Are they not referring to the possible surface blow up effect rather than penetration regardless, that something like a V-MAX may do if hitting bone?
Alan
Copper bullets - the limitations
- Thread starter NigelM
- Start date
Alan
Foxyboy43
Well-Known Member
In short and to no great advantage to anyone except Peregrine, I think it means “buy VRL4”.
Well if they are, doesn't that mean that anybody who recommends choosing an appropriate bullet and load for a given chambering, range, quarry and bullet placement, is doing much the same?
Alan
Norfolk Deer Search
Well-Known Member
The peregrine is my next port of call one I’ve got my loading bench back in order!
just another non toxic bullet to try, I’m going to step down to 120gn in my 270, having terrific fun shooting a friends 25-06 with 117gn!
I’ll buy 100 and get them going, once their all shot I’ll decide if their any good or not!
just another non toxic bullet to try, I’m going to step down to 120gn in my 270, having terrific fun shooting a friends 25-06 with 117gn!
I’ll buy 100 and get them going, once their all shot I’ll decide if their any good or not!
Foxyboy43
Well-Known Member
What now Alan?
My guess is that english isn't their first language and it's just a badly written paragraph. They are making the same claim as any other monolithic bullet maker, the bullets are tough and there's no need to avoid heavy bone when placing the shot as the bullets are up to it.
Much more interesting are the customer testimonials on their FB page. Yes, I know, FB is full of shite, but theirs is a hundred or more hunt reports detailing what bullet was used, what the range was and the MV. There was one who very successfully shot two Gemsbok out at 500m with a 124gr at 2950fps from a 6.5CM. Another who shot 26 Impala on a management hunt with a 308Win, 167gr bullet MV of 2300 fps (yes it was low, but a lady hunter who deliberately loaded down) shots out to 350m.
They claim good expansion at 1600 fps and everything I've read backs that up. I certainly wouldn't have taken those shots with a TTSX. I do think Peregrine worth a go.
Handbag dutifully stowed Capt’n.
Now that I know I should not be choosing lead core bullets for on the shoulder instant knock down shots, I feel greatly invigorated. It feels like I’ve woken from a nightmare, all those dreams of instant knock downs with pathetic soft match bullets hounding me in my sleep.
You really couldn’t make this shite up.
Now that I know I should not be choosing lead core bullets for on the shoulder instant knock down shots, I feel greatly invigorated. It feels like I’ve woken from a nightmare, all those dreams of instant knock downs with pathetic soft match bullets hounding me in my sleep.
You really couldn’t make this shite up.
So are you saying that my initial Schopenhauer ploy no. 7 response to @dogyknees' no. 7 post, and my no. 7 after his resorting to a no. 38 was only worth 15?Oooooooo! Alantoo 15: the rest love. The rest to serve, new balls please?
I shall demand a new umpire let alone new balls.
My apologies @NigelM it is an interesting thread.
Alan
Last edited:
We all know marketing departments write a load of bollocks. They all do.
What's more interesting is how they perform in the field.
big ears
Well-Known Member
This was a good thread up until a few posts ago.
im new to the world of lead free. Trying out fox copper in my 6.5x55 as we speak and not shot enough to pass comment.
what is clear is copper is not lead and therefore we cannot expect like for like performance. Looking at energy and velocity drop what is clear is that lead gives you more margin of error and as we are dealing with live animals in the open with imperfect weather this can be of benefit.
inside 200m there is from what I read little between them but by 250m there is a difference and this is significant by 300m. This can be negated by going bigger and heavier in calibre but not everyone wants to do this.
I have little doubt that within 5 years we will have to be lead free and also I believe that bullet manufacturers will look into the issue of the 300-450m shot as these are the ranges often used in America and New Zealand so there will be a market there.
For me I’m going to keep trying Fox, if they don’t work then I’ll try something else.
BE
im new to the world of lead free. Trying out fox copper in my 6.5x55 as we speak and not shot enough to pass comment.
what is clear is copper is not lead and therefore we cannot expect like for like performance. Looking at energy and velocity drop what is clear is that lead gives you more margin of error and as we are dealing with live animals in the open with imperfect weather this can be of benefit.
inside 200m there is from what I read little between them but by 250m there is a difference and this is significant by 300m. This can be negated by going bigger and heavier in calibre but not everyone wants to do this.
I have little doubt that within 5 years we will have to be lead free and also I believe that bullet manufacturers will look into the issue of the 300-450m shot as these are the ranges often used in America and New Zealand so there will be a market there.
For me I’m going to keep trying Fox, if they don’t work then I’ll try something else.
BE
Sorry @big ears.
I hear you Nigel, I went through that Facebook page in great detail. No need for Google Translate!
