Toxicity refers to the poisonous effect of a substance. Fragments of non-toxic metal in food is physical contamination.
Copper bullets - shoulder or armpit?!
- Thread starter Markez
- Start date
Keith, I have had the misfortune of guiding in Scotland for the past 4 years with two guests that have been using GMX. Never seen a stag killed cleanly with a shot behind the shoulder. The last one was a double lung shot that I would expect to run 20m and drop. I tracked it for 1500m before it lay down so I could get a second shot into it - unfortunately 1500m in the opposite direction to the vehicle - one hell of an extraction. Caliber sized entry and exit. I wouldn't use GMX if i was sponsored to do so, too hard, a very bad example of a copper bullet. If you want to buy loaded use TTSX, if you roll your own the Yew Tree is a fantastic bullet and I suspect the Virtus are as good but have not tried them - and both are British. All copper is not equal, like lead there is good and bad, and GMX in my experience is one of the bad ones. No idea about CX but from what I've read I will not bother testing them.
Leec6.5
Well-Known Member
Hornady GMX are utter shite!
The design of the bullet especially the relationship between the ogive and the size and profile of the hollow point is likely to have a significant effect on the yield point....the amount of energy required to deform the bullet into either expanded petals or breakaway shards.
This is exactly the research and development Richard's been doing with his excellent Yew Tree bullets.
In his case, certainly not "classic marketing' but trying to find the best balance of the parameters, to produce a better bullet.
Adyb
Well-Known Member
I had similar experiences but, after being forced to use copper on some hunts I'm getting it to work now. Barnes ttsx seems much better than others on smaller game.
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
In effect yes. I think they are probably a technology that provides a solution to the problem for those wedded on the idea of massive fragmentation to achieve a quick kill.
The monolithics probably are a better overall solution as they leave very little contamination behind.
Put it like this consumers do not want any foreign objects in their food.
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
I would agree with you. They were one of the first monolithics in the market. I think they have been overtaken by many other much better offerings. .
Hook'N'Bullet
Well-Known Member
Huh? Were we not talking about Hornadys GMX and CX bullets? Dont think I mentioned Yew Tree
HonestJohn
Well-Known Member
...insert vomit emoticon here...LOL!
Yes, we were, I mentioned Yew Tree as an example if that is okay with you?
We were talking about the development of bullet design that goes beyond mere metal choice and marketing flummery. Hence my reference to the design development Richard has/is doing at Yew Tree.
As an aside, at the close ranges I shoot, I found the GMX worked fine on neck or shoulder joint shots on the dozen or so Roe, Fallow and Muntjac I shot with them. Much the same as the SST Sako and Powershock soft points but without the wasted meat. Same POI similar effect. The point of aim I try for...just in front or just behind the scapula ball joint. Depending on angle of animal I may take out either the near side or far side ball joint. I have never used a double lung shot with any bullet, lead core or lead free.
Last edited:
Probably shot placement 75%, bullet performance 25%.
Something like that.
Double lung, behind the shoulder shots are risky as with any of the non-fragmenting copper bullets. It can have bad consequences with the harder bonded copper / lead core bullets as well. Pretty much all the problems I’ve witnessed with Barnes TTSX / LRX have been double lung shots. 99% of the runners that I have to go find are ones that I’ve put the bullet too far back.
If you look up the expansion testing, you will see that the CX is performing very well against the TTSX. Pretty much an exact match at high velocity and the lower velocity expansion actually looks favourable against the TTSX. Who knew? So writing off the CX because of one experience with the GMX is not particularly objective in my view.
6.5mm and .30 cal shooters might want to look at the new Barnes TAC-TX. Remarkable low velocity, >2x calibre expansion.
Good explanation as to why the testing of the CX that I have seen (and you can watch too!) appears to demonstrate significantly improved performance over the GMX.
This is from the email I had back from Barnes when I asked about 110gr TTSX
Vs 110gr TAC-TX expansion.
The bullets have the following minimum expansion velocities necessary for expansion.
110 gr TTSX = 2000 fps
130 gr TTSX = 1800 fps
110 gr TAC-TX = 1400 fps
120 gr TAC-TX = 1350 fps
We don't worry about maximum impact velocities since in even the worst case scenarios, the bullet looses some/all the petals, the bullet's solid copper shank will continue to drive through the animal. I would agree on the evenness of our white tail deer and your Fallow Roe and Muntjac.
I have a box of TAC-TX to try but I am not in a fit state to work up a load at the moment. And I have just found, with Yew Tree Richard’s guidance the most precise load I have ever had from my rifle. So the experiments with anything else won’t be prioritised when I can get back to shooting anyway.
@Alantoo. In reality, manufacturers’ minimum velocity claims required for expansion equates to not much more than tip deformation. Tip deformation does not cleanly kill deer.
When I look at what these bullets look like at these claimed minimum expansion velocities I wince as I’d never in a million years want to shoot a deer with a bullet that was going to expand as little as that.
A very good example of this issue is demonstrated as follows:
4m30s for the salient part.
When I look at what these bullets look like at these claimed minimum expansion velocities I wince as I’d never in a million years want to shoot a deer with a bullet that was going to expand as little as that.
A very good example of this issue is demonstrated as follows:
4m30s for the salient part.
@dodgyknees I was interested to see if there were a difference between the two 110gr offerings. Not for for the claimed minimum velocities but just relative to each other. Just to confirm that there was indeed a design difference.
At my close ranges I am well above the 2,500 fps for most shots, I had no place that I can shoot deer over 150metres hence they all worked fine for me.
I shave recently taken on a bit of land with a couple of opportunities to stretch out to 300 metres which is why I wanted to maintain my generous efficacy margin, hence going over to Yew Tree.
At my close ranges I am well above the 2,500 fps for most shots, I had no place that I can shoot deer over 150metres hence they all worked fine for me.
I shave recently taken on a bit of land with a couple of opportunities to stretch out to 300 metres which is why I wanted to maintain my generous efficacy margin, hence going over to Yew Tree.
Hook'N'Bullet
Well-Known Member
Fair Alantoo, I picked you up wrong. Apologies!
Regarding never double lunging a deer, I'd probably put money on it that you have when aiming at at the scapula ball joint
You are right of course the bullets will have passed through both lungs, but only as an adjunct to aiming for Hilar zone, disconnecting / taking the top off the heart.
I should have said I have never aimed for the "meat saver" behind the heart shot relying solely on damage to both lungs. Hence why my experience of the non-frangible bullets has been similar in terms of "drop on the spot" whether lead or lead free.
My broadside aim point under guidance was initially centre of leg and 2/5 up. Over the years I have moved this forward to the current scapula ball joint described above.
Similar threads
