between bonded and not bonded

looks like the bonded expanded wider and retained more weight

 

[Bruz]

Based on this small sample.......It looks like the Interbond would be a good choice for moderate velocity hunting rounds. I might give these a try in my 338-06 next year.

Thanks for posting.

Robert

 

[WTM45]

fwiw the interbond had over twice the cavity volume of the failsafe...

Saw that. My replacement bullet is the Accubond. Good accuracy and I'd bet similiar performance as the Interbond.

 

[miles58]

First bias:

Someone is going to have to explain how the second deepest penetration and the second largest expansion provides the third lowest Penetration potential. Looks like a made up stat to show a desired result in the test.

Second bias:

The velocity is not only not held constant, but is appears to be arbitrarily low. This also would appear to be an intentional bias for the purpose of producing a desired result.

Third bias:

The ruler used as a scale to calculate volume of apparent wound cavity mathematically shows the Barnes with the largest volume, yet the chart shows the Barnes with the second lowest volume.

Fourth bias:

The accuracy results are meaningless since the powder charge was held constant. Thus the accuracy result is as meaningless as any of the other results. In fact, it is of even less value since it is normal that different rifles respond quite differently to working up loads.

This would appear to be a "test" intended to produce a pre-determined end result.

A real test might be to impact each bullet at it's best impact velocity and choose before hand a real measurement technique. Push a bullet above it's designed impact velocity and we have all learned that it can and will blow up rather than penetrate, thus creating an improbably small wound channel. Impact too slow and you have a much more probable pencil through producing again an improbably small wound channel.

Lastly, the "test" neglects to address the wholly different construction of the bullets. Experience on game has shown that monometal bullets perform as well or better than the next higher weight in a given caliber.

Just looking at the media results, the Nosler BT bullets had the narrowest wound channels unless the Fail Safe was narrower. The Interbond and the Partition appear to have had marginally wider maximum wound channels.

What results would have been produced had the bullets been driven at optimum speed for each bullet so that we are comparing apples to apples? What results would have been produced had we compared a light for caliber monometal to a comparably capable cup and core? Lastly, what results might we have produced comparing a tipped monometal to a the tipped cup and core bullets?

A bogus test, which this clearly is, tells us nothing useful. If I can drive a monometal 130 grain bullet at 2900 out of a .308 and get substantially better penetration than I can with a 150 grain cup and core at 2650 and the same pressure, is it fair to compare the monometal 130 to the cup and core 150? Is it more fair to compare the monometal 130 to a cup and core 180 which has a more comparable (but still lesser) penetration?

A much more useful test will tell me if a 130 grain monometal is a better hunting bullet in a .308 because I can push it fast enough in a .308 to make a real difference out at 300 yards, and will it give me as good or better results at normal ranges. A 308 is a little underbore. Clearly a 30-06 with it's greater capacity can easily outperform it. A 300 mag has more capacity yet without being overbore yet. The real question is can the different bullets help to bridge that gap and give you something more useful.

A lead bullet will always have ballistic advantages because of it's higher sectional density. The question is where does that advantage become meaningful. In the case of steel shot it begins around 35 yards with comparable shot sizes and lead is just better ballistically beyond that. With a rifle no one has quantified it well yet to my knowledge but it appears to be out past 350 yards. Terminal performance in game is another question of and by itself. if a 130 grain monometal .308 bullet holds together at 3500 FPS out of a 300 WM and expands reliably at 2100 FPS those figures define a min and max range for the bullet. Similarly if a cup and core 130 blows up at 3000 FPS and expands reliably at 1800 FPS that also defines a min and max range where that bullet is useful. Or, if you will it defines suitable rifles to use the bullet in.

That's how you get to the somewhat obvious conclusion that a monometal 130 might be OK for moose out of a 300 WM but a BT 130 cup and core looks like a much less good idea for moose and maybe not even small deer.

 

[HandgunHTR]

All I use in my rifle loads is the Accubonds or Interbonds. Some of my rifles prefer the Noslers, some the Hornadys. I have shot a number of deer with them and have not lost a deer with them yet.

 

[Bill Mc]

I gave up on X-Bullets because I could never get the accuracy I wanted

That's the only thing I'm sure of. My SIL never could get the accuracy in his testing using X-Bullets.

I've killed a bunch of deer using Core-Locs. Some ran and some were DRT.

 

[Predator56]

First bias:

Someone is going to have to explain how the second deepest penetration and the second largest expansion provides the third lowest Penetration potential. Looks like a made up stat to show a desired result in the test.

Second bias:

The velocity is not only not held constant, but is appears to be arbitrarily low. This also would appear to be an intentional bias for the purpose of producing a desired result.

Third bias:

The ruler used as a scale to calculate volume of apparent wound cavity mathematically shows the Barnes with the largest volume, yet the chart shows the Barnes with the second lowest volume.

