Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 87
  1. #31
    User
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    port elizabeth
    Age
    60
    Posts
    2,509

    Default Re: Monolithic Expanding Bullets, Weight and Velocity.

    Mr T. Question time.

    When mono's were brought onto the market one of the many advantages claimed was the fact that [in practically any caliber] a mono having 'bout 20% less weight than a cup and core will perform better. That is....being able to be driven at a higher velocity,flatter shooting,better terminal performance on game and will transform older,slower calibers into really efficient hunting choices.

    Does this still hold true [eg. 130gr in 3006 220gr in 375 ect] or is there a change taking place in using mono's of traditional cup and core weights? If so.....why the change?

    Asking because i have a couple of my rifles running low on their normal fare and am considering trying out mono's.
    In the early days with clients we had a couple of mono failures but i think these problems are sorted. We had a couple of mono's not expanding, a couple bending and just some issues that did not tie in with manufacturers claims.

  2. #32
    User
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Philippolis
    Posts
    4,733

    Default Re: Monolithic Expanding Bullets, Weight and Velocity.

    Quote Originally Posted by pre 64 View Post
    Mr T. Question time.

    When mono's were brought onto the market one of the many advantages claimed was the fact that [in practically any caliber] a mono having 'bout 20% less weight than a cup and core will perform better. That is....being able to be driven at a higher velocity,flatter shooting,better terminal performance on game and will transform older,slower calibers into really efficient hunting choices.

    Does this still hold true [eg. 130gr in 3006 220gr in 375 ect] or is there a change taking place in using mono's of traditional cup and core weights? If so.....why the change?

    Asking because i have a couple of my rifles running low on their normal fare and am considering trying out mono's.
    In the early days with clients we had a couple of mono failures but i think these problems are sorted. We had a couple of mono's not expanding, a couple bending and just some issues that did not tie in with manufacturers claims.
    I started using mono's in the mid to late 1990's when the original Barnes X became available. I did not stop using cup and core bullets back then and probably will never do so completely. Mono's are not magic bullets and I am not saying they can never fail. But for me, they offer more advantages than disadvantages. There has been a lot of improvements and developments in mono's in the past 25 years since those early Barnes X, Goodnell and GSC bullets and many of the early problems have been addressed.

    I have been using, or are still using, mono's in 115-120gr 6.5mm (Swede and Creedmoor), 130-140gr 7x57, 165, 168 and 180gr .300 win mag, 250gr 9.3x62 and 250gr, 270gr and 300gr .375 H&H.

    You can drop 15-20% in bullet weight and get the same penetration but with a flatter trajectory. As an example, I was a huge fan of the 220gr Nosler Partition in the .300 win mag but found that a 180gr Barnes TSX/Hornady GMX/Peregrine VLR4 could do everything the Partition could but shot considerably flatter.

    If you like heavier slower mono's for bushveld hunting look at the Peregrine VRG-3 series. Due to the flat nose they are considerably shorter than most mono's. I have used the 300gr .375" bullet at 2450fps very successfully on warthog, kudu, gemsbok, blue wildebeest and buffalo. An important advantage that is seldom mentioned it that locally produced monolithic bullets (Peregrine, Ballistix and Kriek) are easily available. Unfortunately the same can not be said of imported bullets.

  3. #33
    User
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    port elizabeth
    Age
    60
    Posts
    2,509

    Default Re: Monolithic Expanding Bullets, Weight and Velocity.

    Thanks T. I value your opinion.

  4. #34
    User
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Philippolis
    Posts
    4,733

    Default Re: Monolithic Expanding Bullets, Weight and Velocity.

    Quote Originally Posted by pre 64 View Post
    Thanks T. I value your opinion.

  5. #35

    Default Re: Monolithic Expanding Bullets, Weight and Velocity.

    My "Pay for Hunting" rifle is a 300 Win Mag. I currently load the 180gr TSX Barnes. I initially started with the 180gr TTSX but the bullet wouldn’t stabilize properly and accuracy wasn’t great (1:11“ Twist Blaser R93).

    On my last hunt I didn’t have time to load ammo so I took 180gr Norma Oryx which I had loaded a while back (2950fps), they shoot about 2“ right so it’s an easy adjustment of the scope. I’ve often thought when I use the Monos that the animals run as if not hit and that blood trails are an issue, but on 4 Blesbuck their reaction to the shot was exactly the same as with the TSX on previous hunts, also there was no blood trail on any of them even though all of them exited. Where the animal stood just before falling down there was a lot of blood, same as the TSX. The meat damage on those 4 carcasses using the Norma Oryx was similar to experiences with the TSX. The Blesbuck all ran from 20-50m from the shot. 1 Impala dropped on the spot but it was a high shoulder shot, so doesn’t count as I’d spines him.

    Last year I recovered a TSX from a Zebra and a Hartebeest, both hit on the shoulder, both retained 98-99% and looked like a picture from the Ads, have only recovered one other TSX from an Eland in 2016 and that was also just like the Advert.

