Copper bullet report. Results on 5 pigs and 2 deer.

[Speckmisser]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ambarta @ Sep 8 2008, 12:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Here is a pig taken from BHR In July 4th. Took 3 Shot gun slugs and 3 .308 shots to put him down. All bullets were Barnes copper solid[/b]

Copper solids are made for stuff like cape buffalo, not pigs. Not sure if that's what you meant to say you were shooting, but if you were, it's no suprise the pig kept running. That would be like shooting him with FMJ ammo. Those solids aren't mean to expand.

I'm staying mostly out of this conversation, because my experience (so far) and the kills I've witnessed (many) with copper ammo were pretty clean and quick. At Tejon over Memorial Day the JHO crew took 22 hogs, 21 of which were killed with copper (the last one was taken with a bow). I don't recall any negative comments or experiences with the Barnes ammo on that trip... although if one of you guys that was there has a different story, please share.

Despite that, I'm not doubting what Hitech says, because I do think the jury is out until we see a couple more seasons with this stuff.

To a major point, I agree with what Family Tradition is saying, but I have to say that every hunter...even good ones... doen't make a clean shot every time. The best ammunition is the ammo that gives as much reasonable room for error as possible, short of blowing a critter to pieces, so that a marginal shot can still be a killing shot. And I've also seen some pretty crazy stuff with animals that were hit well. I've never seen a clean neck shot result in anything less than a bang-flop, but a bullet through the heart or lungs isn't always an instant kill.

With the biggest part of the rifle season about to come on us, I'm gonna be real curious to hear what people are experiencing with non-lead ammo. I do think you're going to hear a lot of people blame the ammo, just as we always have. There are still others who will be hyper-critical of Barnes performance to the point of forgetting poor performance from lead ammo in the past... and I've heard people knock every bullet design and composition that's come down the pike, from Core-Lokts to Nosler Partitions.

Time will tell...

 

[Family Tradition]

410

I hear ya loud and clear and yeah, ear shot =DONE. They dont go far without a brain stem for sure.
And hogs are crazy when hit, they go where nobody should have to. Most bucks hit like that would fall in their shadow. I think there will be more hogs lost, cant see that not happining. On deer though I think if the shot is good the buck will be found. They just act different.

I'd hate to see what copper will look like in a big bear but I think we are only days away from finding out.

The whole copper thing does suck, its a big step backwards but it isn't the end of the world either.

FT

 

[bpnclark]

Shot placement is everything but shooting Barnes bullets (in my own experience) is like archery hunting with a field tip. They go in and out and the animal runs away with no blood trial to follow. Can you kill a deer with a field tip? Absolutely. Will it die cleaner and faster with a broadhead? Absolutely.

If Barnes (or the other copper bullets) works well for you, keep shooting them. I’m with Hitechhunter and I also believe more animals will be lost. But that might be the whole reasoning behind this lead ban and copper bullets – to feed condors more food.

 

[CaliJeephuntr]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hitechhunter @ Sep 8 2008, 01:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

That pig above is an example of what I have been reporting. The goal is always one shot, one kill. These copper bullets are a step back, IMHO.

I hope the engineers at Barnes are reading this thread so they can get to work designing a bullet that has more "knockdown power", however that is defined.[/b]

I have to disagree. I've been shooting Barnes TSX in the 130 grain version out of a .270 and have had zero problems the last 2 years. I had been skeptical how they'd do after seeing some friends use them in years past, but i'm sold on just how well the TSX performs. They mushroom perfectly, don't break up, and pack a wallop that knocks the animal down. If people are losing animals then it is because of shot place, not the new Barnes TSX and MRX bullets.

Last year I got a pig at 255 lbs, shot it in the neck and it dropped where it stood. Recovered the bullet and it was perfect mushroom. My dad's got 4 deer using Barnes bullets out of a muzzleloader and I have 2. Each shot to the chest dropped the deer where they stood.

I'm sold on the Barnes TSX and MRX bullets that have come out the last 2 years for rifles. The early Barnes were sketchy, but the latest ones are golden.

 

[bpnclark]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CaliJeephuntr @ Sep 9 2008, 08:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

If people are losing animals then it is because of shot place, not the new Barnes TSX and MRX bullets.[/b]

I have to disagree with that. I have heart shot and lunged shot animals and watched them run off. The problem I have with Barnes Bullets is that there is no blood trail and no shock. A Scirocco makes them buckle and leaves a softball size exit wound.

