Sierra & Hornady bullet sections compared

[User00033]

I posted this on the NZ forum as part of a planned series of threads on the bullets we commonly use here.

Following on from some recent threads with Q&A on some of the common bullets we use, I thought I'd have another look at the comparative construction using sections, some we've done ourselves (thanks @Wingman and others), some I've downloaded off the interweb. There's a fair bit of ongoing confusion about what's what, primarily because both Sierra and Hornady have use terminology you'd think was designed to confuse... Tipped, King, GameChanger, Xs and Ms, ELD, and so on.

First up, how does the Tipped GameKing (TGK) relate to the traditional GameKing? Putting sections side-by-side demonstrates very clearly the step change in bullet design with the TGK.



The traditional GameKing has a much thinner jacket than the new TGK. The traditional GameKing is a partially frangible bullet that will fragment and lose weight upon expansion, and depending on the velocity, weight and calibre of the bullet, and size and weight of animal and where it is hit, the degree of through-and-through penetration will vary. Generally, the bigger the GameKing, the tougher the bullet. From .223 to .30 cal and 165gr, the GameKing is an excellent medium game bullet, from .30 cal 180gr and up, it's better suited to the largest of deer and proper big game.

The TGK is designed to be much tougher, to retain more weight as it passes through the animal. It is designed with aerodynamic efficiency as a priority, as are almost all new bullets in today's "BC" battle. The size of the cavity behind the TGK tip is really something, that's as striking as the thickness of the jacket.

Putting the traditional GameKing next to the Tipped MatchKing (TMK) and TGK is interesting. You can see how the traditional GameKing's jacket thickness is only slightly thicker than the TMK, and both are a lot thinner the TGK.



The two Hornady bullets side-by-side are more similar to one another than the Sierras. The ELD-X has a slightly thicker jacket than the ELD-M, especially at the base, and a nominal interlock ring. I say nominal because when I've cut sections of this bullet, it's hardly visible. Plus, I've recovered a few jackets minus their lead cores, so it's not like it's a bankable mechanical lock. The biggest difference is in the size of the tip and void, the ELD-X is designed to initiate expansion more readily, in a more controlled manner through the thicker jacket. That's the idea anyway.



Of real interest to me is the side-by-side comparisons of the two brands. I've got them here in order of apparent jacket thickness.



To my eyes, there's very little in it between the TMK, ELD-M and traditional GameKing. There's a small step up in toughness to the ELD-X, then a much bigger step up to the TGK. This is really interesting, because the GameKing must be one of the most successful hunting bullets every produced - it's been around for over 40 years? So history and stats would suggest that there's something to be said for the thinner jacket design, with no apparent need for the cavity behind the tip.

So how does this all translate to preferred field performance? One thing for sure - New Zealand hunters are more inclined to use supposed "match" bullets on deer than elsewhere in the world, particularly America. Lots of threads on here including the current one, and elsewhere, have experienced users favouring the "match" variants. We all know that the ELD-M is a simple like-for-like replacement of the A-Max, and the A-Max was a highly successful and popular medium game bullet from the get go.

Sierra on the other hand have put clear distance between the TMK and the TGK. They say "While they are recognized around the world for record-setting accuracy, MatchKing® and Tipped MatchKing® bullets are not recommended for most hunting applications." I think most users of the TMK here would regard the bullet as perfectly fine for typical NZ open country hunting.

The ELD-X has had a lot more reviews posted than the TGK. It's actually quite hard to find objective field assessment of the TGK. I've used the ELD-X in .30 cal and a great deal in 6.5mm, and I've never used a better bullet. It does exactly what it says on the box, extremely accurate and reliable expansion at all ranges, it's done the business for me from 30-700m+ on hundreds of goats and deer, with an exceptionally low fail rate.

The TGK seems to have had a lot less take-up in NZ, possibly as a function of price. Some reports suggest that the bullet is too hard for our game, though that will be in the eye of the beholder. The huge cavity behind the tip should cause instant and impressive expansion and a potentially massive wound channel, assuming impact velocity is high enough. But I'm not sure the bullet will slow up enough in our small to medium deer as some of the exit holes I've seen with the larger calibre TGKs are enormous. The few reviews I've found suggest that the 6mm and 6.5mm versions are too small a calibre and over-penetrated in whitetail with narrow wounding, but that the .30 cal 165gr is a whole different proposition.

