Bullet failure

[Double Naught Spy]

Design intent has everything to do with it.

No, only actual performance counts, not what some engineer or inventor had in mind when he started to develop the product, while interesting, has no bearing on the actual performance. Design intent is not a performance parameter, only thoughts, concepts, or words, which are not a part of the end product.

Design intent is what the design is supposed to be/do, it is a goal to be attained, but just because somebody designed it doesn't mean it will work as designed. Some intended designs are very good. Some suck. So no, design intent really has nothing to do with it, ASSUMING you actually knew the stipulated design intent by the person designing the bullet. That rarely makes it to the public. People generally ASSUME how a product is marketed (what is written on the box) IS the design intent and that just isn't always the case. Often what is written on the box is what is determined after-the-fact.

 

[CraigC]

And reading comprehension is a lost art. Design intent is absolutely a performance parameter. We are literally talking about using bullets for purposes other than intended. But you go on arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[wombat13]

No, only actual performance counts, not what some engineer or inventor had in mind when he started to develop the product, while interesting, has no bearing on the actual performance. Design intent is not a performance parameter, only thoughts, concepts, or words, which are not a part of the end product.

Design intent is what the design is supposed to be/do, it is a goal to be attained, but just because somebody designed it doesn't mean it will work as designed. Some intended designs are very good. Some suck. So no, design intent really has nothing to do with it, ASSUMING you actually knew the stipulated design intent by the person designing the bullet. That rarely makes it to the public. People generally ASSUME how a product is marketed (what is written on the box) IS the design intent and that just isn't always the case. Often what is written on the box is what is determined after-the-fact.

Yeah fine, but when you choose to use a bullet designed and marketed for varmints on deer, don’t whine when it doesn’t perform like bullets designed and marketed for deer.

 

[tdbmd]

I have long been a ballistic tip kinda hunter. Usually in .270 but have also use 30-30, .223, .243, 7-30, and the rimfire TNT 22mag and 17hmr. The ballistic tip always does its thing, massive fragmentation and huge wound cavity but not a ton of penetration. I understand the bullet type and what it’s supposed to do. Much like a super-speed hollowpoint (it is, just has a plastic tip in the void) it basically blows up on impact.

Tonight I shot a big doe. I’m not sure what happened here.

6.8spc hornady factory 110gr v-max ammo. Here’s the spec sheet from the hornady website.
View attachment 1180879

22” heavy AR that’s coke can accurate to 600 yards with hand loads and the vmax performs identical out to about 300 before it starts opening up. At 100 yards or less this gun is just a laser beam death ray.

So… the shot. 8 does and a good enough buck came over the rise. I hadn’t verified that the gun was fully in battery and I missed my shot on the buck fiddling with the gun when it wouldn’t shoot. Out of battery and a slap on the forward assist actually worked. The deer all went into the woods but the does came back out a few minutes later, the buck never came back. Big doe was standing in the low spot with good backstop and close range. Perfect broadside and she was looking away. High shoulder shot found its mark and she just dropped in her tracks. Sack of taters hitting the ground kinda drop. But she kept kicking around and after a minute or two she seemed to be coming back to life right to the point where she was trying to stand up so I closed to 20 yards and put a round through the bottom of the rib cage angled up towards the base of her neck. Quite the shot on that one, it took out heart and 1 lung, and she was down for the count in a matter of seconds.

I’m totally ok with shot 2. It blew up but it did so how a ballistic tip does. It hit rib and there was shards of bone in heart, lungs, and likely everything else in the chest. The first shot has me stumped though. Wide open shot so no debris along the way. Placement was good. I made the shot I intended to make. The bullet seemed to just drill a hole straight through. I have never seen a ballistic tip do that.

What went wrong? From the way she just fell I’m assuming I got what I have heard referred to as spinal shock, but why didn’t the bullet do its thing?

Hornady lists the V-max as a varmint bullet.

 

[35 Whelen]

No, only actual performance counts, not what some engineer or inventor had in mind when he started to develop the product, while interesting, has no bearing on the actual performance. Design intent is not a performance parameter, only thoughts, concepts, or words, which are not a part of the end product.