Fourth bias:

The accuracy results are meaningless since the powder charge was held constant. Thus the accuracy result is as meaningless as any of the other results. In fact, it is of even less value since it is normal that different rifles respond quite differently to working up loads.

This would appear to be a "test" intended to produce a pre-determined end result.

A real test might be to impact each bullet at it's best impact velocity and choose before hand a real measurement technique. Push a bullet above it's designed impact velocity and we have all learned that it can and will blow up rather than penetrate, thus creating an improbably small wound channel. Impact too slow and you have a much more probable pencil through producing again an improbably small wound channel.

Lastly, the "test" neglects to address the wholly different construction of the bullets. Experience on game has shown that monometal bullets perform as well or better than the next higher weight in a given caliber.

Just looking at the media results, the Nosler BT bullets had the narrowest wound channels unless the Fail Safe was narrower. The Interbond and the Partition appear to have had marginally wider maximum wound channels.

What results would have been produced had the bullets been driven at optimum speed for each bullet so that we are comparing apples to apples? What results would have been produced had we compared a light for caliber monometal to a comparably capable cup and core? Lastly, what results might we have produced comparing a tipped monometal to a the tipped cup and core bullets?

A bogus test, which this clearly is, tells us nothing useful. If I can drive a monometal 130 grain bullet at 2900 out of a .308 and get substantially better penetration than I can with a 150 grain cup and core at 2650 and the same pressure, is it fair to compare the monometal 130 to the cup and core 150? Is it more fair to compare the monometal 130 to a cup and core 180 which has a more comparable (but still lesser) penetration?

A much more useful test will tell me if a 130 grain monometal is a better hunting bullet in a .308 because I can push it fast enough in a .308 to make a real difference out at 300 yards, and will it give me as good or better results at normal ranges. A 308 is a little underbore. Clearly a 30-06 with it's greater capacity can easily outperform it. A 300 mag has more capacity yet without being overbore yet. The real question is can the different bullets help to bridge that gap and give you something more useful.

A lead bullet will always have ballistic advantages because of it's higher sectional density. The question is where does that advantage become meaningful. In the case of steel shot it begins around 35 yards with comparable shot sizes and lead is just better ballistically beyond that. With a rifle no one has quantified it well yet to my knowledge but it appears to be out past 350 yards. Terminal performance in game is another question of and by itself. if a 130 grain monometal .308 bullet holds together at 3500 FPS out of a 300 WM and expands reliably at 2100 FPS those figures define a min and max range for the bullet. Similarly if a cup and core 130 blows up at 3000 FPS and expands reliably at 1800 FPS that also defines a min and max range where that bullet is useful. Or, if you will it defines suitable rifles to use the bullet in.

That's how you get to the somewhat obvious conclusion that a monometal 130 might be OK for moose out of a 300 WM but a BT 130 cup and core looks like a much less good idea for moose and maybe not even small deer.

wow

I never would pay attention to accuracy in any test because of differences in barrels, powders, primers, seating depth, actions, etc...


So basically because this guy didnt test a 130 TSX he is biased do to the fact that it performs similar to a 150 cup and core...hmmm. ok

"best impact velocity" which you refer to is something i havent seen published, usually its a range like 3100-1800fps... What is the "best impact velocity" of any bullet?

I agree with alot of what you say but I dont agree that the tester was biased and trying to create a result to favor a certain bullet. If he did, I dont see where he touts one as the "best."
From what I have seen on many boards, in real life 1st hand, and talking to people the results seem fairly accurate... Accubonds holds less weight than most of the other bonded bullets because they are supposed to have more penetration. THe interbond opens wider, has a larger frontal diameter, holds more weight, but the large diameter causes it to penetrate less. The TSX and failsafe are penetration kings for sure..

I have no problem with testign a 130 TTSX out of a 308 @ 3050 or so vs a 150 bonded bullet@ 2850 or so...I would like to see that test as well...

i would also like to see a 130 TSX @ 3050 vs a 150 TTSX @ 2850

 

[miles58]

wow

So basically because this guy didnt test a 130 TSX he is biased do to the fact that it performs similar to a 150 cup and core...hmmm.

Only a dip wad that didn't have any experience with bullets to begin with would try to compare a monometal to a cup and core of the same weight. When you get done you have a full weight monometal every time for all intents and purposes. A cup and core sheds weight every time. They are not equal, it's just that simple.

"best impact velocity" which you refer to is something i havent seen published, usually its a range like 3100-1800fps... What is the "best impact velocity" of any bullet?

Each manufacturer designs each bullet for a specific velocity at impact and usually there is an optimum velocity. All it would take is asking the manufacturer.

