Berger bullets

[JaDub]

Don`t remember If this has been hashed over before so I thought I`d throw it out there .........    Since most of my shots seem to be pass thru at less than 400 yards,  I was wondering if I need to dump a little more energy  into  the target.  That said, I havn`t lost an animal yet nor have I lost much if any meat.  My rounds of choice in a 7mm rem mag for antelope  and elk ( great long range trajectory ) is either a Hornady SST or Speer SBT 150  with 57 grns of 4350.  I also shoot  my .308 for deer with 150grn  Hornady SSTs with 46gns 4064.  

 The name Berger keeps popping up.  They claim great fragmentation without pass thru.  Is this a good thing or would this cause too much meat destruction ?

  Marketing is a wonderful thing.  

  All opinions are welcome.  

[Jamie.270]

Don`t remember If this has been hashed over before so I thought I`d throw it out there .........    Since most of my shots seem to be pass thru at less than 400 yards,  I was wondering if I need to dump a little more energy  into  the target.  That said, I havn`t lost an animal yet nor have I lost much if any meat.  My rounds of choice in a 7mm rem mag for antelope  and elk ( great long range trajectory ) is either a Hornady SST or Speer SBT 150  with 57 grns of 4350.  I also shoot  my .308 for deer with 150grn  Hornady SSTs with 46gns 4064.  

 The name Berger keeps popping up.  They claim great fragmentation without pass thru.  Is this a good thing or would this cause too much meat destruction ?

  Marketing is a wonderful thing.  

   All opinions are welcome.  

It has been my experience that as long as it's "in the boiler room" AKA the chest cavity, fragmentation and the associated tissue destruction is a good thing.
The result is massive bleeding and certain death in a very short period of time, when internal organs get shredded.

But shoulder meat is tissue too, so if you're in need of a shot that "anchors" an animal by breaking a shoulder you won't be able to eat your way up to the hole.  



Especially if that shot is taken at close(r) range when the bullet still retains plenty of its initial velocity.


 I used to hunt with someone that carried a premium bonded bullet in the chamber in case he encountered an elk at really close range.
The balance of his magazine held cup-n-core Sierras that he claimed were prone to coming apart when they impacted with hyper-velocity at less than 100 yds.
This was in a .270 Wby.
It never made a lot of sense to me.
I always laugh when someone talks about "bullet failure" because a bullet came apart, while pictured standing over said dead animal.


I always want to ask: "At what point did the bullet 'fail' in the process of killing the animal?"

[JaDub]

I always want to ask: "At what point did the bullet 'fail' in the process of killing the animal?"

         a profound statement standing over a dead animal, yes indeed.


   I shouldn`t even be questioning my bullets since my good fortune as always been just that.  

[gitano]

That said, I havn`t lost an animal yet nor have I lost much if any meat.

Suggests "If it ain't broke, resist the temptation to fix it."

I've been 'annoyed' by reports of "failed" bullets for a very, VERY long time. I HAVE SEEN A bullet fail;  I have had A bullet fail; and I have had two "fail" not because they failed to kill the animals cleanly, but because they ruined more meat than I liked.

The only true failures of bullets I have EVER seen were of the same manufacture: Remington Core-Lokt. The first one was out of a .270 Winchester at about 150 yd. It hit a black bear in the knee. After a second shot that killed the bear, we found the jacket of the bullet under the skin of the knee. The rear of the jacket was open like a can of beans, the core was GONE, and the bone wasn't broken. There would hardly have been even a bruise. The second incident was exactly the same - core gone, jacket opened in the base like a tin can, and the jacket found under the skin adjacent to a bone with the bone unharmed. I can't remember the animal, but it was also a Remington .270 Winchester cartridge.

The two "failures" due to meat damage were both 7mm bullets and both were "operator error". Curiously, one was a light-for-caliber 115-grain HP, and one was a heavy-for-caliber 175-grain Nosler Partition. The 175 Partition was shot from a 7mm Rem Mag at a caribou coming straight at me at about 100 yd. The bullet hit him in the left shoulder, (breaking it), then went down the entire left side, BREAKING ALMOST EVERY RIB, then exited out the left rump. I probably lost 10 lb of meat. I was SERIOUSLY annoyed!

The 115 HP was shot from a 7x300 Weatherby Mag at a caribou about 250 yd off. He didn't have a clue I was there and was quartering towards me. I put the cross-hairs right on the point of the right shoulder and shot. The bullet hit precisely where I was aiming, and the small bull dropped like a wet rag. When I took him apart, I found that the bullet had hit precisely where I had aimed and pulverized the shoulder joint. There wasn't a piece of bone larger than a marble within 6 inches of the point of impact. I lost most of the meat off the front of that shoulder. Again, I was VERY annoyed!

