new versus old-penetration and expansion

is he right or wrong? or is the difference worth discussing?

--------------------------

breaking bullet myths

by jim carmichel

Fuddy-duddies who don't like having their 19th century opinions disturbed by 21st century ballistics were bound to get in a stew about today's breed of super-slick bullets, and a list of criticisms is already making the rounds. One is that streamlined bullets aren't as accurate as the more traditional types. Ha! The fact of the matter is that most of today's slick-profile hunting bullets were copied after super-accurate, target-type bullets, the main difference being that they are constructed for good expansion on game whereas target bullets aren't.

Another criticism of streamlined bullets I've heard has more basis in fact, the criticism being that expansion is unreliable. When Nosler introduced its trend-setting, ultra-slick Ballistic Tip bullets back in 1984, the jackets were too thin, leading to bullet breakup and premature expansion, a not-at-all-desirable thing to have happen. When reports of bullet failure came in from the field, the folks at Nosler reacted quickly with an improved bullet structure, and since then the Ballistic Tip has been upgraded a couple more times. I used 140-grain Ballistic Tips in a 7x57 Mauser on safari and one head-on shot at a tough topi antelope went through his chest for a couple of feet and lodged somewhere aft of the diaphragm. All in all, today's slick bullets tend to have about the same penetration and expansion characteristics as most of the popular standard-hunting bullets. The only way you'll get better penetration and weight retention is by using more costly premium-grade bullets. Sadly, though, the best premium bullets don't tend to be streamlined and thus don't have the ballistic advantage we'd like. Perhaps someday we'll get it all in one package.