I'd pay the price if they worked better. My options of having to use full bore bullets is limited. Especially, with my latest gun that has a tight bore.

I'm always surprised to see guys use Pb's in states that allow sabots. Just use PT Gold for half the price, and way better terminal performance. a PB might work great, or it might fail. Why take the chance? The money you save on the PT Gold bullets will pay for the extra expense of BH 209.

I assume you mean for elk?

I have more faith in this bullet if you have to use a full bore bullet.

http://www.hornady.com/store/50-Cal-350-gr-FPB/

I'm one of the ones who don't like PB's all that much, but you liked them.

What i'm trying to get at is.......was there a little doubt in the back of your mind telling you to try a better bullet?

Personally, I find it hard to believe that all the stories about PB failures are shooters fault. There's just too many stories, and some for experienced hunters.

The last thing i'll say is about your kills. I'd rather not have a bullet I use pancake like that. It obviously didn't pass through, because you have the bullet to show. Less expansion probably would have. It's not a huge deer. Would you use the same bullet on a big muley buck? How about an elk? A pass through isn't always necessary, but it sure help with tracking if the animal runs. I'm sure your Parker bullet would have blown through those deer.

Anyway, it's these things that put doubt in my mind about PB's. They might work perfect for years, but that one time they don't is what hunters thing about. I never heard about a Barnes failing. That's what I look for.

Your examples aren't everybody's examples. Animals do run when hit with killing shots. Hunters usually need blood trails to track. A pass through helps that.

The PB doesn't dump all it's energy in the animal. Sometimes it over expands, or fragments, and doesn't penetrate. That isn't dumping it's energy. That's failing.