243 vs 25-06

[onesonek]

*Match bullets are not recommended for hunting.

I freely admit I've never shot the 105g AMAX at game. I've also never shot the Sierra HPBT matchking or Nosler CC on game either. The folks that make bullets, shoot more, gather more data and research in gel more than I ever possibly could, have stated that match bullets are a poor choice for hunting and steer you toward their hunting bullet lines.

Why is that?

I believe there are a couple of reasons for this:

First, Geneva Convention. By declaring that the Amax is "not recommended for hunting".... they do not disqualify themselves from potentially large Military/Tactical contracts. Sierra has come out and admitted as much regarding the Match King line..... even though world renound hunters like David Miller have been using them for years on furry stuff. Berger took a different approach, and embraced the fact that their bullets were match accurate and killed stuff well. Now, they label the bullets differently, and have made a few changes to provide less chance of failures to open.

I believe the Geneva Convention don't have anything to do with "hunting bullet's" vs target/match, or not being labeled either way, rather I believe it states that the Military must use a non expanding design. This would eliminate the A-Max as well as other tipped or hollow point design's.

Second, Image. Not too many match type folks are interested in a "hunting" bullet..... even if it is exceptionally accurate.

Third, Marketing/Pricepoint. No, not marketing/pricing on the Amax itself..... but for other bullets in their line. Bullets like the Interbond and Interlock..... "hunting bullets".... that they can sell for more dough.

Any jacket design including some sort of core retention is going to cost more to produce. As for the "image " thing,,,just more rationalization to justify the issue.
Hornady put that warning, "not recommended for hunting" for a reason. And I agree it was due to their testing results,,,,,

All I can go by is experience

Me too..... and I've seen a half-dozen critters meet their maker via an Amax. That's 6 more than all the rest of the accounts on this post COMBINED. Also, I know of at least another dozen by my close group of friends..... no bullet failures..... only one didn't exit..... and it looked just like a Ballistic Tip after it made a trip through a black bear.

what saves the 105 grn is heavy for caliber bullet and reduced enough speed and it appears to act like the AccuBond on game.

I've been saying that all along..... this is a quite heavy for caliber bullet..... with impact velocities in the 2850-2000fps range. Within those performance perameters..... it doesn't take an Uber-Bullet to kill deer. In fact, I would bet that more deer are killed every year with a .243 and a standard 100 grain factory loaded Core-Loct (or Win. PSP)..... than all the ballistic tips and partitions put together. But hey.... I guess those deer don't log onto this forum.

Straight jacket design in the era of it's conception, worked if major bone wasn't hit and at the velocities back then. But once terminal velocities start to get much over 24-2500 fps, is where failure issue's became present. That is why every mfg. looked to some sort of core retention design.
As I said, you can kill with most any projectile,,,,but to do it consistantly at a wide variety of applications is the issue.
Otherwise,,,,,why don't any of the ammo mfg's., load it in hunting rounds?
As popular as the .243 is,, I know 3 guides out west,,,,,they cringe every time a .243 shows up in camp. They tell me they end up with far more tracking issue's after the hit with them. And like most all Guide Outfiitting setups, they make sure they know the shooting capabilites, and don't allow shots beyond that.

Now I wasn't going to post on this anymore,,,
But when seeing some misinformation about the Geneva Convention, I couldn't let it go.
Also on additional side note with "military contracts", yet another rationalization,,,,,
I would have thought if they were going do something in .243/6mm, it would have been by now. But then there is always a future possibility I suppose.
On the other hand, if they opt for a 6mm of sorts, I lay a bet down they have bullet made to their own spec's,,,and that won't be an A-max or any expanding bullet, due to the Geneva Convention.

 

[Songdog]

Many current military loads utilize the Match King because it complies with Geneva.... it's a hollow point.... and it expands. But, they market it as a non-hunting match bullet.... and folks believe them. Again, you have never seen a critter shot with bullet in question..... I've yet to run across anyone who actually has.... and had anything but good results. Keep speculating...... I'll keep shooting.