The Peregrine VLR4 design looks very smart and it’s definitely there in the top 3 or 4 innovations. I can’t see any reason why that bullet wouldn’t perform on our deer species in the 50-400m kind of range assuming the MV is up there. But we need much, much larger sample sets of longer range use to be convinced that reliable expansion can be achieved in all circumstances on all light framed, thin skinned game. The premise of this thread - terminal effectiveness is compromised below ~2400 ft./sec - is very hard to disprove, as we don’t have definitive, objective evidence of lower velocity terminal effectiveness, particularly from the small boutique manufacturers. Instead we get one or two FB posts, and what I see as silly claims and daft statements on the product pages.
The majority of Peregrine’s FB reports are big game, thick skinned, heavy, shot with medium and big bore rifles at close range with bullets ideally suited to the application.
The Gemsbok at 500m? Who here would take that on with a 6.5 124gr copper bullet? That’s an animal that is typically what, 30-50% heavier than an ordinary red stag? The point of impact was precisely into the heart - very good shooting, I’ll give the lady and the bullet maximum points for accuracy. If that bullet was 2 or 3” either way, different outcome. Which is what I get lectured about all the time of course. Soft, fragmenting lead bullets are far more forgiving in that scenario.
The Gemsbok shot was an impact velocity of ~2100fps and may or may not be representative of all ~2000-2200fps impacts. But its not 1600fps. This is the gap that bothers me about all these manufacturer claims. Where’s the evidence? Why claim 1600fps? Why do they feel the need to do that? They all do it! That’s ~900m with this 6.5mm bullet. Nine hundred metres. What does the bullet’s expansion really look like in an animal at 900m, not in a gel block or wet newspaper, but in an animal? We don’t know because either the sample set doesn’t exist, or they’re not showing us. On the odd occasion we’ve seen posts of true low velocity copper bullet expansion, they have looked really, really crap.
Someone has got to do the work and prove / disprove the claims that all these manufacturers make about low velocity expansion. Who? Maybe me and one of Scottish lads can deliberately set about shooting deer at ranges equating to sub-2400 ft./sec, down to 1600 ft./sec, with our 6.5mm tacticool sniper rifles, film it, YouTube it, see what happens? How’s that going to go down with the ethical hunting fraternity?
Barnes say the following about their LRX:
The LRX has a very wide range of functionality – terminal performance is unmatched on game at not only close, but extreme distances for long range hunters. The LRX’s combination of a high B.C. and wide range of functionality can really extend the shooters’ effective range resulting in quick, clean and ethical kills.
Unmatched on game at extreme distances............
I hear you Nigel, I went through that Facebook page in great detail. No need for Google Translate!
The Peregrine VLR4 design looks very smart and it’s definitely there in the top 3 or 4 innovations. I can’t see any reason why that bullet wouldn’t perform on our deer species in the 50-400m kind of range assuming the MV is up there. But we need much, much larger sample sets of longer range use to be convinced that reliable expansion can be achieved in all circumstances on all light framed, thin skinned game. The premise of this thread - terminal effectiveness is compromised below ~2400 ft./sec - is very hard to disprove, as we don’t have definitive, objective evidence of lower velocity terminal effectiveness, particularly from the small boutique manufacturers. Instead we get one or two FB posts, and what I see as silly claims and daft statements on the product pages.
The majority of Peregrine’s FB reports are big game, thick skinned, heavy, shot with medium and big bore rifles at close range with bullets ideally suited to the application.
The Gemsbok at 500m? Who here would take that on with a 6.5 124gr copper bullet? That’s an animal that is typically what, 30-50% heavier than an ordinary red stag? The point of impact was precisely into the heart - very good shooting, I’ll give the lady and the bullet maximum points for accuracy. If that bullet was 2 or 3” either way, different outcome. Which is what I get lectured about all the time of course. Soft, fragmenting lead bullets are far more forgiving in that scenario.
The Gemsbok shot was an impact velocity of ~2100fps and may or may not be representative of all ~2000-2200fps impacts. But its not 1600fps. This is the gap that bothers me about all these manufacturer claims. Where’s the evidence? Why claim 1600fps? Why do they feel the need to do that? They all do it! That’s ~900m with this 6.5mm bullet. Nine hundred metres. What does the bullet’s expansion really look like in an animal at 900m, not in a gel block or wet newspaper, but in an animal? We don’t know because either the sample set doesn’t exist, or they’re not showing us. On the odd occasion we’ve seen posts of true low velocity copper bullet expansion, they have looked really, really crap.
Someone has got to do the work and prove / disprove the claims that all these manufacturers make about low velocity expansion. Who? Maybe me and one of Scottish lads can deliberately set about shooting deer at ranges equating to sub-2400 ft./sec, down to 1600 ft./sec, with our 6.5mm tacticool sniper rifles, film it, YouTube it, see what happens? How’s that going to go down with the ethical hunting fraternity?
