Lightweight Monolithic Bullets?

[TAS25]

In my seemingly never ending journey to find the best bullet, I stumbled upon what I think might be a good idea. I have been shooting 127 gr Barnes lrx bullets, and although they kill deer, I think they waste energy in the dirt beyond the deer, instead of the deer itself. I had been planning on getting some 129 ablr bullets to try, but I'm debating on either the ablr, a 90 gr cx or 100 gr ttsx. From what I understand is that the 90 gr cx was made for the 6.5 grendel, and therefore might be designed for lower velocity. What I'm looking to gain is more internal damage from the higher velocity from the light bullets, but still hoping for a pass through from the all copper bullet weight retention characteristics. I would also get a significantly flatter trajectory with similar wind drift inside of 400 yards. I would expect to easily get 3200 fps with the 90 gr cx, and 3100 with the 100 gr ttsx.

My thought process is that a faster, lighter monolithic bullet would expand quicker/more than the 127 lrx, but penetrate just as good as the 129 ablr, while shooting flatter. I also want to increase the chance of hydrostatic shock with more velocity, although I know this is not consistent and hard to really do consistently.

Would I be better suited to use the heavier bonded bullet, or use the lighter all copper bullets? I would mainly be hunting deer, but would also shoot woodchucks with it some also, where a flat trajectory would be especially nice. And if thr copper bullets would work best, which ones should I go with, the 90 cx or 100 ttsx? Or maybe there's something better out there?

 

[jmr40]

What cartridge are you using? I'm guessing 6.5 CM or 6.5 Grendel but without knowing that it's hard to say.

In theory you are correct at least up to a point, but don't overthink it.

 

[TAS25]

What cartridge are you using? I'm guessing 6.5 CM or 6.5 Grendel but without knowing that it's hard to say.

In theory you are correct at least up to a point, but don't overthink it.

Can't believe I didn't mention it, 6.5 creedmoor. And its too late, I've already overthought it, and it led me here haha

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Solid copper expanding bullets produce less physical damage to internal organs than lead bullets that shed fragments as they expand.

The lead fragments punch small holes in soft tissues. These small holes are then ripped open by the large, follow-on temporary cavity, resulting in torn and detached tissues.

"Hydrostatic shock" is just the temporary cavity.

 

[westernrover]

I gave my sons the 127 gr. Barnes LRX for use on Mule Deer in 6.5 CM. The results were excellent, and they also were what is to be expected from an expanding monolithic bullet: they penetrated, expanded, and still had a lot of energy after exiting a full broadside. They do not blow up inside the deer, create huge exit wounds, or necessarily drop a deer DRT if the heart and lungs are hit.

More important than devastation in terminal effect is that the bullet hit the target in a vital area -- shot placement. I think the 6.5 CM is an excellent choice for this goal. Yes, there are other good choices, but I don't think there is anything that stands clear above the 6.5 CM for shooting deer at 150 to 300 yards or more. It's accurate, low-recoil, and has a fairly flat trajectory within that range. The bullet weight is more than enough for a clear-through shot with monometal bullets. What could be better?

I think lightweight cup and core bullets like the Gameking or many similar bullets will be more explosive and they might stop deer faster on average. I'm not willing to blow up lead in meat that I want to eat. Besides, those bullets can have inconsistent performance depending on what they hit. They're not going to be the same if they hit the shoulder bone versus going just behind it into the lungs and heart. The LRX will probably go right through anything in a deer-size animal. It may be less dramatic, but it is very consistent.

I think big bores can make bigger entries and exits and possibly result in more blood on the trail depending on where they hit, but they will come with more recoil and more arcing trajectories. It will, generally, be harder to accurately place bullets with a big bore at two or three hundred yards.

The lighter, faster, flatter bullets like the 100 grain TTSX in 6.5 CM, smaller bullets in 25 cal and 6mm, and big magnum cases like 257 Wby or even 6.5 PRC -- those are all going to have a greater MPBR and could be even easier to make good hits with especially at the point where you need to start ranging and dialing on the Creedmoor, but otherwise their terminal effect won't be different.

The only suggestion I have is that you could try a fracturing bullet like the Lehigh Controlled Chaos or the Hammer HHT: https://hammerbullets.com/product-tag/264-6-5mm/page/2/

I have not tried them myself, but I bought some.

 

[C-grunt]

There is a Youtube channel of a couple guys up in Oregon I believe that test bullets from 100 to 500 yards. Ill try and find the channel and post it.