I’m wondering if the people that are having problems shoot bigger, faster guns. Maybe with lighter, slower bullets these copper bullets open up and perform better. But they are horrible in 180 grns coming out of a 300 Win Mag and a 30-378 Wby. Looks like if I have to hunt the condor zone I need to take my 270.

 

[Hitechhunter]

As indicated by the completely unscientific poll above, I'm not saying it fails 100% of the time. I propose it under performs much of the time.

The different design of the Barnes makes it function differently than a lead bullet. It doesn't mushroom, it has four leaves which peel back, exposing four petals with sharp edges. The physics of how it penetrates tissue is different than lead, thus the performance is different. This is a fact, they function differently. That leads to the question, which is superior?

A lead bullet "mushrooms" and "pushes" it's way through tissue and bone. It is blunt and dull. The Barnes, on the other hand, peels back to expose four sharp petals. The hard and sharp copper petals cuts it's way through tissue, whereas the soft and blunt lead bullet pushes it's way through tissue. The operate differently, no argument here, so which is superior?

All things being equal, it takes more energy to "push" a blunt lead bullet through the same medium as it does to cut through with a hard and sharp copper bullet. This is fact. Poke your finger through a cardboard box or poke a knife through, which is easier?

What this means is that the energy stored in the bullet is dissipated into the tissue faster (over a shorter period of time) with the lead bullet than the sharp copper bullet. Delivering the energy faster creates more of a wallop than a sharp bullet that easily cuts through and expends it's energy over a greater distance and a greater period of time. It's just physics.

Picture a bell curve. The area inside the bell curve represents the total energy stored in the bullet as it passes though a medium (tissue, ballistic gel, whatever). All things being equal (bullet mass, size, shape and speed), the lead bullet will have a more narrow bell curve with a higher peak because the energy is dissipated quicker. The sharp bullet will have a bell curve that is wider and lower, thus dissipating it's energy over a wider period of time and distance. This means that the peak energy delivered to the animal ("knockdown power"?) will be greater in the soft, blunt lead bullet than a sharp bullet.

A sharp bullet will penetrate more as it more easily passes through tissue. If the bullet comes out the other side, it will carry more energy with it than it's lead counterpart. This means less energy was transferred to the animal with the sharp bullet, which means less "knockdown" power.

Bottom line: if the bullet passes completely through, a soft, blunt lead bullet will transfer more energy to the animal than a hard, sharp bullet.

In addition, a blunt bullet will impart a greater "shockwave" that will travel through the tissue in front of and perpendicular to the path of the projectile. We've all seen the "hamburger" that results from a shoulder shot. With a sharp bullet, the "shockwave" is less, so the tissue damage is less and the exit wound is less. It's the smaller exit wound that has me concerned the most.

I believe the sharpness of the less compliant, sharp copper petals, vs. the softer, blunt lead bullet is an inferior design when it comes to efficiently transferring the energy from the bullet into the animal.

 

[hatchet1]

hi tech, dude, well said!! my god man,are you in the science field!!
i like bpnclarks analogy also,"its like shooting a animal with a field point as opposed to shooting one with a broadhead"
bottom line i think is ,as they may work for some ,they are crap to others,ive always said that
when you have a particular rifle that has been shootin a certain lead bullet thru it for 20 or 30 years,
and then you shove a piece of hard copper thru it ,its kinda like throwing a nuckle ball,not many
pitchers throw a nuckle ball anymore

 

[Speckmisser]

The physics you're working with, Hitech, are pretty well demonstrated on Barnes' website (and on several other ammo makers' sites as well). In ballistic gel tests, which most experts agree is a valid test, there's no question at all that copper bullets deliver massive energy inside the animal.

I do agree that they don't leave massive exit wounds, and blood trailing may be difficult... hasn't been my experience so far, because I haven't really had to track anything I've hit with copper bullets.

As far as "blunt" lead bullets, I haven't seen one of those since my last box of Core-Lokts. Most premium lead ammo is tipped by a sharp, polycarbonate point.

The Barnes TSX bullets are hollow-points. The TTSX and MRX are poly-carbonate tipped, as are the Nosler ETips.

Point is, let's compare apples to apples...