 

[onesonek]

They may load them in "match" rounds,,,,but don't believe it "complies" the GC for use in battle with any expanding bullet. If it changed, show me the ruling from the GC.
And again, I don't personal proof for what the majority and even the mfg. warns. No speculation there.

 

[AzDak42]

They may load them in "match" rounds,,,,but don't believe it "complies" the GC for use in battle with any expanding bullet. If it changed, show me the ruling from the GC.
And again, I don't personal proof for what the majority and even the mfg. warns. No speculation there.

Just as a point of clarification, the Geneva Convention does not bind the US the use of FMJ bullets. 1) It's not covered under the GC 2) People are usually referencing the Hague conventions of 1899 and/or 1907. We are not signatories to either, but have voluntarily complied.

The earlier convention stated:
"The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions."

The 1907 language was far less specific:
To employ arms, projectiles, or material{sic} calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;"

It's well worth the read here: http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html

In regards to US use of Matchking BTHPs:

On 12 October 1990, another Memorandum of Law from Parks at the request of the Commander of the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) and coordinated with the Department of State, Army General Counsel, as well as the Offices of the Judge Advocates General of the Navy and Air Force, concluded that:

"The purpose of the 7.62mm "open-tip" MatchKing bullet is to provide maximum accuracy at very long range. … Bullet fragmentation is not a design characteristic, however, nor a purpose for use of the MatchKing by United States Army snipers. Wounds caused by MatchKing ammunition are similar to those caused by a fully jacketed military ball bullet, which is legal under the law of war, when compared at the same ranges and under the same conditions. (The Sierra #2200 BTHP) not only meets, but exceeds, the law of war obligations of the United States for use in combat."

 

[Songdog]

Sure a lot more he said (from another site... not me):

Hmmmm.....Since I'm an Amax kinda guy:

This would be the largest "Amax" feet for me to date. 22 cal 75g Amax at 975 yards in a 15-30 mph gusting wind.

Than She said:

Any jacket design including some sort of core retention is going to cost more to produce. As for the "image " thing,,,just more rationalization to justify the issue.
Hornady put that warning, "not recommended for hunting" for a reason. And I agree it was due to their testing results,,,,,

Straight jacket design in the era of it's conception, worked if major bone wasn't hit and at the velocities back then. But once terminal velocities start to get much over 24-2500 fps, is where failure issue's became present. That is why every mfg. looked to some sort of core retention design.
As I said, you can kill with most any projectile,,,,but to do it consistantly at a wide variety of applications is the issue.

 

[Songdog]

Just in case you want to see the rest of the Amax carnage......

http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthr ... er=2116754

 

[Guy Miner]

Pretty impressive there Songdog - I've run into doubters about the Berger VLD myself, but have experienced nothing but success with them. The AMax as a hunting bullet is hard for some to accept.

Might be worth noting that Hornady loads both the VMax and AMax bullets in "TAP" ammo - "Tactical Application Police" - and that it works GREAT for that purpose. Also, as stated, I've got a buddy, another LE SWAT type guy, who uses the AMax extensively, on animals as large as elk.

Using the frangible bullet flies in the face of what many of us have learned to believe over the years - that we need a heavily constructed, deep penetrating bullet for success afield. That's not the case if all we're trying to do is get inside the rib cage to shred the heart & lungs for a quick kill.

Still, I like my Ballistic Tips and Partitions, because they do that, and still penetrate well. They've given me nothing but success, so they've earned a certain amount of loyalty.

I think that with hunting, it's more about where you hit 'em, than what you hit 'em with. With bullets, as with cartridges, there's about a zillion ways to kill game.

