Originally Posted by
Muley Hunter
I think you guys miss what i'm talking about. The Barnes doesn't flatten out like the DC. It's petals are exposed more. They are razor sharp. With the bullet spinning they cut going through the flesh. The rear of the bullet stays intact to penetrate all the way through.
So, you have spinning razor blades that drive through the animal to destroy flesh and exit leaving a huge blood trail.
A bullet that squashes down into a blob can't do that kind of damage.
If you look at the recovered bullet that Ron shows - there really is not much difference in the size of the expansion and it cut equally well. My expanded bullets were shot in non-relalistic medium... it was ment to destroy and or separate them they didn't and even retained a good deal of their weight...
An added benefit is no lead in an animal i'm going to eat.
Pretty tough to discuss anything on that point... and now you know why the do-gooders are trying to get rid of all lead in bullets.... but past history really does not show a lead poisining problem from game harvest.
A little extra cost is well worth it.
Agreed... that is why I now use the Lehigh only becuase it adds extra insurance to a quick humane shot in a marginal condition.
i'm happy that the Thors work for me. Terry is a nice guy and has bent over backwards to help me get a bullet to work in my gun. He's a small operation and I like supporting him.
Great! that is what really counts...
Plus I can shoot the ML season here in Colorado if I want with the Thor. I know the Thors are expensive, but I believe in them and will continue to push them. Hunting bullet expense shouldn't be an issue if they're just used for hunting. With some imagination a plinking bullet can be used with your hunting bullet with minimum change to the gun.
Very good points and I totally agree, I choose to do the same thing you are suggesting here but in my case I use a Lehigh sabotless in my MK-85 and somebody else will choose something completely different - nothing wrong with that...