Still not debunking your experience, mind you, but let's not get carried away with hypothetical physics arguments that have already been demonstrated to be untrue.

 

[Hitechhunter]

"Still not debunking your experience, mind you, but let's not get carried away with hypothetical physics arguments that have already been demonstrated to be untrue."

FACT: Hunting bullets are categorized as “controlled penetration” bullets. They are designed to mushroom, create drag and dissipate as much energy as possible in the animal before passing through. Energy left in the bullet after it passes through its wasted energy (too much penetration).
FACT: The more drag a bullet produces in tissue, the more energy it transfers to the animal.

FACT: The more energy transferred to the animal, the more tissue damage it produces.

FACT: A sharp bullet creates less drag than a round, mushroomed bullet.

FACT: Less drag means less energy transferred, less damage to the animal, and thus less “knockdown power”.

CONCLUSION: All things being equal, a sharp bullet is inferior at producing tissue damage.

Which of these stated facts do you claim to be false?

 

[Mr. Luckypants]

Interesting read:

http://civic.bev.net/shawnee/digress.html

 

[Hitechhunter]

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stopping_Power


Fun stuff!

excerpts:

The degree to which permanent and temporary cavitation occur is dependent on the weight, diameter, material, design and velocity of the bullet. This is because bullets crush tissue, and do not cut it. A bullet constructed with a half diameter ogive designed meplat and hard, solid copper alloy material will crush only the tissue directly in front of the bullet. This type of bullet (monolithic-solid rifle bullet) is conducive to cause more temporary cavitation as the tissue flows around the bullet, causing a deep and narrow wound channel. A bullet constructed with a two diameter, hollow point ogive designed meplat and low antimony lead core with a thin gilding metal jacket material will crush tissue in front and to the sides as the bullet expands. Due to the energy expended in bullet expansion, velocity is lost more quickly. This type of bullet (hollow-point hand gun bullet) is conducive to causing more permanent cavitation as the tissue is crushed and accelerated into other tissues by the bullet, causing a shorter and more voluminous wound channel.

___________________________________

It is a general principal of physics that the force exerted by a bullet upon tissue is equal to the bullet's local rate of energy loss, dE/dx (the first derivative of the bullets kinetic energy with respect to position). The ballistic pressure wave is proportional to this retarding force (Courtney and Courtney), and this retarding force is also the origin of both temporary cavitation and prompt damage (CE Peters).

______________________

A number of papers in the peer-reviewed journals suggest ballistic pressure wave effects on wounding and incapacitation, including remote neural effects.[1][2][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] These papers are mainly concerned with velocities of rifle bullets, but the energy transfer and pressure waves produced are within the regime of pistol bullets.

Recent work by Courtney and Courtney provides compelling support for the role of a ballistic pressure wave in creating remote neural effects leading to incapacitation and injury.[9][10][11][12][13]

This work builds upon the earlier works of Suneson et al. where the researchers implanted high-speed pressure transducers into the brain of pigs and demonstrated that a significant pressure wave reaches the brain of pigs shot in the thigh.[14][1] These scientists observed neural damage in the brain caused by the distant effects of the ballistic pressure wave originating in the thigh.

The results of Suneson et al. were confirmed and expanded upon by a later experiment in dogs[2] which "confirmed that distant effect exists in the central nervous system after a high-energy missile impact to an extremity. A high-frequency oscillating pressure wave with large amplitude and short duration was found in the brain after the extremity impact of a high-energy missile . . ." Wang et al. observed significant damage in both the hypothalamus and hippocampus regions of the brain due to remote effects of the ballistic pressure wave.

 

[Speckmisser]

Apologies, as I overstepped myself... engaged mouth (typing fingers) without properly thinking it through. There's that danger of absolute statements and all that...

Nothing is "proven" or "disproven" in the debate about pointed vs blunt and slow-heavy vs light-fast bullets. It's a debate that has been raging since before I ever picked up my first bullet, and it's still going strong.

The theories abound, and volumes have literally been written about how different bullet designs deliver energy into an animal. I'm not gonna cut and paste here, nor will I rewrite their words and pretend to be a ballistics expert or a physics professor. I'm neither. But if you want to read up, there's plenty you can look at out there... not to suggest that you haven't already done some research.