But if I remember right they tried to 90 and 100 grain copper bullets in 6.5 Creedmoor and had major fragmentation at closer ranges.

 

[C-grunt]

I was wrong, it was the 110 grain CX in 308 that fragmented

(308) Hornady 110gr CX Expansion Test

Today we'll be testing Hornady's new all copper CX bullet!Specifically, we'll be running the 110 grain 30 caliber option in .308 through our Ruger American f...

www.youtube.com

It looks like the lightest copper bullet they tested in 6.5 was the Nosler 120 grain E-tip which performed well.

 

[horsemen61]

The 6.5 Creedmoor is a target round that also is good for hunting it is designed for 140 grain bullets firstly secondly if I were you my advice is to aim for bone if your using monos I’ve never had a deer go as far when I bust through the shoulder vs when I double lung them they don’t run well when they can’t run ymmv hope this helps me personally I want 2 holes always and that’s why I shoot monos in certain cartridges but again I aim for bone wanting to force it to expand as much as I can on my end the less it runs the better but if it does run I don’t want to be on my hands and knees looking for pin pricks of blood you know give me the best chance at a good blood trail

 

[someguy2800]

If you want more expansion than barnes look into Maker Bullets tipped Rex bullets.

Another option is a controlled fragmenting bullet like a cutting edge raptor or something from Hammer Bullets. They are designed to shed 3 large pedals from the front that travel out at an angle and then the solid base continues through and exits.

 

[Craigman]

get a larger caliber rifle. wasting energy on the far side is true for all passthroughs as seen in non-shoulder shots on game., but unless you're in the ELDX crowd that's part of the game. there is a noticeable difference in performance (smack down- on non shoulder shots) on a deer with a 308+ mono such as a Shock hammer or TTSX. it gets even better with .338 and .358 IMO.

Or try a shock hammer or power hammer for the CM. To note: im also experimenting with the 90gn grendel CX bullet in my 6.5CM and Modern Swede.

 

[troy fairweather]

Take a look at the hammer bullets, been wanting to try some. I like how they shed the Petals and the base will exit,

 

[JimKirk]

The Barnes 100 grain TTSX is a deer killer in the 6.5 CDM(3200 fps), so is the 80 grainTTSX in .243 Win/6mm Rem(3300-3400 fps), the 80 grain TTSX in the .25/06( 3680 fps)... and the 110 grain TTSX in 7/08(3200 fps)
We stay away from the Hornady CX and the Barnes TSX ...

Quite a few Georgia Whitetail up to 200 lbs have put down in short distances with the above TTSX bullets...

 

[westernrover]

I think there is a misconception involved with the "energy dump" theory. We see this in ballistics for LE/defense and hunting. First of all, a bullet with more kinetic energy passing through is going to dump more energy in the target than a lower energy bullet making the same pass through. I think some people imagine that passing through only takes so much energy and anything after that is just wasted on the other side. That's not true. For two bullets of a given design, the one entering with more energy will transfer more energy to the target as they both pass through. Second, "energy transfer" is not a good measure of wounding effectiveness or stopping power. The body can do a lot of things with the energy received that has no effect in terms of wounding or stopping.

 

[Slamfire]

Second, "energy transfer" is not a good measure of wounding effectiveness or stopping power. The body can do a lot of things with the energy received that has no effect in terms of wounding or stopping.

I agree, I am of the opinion that using the Newton Laws of Motion to predict lethality is a matter of "precision envy". All sciences, particularly the dismal science (economics) hungers for the precision that the Newtonian laws provide for trajectories, force, etc. So they try to predict outcomes misusing Newton's Laws or they create impression equations that don't work in the real world. In print influencers used kinetic energy to shill for the newest cartridge and bullet, because calculating kinetic energy was simple, and it sold the customer base. Read older hunting books, and there are these tables of kinetic energy, X amount KE for this type of animal, X + for a larger animal, X+++ for huge animals. All the hunter had to do was buy the latest and greatest boomer cartridge and the "Wallop" guaranteed a one shot kill no matter where the shot was placed.

I would like to see some gelatin tests with "lead free" bullets. You do know they call them monolithic because of all the howls they would get if they called the bullets "lead free".

 

[Peakbagger46]

Your thought of reduced weight/increased velocity is solid. I’m not a fan usually of all copper for game but did take a mule deer at close range one time with a 130 grain TTSX out of my 30-06. Impact velocity was somewhere around the speed of light and the terminal performance was excellent.