One key requirement is that I want a bullet to exit as slow as possible, not carry heaps of its energy into the backstop. The bullet must expand and partially fragment and rapidly pull up, creating a halo of damage. So whilst I was stone cold on the TGK design initially, I've come round to thinking that in certain applications it would be a good choice, particularly in .30 cal. But maybe not for the kind of 6mm and 6.5mm shooting I mostly do. The only scenario in which I'd choose a harder bullet than I currently use is close range bush hunting. But I don't need super expensive high BC options for that, there's plenty of traditional bullets at less than half the price that will achieve excellent results.

I think the sections speak for themselves, there's a reason the GameKing and "match" variants from Hornady and Sierra are so popular here, and you can say the same for some of the Bergers too. It will be interesting to see which direction the market moves in, and whether the uptake of the harder high BC bullets ever competes with the direction Hornady has gone in.

 

[User00033]

It is entirely normal for guys to use supposed “match” variants here. And also to use fast twist .223 Remington with light, fast “match” bullets. One of the biggest misconceptions in our sport worldwide is the ability of the .223 on medium sized deer, something that unless you have either seen or done yourself, many of you will immediately be inclined to rail against.

I mean, it’s bad enough that a lot of you don’t like the .243 Win for gawd’s sake. So I shouldn’t expect anything other than utter unadulterated opprobrium I guess.

There is a genuine, undoubted line drawn between the way we do things our two countries, on many levels. The law has a lot to do with it - our minimum deer calibre is .222 for instance - but cultural and best practice norms are different two. Here, shot placement is frequently quite different to the norms in the UK, as taught by DSC for example. But to me, perhaps the biggest and most obvious differences are our willingness to use fast, light, frangible bullets often at ranges that would make many of you misplace your underwear.

I recognise that carcass quality is of primary importance to many deer stalkers in the UK, and as such I guess methods must take that into account. But I favour a fast kill over the quality of the front end every time, as I’m not really that fussed if I lose fore-quarter meat or not. But there is zero doubt in my mind - none whatsoever - that fast kills are significantly more likely with soft bullets in a fast, small calibre, than hard bullets in a bigger calibre.

One potentially positive development in bullet manufacturing that I have yet to test first hand, is the arrival of genuinely soft but bonded bullets that expand faster, to a greater diameter, than the early bonded variants. The new Norma BondStrike is one example of this. I really hope the reality is as good as the marketing spiel, because very few of the bonded bullets that claim “long range” credentials have really achieved this with the exception of the fussy and expensive Nosler ABLR.

Anyway, the comparison of the good old GameKing to the modern tipped “match” bullets is interesting, showing just how much closer it is to them in jacket thickness than it is to Sierra’s new hunting bullet. The ProHunter is exactly the same. Both great bullets that have stood the test of time.

Both my cousins in the US have tried the Tipped GameKing in 6mm and 6.5mm, and both have not used more than the first box, which is telling. Over-penetration was the problem, and a lack of that stupefied shock that a deer exhibits when a bullet hits at 2,500+ ft/sec and comes to an abrupt stop. It’s never worked for me, the concept of a bullet passing straight through an animal with an excess of retained energy as it exits. That energy needs to be transferred to the animal. This is at the very root of why I will not switch to monolithics.

 

[User00040]

Very interesting, thank you for posting this.

 

[RCS Deer Management]

Great post, thank you

 

[User00040]

I would like to see a similar thread comparing cross sections of monolithics from both the major and minor manufacturers (Barnes's entire range, Hornady GMX, Nosler E tip, GS Custom, Fox, etc.)

As far as I see it, a shift to monolithics can only occur once:

1. Barrel twist rates are increased by the major manufacturers, or alternative fast twist variants are offered. ( copper bullets are longer and thus have a larger bearing surface)

2. Factory loaded ammunition is loaded to substantially higher velocities or longer barrel lengths are used.

3. Shot placement on deer shifts to the upper front shoulder area or the area immediately behind it (the 'armpit').

4. Manufacturers find a way to alloy copper with the goal of a denser material which expands more readily (yes, I know lead is the optimum choice).

