ORIGINAL: The Rifleman
JMO
But an educated person a long time ago set me down and told me that Ballistic Tip Bullets are not intended for hunting.
Their main design was to be used for target practice only.
Most educated people would agree with me on this one.
The lead on the tip of the bullet, usually burns off while it travels through the air after it leaves the barrel.
Now the lead inside of the bullet is what is the greater part of the mass which makes up the main part of the weight of the bullet. The construction of the bullet - determines how much lead it can hold.
By knowing that, it would be determined that a bullet of the proper construction - made for the harvest of big game would be proportionally better than a bullet designed for target practice.
We did tests on Sierra boat tails in 150 / 165 / 180 gr in 30 caliber / .308 and found that they were poor compared to a 150 gr Hornady PSP bullet.
The weight retention of the boat tail bullet was not consistent compared to a spire point bullet - because the spire point bullet held the lead better and retained more of it's weight. Where as a lot of the Boat tail bullets fell apart when it struck a hard object - such as bone / trees / twigs etc...
Ballistic Tip Bullets should NOT be used for hunting purposes.
That part at the begining.. the JMO... I agree with that part. But the rest.... well.... not so much.
If the tip of bullet, the plastic polymer, acctually melts away... totally away... then wouldn't the heat that could cause such a thing be enough to completely melt the lead core of the bullet. What sort of heat does it take to melt lead... 350 degrees... if that. At what temperature does plastic acctually melt and become molten? Isn't something around 900? Like... phosphorus temperatures? We are talking bullets, not shaped charges here.... and when it comes to penetration... a shaped charge tends to trump a bullet.... don't you think?
Me and stubble have had our respective opinions on ballistic tips in the past. And I still hold that the early models were little more than oversized varmint bullets... and guess what... they blew up on impact. Modern manufacturing has reinforced and tapered the jackets of bullets, causing controlled expansion, even at the high speeds produced by modern flat shooting, light bullets. Enter the bonded bullet... even more controlled expansion, designed to have the benefits of a high ballistic coefficent, with the accuracy of a ballistic tip and the expansion of one as well. All while retaining 70% of its mass and penetrating better than its un-bonded predacessor. All three, the thin jacketed varmint, modern ballistic tip, and the newer accu-bond/scirocco ballistic tips have their place. And that place is in the woods.
I don't know what sort of tests you ran rifleman, but I would like to see the data... and I'd really like to see how it stacks up to the other companies that test ballistic tip bullets... like oh say, Nosler, Swift, Hornady and now Barnes just to name a few.