BUT... Both of those "bullet failures" were due to the 'operator' (me) not doing his job. First, I KNOW what my rifles can do both in precision and terminal performance. I should have chosen my shots "better". In my defense, I try VERY hard not to "think" when I am preparing to shoot a big game animal. By that I mean I ALWAYS imagine the longest pathway through the animal's chest, and aim to put the bullet on that path. I don't "think" about 'meat' or 'trophy'. I FOCUS on putting the bullet EXACTLY where it will do the most damage.

By the way. The caribou that I shot with the 175-grain partition was the last animal I shot with ANY other 7mm bullet than the Speer 115-grain HP - EXCEPT the big brown bear which I again used the 175-grain Partition on. AND... after that bear hunt, I referred to the rifle as "The Sissy Gun".

So... For what it's worth, my opinion is what it has always been: Shoot what 'works' - emotionally and practically - for you.

Paul

PS - All of the above is from someone that is a "keep it inside" kind of hunter, not a "pass through" kind of hunter. Yours always pass through. If I thought my way was "the best", I would have recommended that you change. I didn't, because I don't think it matters ONE WHIT what bullet we use for hunting today. ALL of the firearms and bullets are of such high quality that THERE IS NO PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE IN TERMINAL PERFORMANCE FOR HUNTING. All the hype about "performance" is just that - HYPE! I repeat my mantra: How dead is dead?

Paul

[JaDub]

So, Paul......

         The picture looks like a staged photo after a shed hunt.....

  You SURE there`s an animal attached to them there horns ?????????  

      JaDub

[gitano]

Pretty sure.

Never seen an animal shed antlers in velvet... :)

Paul

[JaDub]

Just knew you were gonna come back with that one.  

[gitano]

That the is smallest rack of any caribou that I have ever shot. That comment is neither boast nor lament, just 'note'. I do pay attention to antler size, but not for trophy reasons. (And here's where I differ from most "meat hunters".) Much like the subject of this thread, I take exception with the common mantra of meat hunters - "You can't eat horns". Or words to that effect. While the statement is most certainly true, the FACT is, the animals with the biggest horns or antlers have the most meat on them!

(That comment is "on topic" in the context of "failed bullets".)

Most often, I simply shoot the first legal animal I see. If they are in a herd, like caribou, I shoot the biggest one. I do that BECAUSE I am 98% a "meat hunter". The last 2% is about the 'rack', but it's not about TROPHY. It's because I like "stuff". I take the skin, I take the bones, and I take everything I can 'keep', including antlers. I have a pile of antlers and bones. I have a bigger pile of tanned skins. I am usually asked, "What do you do with them?" My response is, "I don't understand the question..."

Paul

[JaDub]

Yeah, me too Paul.  I`m a meat hunter and cows have enough to keep me fed thru the year  with plenty enough to give some away a AND cow tags are much easier to come by as well.   That said, my first elk was a big six x six and that pretty much sucked all the adrenalin I could produce for  the next  6 years.  You always remember your first and it will never get any better.
   We`re  looking forward to seeing you soon.

[gitano]

For a long time while my kids were growing up we ate only fish and game. I would get 50-60 salmon from the Copper river, and my wife and I would each shoot a caribou. Sounds like a lot of "meat", but it only in a relative sense. We would be "out of meat" by the time the next caribou season rolled around.

A big bull caribou weighs about 300 on the hoof. That means if you are a GOOD  butcher, (and I am), you'll get about 50% of live weight to put in the freezer. (I rarely got more than 135 lb put up.) I don't know what idiot came up with 4 ounces as the "appropriate" serving size of "meat" for a grown man, but I usually eat from 8 to 12 ounces. When I was younger, I ate 16. 135 lbs is 2160 ounces. Assuming an average of 10 ounces of caribou per meal, that gives 216 meals of caribou, or a little less than 2 meals per 3 days. Now, divide that number by 2 for two people, and the meals-with-meat drops to LESS THAN 1 every three days. Now divide THAT number again for feeding two kids, and you have ONE MEAL OF MEAT A WEEK. Double that for two caribou per year, and you are up to two meals of caribou meat per week for four people.

Take 50 red salmon. Each produces 2 filets for a total of 100 filets. My wife and I eat one filet, and the kids eat one. That's 50 MEALS PER YEAR, or less than one per week.

Now, add 2 meals of caribou per week and 1 meal of fish per week, and you have THREE MEALS PER WEEK - LESS THAN HALF THE WEEK - of fish and game for a family of four provided by two caribou and 50 sockeye salmon. Subtract from that the meat you make into sausage and jerky, the salmon you smoke, and the meat and fish you give away, and all of a sudden, 2 caribou and 50 salmon don't look like "so much" - because they AIN'T!

I AM a MEAT hunter!

Paul

[gitano]

Y'know, the above picture is one of my faves even though the caribou is the smallest antlered (probably bodied, too) that I have ever shot. Even though the animal's body is barely visible in the photograph, the picture captures a great deal of the essence of hunting out there. The animal's body being mostly obscured by the tundra plants shows 'reality'. It's also a good picture of the rifle I use(d) and a pretty good picture of me and the clothes I wear. And the countryside is fairly well depicted as well.

Paul