    I use the TSX as my view is when I’m paying and out on a hunting trip, I don’t want to um and aah about the angle of the shot presented if there’s a trophy kudu or eland on the otherside of the hill not standing perfectly broadside, I’m also going to be shooting for the shoulder not behind, so with Treemans Experiences and recommendations of going for the shoulder with Monos, I think that’s why I haven’t had negative experiences as of yet, although I don’t come close to shooting as many animals as you guys do, so law of averages also applies.

    I used the 140gr GSC in my 308 at one stage and didn’t have any problems, but have subsequently switched back to a 180gr Norma Oryx as they are relatively cheap and GSC were not obtainable. I was also in two minds about the killing quicker thinking as Messor pointed out and thought to maybe switch back to conventional bullets as I use the 308 for Bushpigs on the farm mostly and tracking pigs that have run off deep into sugar cane isn’t my idea of fun.

    I have also used the GSC 330gr in my 416 Rem Mag (2650fps on some wildebeest with very good results. It’s a pity they are still not back on the market as I really like them and they are a very well made product.

    I have looked at Spartan but saw some reviews on Jaracal about the copper fouling being an issue with them so steered clear.

    Peregrine I haven’t used as I’m not sure if I like the look of the rounded mushroom and it’s effect in terms of terminal ballistics, maybe it doesn’t have an effect, but I prefer the Barnes/GSC look when mushroomed. Do you guys think there is something to that theory?

    I bought a second hand Model 70 300 Win Mag last year and am still waiting for the license. I have thought about using 165gr TTSX in it to make sure I don’t get confused between the different ammo boxes and grab the wrong one for a trip, but in all likelihood will probably load 180gr TSX as well and label accordingly. I have considered the Norma Bondstrike but my one concern is if the Shot angle isn’t ideal the bullet might blow up on the shoulder even though it’s bonded. Don’t ask why anyone needs two 300 Win Mags 😁.

    Regarding TTSX vs TSX, there was a post a few years ago on the Accurate reloading forum about the TTSX vs TSX and expansion and the myth that the TTSX expands better. The guy posted some pictures of comparable bullets recovered at different distances and showing that the TSX actually expanded better than the TTSX. I’ll try find it and share it but it was interesting, so maybe Treeman you could try the TSX.

    I like Monos 😁

  6. #36
    User
    Join Date
    Sep 2021
    Age
    53
    Posts
    1,415

    Default Re: Monolithic Expanding Bullets, Weight and Velocity.

    Hornady’s new ECX line apparently has some products earmarked for export only, according to a forum member this side of the world who bought some factory overrun 125 grain copper alloy .308” bullets with a flat polymer tip. He’s modified some 30-30 brass to load them into, very interesting project.

    Trimming the brass to 1.9” he was able to meet factory COL for 30-30W. Obvious in the pic above he crimped above the factory crimp ring. He reports he had to use his .308 seat/crimp die as the 30-30 die would no longer work.
    No word on performance yet. His only complaint so far is these copper projectiles are spendy…$70/100. Not sure they will be able to compete on price with your domestic offerings.

  7. #37
    User
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Philippolis
    Posts
    4,733

    Default Re: Monolithic Expanding Bullets, Weight and Velocity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Umshwati Boy View Post
    Peregrine I haven’t used as I’m not sure if I like the look of the rounded mushroom and it’s effect in terms of terminal ballistics, maybe it doesn’t have an effect, but I prefer the Barnes/GSC look when mushroomed. Do you guys think there is something to that theory?
    I have used (and seen used) both the Barnes TSX/TTSX and Peregrine bullets on a lot of game animals ranging from springbok to cape buffalo and have not noticed any difference in terminal performance.

    I like Monos ��
    Me too.

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Port Elizabeth
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,588

    Default Re: Monolithic Expanding Bullets, Weight and Velocity.

    Quote Originally Posted by TStone View Post
    I have used (and seen used) both the Barnes TSX/TTSX and Peregrine bullets on a lot of game animals ranging from springbok to cape buffalo and have not noticed any difference in terminal performance.
    ***********************
    but, but, but ,,,,have you noticed any difference in terminal performance between monos and lead core bullets ?

  9. #39
    User
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Philippolis
    Posts
    4,733

    Default Re: Monolithic Expanding Bullets, Weight and Velocity.

    Quote Originally Posted by treeman View Post
    ***********************
    but, but, but ,,,,have you noticed any difference in terminal performance between monos and lead core bullets ?
    Yes. But. It is complicated. Not all lead core bullets are the same. A Hornady ELD-x perform very differently from a Swift A-frame in the same weight and caliber. The A-frame's performance will be closer to a mono than to the ELD-x, yet both are lead core bullets.

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vereeniging
    Age
    70
    Posts
    5,782

    Default Re: Monolithic Expanding Bullets, Weight and Velocity.

    I think the same can be said for Nosler Partition bullets vs normal cup & core.

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •