Impressed with monolithic bullet

[MTLabrador]

I’ll probably switch to 166 Hammers next year, but the 168 Barnes in .300 Win Mag holds the current record for fastest elk kill that I’ve seen. I’ve never had anything but great performance with them.

 

[Jbotto]

My sample size is relatively small but between my brother, my wife and myself we probably have a dozen deer between us with Barnes bullets. Most of them have been textbook. Good expansion, good wound channel and good exit. This is with the 85gr TSX in a .243 and a deer each for the 185gr and 210gr TTSX in a .338-06. I think we only had one not exit and that was about a 30yard shot with the .243. Never found the bullet either. I’m a big believer in Barnes!

 

[OntarioHunter]

A few years back I watched my brother shoot a small muley buck twice with monos out of his 300 Win. We both thought he missed but only the does came up out of the coulee. "Better have a look." Yep, there it was down in the bottom dead. Only about 65 yard shot. He told me they were Hornady brand.

I think monos excel at long distances where velocity is trailing off. At close range they are more likely to pass through, which from a meat mangling perspective is not a bad thing ... as long as the shooter can be certain the animal has even been hit.

In August I shot my African cape buffalo with Barnes TSX and was impressed. Only 65 yards on the run, the 250 gr 375 H&H slug hit him behind the right shoulder and lodged in the rib cage inside the opposite shoulder. The second shot he was stopped and facing us. That one hit him in the chest, deflected, exited the bottom back of rib cage, and smashed his left rear leg at the knee. The first slug lost two grains after impact and second bullet lost four grains and undoubtedly most of that after impact with leg. Two hundred fifty grains is NOT heavy for buffalo. In fact, I would say it is very light for such a big mean animal. The lodge owner incorrectly wrote it up on Facebook as 300 grain bullets. My PH generally will not let clients shoot at buffalo further than seventy yards so a lighter mono should be good at that range. I'm the exception. First buff two years ago was 110 yards and it was dead on its feet with one shot through the heart. PH also generally does not allow clients to take running shots at buffalo unless wounded. Again, he made an exception for me. "I know you can shoot." Anyway, because of their size and irritability, and generally short range shooting, I am much more comfortable shooting at buffalo with monos than conventional lead bullets. Penetration without fragmenting is most desirable.
The bullet retreived from left hind leg

 

[MTLabrador]

I think monos excel at long distances where velocity is trailing off.

The opposite is true. You need to watch your velocity if you’re shooting them at longer ranges. More velocity means more expansion.

 

[nhenry]

If you broke a tooth it wasn’t on a lead fragment.

It was because I spat out the lead fragment and my chipped tooth (along with all the meat in my mouth) when I felt it, but thanks anyways.

 

[cwitherow]

Been very impressed with 150 grain TTSX out of my 30-06. Don't plan on shooting anything else unless I start reloading.

 

[OntarioHunter]

The opposite is true. You need to watch your velocity if you’re shooting them at longer ranges. More velocity means more expansion.

At longer range the bullet is running out of gas so expansion becomes more "conventional" as magnum muzzle velocity bullet approaches conventional speed. At close range is where unaffected high speed muzzle velocity and more expansion becomes a problem. The advantage to mono at long range is less expansion and more penetration than conventional bullets. Same advantage at close range but a faster pass through might leave the shooter wondering if he actually hit the animal. At long range the mono bullet has slowed down and the thump factor increases. He might reliably get an exit wound at 500 yards with mono but not so much with conventional lead bullet which is designed to expand more on impact as opposed to monos which expand more slowly. A well placed shot should do the job with either bullet but it's not easy making a well placed shot at 500-700 yards for a mere mortal with conventional (i.e. affordable) equipment.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I can’t believe what I just read. Reverse fizzzics…,,,

 

[406dn]

At longer range the bullet is running out of gas so expansion becomes more "conventional" as magnum muzzle velocity bullet approaches conventional speed. At close range is where unaffected high speed muzzle velocity and more expansion becomes a problem. The advantage to mono at long range is less expansion and more penetration than conventional bullets. Same advantage at close range but a faster pass through might leave the shooter wondering if he actually hit the animal. At long range the mono bullet has slowed down and the thump factor increases. He might reliably get an exit wound at 500 yards with mono but not so much with conventional lead bullet which is designed to expand more on impact as opposed to monos which expand more slowly. A well placed shot should do the job with either bullet but it's not easy making a well placed shot at 500-700 yards for a mere mortal with conventional (i.e. affordable) equipment.

All due respect... it is evident your PHD is not in physics.

A strength of mono bullets is that they do not blow up at close range. They expand considerably and penetrate far more than a lead bullet at closer ranges.

A drawback for them is as the velocity drops, the expansion decreases. At some point, the expansion becomes too small for reliable performance.

Thump factor is a new one to me... what units is that measured in?

The reason that the mono bullets run light for their caliber is so that the bullet can be driven at higher velocity. That gives the bullet both a flatter trajectory and a greater effective range.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Thump factor is a new one to me... what units is that measured in?

Foot-pascals

 

[OntarioHunter]

I just remembered the mono bullets from cape buffalo are still in my toiletries bag. Here they are. Both were 250 gr. The one on the bottom went through back of right shoulder and both lungs lodging in ribs behind opposite shoulder. It lost two grains of metal. Shot on the run at about 60 yards. I don't believe a .375 cup and core lead bullet of 250 grains would have made it half way through that animal even at that close range. Monos clearly hold together better. A 300 grain lead bullet might have achieved the same penetration after shedding some weight on impact. True, distance shooting is NOT going to be a factor when hunting buffalo so a heavier bullet losing gas at long range is no concern. However, the advantage to shooting a lighter mono bullet is clearly for the shooter. Recoil from a 250 gr bullet will be significantly more tolerable than 300 gr, especially for an uninitiated shooter (like myself ... until hunting buffalo I had never shot anything heavier than 180 gr).

 

[TrumpkinTheDwarf]

At longer range the bullet is running out of gas so expansion becomes more "conventional" as magnum muzzle velocity bullet approaches conventional speed. At close range is where unaffected high speed muzzle velocity and more expansion becomes a problem. The advantage to mono at long range is less expansion and more penetration than conventional bullets. Same advantage at close range but a faster pass through might leave the shooter wondering if he actually hit the animal. At long range the mono bullet has slowed down and the thump factor increases. He might reliably get an exit wound at 500 yards with mono but not so much with conventional lead bullet which is designed to expand more on impact as opposed to monos which expand more slowly. A well placed shot should do the job with either bullet but it's not easy making a well placed shot at 500-700 yards for a mere mortal with conventional (i.e. affordable) equipment.

You've got to be joking, right... right?

A pass through is not what kills an animal. Tissue damage is what kills an animal. A bullet that doesn't disrupt and expand is less likely to kill an animal quickly. Monos are not "better" than properly chosen traditional bullets at most ranges or velocities. There is usually a jacketed lead core bullet that will perform better (i.e.) more destructive to tissue, while retaining penetration, at a given impact velocity than pure copper. Even on short shots! Copper just happens to be less toxic to humans, and it will perform reasonably well at low impact velocities, while not completely melting down at insane impact speeds. It's a balanced choice, but it is far less destructive at lower impact velocity than some of the thin jacketed match bullets.

 

[ImBillT]

It was because I spat out the lead fragment and my chipped tooth (along with all the meat in my mouth) when I felt it, but thanks anyways.

Back when lead shot was legal an awful lot of goose hunters chomped down on high antimony(hard) lead BBs without cracking teeth. If you cracked a tooth on lead, there’s a pretty good chance that tooth wasn’t particularly healthy was gonna crack pretty soon anyway.

A lot of those copper monos are also meant to fragment, and if you chomp down on a copper petal you’re going to be in a lot worse shape than chomping down on a lead fragment.

There are plenty of good reasons for people to choose lead cored or copper bullets over the other, but I’m fairly sure that the danger of breaking teeth on fragments from either type should be very low on that list of reasons.

This is a good reason to process your own meat if you can, and to do so carefully. I have found a few bullet fragments in areas with no bruising, bloodshot meat, or other obvious signs of a wound, but that’s pretty unusual. I cut well around bloodshot, bruised or otherwise wounded meat when I butcher. I can’t say that I ever remember having found a bullet fragment in a piece of meat that I’ve cooked. I have found pellets in birds that were on my plate in spite of taking similar care. Steel shot is a DEFINITE tooth hazard.

 

[OntarioHunter]

All due respect... it is evident your PHD is not in physics.

A strength of mono bullets is that they do not blow up at close range. They expand considerably and penetrate far more than a lead bullet at closer ranges.

A drawback for them is as the velocity drops, the expansion decreases. At some point, the expansion becomes too small for reliable performance.

Thump factor is a new one to me... what units is that measured in?

The reason that the mono bullets run light for their caliber is so that the bullet can be driven at higher velocity. That gives the bullet both a flatter trajectory and a greater effective range.

Exactly. At long distance the mono bullet's expansion decreases and consequently potential for penetration increases because the bullet form is tighter. Labrador said the potential for expansion increases at distance and physically that doesn't make sense. The monos can be driven at higher muzzle velocity but at long distance that velocity is obviously diminished to something comparable to a heavier lead bullet at medium range. At the same velocity do the two bullets hold together the same? Not what I am reading. So a bullet that holds together better and retains more velocity will have the advantage of greater penetration on impact at long range. The slight disadvantage would be nominal expansion, compared to close range anyway.

 

[406dn]

Monos penetrate well at every distance... because they hold onto their mass. Many lead bullets have much of the lead core fragment into pieces that have separated from the jacket. The small lead pieces do not penetrate as well.... they do create a wide wound channel.

The monos do not need to lose velocity in order to penetrate well. They do need enough velocity to expand well.

 

[OntarioHunter]

You've got to be joking, right... right?