Design intent is what the design is supposed to be/do, it is a goal to be attained, but just because somebody designed it doesn't mean it will work as designed. Some intended designs are very good. Some suck. So no, design intent really has nothing to do with it, ASSUMING you actually knew the stipulated design intent by the person designing the bullet. That rarely makes it to the public. People generally ASSUME how a product is marketed (what is written on the box) IS the design intent and that just isn't always the case. Often what is written on the box is what is determined after-the-fact.

So when John Nosler designed his partition bullet, his vision of how it would perform, wasn't relevant to how it actually performed? When Randy Brooks designed the X bullet, his vision and development had no bearing on the bullets performance?

35W

 

[BreechFace]

I’ve never understood using thin jacketed varmint bullets at terminal speeds that maintain their designed performance as a varmint bullet on big game. And I never will.

Can it be done, sure. Am I surprised when it doesn’t, no.

I think a lot of people start out buying varmint cartridges for their guns because they are typically cheap and are accurate. It’s A LOT easier for projectile manufacturers to get a thin jacket symmetrical when they are not worried about varied thickness (on a thicker jacket), partitions being centered, locking bands done right. All of those design features for good performance on game whether it being hitting bone or hide provides room for projectiles to not fly as true as centers of gravity from non-uniform jackets, off center partitions, etc can cause. The process for a thin-jacketed varmint or match bullet is much easier to get right when it comes to uniformity which leads to stability in flight as it is spinning; but at a cost of being not suitable for reliable big game hunting.

Give me a controlled expansion bullet, mono, or cup and core for big game. Too much room for error in varmint bullets or bullets that shed their jacket upon impact, just doesn’t make sense to me for the use.

It’s why I don’t even trust SST’s on larger deer and game animals above which are considered by Hornady to be a big game hunting bullet; they still have a tendency to blow up and lack penetration when a shot isn’t ideal.

 

[BreechFace]

With what I said above, it does appear if @WestKentucky is reading the damage right that the VMax did fail as there was no expansion, which is very odd for those as they are very ‘splody.

 

[CraigC]

So when John Nosler designed his partition bullet, his vision of how it would perform, wasn't relevant to how it actually performed? When Randy Brooks designed the X bullet, his vision and development had no bearing on the bullets performance?

35W

Apparently it just came to them in a vision, like the flux capacitor and they just went from there.

 

[horsey300]

Hornady lists the V-max as a varmint bullet.

I’ve never understood using thin jacketed varmint bullets at terminal speeds that maintain their designed performance as a varmint bullet on big game. And I never will.

Can it be done, sure. Am I surprised when it doesn’t, no.

I think a lot of people start out buying varmint cartridges for their guns because they are typically cheap and are accurate. It’s A LOT easier for projectile manufacturers to get a thin jacket symmetrical when they are not worried about varied thickness (on a thicker jacket), partitions being centered, locking bands done right. All of those design features for good performance on game whether it being hitting bone or hide provides room for projectiles to not fly as true as centers of gravity from non-uniform jackets, off center partitions, etc can cause. The process for a thin-jacketed varmint or match bullet is much easier to get right when it comes to uniformity which leads to stability in flight as it is spinning; but at a cost of being not suitable for reliable big game hunting.

Give me a controlled expansion bullet, mono, or cup and core for big game. Too much room for error in varmint bullets or bullets that shed their jacket upon impact, just doesn’t make sense to me for the use.

It’s why I don’t even trust SST’s on larger deer and game animals above which are considered by Hornady to be a big game hunting bullet; they still have a tendency to blow up and lack penetration when a shot isn’t ideal.

Apparently, things have been missed along the way, this was NOT a case of "splodey lil bullet sploded too much, never reached the vitals," rather, this was a case where "splodey lil bullet never sploded, just poked on through like a fmj".
Just in case the rest of the class needs a minute to catch up:
The vmax did NOT over-expand and under penetrate, it just penciled through, thus people are saying "failure" because vmax are known precisely for their expansion.

 

[tdbmd]

In any case, didn't perform as expected....

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Yeah fine, but when you choose to use a bullet designed and marketed for varmints on deer, don’t whine when it doesn’t perform like bullets designed and marketed for deer.

I don't really give a squat what a bullet is designed for or marketed for, or maybe I haven't made that clear yet? All I care about is its actual performance in critters. That is the basis for me not caring about what is claimed by manufacturers. I have plenty of experience with bullets performing different than what is claimed to be their primary use or performance standards including hunting bullets (purported designed and marketed as such), target bullets, fmj, varmint bullets, larger game bullets, etc. Granted, this is almost exclusively in just one caliber, 6.5 Grendel, but after testing literally dozens of different bullets over the years doing hundreds of necropsies, primarily in hogs, I have learned not to trust the box or manufacturer claims.