Regards, Guy

 

[onesonek]

They may load them in "match" rounds,,,,but don't believe it "complies" the GC for use in battle with any expanding bullet. If it changed, show me the ruling from the GC.
And again, I don't personal proof for what the majority and even the mfg. warns. No speculation there.

Just as a point of clarification, the Geneva Convention does not bind the US the use of FMJ bullets. 1) It's not covered under the GC 2) People are usually referencing the Hague conventions of 1899 and/or 1907. We are not signatories to either, but have voluntarily complied.

The earlier convention stated:
"The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions."

The 1907 language was far less specific:
To employ arms, projectiles, or material{sic} calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;"

It's well worth the read here: http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html

In regards to US use of Matchking BTHPs:

On 12 October 1990, another Memorandum of Law from Parks at the request of the Commander of the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) and coordinated with the Department of State, Army General Counsel, as well as the Offices of the Judge Advocates General of the Navy and Air Force, concluded that:

"The purpose of the 7.62mm "open-tip" MatchKing bullet is to provide maximum accuracy at very long range. … Bullet fragmentation is not a design characteristic, however, nor a purpose for use of the MatchKing by United States Army snipers. Wounds caused by MatchKing ammunition are similar to those caused by a fully jacketed military ball bullet, which is legal under the law of war, when compared at the same ranges and under the same conditions. (The Sierra #2200 BTHP) not only meets, but exceeds, the law of war obligations of the United States for use in combat."

Ok I stand corrected, please accept my apology.

 

[Songdog]

Pretty impressive there Songdog

Might be worth noting that Hornady loads both the VMax and AMax bullets in "TAP" ammo - "Tactical Application Police" - and that it works GREAT for that purpose.

Using the frangible bullet flies in the face of what many of us have learned to believe over the years

Please understand.... that is not me in the picture.... just one post of many (if you looked at the link) from another site.

I think that the TAP application is probably the biggest reason that Hornady has done a 180* on the Amax.... and gone to the *NOT RECOMENDED FOR HUNTING" label. Kind of un-PC to use a bullet capable of blowing a hole in an elk.... on a poor misunderstood violent criminal. Seriously though.... they would run into legal issues if it was advertised as a big game capable bullet.... then loaded in people oriented rounds.... the left would have a hay-day with that.

The old Hornady Manual states that Amax bullets are appropriate for light skinned game like pronghorn and deer..... now they say not to on their website. I'm thinking that turnabout is due far more to economics.... than terminal performance on game. There's a lot of money that gets thrown around in the name of "Law Enforcement"..... Hornady doesn't want to shoot themselves in the foot with a label..... even though said bullet couldn't possibly do much damage to that foot, it's a match bullet after all.

 

[onesonek]

Not your pics and or experience???? hmmmm, that seems abit odd. Wasn't I just being disparaged for using the experience of other's, for my decission making?

"I think
Now do I read that as fact, or speculation?
that the TAP application is probably the biggest reason that Hornady has done a 180* on the Amax.... and gone to the *NOT RECOMENDED FOR HUNTING" label. Kind of un-PC to use a bullet capable of blowing a hole in an elk.... on a poor misunderstood violent criminal. Seriously though.... they would run into legal issues if it was advertised as a big game capable bullet.... then loaded in people oriented rounds.... the left would have a hay-day with that."

The more likely speculation is,,,
due to it's sufficient resistance to deflection and SD., it will penetrate glass well enough to stay on track, yet a frangible bullet that will not exit the intended target, risking collateral damage beyond. Now that speculation comes from knowledge that the last avgerage distance I seen reports on is about 80-85 yds. for tactical police shooters.

 

[Songdog]

This experience..... mirrors my own. We're both speculating a bit on reasons and marketing..... but I'm not speculating on performance.... I've seen it in the field, I've recovered the bullets and the game.... and know guys who've done it too.

I'd also like to hear your personal examples of bullet failure.... since you seem to be so schooled in it.... and I've never experienced one on a big game animal. I have had a few Amaxes explode on contact.... but that was out of a Swift (52 @ 4K+). I simply posted a few pictures and a link to several more..... you do the math.