A pass through is not what kills an animal. Tissue damage is what kills an animal. A bullet that doesn't disrupt and expand is less likely to kill an animal quickly. Monos are not "better" than properly chosen traditional bullets at most ranges or velocities. There is usually a jacketed lead core bullet that will perform better (i.e.) more destructive to tissue, while retaining penetration, at a given impact velocity than pure copper. Even on short shots! Copper just happens to be less toxic to humans, and it will perform reasonably well at low impact velocities, while not completely melting down at insane impact speeds. It's a balanced choice, but it is far less destructive at lower impact velocity than some of the thin jacketed match bullets.

Exactly. As stated above, at close range I saw my brother shoot a buck through the boiler room with 300 Win mono and we both thought he missed. No audible impact and the buck didn't act like it was hit. Sometimes, as in the case of oversize buffalo or long range shooting (which I don't encourage), sufficient tissue damage requires sufficient penetration. A bullet that comes apart easily will penetrate less. You're right, it's a balancing act. Ideally the shooter should carry close range ammo and long range stuff if he wants to play both games. In open country my 30-06 is loaded with 165 gr but I have some 190 gr handy when I'm tracking in timber. In the past I tried 165 gr Barnes mono but they didn't pattern real great for whatever reason so I gave up on them. Shot a very large muley buck with one on the run at 75 yards. He fell in his tracks with bullet hitting him at base of neck and ahead of the shoulder. The butcher said there was a lot of damage but who knows. At that spot I doubt it. He may have been looking for a tip.

 

[MinnesotaHunter]

What kills animal is the transfer of stored energy in the bullet into the soft tissue of the thing you want to kill, and to a lesser extent penetrative wounding. The energy is transferred through the process of deformation of the bullet. If this weren't the case we would all shoot FMJ.

Some interesting information I found when I first switched over to Monos. The standard mono (TSX, TTSX, Trophy Copper, GMX, E-Tip) requires ~1800FPS to reliably expand. This is the same as a premium bonded lead core (Accubond, Trophy Bonded, Scirocco, etc). An LRX, designed for performance out to longer ranges is lighter constructed, and will reliably expand down to 1300fps; this obviously means that it would be more likely to fracture at higher velocities. The other factor I find interesting is that if you consider a 180grn, 30 cal, premium lead bullet will likely shed about 30% of its weight in lead in the animal, and will come out the other side weighing about 126grns. In contrast, a 150grn, 30 cal, mono will shed negligible weight and will come out the other side weighing about 150 grains. So....less recoil, higher velocity, less bloodshot meat (due to that 30% of shed lead not spalling through the meat), same/better terminal performance. Seems pretty interesting to me, all backed up by the fact that I have been using almost exclusively monos for a while now, and they have performed great.

 

[TrumpkinTheDwarf]

Just to be clear, I really like my Barnes TTSX. But I've seen firsthand that they are slower to kill mule deer with a solid double lung hit at 300 yards than the old Hornady SST's I was shooting.

 

[Dougfirtree]

That is one usage of the many in modern language listed by Webster, but lithic really does refer to stone. I am sure you can Google some other usages. I am certain that nobody really cares if words used in our modern version of English hold their traditional meaning. I would bet that even "monometal' misses the mark. Webster has added many words such as "ain't" and some modern usages of "cool" also.

It does indeed pay to be correct, but generally it does not pay enough to be worth the effort. I should have kept quiet.

Damn evolving language!

 

[nhenry]

Back when lead shot was legal an awful lot of goose hunters chomped down on high antimony(hard) lead BBs without cracking teeth. If you cracked a tooth on lead, there’s a pretty good chance that tooth wasn’t particularly healthy was gonna crack pretty soon anyway.

A lot of those copper monos are also meant to fragment, and if you chomp down on a copper petal you’re going to be in a lot worse shape than chomping down on a lead fragment.

There are plenty of good reasons for people to choose lead cored or copper bullets over the other, but I’m fairly sure that the danger of breaking teeth on fragments from either type should be very low on that list of reasons.

This is a good reason to process your own meat if you can, and to do so carefully. I have found a few bullet fragments in areas with no bruising, bloodshot meat, or other obvious signs of a wound, but that’s pretty unusual. I cut well around bloodshot, bruised or otherwise wounded meat when I butcher. I can’t say that I ever remember having found a bullet fragment in a piece of meat that I’ve cooked. I have found pellets in birds that were on my plate in spite of taking similar care. Steel shot is a DEFINITE tooth hazard.

I wish I would have taken a picture of it, but alas I was just mad in the moment and threw it away. I know the unlikelihood of breaking a tooth on a lead fragment, but it's what happened and that's a reason I switched to bullets that I know hold their mass together, like GMX and TTSX. Hornady just released their CX in place of the GMX so I'm sure I'll use that too.

When I went to the dentist to get it fixed I actually got it ground down to put a porcelain crown on it and the whole base was healthy, so I know the tooth wasn't just rotten or anything. It must have been a freak accident as it's never happened to anyone that I personally know.

I processed that deer in my hunting partner's kitchen the day after I shot it, so I know what all I packaged up and I can tell you for sure that I didn't see any trails from the fragment, but a whole shoulder was almost thrown away from damage. The FTX I was using hit bone and fractured a bunch. I still got a pass through though, so I don't knock the performance of the bullet.