The most interesting results are those where I get unexpected good results for my needs. For example, Berger claimed their 130 gr. VLD-hunting round was supposed to open up after reaching the videos, dump its energy, cause hydrostatic shock and drop the animal in place. I had plenty of bullets opening just under the skin (and not 2-3" inside as claimed), coming apart nicely, doing tremendous tissue damage, and blasting out of the other side of the hog, even large hogs. This is supposed to be a good round for meat hunters because the damage was supposed to be inside the chest cavity where the organs are. As that didn't happen as they suggest, I found it to just be nastily destructive to meat and organs virtually throughout the wound channel to where the bullet exited the body.

So no whining on my part about the bullet's performance not matching what is claimed, but I do emphatically not the performance I get from bullets and whether or not it conforms to claims because other users of the caliber would like to make better informed decisions about what bullets to use, could be used, and maybe those that should be avoided.

So when John Nosler designed his partition bullet, his vision of how it would perform, wasn't relevant to how it actually performed? When Randy Brooks designed the X bullet, his vision and development had no bearing on the bullets performance?

35W

Let me help you out, again. Design intent is nothing but a plan. If the designer is intent on designing a good bullet and s/he determines it is a bad bullet, how can that be possible if that wasn't the designer's intent, which is "everything" as craig claimed. Well, the one thing design intent is not, is actual bullet performance. The word "intent" means that it is what you want to do/accomplish. There is no absolute that intent equates with reality. Of course, that is sometimes where marketing comes into play and the writing the box, LOL.

You think John Nosler brought to market every bullet he ever designed? EVERY failure of them had some good "design intent" but didn't work. Design intent is NOT a performance parameter. If is was the case and and deterministic as claimed, then no manufacturer would much need for extensive R&D folks, right? Design intent would determine everything. They wouldn't even need to do field tests, because as craig said, design intent is everything. Put another way, the intent of the designer is only ethereal. The bullet does not care what the designer intended.

When a manufacturer designs a bullet that that would like to expand above 1600 fps but doesn't until after 1650 and then works really well and so they decide to sell it, and just like that they are selling a bullet that didn't meet their design intent, but they market it at 1650 and up and life is good.

Apparently it just came to them in a vision, like the flux capacitor and they just went from there.

Right, because design intent is everything.

 

[buck460XVR]

No, only actual performance counts, not what some engineer or inventor had in mind when he started to develop the product, while interesting, has no bearing on the actual performance. Design intent is not a performance parameter, only thoughts, concepts, or words, which are not a part of the end product.

Design intent is absolutely a performance parameter. We are literally talking about using bullets for purposes other than intended. But you go on arguing for the sake of arguing.

FME, many times when folks get into long discussions on forums, it has to more with trying to prove a point than just arguing for the sake of arguing. Sometimes we take a thread or a certain post personally and we get irritated that others don;t see it our way. Comes down to respecting the opinion of others. Sometimes the keyboard and the distance between computer screens makes for a mistaking of the thoughts of others. I dunno if any of this applies here, just putting it out there. I understand where DNS is coming from, but with all due respect, I think he is missing the point that others are trying to make. It's not that things(bullets in this scenario) cannot be used for options outside their intended design, but that the designations and suggestions by manufacturers of said bullets, are determined by design and by testing, for the purpose they are marketed at. I know I have posted this before, but Hornady has for years given a chart for the best velocities for preferred terminal performance for their XTP handgun bullets. does not mean folks don;t use them outside those parameters, just that those are the parameters they are designed for and marketed at. Comes down to, if you want to carry a handgun for SD against DG, would you start with a bullet designed for two legged preadators, or one designed for the termnal performance needed for said DG? IMHO, this is a prime example of design intent relateing to performance. Sure, folks have killed grizzly Bears with .22 HPs. But is it what one would really want, if they had a choice.

The OP was not happy with bullet performance. As I said before, IMHO, the bullet did not fail bercause the deer went down and was retrieved without having to follow a bloodtrail. Should it be the bullet of choice for his net excuraion into the deer woods? That's up to him. Wouldn't be for me.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The OP was not happy with bullet performance. As I said before, IMHO, the bullet did not fail bercause the deer went down and was retrieved without having to follow a bloodtrail.