 

[onesonek]

I seen one failure in my own eperience. Well that was loaded by me, an older 150 gr BT loaded in a .308, that my son used at pistol velocities.
Personally, I haven't had any failures, as over years NPT's have been in 99.5% of my hunting loads.
I just go by the majority of what not to try, should I think on another bullet.
But i am more than happy with the PT's and their almost boring reliability.
You wouldn't be happy with my math either.

 

[onesonek]

I'll take that back, I can't remember who's mfgr. they were, but way back, before I settled on PT's, I had some 165 gr. out of .30-06 that didn't exit a broadside on a whitetail at 160-170 yds.. To me that was a failure. Dead deer, but an aweful lot of bloodshot meat in the process.

 

[SJB358]

I will tell you the 175 Sierra loaded in the 7.62's don't expand very well as speed goes down. They will tumble and do very odd things. Seen gut shot folks with an exit in the collar area. Not saying this is the case for Amax's, but the Sierra's will do very weird things and expansion isn't great. I shoot the 77gr HPBT as my service round in my HK, it is also a huge tumbler, very effective on folks, but I am not sold on it for hunting. Personal reason's.

 

[Songdog]

The more likely speculation is,,,
due to it's sufficient resistance to deflection and SD., it will penetrate glass well enough to stay on track, yet a frangible bullet that will not exit the intended target, risking collateral damage beyond. Now that speculation comes from knowledge that the last avgerage distance I seen reports on is about 80-85 yds. for tactical police shooters.

So..... let me get this straight? You're saying, in a situation that deems high power precision rifle fire appropriate.... you trust this bullet to deliver the accuracy necessary to handle the task, you trust the bullet to not only penetrate but track straight through plate glass, and create sufficient wounding to shut down the bad guy before stuff goes even more wrong.... at close to muzzle velocity?

YET..... you won't trust this bullet to penetrate the scapula and ribs, then blow up the hydraulic and aspiration systems of a 200lb critter at normal hunting ranges?

That's freaking Classic!

 

[Gm weatherby man]

Here is what i know, most police snippers are trained on the effects window glass on bullet deflection and bullet performance. I also know than a single pain of glass does not deform bullet enough to effect a bullet on human target at close distance from that glass.i have seen bullets from 243 to 338 pass through 1/2" steel at 100 yards, not massive hole, but large for caliber, reason is the mass and thinkness was insuficent to stop bullet or tear it apart before getting through the steel.I personally dug up 100's or so light for caliber lead bullets that hit my dirt sand target bullet stop in 6 to 8 " are all but destroyed as far as bullet mass is concerned.I one time shot a porcupine through a 9" plus popular tree, just because i wanted to see if hiding behind it was such a great idea for him or not, it wasn't; it was a explosion of quills and fur.i have done things with 22 LR that most would not believe,one old lady in the early 1950's is credeted with killing a 9'plus grizzly with a 22lr in my parts, look it up.I how ever would not recommed using a 22 lr to hunt with, nor a 243, 25-06 or any other gun with a poor bullet.Has it been done, yes, has it resulted in lost animals, probably just as many. :roll:Has Hornaby had political reasons to sugest their bullt other wise, no. Barnes bullets has designed a highly frametal bullet called their mpg for the US goverment, but not call it a big game bullet either. :shock:

 

[onesonek]

The more likely speculation is,,,
due to it's sufficient resistance to deflection and SD., it will penetrate glass well enough to stay on track, yet a frangible bullet that will not exit the intended target, risking collateral damage beyond. Now that speculation comes from knowledge that the last avgerage distance I seen reports on is about 80-85 yds. for tactical police shooters.