What I have read suggests that while a pass-through obviously doesn't necessarily transfer all of the bullet's energy into the target, it sure doesn't just slip through the animal like an arrow either (unless you're shooting solids or FMJ). A pointed hunting bullet doesn't stay pointed. It transfers significant energy. Sure, for sheer tissue damage a ballistic tip is gonna outperform a copper or bonded bullet (it'll also outperform any round-nosed bullet). But as soon as that bullet upsets, it starts losing energy... and the more drastic that upset, the more rapidly the energy is lost and penetration stops. A Core-lokt or Winchester PowerPoint will do the same thing, as long as the soft point deforms. If the point doesn't deform (mushroom), it passes clear through with a nominal wound channel and doesn't disperse much energy.

The far end of the spectrum, a flat-point bullet does provide even more initial tissue damage and delivers more energy on impact, then drives through the wound channel. The flat, leading surface forces tissue aside, where a round or blunt bullet tends to flow through it. Flat pointed bullets generally limit range and accuracy, though, and aren't much in favor except for dangerous game hunters. I used to shoot flat-pointed, cast bullets from my 30-30, and killed a lot of deer with those things. Internal damage was quite impressive, but nothing like what I've seen from pointed bullets.

A quick opening, controlled expansion bullet like the Barnes or an Accubond combines the best of both worlds... opening quickly to rapidly deliver energy, but retaining weight and mass to provide penetration into and through the vital organs. That flat surface acts a lot like a flat-point bullet, forcing through the internal tissue. The design of the pointed bullet generally allows greater accuracy at great range as well, which accounts for the growing popularity.

What I have seen so far supports what I have read. The tissue damage inside the chest cavity of the hogs, deer, and exotics I've shot with non-lead bullets has been plenty significant... maybe not as sensational as what I got from ballistic tips, but certainly on par with what I got from Accubonds and other premium lead-based bullets.

In the interest of full disclosure, by the way, I have never experienced bullet failure on an animal in 30-odd years of hunting, with any bullet I've ever used. I've lost animals, but always due to poor shot placement. I know it happens, as I've heard about it from plenty of reputable sources, including yourself and Hatchet.

But, I also temper that with stories of reputed bullet failure like Ambarta's tale about his big boar. While it certainly raises some valid questions about the performance of the copper shotgun slugs, there are a lot of other unanswered questions as well.

First of all, he hit the hog at something between 80 and 100 yards with a shotgun slug. How much energy does that slug carry at that distance... enough to open up that tip? Where were the hits located? What was the penetration like? This is the information we need to decide if the bullets worked or not.

I've never been very impressed with the performance of shotgun slugs outside 50-60 yards, regardless of their composition. Even on deer, they don't seem to hit very hard, and the ones I've seen didn't do a heck of a lot of damage unless they hit a big bone... just a big hole.

As to the three hits with the .308, remember that all of those shots were in a matter of seconds, according to the tale, as the animal closed from eight feet to three. Honestly, I don't think it matters what those bullets were made of. Two mouth shots and one head shot and the critter only covered about five feet. That doesn't sound like failure to perform to me.

Again, this is a tough discussion to have without some real solid information, which is why I didn't dive in sooner. It's completely contrary to what I've seen and experienced, but of course that doesn't mean it didn't happen just the way you guys describe it. In theory, I've generally agreed that it seems like the speed and penetration of the copper bullet would enable pass-throughs that killed the animal before it realized it was dead... and would lead to more tracking. But that's not what I've personally seen so far, and I've got a pretty fair sized group of other hunters who have seen the same thing.

My guess is that copper, just like lead bullets, is going to fail to perform optimally for a certain percentage of hunters. I know copper ammo is a new thing, and a lot of folks hate it, but don't forget these same discussions have been going on regarding everything from Nosler Partitions to cast bullets. For every ten people who swear by them, you'll find three or four who swear at them instead.

 

[Hitechhunter]

Good comments, Speck.

I started using Barnes years before the ban, not long after I bought my .300 Weatherby, and I was surprised and confused by the degraded effectiveness over my .270 using TBBC's. Now, due to the ban, more hunters are reporting the same things I have been experiencing. This has caused me to look further into the issues, the science and discussion of which I find interesting.

 

[myfriendis410]

I'll throw one comment in: jacketed bullets are as sharp as anything I've seen, including the Barnes. What slows and stops a bullet is a sudden increase in surface area, spreading the kinetic energy stored in a "cylinder" into an anular ring (as a bullet expands) Double the diameter and it's several times the surface area.