Well, and this gets into different types of "failures." You have the failure to kill properly (not in the case of the OP) and you have the failure of the bullet to do what it is supposed to do itself, which in the case of the OP, the bullet was supposed to come apart violently inside of the animal. The OP found no evidence of this. The kill was successful despite the bullet failing to come apart. Of course, that is why you could hunt with FMJ and kill things. Penetrative wounds are harmful to animals and if the wound is in the right place, even lethal. Lethality tends to go up with penetration and with expansion (either by petal expansion, mushrooming of softpoints, or expansion by fragmentation. Penetration is a two edged sword as a bullet like a FMJ can penetrate through and through without hitting a whole lot in some cases and a lot of the potential is lost down range, especially with broadside shots, and bullets that don't expand are more prone to zip through without making a good, clean kill (defined however anyone wants based on their own ethical compass) but expansion is nothing without sufficient penetration and an expanded bullet that penetrates all the way through is apt to do more damage than one that doesn't expand and goes all the way through....part of the reason why so many states require expanding ammo of some form or other.

 

[wombat13]

I’m not going to quote a wall of text that basically says “I like to argue for argument’s sake,”

Let’s try a couple of analogies. Let’s say you have a picture to hang that weighs 5lbs. You have “3M” adhesive hooks marketed for up to 4lbs. If you hang your 5lb picture on a 4lb hook do you go on forums complaining when it crashes to the ground? Oh and by the way, you’re complaining about 3M hooks and it wasn’t actually 3M, it was some other brand. Does that seem reasonable?

How about you find a recipe online (maybe Foodnetwork or allrecipes), you change a few of the ingredients and then complain that it’s no good. Does that seem reasonable?

Sure, do whatever makes you happy, but don’t bitch about a manufacturer if their bullet fails to perform how you dreamed it would in contrast to how they told you it would perform.

 

[35 Whelen]

dump its energy

Ahh....the quintessential statement that says "I don't really know what I'm talking about".

35W

 

[Hugger-4641]

Deer are also not robots. Even hitting "the boiler room" is still not a guarantee. A couple years ago, I blew out half the right lung, heart, and rib cage of a doe with a 300wm. There was a pile of innards and bone fragments on the ground where she was hit. When I found her, the entire right side of her chest cavity was empty. She should not have moved another inch, but she ran 75+ yards to the bottom of a ravine. I have no idea how much that bullet expanded, but it didn't matter. That deer was gonna run that distance no matter what. Examples like this have changed my perspective a little in recent years. I've proven to myself that, with the right shot placement, I can kill a deer with just about any cartridge from 22lr up.
I've also proven to myself that some cartridges and
and bullets have a larger margin of error, and/or a higher % of success.

Would I use a 110gr V-max on deer? If that's all I had, you bet I would. But I think for 6.8spc on deer, I would probably go with the 120sst or the 100gmx first. Just my 2c here and not criticizing anyone's choices. We all have to learn our own lessons just as I have and still do.

 

[Anchorite]

Deer are also not robots. Even hitting "the boiler room" is still not a guarantee. A couple years ago, I blew out half the right lung, heart, and rib cage of a doe with a 300wm. There was a pile of innards and bone fragments on the ground where she was hit. When I found her, the entire right side of her chest cavity was empty. She should not have moved another inch, but she ran 75+ yards to the bottom of a ravine. I have no idea how much that bullet expanded, but it didn't matter. That deer was gonna run that distance no matter what. Examples like this have changed my perspective a little in recent years. I've proven to myself that, with the right shot placement, I can kill a deer with just about any cartridge from 22lr up.
I've also proven to myself that some cartridges and
and bullets have a larger margin of error, and/or a higher % of success.

Would I use a 110gr V-max on deer? If that's all I had, you bet I would. But I think for 6.8spc on deer, I would probably go with the 120sst or the 100gmx first. Just my 2c here and not criticizing anyone's choices. We all have to learn our own lessons just as I have and still do.

Curious. How, now has your perspective changed?

