Can you give me the name of the powder you are using for this, and where you purchase it from please 'hammo'.. .?? Thank you!
ATB ..... and shoot safely
FOX Bullets expansion.
- Thread starter hammo
- Start date
Can you give me the name of the powder you are using for this, and where you purchase it from please 'hammo'.. .?? Thank you!
ATB ..... and shoot safely
Yeah it was this outfit.
Can even get it on Amazon
Have been shooting 165grn Fox Bullets in 30.06. Once I got a suitable load I found them very accurate. Surprised how little fouling as well even normal carbon has been minimal.
Only used them on Roe up to now and all went down like a proverbial bag at distances between 100 and 250 yards. Being these small animals all shots went through with good exits The extreme distance only because a of deforesting has left us with deer feeding on wide open areas with little cover.
Was hoping in the future to use them on my next African visit but that looks in jeopardy now.
Only used them on Roe up to now and all went down like a proverbial bag at distances between 100 and 250 yards. Being these small animals all shots went through with good exits The extreme distance only because a of deforesting has left us with deer feeding on wide open areas with little cover.
Was hoping in the future to use them on my next African visit but that looks in jeopardy now.
As in my post earlier in this thread, I found an accuracy node easily, have only dropped two animals but really happy with the accuracy and expansion.
I have faith in them. I am interested to test the long range expansion, but more curiosity than anything else.
I have faith in them. I am interested to test the long range expansion, but more curiosity than anything else.
I think this post sums up the subjective nature of a lot of the discussion about expansion “at longer range”.
To many, a “long range” shot is anything over say 200yds.
To me, a long range shot is 800yds. A shot of 250yds would barely register for anything from a deer to a magpie. One man’s extreme is another’s normal. Therein lies the problem we have defining the performance criteria we expect from our bullets.
One thing we determined from the marketing blurb from Barnes for example (LRX), is that the monolithic manufacturers are using terminology specifically claiming acceptable terminal performance at “long range”, without specifying what long range actually is. There’s some silly blurb on the Fox website somewhere too but it won’t work at the moment so can’t be specific.
Either way, this problem of long range performance is likely only a genuine practical problem for a relatively small percentage of deer stalkers affected by changes to lead free. My gut feel is that the expansion performance threshold for the typical monolithic bullet (120-180gr, MV 2600-3000fps) is around the 250yd mark, i.e. closer than that you’ll be fine, further than that the likelihood of poor expansion increases significantly (and exponentially).
Yes I understand what you say Dodgy, the reason I mentioned " extreme" is there are people who would berate you for doing such stuff. Why I tried to justify that I really don't know. My gear is good optics spot on and I am confident in ability to make a good shot at the distances I choose. Anyway I still believe the fox bullet I am using suits my needs well.
Thank you 'hammo'..
Kind Regards,
Blobbs.....
ATB ..... and shoot safely
Take a couple of minutes to watch the video clip, explaining preparation routine on the website.
It looks OK, bit of a faff. I am planning to fill the two plastic salad drawers in my fridge as moulds.
Have you actually thought this has already been done by the bullet manufacturers?
i can’t see the logic in wasting good time and money, in trying to prove something that the manufacturer said it will already do!
ive been there done that and wasted the money and all I managed to prove was that they expanded and deer fell over.
i can’t see the logic in wasting good time and money, in trying to prove something that the manufacturer said it will already do!
ive been there done that and wasted the money and all I managed to prove was that they expanded and deer fell over.
You’ve missed the point. It’s about expansion at longer ranges than the typical close range shots most guys take. There is an overwhelming amount of anecdotal evidence that says monolithics are unreliable beyond a certain range, my interest in this is what exactly that range is for what bullet (brand, calibre, weight, MV).
move not missed the point at all, personally I’ve killed deer out to 320m the red calf took 5 steps and died.
I’ve shot countless at over 200m and ive lost count at between 50 and 200m
All with non toxic projectiles.
furthest shot with the fox offerings at the moment is 175 on a roe and killed it cleanly.
Which is comfortably less than half the range I’m typically culling reds at the moment. And a roe deer is the size of a goat. Easy to kill. I shoot reds. See my point? We’re not talking about the same thing.
you don’t need to tell me about red deer, I shoot those as well!
In my reading this evening it has come to my attention that none of the organisations promoting copper bullets appear to have any idea whatsoever about the importance of shedding bullet weight and energy transfer in terminal ballistics. And the same can be said for those promoting the use of very high weight retaining bonded copper / lead bullets for use on light skinned medium game.
We should not become overly preoccupied with pretty mushroom shapes. For decades the top bullet manufacturers deliberately designed their bullets to shed weight. Then somewhere along the line the bonded design became fashionable, and an emphasis on maximising retained weight became de rigueur. If you are shooting mature moose bulls, then for sure a strong and highly penetrative bullet that deforms to well over 2x calibre is a good idea. But on a small woodland deer? Er, no. And following on from a surge in bonded designs we have monolithics.
But within the broad umbrella of monolithics, there are some very important design differences that clearly separate out those bullets that retain all their weight, and those that shed weight and hence energy inside the animal. I have only used LeHigh a few times (.300BLK and .308 subsonic), and can say categorically that where it not for the price tag and poor availability here, I would use them a great deal more. In fact now that I think about it, in situations where I will be taking only one or two shots in the duration of a hunt, the LeHigh is a damned good option.
It is this issue of cost that is central to the monolithic design argument. CNC machined copper bullets are in a totally different class to the pressed and cut variety. If the machined bullets weren’t so expensive to produce then I think we would be having a completely different discussion.