So..... let me get this straight? You're saying, in a situation that deems high power precision rifle fire appropriate.... you trust this bullet to deliver the accuracy necessary to handle the task, you trust the bullet to not only penetrate but track straight through plate glass, and create sufficient wounding to shut down the bad guy before stuff goes even more wrong.... at close to muzzle velocity?

YET..... you won't trust this bullet to penetrate the scapula and ribs, then blow up the hydraulic and aspiration systems of a 200lb critter at normal hunting ranges?

That's freaking Classic!

No, I didn't deem that at all. That was speculation.. Now whether it would be used through glass, I'm not sure. May they would, and maybe they wouldn't. To me, it would seem that would be a possibility in some senario's. However, it wouldn't be my personal choice for such. Personally, I think thier labeling of that ammo, is nothing more than another sales gimmick, for the long range wanabe's.

But the whole point I was trying to make, it is a rather lightly constructed bullet. Generally speaking, such at closer ranges (when the situation arises), is overly destructive with the greater possibilities of creating more blood shot meat, and or possibily a wounded animal.
Also, if placement is a bit off or the situation deems shooting through the shoulder directly, penetration is questionable. This is something I have been told one does not want to do with it.

But you go ahead and do as you will, hoping all present the perfect broadside senario.
I will continue to use the PT, ensuring I'm good with any possibility should it be required.

 

[AzDak42]

Ok I stand corrected, please accept my apology.

None needed. I'm just a history nerd.

 

[257 Ackley]

I will tell you the 175 Sierra loaded in the 7.62's don't expand very well as speed goes down. They will tumble and do very odd things. Seen gut shot folks with an exit in the collar area. Not saying this is the case for Amax's, but the Sierra's will do very weird things and expansion isn't great. I shoot the 77gr HPBT as my service round in my HK, it is also a huge tumbler, very effective on folks, but I am not sold on it for hunting. Personal reason's.

What I was told back in the day was that this actually tied up more resources caring for the wounded soldier rather than one that was already dead from a bullet that reacted as expected. You are the professional that can give us the low-down on how much truth there is to that.

My feeling on bullet selection comes down to the application...varmint hunting (not saving pelt), use a fragable bullet with high BC; big game hunting (food for the table), well constructed bullet that gives me a good chance for a hole in and a hole out. I do not use Nosler bullets for any of the target/match shooting I am doing because they don't make high enough BC bullets to give the results in the calibers I shoot. If a big game hunt is planned, they are first or second on the list every time.

Now, what the heck has 6 pages of back and forth decided for Fotis with his caliber selection?! :mrgreen:

 

[Songdog]

But you go ahead and do as you will, hoping all present the perfect broadside senario.
I will continue to use the PT, ensuring I'm good with any possibility should it be required.

This attitude leads to far more wounded and un-recovered game...... than bullet selection does. If you think you can start a bullet in a bad place..... and drive it into a good one..... then you're into taking shots that I'm not. If I have to start a bullet in the paunch or hip.... to make it through both lungs (hard quartering away), then that ain't a shot I'm taking regardless of caliber.

I don't take a shot with a rifle..... that I wouldn't take with a bow (though I will admit to taking the necessary "high shoulder shot" with a rifle). Meaning: if I don't have a good look at both lungs.... then I'm not hitting the switch. I hunt out west, mostly.... and nearly all the game I've shot, I've had a good look at before pulling the trigger. I've waited over an hour to take a shot several times.... my style of hunting affords me this opportunity. You may be 'sound shooting' at deer you can't even see for all I know.... understandably, your requirements in bullets would be different than mine. I'm not telling you what bullet to shoot, why do you care what pill I smoke? Though I'd rather load-up a goat turd and send it.... than a Partition.

I still think it's hillarious, that I posted a link to 30+ big game critters getting shot with the Amax. Most of which got pole-axed... and most of the bullets exited... by the way. I also stated my own personal experience on half-dozen more. YET.... no one here could state, or even find, a specific example of an Amax failure on game.

And I'm the one who's speculating?