Also, there are temporary and permanent wound channels. Not inconsiderable. Bullets create this and it is very hard to replicate without the use of ballistic gel and high speed photography.

There are going to be people experiencing bad results with anything being used, whether it's off the shelf plain jane stuff, or the latest high tech ammunition available. Unfortunately the test bed is too dynamic to achieve repeatable data. Only many data points will allow a valid comparison.

In the meantime, I'm stuck with my Kalifornia boollits.

 

[257scramjet]

Wow,
This discussion is getting good. For me i have used Barnes bullets since they came out. I have never lost or had to track an animal after i have shot it with the Barnes X bullets. I have only experience shooting the .257 caliber magnums at high velocities Weatherby and Lazzeroni rounds. I have shot everything from Coyotes, Whitetail deer,Blacktail, Mule deer, Hogs and elk all with the barnes copper bullets.

I was a little surprised to see people dissapointed with the bullets. Maybe me shooting at higher velocities helps open the bullets up? but, I have also shot animals in excess of 350 yds where the bullets are traveling alot slower and they still either dropped in their tracks or were dead on their feet.
Either way it comes down to Shot placement for me. I don't care what bullet you hit them with put it in the wrong place and you might lose the animal..

I was thinking of loading my bullets to slower velocities due to hitting the small blacktails and having massive blood shot meat. I think i will leave it alone as maybe that's the reason i have had such great performance? I think it's called Hydrostatic shock?? Something like that anyways... Good luck to you guys, I'm going to keep on rocking the Barnes bullets whether i'm in the Condor zone or Out of state!!!

257scramjet

 

[jdp080563]

Been using Barnes bullets since their intro along with a lot of friends.We have killed Sitka black tailed deer ,moose caribou.and grizzly's with them.one shot one kill.No animal traveled more than 30 yards.I have shot white tail deer,coyote's and never had an animal run very far or have a bad blood trail.If you shoulder shoot an animal with a Barnes tsx you do not ruin much meat.But the animal is dead in tracks.I shoot the 180 grn.in my 30/06 at 2800 fps average for everything and have not had any problems with them.

 

[jb229]

I have to say the title to this post is a bit of an Oxymoron, you killed 7 animals over the weekend but expect to see lost animals. Sounds like an awsome successful hunting trip. The only Pig I have shot with the Barnes TSX ran about 5 ft before falling and rolling into a tree leaving a blood trail all the way. Unless you hit a pig in the spine or somwhere where it physically cannot run it will run they are tough bastards. I know of one pig that was completely gutted by a 300win mag and it still ran 300yds with its guts and organs falling out the entire time. Shooting animals is like buying Realestate, location, location, location. Seriously whats the fun in hunting if every animal you shot dropped in its tracks 20yds from your Truck or ATV. ; ) And just be thankful that knowing all those animals were killed lead free and no condors or other fluffy little varmints will be subjected to the evil lead bullets that are killing all the endangered species.

 

[Big 17]

I am curious, at which point in the death of the game animals did the bullets fail? As far as I can tell, there was no point in which the bullets actually failed.

All the hunters you talked with may not have seen what they deemed as 'perfect' performance. They may also have been feeding off of their own negativity. I wouldn't know, as I wasn't there. However, it sounds to me like you all had success.

 

[Rancho Loco]

Well gents, I've been using the TSX for a while, and every pig I've shot with 'em has ended up in the freezer... At least 10, with 180's an 168's out of the .30-06, 200's out of the .300 WM, and one last POR with a 140 TTSX out of a 7mm saum. Accuracy has been awesome with handrolls, and most shots have been bang flops. I won't hesitate to use them here on anyything i hunt, with exception to the .260 rem, where the 130 gr. accubond's BC is making me drool for ann antelope load. I won't hesitate to recommend the TSX.

P.S. - the longest runs I've gotten out of pigs are after being shot with a Hot-cor out of a '06 and a Grand Slam out of a win mag. Double lung shots and a hundred yard death sprint or more.

 

[gundogtrainer]

Shot placement is everything. I have hunted with barns and nosler bulets for years both stop game equaly well. when a high velocity bullet strikes vital organs hydrostatic shock causes them to be destroyed. If the vitals are intact after the game is down you either mised the vitals or beyond the range your amo is capable of delievering enough energy to to the job