5. If the use of ammunition comprising of copper monolithic bullets becomes law, there will need to be a price drop. (very unlikely)

From my experience, the copper bullets made by Barnes are very accurate and perform well at most UK distances (under 300m) when placed into the correct area. Copper bullets are supposedly very popular in Africa as most game in that region have vitals closer to the shoulder area and a bullet that holds together is seen to be more effective.

Some American companies are claiming that copper ammunition delivers greater hydro-static shock. The US has also adopted a copper bullet for their service round (the 'Green Bullet').

 

[Yorkie]

Outstanding posts DK. You know your stuff.

 

[bryn]

Thanks for this
bryn

 

[Lateral]

Dodgy,


Any chance of sectioning a Sierra Pro Hunter ? Really interested to compare that to the others.


Great pictures !

 

[geoshot]

Great bit of work DK, thanks for sharing

 

[xavierdoc]

A very interesting post, thanks DK.

The 6mm TGK wouldn't stabilise in my standard twist 243Win (I know you know that Sierra may have quietly changed their tune about min twist rate for this bullet) so I never tried it on game.

I was attracted to the TGK by the possibility of a one bullet does-it-all for hunting and precision rifle (up to 1Km) and ELR (1.5km and more) . Instead I'm sticking with 6.5mm 130gr TMK and 7mm 180gr ELD-M (batched). I daresay both would work well on deer.

As you know, our laws dictate what we can/can't use on deer but I have "a friend" in a location unspecified who has been impressed by the reliable expansion and humane terminal ballistics of ELD-M, TMK and A-Max on UK-sized deer.

 

[Cyres]

Thanks so much for posting this. I use the 69 g TMK in .223 out of my 1:8 and its just excellent similar perfomance as a 60 g V max as a varmit bullet. Fantastic accuracy and in good conditions accurate out to silly ranges. IE shooting 12 " gong at 600 yds is just boring.

D

 

[User00033]

@Lateral... 6mm versions, TGK on the left, ProHunter on the right.

 

[Lateral]

@Lateral... 6mm versions, TGK on the left, ProHunter on the right.

View attachment 159119

You star, I really appreciate that, but I'm surprised at the difference. I was lead to believe they were basically the same, apart from the bases, but they are massively different !

I've used 150gn PH in a 308, dropped a Red stag, circa 170kg, it did run a little, but it was a quartering shot. I use 140gn PH in my 7x57R, and the seem to work very well, on fox, to fallow.

Have you used both, and if so, and thoughts ?

Just looking at your earlier picture, I think I would be thinking of the standard GK, rather than the tipped.

 

[Edinburgh Rifles]

Excellent comparison and photos
I would be very interested if there was also a indication of any change of core hardness.

The design changes all make sense
Thicker jackets control expansion but also require a better initiator
Large meplat and deeper hollow point to allow for hydraulic opening of the jacket is one way.
The Gamking has no hollow point so is relaying on the abrasion and deformation and removal of material at the tip before the thinner jacket can peel back.

TMKs are being used very successfully on all UK game.
Ironically the results do not reflect the comparison with the ELD-M
If anything like for like comparison in two 6.5s (260/TMK and Creedmoor/ELD-M) would put the ELD-M as significantly more frangible and destructive.

In answer to the other points:

“I would like to see a similar thread comparing cross sections of monolithics from both the major and minor manufacturers (Barnes's entire range, Hornady GMX, Nosler E tip, GS Custom, Fox, etc.)
As far as I see it, a shift to monolithics can only occur once:

1. Barrel twist rates are increased by the major manufacturers, or alternative fast twist variants are offered. ( copper bullets are longer and thus have a larger bearing surface)
Not required in any cartridges with the exception of a few an Donley to comply with ridiculously prescriptive elements of The Deer Act (Scotland), this ebeing .243 100gr and 50gr in a 1.14” 22-250/.222
Both of which have already been solved but require a shorter stubbier bullet which is not sexy....

