Flatland Crusoe
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2014
- Messages
- 572
I'm not sure there is a huge difference between a quality bonded bimetal and a solid other than that I have had bimetal bullets of lesser construction blow apart at short range with high velocity rounds. Accubond and TTSX are both listed by the manufactures as expanding at 1600-1800 fps.
This comes back to personal experience and I'm not sure many people here have what would be statistically significant numbers of experiences with a load/game/situation. There are just too many variables involved. That does not mean your experiences in the field don't matter, or your observations don't have lessons to be learned, but ask yourself how many times you have heard someone dismiss a readily accepted caliber based one bad experience. That's why I think looking at the science of it is just as important and can be done in an afternoon rather than a lifetime of hunting in the mountains.
In something like my 243 at 3450 fps a copper solid is good insurance that I won't suffer premature bullet failure again especially at short range. I totally understand if someone shooting a slower bigger bullets has different needs.
For me the Barnes stuff shoots lights out, is easy to load based on the manufacturers recommendations and as an engineer with a strong background in metallurgy and manufacturing I understand both bullet design pro's and con's. I think Barnes are closer to the future of projectile design where as an Accubond is an example of a very refined older technology that at present day is as good or better than a copper solid. The Barnes have issues like the fundamental density of copper compared to lead and as a result projectile length at a given bullet weight. Also in the case of Barnes, I have been asked by US NWR biologist to use non-toxic bullets to minimize lead in gut piles on herd reduction hunts so that's another plus for them.
This comes back to personal experience and I'm not sure many people here have what would be statistically significant numbers of experiences with a load/game/situation. There are just too many variables involved. That does not mean your experiences in the field don't matter, or your observations don't have lessons to be learned, but ask yourself how many times you have heard someone dismiss a readily accepted caliber based one bad experience. That's why I think looking at the science of it is just as important and can be done in an afternoon rather than a lifetime of hunting in the mountains.
In something like my 243 at 3450 fps a copper solid is good insurance that I won't suffer premature bullet failure again especially at short range. I totally understand if someone shooting a slower bigger bullets has different needs.
For me the Barnes stuff shoots lights out, is easy to load based on the manufacturers recommendations and as an engineer with a strong background in metallurgy and manufacturing I understand both bullet design pro's and con's. I think Barnes are closer to the future of projectile design where as an Accubond is an example of a very refined older technology that at present day is as good or better than a copper solid. The Barnes have issues like the fundamental density of copper compared to lead and as a result projectile length at a given bullet weight. Also in the case of Barnes, I have been asked by US NWR biologist to use non-toxic bullets to minimize lead in gut piles on herd reduction hunts so that's another plus for them.