I agree with alot of what you say but I dont agree that the tester was biased and trying to create a result to favor a certain bullet. If he did, I dont see where he touts one as the "best."

The test is biased as I illustrated. Done deal. I am not speculating on his agenda. I do have to believe that the biases are so obvious and elementary that either the guy doesn't know what he's about or he is trying to produce a result.

From what I have seen on many boards, in real life 1st hand, and talking to people the results seem fairly accurate... Accubonds holds less weight than most of the other bonded bullets because they are supposed to have more penetration. THe interbond opens wider, has a larger frontal diameter, holds more weight, but the large diameter causes it to penetrate less. The TSX and failsafe are penetration kings for sure..

With such a poor test, you can't say much about the results because they are so hosed to begin with.


I have no problem with testign a 130 TTSX out of a 308 @ 3050 or so vs a 150 bonded bullet@ 2850 or so...I would like to see that test as well...

i would also like to see a 130 TSX @ 3050 vs a 150 TTSX @ 2850

A really useful test might be to run a monometal at it's optimum speed and do likewise with cup and core bullets to find out what an apt comparison might be. Does a monometal 130 in .308 perform like a C & C 150? 180? Or, can you go lighter yet? I have seen a Barnes 85 grain TSX penetrate >30 inches of buck and totally destroy the lungs and completely open the heart, leaving the blown heart loose in the chest. The bullet took two ribs on the way in and two on the way out . I have seen a lot of 180 C & C bullets that didn't manage that. Does that mean a monometal only need to be something like 45% of the weight of a C & C to be equivalent? I don't think so, but nothing I have seen precludes that possibility either.

Poorly designed tests with built in biases tell us nothing useful. Most of the "knowledge" we think we posses in the matter comes from people using monometals and slipping down the bullet weight scale in a reasonably cautious manner.

I've been killing deer for 48 years. The five deer killed with 30-06 130 grain TTSX bullets at ~3100 this fall were messed up as bad as anything I have ever seen out of an '06 in all those years. Period. That's not a test. That's not even a good comparison. But... it is the basis to start looking closer, and it hints at how and where to look.

What we need is a new way to measure these things, they are different and radically so. The comparisons are not going to be as direct as we thought they might. What's going to happen when people start whacking deer with 80 grain TTSX bullets out of a 25-06 and they are moving at 3600 FPS? What happens when you whack one with a 130 out of a 300 WM at 3500? Those things are likely to go through stem to stern and tear up whatever is in the way. I don't think I want to shoot a deer with a 130 going that fast, but what about a moose? You'd be kind of dumb to try one on a griz when you have big bullets available, but it sure looks like it would be one potent load.

 

[Predator56]

well whats the optimum velocity for a 30 cal 130 TTSX? 30 cal 150 TTSX?

 

[BookHound]

Someone needs to make gelatin containing large bones.

Ballistic gelatin only tells part of the story. Fackler was correct in some of his observations and testing but I don't buy all his testing using only gelatin.

Mark

 

[miles58]

well whats the optimum velocity for a 30 cal 130 TTSX? 30 cal 150 TTSX?

I haven't asked Barnes, but I know they hold together just fine at a lot higher speed than I expected. 130s shoot accurately enough and hold together at 3500 FPS, I had an XLC 150 shed a petal after going through a lot of bone at 3200, It may have shed more petals but didn't see any evidence of that. I didn't find any more pieces.

My experience with cup and core bullets is that above 3000, terminal performance becomes a question. Above 3200 it tends more to the bullet coming undone and penetration become less predictable for cup and core bullets.

3500 FPS is almost 1000 FPS faster than the tests at the head of this thread were done. What we do know from past experience is that if we start pushing cup and core bullets that fast they are much more likely to come undone. Nosler Partitions often completely shed their front core at lower velocities and once that happens they tend more to tumble. Tumbling can and does lead to loss of the rear core. ie: Bullet failure. Nosler Ballistic Tips clearly from the photo are already marginal at <2700, and the author relates claims of the bullet failing "often" at 2900. It is doubtful to me that cup and core bullets can perform well at the upper limits of monometal velocity and asking them to try to compete there is just plain wrong. They are not designed to do that.

The point is that the monometals are designed to do more at much higher velocity. Comparing them to cup and core performance is much akin to comparing cup and core bullets to cast lead bullets. The latter cannot begin to perform where the former is designed to work best.

 

[Nitro]

Someone needs to make gelatin containing large bones.

Ballistic gelatin only tells part of the story. Fackler was correct in some of his observations and testing but I don't buy all his testing using only gelatin.

Mark

Make my jello block full of shoulder and vertebral bones.....I want my bullet to smash those!!

 

[BookHound]

Make my jello block full of shoulder and vertebral bones.....I want my bullet to smash those!!

Exactly! LOL.

Be well.