Interestingly, I see Fox still claims “adequate” expansion at impact velocities of 500m/s (1,640fps). Yet they provide no evidence of this.
I think this is purest BS.
We should not become overly preoccupied with pretty mushroom shapes. For decades the top bullet manufacturers deliberately designed their bullets to shed weight. Then somewhere along the line the bonded design became fashionable, and an emphasis on maximising retained weight became de rigueur. If you are shooting mature moose bulls, then for sure a strong and highly penetrative bullet that deforms to well over 2x calibre is a good idea. But on a small woodland deer? Er, no. And following on from a surge in bonded designs we have monolithics.
But within the broad umbrella of monolithics, there are some very important design differences that clearly separate out those bullets that retain all their weight, and those that shed weight and hence energy inside the animal. I have only used LeHigh a few times (.300BLK and .308 subsonic), and can say categorically that where it not for the price tag and poor availability here, I would use them a great deal more. In fact now that I think about it, in situations where I will be taking only one or two shots in the duration of a hunt, the LeHigh is a damned good option.
It is this issue of cost that is central to the monolithic design argument. CNC machined copper bullets are in a totally different class to the pressed and cut variety. If the machined bullets weren’t so expensive to produce then I think we would be having a completely different discussion.
Interestingly, I see Fox still claims “adequate” expansion at impact velocities of 500m/s (1,640fps). Yet they provide no evidence of this.
I think this is purest BS.
Buy 10
be brave and buy couple of 100 and shoot 180-190 animals, that’s the only way you will find out!
i am confident you will be impressed!
Proof is in the pudding I’m afraid.
thats what I did and I’m very satisfied.
In my reading this evening it has come to my attention that none of the organisations promoting copper bullets appear to have any idea whatsoever about the importance of shedding bullet weight and energy transfer in terminal ballistics. And the same can be said for those promoting the use of very high weight retaining bonded copper / lead bullets for use on light skinned medium game.
We should not become overly preoccupied with pretty mushroom shapes. For decades the top bullet manufacturers deliberately designed their bullets to shed weight. Then somewhere along the line the bonded design became fashionable, and an emphasis on maximising retained weight became de rigueur. If you are shooting mature moose bulls, then for sure a strong and highly penetrative bullet that deforms to well over 2x calibre is a good idea. But on a small woodland deer? Er, no. And following on from a surge in bonded designs we have monolithics.
But within the broad umbrella of monolithics, there are some very important design differences that clearly separate out those bullets that retain all their weight, and those that shed weight and hence energy inside the animal. I have only used LeHigh a few times (.300BLK and .308 subsonic), and can say categorically that where it not for the price tag and poor availability here, I would use them a great deal more. In fact now that I think about it, in situations where I will be taking only one or two shots in the duration of a hunt, the LeHigh is a damned good option.
It is this issue of cost that is central to the monolithic design argument. CNC machined copper bullets are in a totally different class to the pressed and cut variety. If the machined bullets weren’t so expensive to produce then I think we would be having a completely different discussion.
Interestingly, I see Fox still claims “adequate” expansion at impact velocities of 500m/s (1,640fps). Yet they provide no evidence of this.
I think this is purest BS.
be brave and buy couple of 100 and shoot 180-190 animals, that’s the only way you will find out!
i am confident you will be impressed!
Proof is in the pudding I’m afraid.
thats what I did and I’m very satisfied.
If you have questions about the monolithics, don’t forget to ask the manufacturers directly.
I asked Fox some questions yesterday, specifically about their claim that their bullets will expand “adequately” at 1,600fps. The chap sent me lots of info and pictures which was very interesting.
The conclusion reached is (verbatim quote) “However, our bullets are design to give their best performances in distances of 50-300meters.”
I thought the response was excellent - helpful and informative with good reasoning. Whilst Fox don’t discount the use of their bullets at the ranges I routinely shoot, the evidence of “adequate expansion” at low impact velocity wasn’t compelling, and in that sense the response didn’t tell me anything I didn’t already know. (That pressed monolithics are not appropriate for medium and long range shooting, 300m being the accepted upper limit of short range.)
That’s my opinion of course, you might think otherwise. But I remain deeply sceptical of anyone who selects monos for longer range shooting, because to me it demonstrates a wholesale lack of understanding of how bullets designed for this purpose achieve clean kills.
If you have a query about which weight is appropriate for your rifle, for certain quarry, email Fox, on this evidence you’ll get a properly informative response.
I asked Fox some questions yesterday, specifically about their claim that their bullets will expand “adequately” at 1,600fps. The chap sent me lots of info and pictures which was very interesting.
The conclusion reached is (verbatim quote) “However, our bullets are design to give their best performances in distances of 50-300meters.”
I thought the response was excellent - helpful and informative with good reasoning. Whilst Fox don’t discount the use of their bullets at the ranges I routinely shoot, the evidence of “adequate expansion” at low impact velocity wasn’t compelling, and in that sense the response didn’t tell me anything I didn’t already know. (That pressed monolithics are not appropriate for medium and long range shooting, 300m being the accepted upper limit of short range.)
That’s my opinion of course, you might think otherwise. But I remain deeply sceptical of anyone who selects monos for longer range shooting, because to me it demonstrates a wholesale lack of understanding of how bullets designed for this purpose achieve clean kills.
If you have a query about which weight is appropriate for your rifle, for certain quarry, email Fox, on this evidence you’ll get a properly informative response.
Similar threads