Barnes say the following about their LRX:
The LRX has a very wide range of functionality – terminal performance is unmatched on game at not only close, but extreme distances for long range hunters. The LRX’s combination of a high B.C. and wide range of functionality can really extend the shooters’ effective range resulting in quick, clean and ethical kills.
Unmatched on game at extreme distances............
Last edited:
Because a varmint’s life is less valuable than a deer’s?Wouldn't bismuth or one of the other premium replacements used in shotgun shells do the job? Might be pricey but worth it! Use cheaper stuff for practice and varmints.
I know nothing
Who mentioned retained weight ?
However the word ‘controlled’ is written into Scottish law and randomly shedding petals is not controlled, I personally don’t think these bullets are Scottish deer legal but fortunately there’s little chance of me being a test case
No, not really, my guess is the legislation was written to stop violently expanding varmint bullets being used for deer. So a TTSX for example that expands to double its size is controlled, a bullet that randomly sheds petals is not. Most deer bullets are designed to hold together to some extent and exit having expanded larger than the original diameter.
I would be interested to hear @ben Heath’s take on it and whether he has any confirmation they fall into the controlled expansion category.
Ok, so all cup and lead core bullets that break up loosing their jackets or loosing mass ( as all do) to be defined similarly illegal?? DOHH! 
Ian
Ian
Just a thought, having just looked at the Peregrine website.
I should say that, whilst following this topic with interest, I have no experience with lead-alternative bullets. I shoot whatever my guide gives me, in their estate rifle. So far everything from .243 with 70 grain vermin ammo (I declined a shot at a big Norfolk Red stag that outing, though the guide said it would be fine for a neck or head shot). through 308, 270 and 30-06. Actually I liked the 30-06 the best, it was loaded with A-max (this was back in the days of the A-Max/V-Max controversy and no posting of "expanding" projectiles, thankfully long gone) Worked a treat on Muntjac, Roe and Fallow at woodland ranges from 20 to 160 yards, lasered. The 308 seemed equally as good using Nosler BT, but I've only used it twice.
So I know very little really, and have little experience to relate even of lead, having shot a variety but only very few of each. I simply have to trust my guides to have chosen something they think suitable for their grounds, of which they should have vastly more knowledge than me. The chap taking me out after reds with a .243 foxing cartridge was I hope the exception.
Playing devil's advocate, ISTM that their VLR 4 might not actually be England/Wales deer legal. Where a hollow point or soft point is required. Looking at it I see neither. Just the hard tough brass "plunger initiator" sticking out of the end. I think that is rather different from the plastic tip of a "ballistic tip" type of bullet, where the plastic is mainly there to improve the aerodynamics of an otherwise standard hollow point design. Secondarily to participate in the expansion of the (lead) hollow point, but to what extent I am unsure.
This is not a hollow point, to my understanding, at least not at the time it exits the rifle muzzle. It is a solid construction of copper and brass. The expansion mechanism, at least the first part, is different. Neither is it a soft point.
Is this something that would greatly concern me, well perhaps not, as long as it does work effectively.
I'd like to see a cross section of one, showing how it is supposed to work. I am guessing that the initiator plunger part is pressed into the the hollow point of something like a Barnes TSX, pre-scored internally for triple petal formation. Perhaps it is conical, so that as it is hammered in on impact it wedges out the petals, thereby pulling them apart along the score lines, initiating the rest of the expansion by the usual mechanisms. If so, I see that there might need to be an airspace behind the penetrator to give it room to move back into the bullet. I wouldn't say that necessarily made it a hollowpoint.
As to any "air pocket dampening effect of the brass plunger during nose expansion as strong bone structures are encountered." , well that rather sounds like marketing noise to me. That air pocket isn't going to be doing much dampening to something that could be travelling at Mach 2.76 when it strikes. I think they might be suggesting that if it strikes bone, then initiation will be delayed by this supposed dampening effect so that penetration of the bone will be better, before the bullet starts to mushroom significantly. This seems totally counterintuitive to me. I'd rather think that the air pocket is there as a necessary part of the design, and not make it out to be anything more.
This is all pure guesswork by me, only based on what Peregrine say on their website. If I have got any of this right then I can see how this initiator could work by initially forcing open the petals a little and breaking them along the internal score lines. In a controlled manner. Also substituting for a plastic "ballistic tip" to keep the aerodynamics efficient. No concerns about a plastic tip softening/deforming from heat in flight at high velocities either.
But in lightly built game, when it might penetrate very little soft flesh, or even mostly just lung tissue filled with air, if they are full at the time, might it sometimes just pencil through them, or at least not start to expand much before it exits, having only passed through a relatively short distance of flesh, even mostly air ?
In these scenarios it might be best to aim to hit bone, i.e. the shoulder.