2. Factory loaded ammunition is loaded to substantially higher velocities or longer barrel lengths are used.
Also not required if the bullet is designed properly.
This notion that monolithics need to be run faster or arrive with more velocity comes from poor performance of SOME monolithics
Design changes and an influx of new brands negates that


3. Shot placement on deer shifts to the upper front shoulder area or the area immediately behind it (the 'armpit').
Not required if the bullet is matched to the target quarry, as with any bullet, performance should not limit shot placement choice.
Head and neck shots do not require frangible bullets, monolithics work extremely well

4. Manufacturers find a way to alloy copper with the goal of a denser material which expands more readily (yes, I know lead is the optimum choice).
This thought process is trying to replicate lead core design and terminal effect.
Softer materials are shed from the bullet
The whole point of using monolithics is to remove this and have a metal free carcase
These bullets work differently as a result

5. If the use of ammunition comprising of copper monolithic bullets becomes law, there will need to be a price drop. (very unlikely)
It is unlikely
Lathe turning individual bullets is expensive
But hopefully as the technology becomes more freely available and cheaper to access and amount of producers increases, the volume in use increase, the market will respond.

From my experience, the copper bullets made by Barnes are very accurate and perform well at most UK distances (under 300m) when placed into the correct area. Copper bullets are supposedly very popular in Africa as most game in that region have vitals closer to the shoulder area and a bullet that holds together is seen to be more effective.
The hunters in Africa have used monolithics for decades.
Their game is larger and thicker skinned and in the case of DG presents a greater sense of urgency to kill it!
The use of multiple bullet designs on one hunt has been negated in a lot of situations by using monolithics
Often a soft point was used to destroy vital organs in the traditional way sometimes without exit (a huge benefit when shooting into a herd)
Also followed up by a solid or much harder bullet to break bones and punch right through to create a blood trail
Monolithics create the organ damage and through their higher maintained velocity will pass through much heavier, thicker skinned game than a comparable soft point



Some American companies are claiming that copper ammunition delivers greater hydro-static shock.
It does without a doubt.
Without getting into the semantics of the term itself, the increased velocity in pass through creates a much larger and extended cavitation bubble.
Compare the Ballistic Gel videos on a soft point/BT lead and a monolithic.
The cavity is uniform until exit with the monolithic.
They work with higher velocities, slowing them down will require a design change

I would like to see a similar thread comparing cross sections of monolithics from both the major and minor manufacturers (Barnes's entire range, Hornady GMX, Nosler E tip, GS Custom, Fox, etc.)


As far as I see it, a shift to monolithics can only occur once:

1. Barrel twist rates are increased by the major manufacturers, or alternative fast twist variants are offered. ( copper bullets are longer and thus have a larger bearing surface)
Not required in any cartridges with the exception of a few an Donley to comply with ridiculously prescriptive elements of The Deer Act (Scotland), this ebeing .243 100gr and 50gr in a 1.14” 22-250/.222
Both of which have already been solved but require a shorter stubbier bullet which is not sexy....

2. Factory loaded ammunition is loaded to substantially higher velocities or longer barrel lengths are used.
Also not required if the bullet is designed properly.
This notion that monolithics need to be run faster or arrive with more velocity comes from poor performance of SOME monolithics
Design changes and an influx of new brands negates that


3. Shot placement on deer shifts to the upper front shoulder area or the area immediately behind it (the 'armpit').
Not required if the bullet is matched to the target quarry, as with any bullet, performance should not limit shot placement choice.
Head and neck shots do not require frangible bullets, monolithics work extremely well

4. Manufacturers find a way to alloy copper with the goal of a denser material which expands more readily (yes, I know lead is the optimum choice).
This thought process is trying to replicate lead core design and terminal effect.
Softer materials are shed from the bullet
The whole point of using monolithics is to remove this and have a metal free carcase
These bullets work differently as a result

5. If the use of ammunition comprising of copper monolithic bullets becomes law, there will need to be a price drop. (very unlikely)
It is unlikely
Lathe turning individual bullets is expensive
But hopefully as the technology becomes more freely available and cheaper to access and amount of producers increases, the volume in use increase, the market will respond.