 

[R Reed]

Solid copper expanding bullets produce less physical damage to internal organs than lead bullets that shed fragments as they expand.

The lead fragments punch small holes in soft tissues. These small holes are then ripped open by the large, follow-on temporary cavity, resulting in torn and detached tissues.

"Hydrostatic shock" is just the temporary cavity.

have you looked at lehighs controlled chaos rounds?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HM96wpPVoQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrEmQNe-TrA&t=412s

 

[westernrover]

...

I would like to see some gelatin tests with "lead free" bullets. You do know they call them monolithic because of all the howls they would get if they called the bullets "lead free".

have you looked at lehighs controlled chaos rounds?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HM96wpPVoQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrEmQNe-TrA&t=412s

That's the one I was going to suggest. And this one for 6.5 Grendel.

 

[westernrover]

Anyone who is dismissive about the effects of lead should watch this:

It's primarily about tetraethyl lead that mankind decided to pump into the atmosphere, but with such a widespread distribution of it, the effects were horrifying.

Here's Miculek. He's not ignorant of the dangers of lead.

He describes the risk from "airborne lead" as a result of shooting bare lead bullets and bullets with an exposed lead base (FMJ), and from handling the bullets. His brother developed the Hi-Tek coating for cast bullets for this reason. There is more risk that comes from the lead styphnate primers. You can get lead-free primers described here: https://americanhandgunner.com/gear/lead-free-pistol-primers/ from these sources:

Search results for 'fiocchi lead free' - Graf & Sons

www.grafs.com

Fiocchi Zero Pollution Small Pistol Primers Case of 12000 (8 Boxes of

Fiocchi Primers have developed an outstanding reputation as some of the most reliable and consistent primers available. These primers are held to...

www.midwayusa.com

Fiocchi Small Pistol Primers Zero Pollution FIPRSPZP 1500 Count

Fiocchi Small Pistol Primers Zero Pollution FIPRSPZP 1500 Count

outdoorlimited.com

Fiocchi Zero Pollution Heavy Metal and Zinc Free Small Pistol Primers 1500/Box

Grab your Fiocchi Zero Pollution Heavy Metal and Zinc Free Small Pistol Primers 1500/Box for sale at Sportsman's Outdoor Superstore.

www.sportsmansoutdoorsuperstore.com

Small Rifle Primers – Lead-Free (5,000 ct) – Free Shipping / No Hazmat Fee - Raven Rocks Precision

RUAG Lead-Free Small Rifle Primers - 5,000 ct - Free Shipping and Free HAZMAT

ravenrocksprecision.com

I do not see lead bullets as an environmental hazard like the snowflakes in California. I see lead as a health hazard to me personally and my children. I recognize ways to mitigate the risks like using plated bullets and JHP. Monos are not practical to shoot in high volume, but they are not only safer for shooting game whose meat is to be consumed, they're also highly accurate and effective. I carry monos, not because of concerns about lead, but because they're the most effective bullet I can find for my handgun.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

have you looked at lehighs controlled chaos rounds?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HM96wpPVoQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrEmQNe-TrA&t=412s

M193 55gr FMJ produces greater wound trauma than the Controlled Chaos demonstrated in the video, because M193 fragments substantially more.

 

[R Reed]

M193 55gr FMJ produces greater wound trauma than the Controlled Chaos demonstrated in the video, because M193 fragments substantially more.

Huh?

Try watching the first video again. They shot m193 equivalent first then the controlled chaos. The results dont match your expectation.

 

[westernrover]

I would take the additional penetration of the Controlled Chaos over M193, especially for deer hunting.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Huh?

Try watching the first video again. They shot m193 equivalent first then the controlled chaos. The results dont match your expectation.

The "M193 equivalent" didn't fragment like M193. That could be because Clear Ballistics Gel is an unrealistic soft tissue simulant or the FMJ jacket is thicker than M193.

 

[R Reed]

The "M193 equivalent" didn't fragment like M193. That could be because Clear Ballistics Gel is an unrealistic soft tissue simulant or the FMJ jacket is thicker than M193.

Correct, it flattened out and the core got squeezed out the back. I have seen both M193 equivalent and actual M193 do this in gel testing on more than a few occasions. This is why i do not use or recommend using M193 for defensive use, its training ammo only for me because it does not always reliably fragment.

Also, presumably based on the bullet weight and reference to the 6.5 Grendel from the OP, this is not a 223/5.56 gun making it a moot point.