@Alantoo, I’m just still waiting for you to show us how well those LeHigh bullets work - on deer. They aren’t the same product as the ones I’ve used (Controlled Fracturing). Which here are NZD 3.50 a pop. I don’t care how much yours cost!
As for the Field & Stream test... Don’t try and scheme a different answer out of this one, its silly in the extreme. The Barnes bullet didn’t expand, period. I don’t care what the Berger or the SST did, irrelevant. I also don’t care how the Barnes performed at 150 yards because that’s not the question, is it! This thread isn’t about 150yd, so don’t try and go there mate. It’s about low impact velocity performance.
I also see that Barnes has removed the reference from their website to 1,600 ft./sec minimum expansion velocity for the LRX. I wonder why? In fact if I look for references to minimum expansion velocity for the TTSX, that seems to have disappeared as well! There was a whole section on this in their FAQ... Gone!
But this ridiculous statement is still there:
“
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.”
Complete and utter bollocks.
I get that you want to argue in favour of copper bullets no matter what, but to be honest mate I have not seen any evidence of you actually ever using them, on deer. That’s not to say that you don’t shoot deer but as with a fair few regular contributors on this forum, there is actually not much evidence that they do much deer stalking, if any. Something
@CarlW was getting hot under the collar about not long ago.
My reticence to jump on the copper bandwagon is because I’ve had to go through the pain of tracking wounded deer shot with high velocity copper bullets that minimally expanded, in situations where a standard cup and core bullet would have dropped the deer within 10, 20, 30, 40 yards. But over the last 2-3 years, I’m starting to come round to the latest designs used in genuine close range, high velocity impacts. To the point that I am trialling 130gr TTSX in my short barrelled .308 brush gun. Here’s a photo, just to prove it! The previous owner of this gun had horrible outcomes with this rifle and bullet at 400yd+, which when looked at carefully is almost certainly due to low impact velocity and minimal expansion, combined with shot placement behind the shoulder. Naive and dumb combined there I think.
In my dialogue with bullet manufacturers, I’ve yet to be sent any evidence of swaged copper bullets
reliability expanding in low velocity impacts to levels that I am comfortable with. For example, Andrej Janežič at Fox put together a very interesting information pack for me that he prefaced by saying “our bullets are design to give their best performances in distances of 50-300meters”. And none of the photos he sent changed my mind, quite the opposite, it’s just hardened my resolve not to use swaged copper bullets for the majority of shooting that I do.
So to conclude, my view is that low velocity <2,000fps with standard swaged copper bullets is risky and bordering on unethical. I don’t much care what you or anyone else thinks about that. Because
@hendrix's rifle has specified 6.5mm, I guess there’s not much point arguing about it because as you say, not many people over your way are shooting deer at 600m. But if a blanket ban on lead ammunition were ever introduced in the UK - which may or may not happen - that particular application would be totally compromised.