From my experience, the copper bullets made by Barnes are very accurate and perform well at most UK distances (under 300m) when placed into the correct area. Copper bullets are supposedly very popular in Africa as most game in that region have vitals closer to the shoulder area and a bullet that holds together is seen to be more effective.
The hunters in Africa have used monolithics for decades.
Their game is larger and thicker skinned and in the case of DG presents a greater sense of urgency to kill it!
The use of multiple bullet designs on one hunt has been negated in a lot of situations by using monolithics
Often a soft point was used to destroy vital organs in the traditional way sometimes without exit (a huge benefit when shooting into a herd)
Also followed up by a solid or much harder bullet to break bones and punch right through to create a blood trail
Monolithics create the organ damage and through their higher maintained velocity will pass through much heavier, thicker skinned game than a comparable soft point



Some American companies are claiming that copper ammunition delivers greater hydro-static shock.
It does without a doubt.
Without getting into the semantics of the term itself, the increased velocity in pass through creates a much larger and extended cavitation bubble.
Compare the Ballistic Gel videos on a soft point/BT lead and a monolithic.
The cavity is uniform until exit with the monolithic.
They work with higher velocities, slowing them down will require a design change

 

[nun_hunter]

5. If the use of ammunition comprising of copper monolithic bullets becomes law, there will need to be a price drop. (very unlikely)

You mean like car insurance is necessary by law and so it is cheap so every one can have it? In countries where insurance isn't compulsory, basic cover is very cheap to encourage people to get it.

As soon as lead is banned every manufacturer and importer can whack up their prices knowing that there is no alternative. Possibly in time smaller companies will come in and offer cheaper options to get into the market but I doubt that. At the moment non lead alternatives have to compete with premium lead bullets so have to be priced at least as competitively as possible.

 

[User00033]

TMKs are being used very successfully on all UK game.
Ironically the results do not reflect the comparison with the ELD-M
If anything like for like comparison in two 6.5s (260/TMK and Creedmoor/ELD-M) would put the ELD-M as significantly more frangible and destructive.

Which is fascinating because in my experience (same rifle (CM), same shooter, same game, 130gr TMK vs 147gr ELD-M), I'd pick the ELD-M every time based on the almost perfect mushroom, reliable exit wound and goop for lungs. The TMK exited less, and had a tendancy to break up to the point of piercing the rumen.

Just goes to show how differently we experience these things.

EDIT
I would add that these observations are based on closer range shooting then we normally do on this property, sub-200m.

 

[monarman]

Has anyone in the uk EVER had their loaded ammunition checked as to wether it's a "match" bullet or a "hunting bullet"...???.....
Any tipped or hollow poi t bullet is designed to expand....otherwise it would be a fmj and therefore non expanding!!!....
We have a duty of care to ensure any living creature we shoot dies in a humane manner as swift as possible.... so we should use the best bullet to achieve that.... and as already pointed out in this excellent thread ... a thinner jacketed tipped "match" named bullet can do the job as good if not better than a so called hunting named bullet.....
Berger hit the nail on the head by calling a bullet a "hybrid"..... for match or hunting purposes..... any manufacturer can do the same..... hornady H-max..... match quality hunting bullet.... basically an A-max...... or Sierra TMH.... tipped match hunter..... Nosler EMH.... extreme match hunter.....
Get the picture?????...... it's all in a name!!

 

[enfieldspares]

Thanks to the OP for all his effort. I know that doing a section like that of a bullet and getting the final file strokes right isn't always easy.

I guess that a lot of the traditional designs are done much as they were when these bullet makers in the USA started up. So some of the jacket thickness might be that way as that is what worked best in the usual velocity of hunting cartridges of the time or (and maybe more truthfully) that the jacket being as it was was the least cost option available in jackets that were available! Or that could be used through the jacket making machines that then existed.

For a lot of what we do isn't dictated by what is the best for the job but what is the least expensive that actually works. The best example being that if it didn't cost so much that gold would be a better metal for lead shot in shotguns than lead. Or would it? On hardness and on density then yes...gold may be better. But on its melting point to make those shot pellets? No.