Could it really be a "one bullet does everything" solution for any UK deer species ? Woodland to the Scottish hill ? At any range/impact velocity ? Any shot placement choice ? Seems rather improbable to me.
As Peregrine say, they designed it for "long range very accurate plains-game hunting". If it also works well in other scenarios more typical in England/Wales, then that would be great. But it's early days before any credible reports come back from users.
To reiterate, this is all just speculation on my part, read very little into it. What I do think is that there is a bright future for non-lead bullets ahead, with continuing development and innovation. And it seems to me that much of the innovation is being lead by the small "boutique" manufacturers. The big boys can't be so fast on their feet, and are heavily invested in production machinery that may be difficult to re-purpose for more innovative engineered things.
I should say that, whilst following this topic with interest, I have no experience with lead-alternative bullets. I shoot whatever my guide gives me, in their estate rifle. So far everything from .243 with 70 grain vermin ammo (I declined a shot at a big Norfolk Red stag that outing, though the guide said it would be fine for a neck or head shot). through 308, 270 and 30-06. Actually I liked the 30-06 the best, it was loaded with A-max (this was back in the days of the A-Max/V-Max controversy and no posting of "expanding" projectiles, thankfully long gone) Worked a treat on Muntjac, Roe and Fallow at woodland ranges from 20 to 160 yards, lasered. The 308 seemed equally as good using Nosler BT, but I've only used it twice.
So I know very little really, and have little experience to relate even of lead, having shot a variety but only very few of each. I simply have to trust my guides to have chosen something they think suitable for their grounds, of which they should have vastly more knowledge than me. The chap taking me out after reds with a .243 foxing cartridge was I hope the exception.
Playing devil's advocate, ISTM that their VLR 4 might not actually be England/Wales deer legal. Where a hollow point or soft point is required. Looking at it I see neither. Just the hard tough brass "plunger initiator" sticking out of the end. I think that is rather different from the plastic tip of a "ballistic tip" type of bullet, where the plastic is mainly there to improve the aerodynamics of an otherwise standard hollow point design. Secondarily to participate in the expansion of the (lead) hollow point, but to what extent I am unsure.
This is not a hollow point, to my understanding, at least not at the time it exits the rifle muzzle. It is a solid construction of copper and brass. The expansion mechanism, at least the first part, is different. Neither is it a soft point.
Is this something that would greatly concern me, well perhaps not, as long as it does work effectively.
I'd like to see a cross section of one, showing how it is supposed to work. I am guessing that the initiator plunger part is pressed into the the hollow point of something like a Barnes TSX, pre-scored internally for triple petal formation. Perhaps it is conical, so that as it is hammered in on impact it wedges out the petals, thereby pulling them apart along the score lines, initiating the rest of the expansion by the usual mechanisms. If so, I see that there might need to be an airspace behind the penetrator to give it room to move back into the bullet. I wouldn't say that necessarily made it a hollowpoint.
As to any "air pocket dampening effect of the brass plunger during nose expansion as strong bone structures are encountered." , well that rather sounds like marketing noise to me. That air pocket isn't going to be doing much dampening to something that could be travelling at Mach 2.76 when it strikes. I think they might be suggesting that if it strikes bone, then initiation will be delayed by this supposed dampening effect so that penetration of the bone will be better, before the bullet starts to mushroom significantly. This seems totally counterintuitive to me. I'd rather think that the air pocket is there as a necessary part of the design, and not make it out to be anything more.
This is all pure guesswork by me, only based on what Peregrine say on their website. If I have got any of this right then I can see how this initiator could work by initially forcing open the petals a little and breaking them along the internal score lines. In a controlled manner. Also substituting for a plastic "ballistic tip" to keep the aerodynamics efficient. No concerns about a plastic tip softening/deforming from heat in flight at high velocities either.
But in lightly built game, when it might penetrate very little soft flesh, or even mostly just lung tissue filled with air, if they are full at the time, might it sometimes just pencil through them, or at least not start to expand much before it exits, having only passed through a relatively short distance of flesh, even mostly air ?
In these scenarios it might be best to aim to hit bone, i.e. the shoulder.
Could it really be a "one bullet does everything" solution for any UK deer species ? Woodland to the Scottish hill ? At any range/impact velocity ? Any shot placement choice ? Seems rather improbable to me.
As Peregrine say, they designed it for "long range very accurate plains-game hunting". If it also works well in other scenarios more typical in England/Wales, then that would be great. But it's early days before any credible reports come back from users.
To reiterate, this is all just speculation on my part, read very little into it. What I do think is that there is a bright future for non-lead bullets ahead, with continuing development and innovation. And it seems to me that much of the innovation is being lead by the small "boutique" manufacturers. The big boys can't be so fast on their feet, and are heavily invested in production machinery that may be difficult to re-purpose for more innovative engineered things.
Similar threads