Your experience above seems like the blend of both philosophies when it comes to hunting WT deer: you had both complete penetration *and* massive internal damage with system disruption and blood loss for trailing. I know the deer didn’t drop at the shot like we think it should have given your shot and corresponding damage, and maybe that’s what changed “it” for you…?

 

[Hugger-4641]

Curious. How, now has your perspective changed?

Your experience above seems like the blend of both philosophies when it comes to hunting WT deer: you had both complete penetration *and* massive internal damage with disruption and blood loss for trailing- those being the two schools of thought when it comes to deer hunting in North America.

Yes, you are correct, I had both penetration and massive damage and that deer still wasn't DRT. It should have been ! The blood trail was easy to follow but actually had slowed to a drip. There wasn't much blood on ground where she died, there was a ton at the impact site. It was really thick under growth she was in and if she had gone another 50yds, she'd have been in a swamp and I might not have found her.

To your question: "How has my perspective changed?"

Well the 1st answer is I've realized that no matter how good you are, Murphy and bad luck can still win. It's been a long time since I've lost a wounded animal, but it has happened and could happen tomorrow. That doe was almost proof of that.

Secondly but most importantly, I no longer feel a need to prove anything. I'm more interested in trying for 100% success in dispatching the animal quickly and leaving a good blood trail for insurance incase I do have to track it. For the first couple decades of my hunting life, I hunted almost exclusively with my trusty old model '94ae 30-30. I took 4 or 5 deer a year with it every year, sometimes double that. I still hunt with it, but now usually only one deer a year or so with it and the rest taken with various other calibers. I used to scoff at friends who used 300wm and 7mm mag because I killed as many or more deer with a 30-30 as they did. I guess I kinda felt like anything more than 30-30 or 30-06 was overkill. Maybe for me at that time, it was true, but I've come to recognize the benefits some cartridges have over others in some conditions. I started hunting with 300wm about 10- 15yrs ago and I will have to say that the doe I mentioned in previous post is an anomaly. All other deer I've hit with 300wm didn’t go more than a few yards. So, I no longer scoff at anyone who uses one. Use a .375 HH if you want, I won't judge.

I also went thru a stage where I just had to see if .223 or 22-250, or even 22lr could kill a deer. They will, with good shot placement, but asside from a head shot, more often than not, you're probably gonna track it for a bit.
Same thing with bullet types. Yeah, I can kill a deer with any type of bullet, but some are more forgiving. Some are better at short range, some are better at longer ranges. Some bullets like Partitions, Eldx, etc. are maybe not the absolute best at either range, but are designed to work well at both. Hence my comment to OP that the V-max wouldn't be my first choice for deer as there are better options. I do agree with him that it should have expanded, but I defer back to Murphy on that.
It could have just been a fluke defective bullet, but it would probably be enough to make me stop using them for deer. I quit using Core-lokt bullets years ago for that same reason.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I had both penetration and massive damage and that deer still wasn't DRT.

I understand the sentiment, but consider the terminal ballistics and the biology. What makes a deer DRT? That is going to be a shot that shuts down the brain or upper CNS due to direct or indirect damage. Massive damage may not cause the instant death you were expecting. Blowing a massive hole through the animal may cause hydrostatic shock damage to the brain, brain stem, or upper spine and accomplish your goal. I know hydrostatic shock is a common killer in deer, but it isn't predictable as a killer in deer. However, that didn't happen and so you simply had a mortally wounded deer that ran. It may run as long as it is physically able. That is usually until there isn't enough oxygen being delivered to the brain for balance and/or consciousness and it collapses. If you didn't shut it down locomotively or cerebrally, it can and often will run, even with massive damage. You created a Shrodinger deer, both dead and not dead all at the same time, but only briefly, maybe only a few seconds to a few minutes.

 

[Hugger-4641]

I understand the sentiment, but consider the terminal ballistics and the biology. What makes a deer DRT? That is going to be a shot that shuts down the brain or upper CNS due to direct or indirect damage. Massive damage may not cause the instant death you were expecting. Blowing a massive hole through the animal may cause hydrostatic shock damage to the brain, brain stem, or upper spine and accomplish your goal. I know hydrostatic shock is a common killer in deer, but it isn't predictable as a killer in deer. However, that didn't happen and so you simply had a mortally wounded deer that ran. It may run as long as it is physically able. That is usually until there isn't enough oxygen being delivered to the brain for balance and/or consciousness and it collapses. If you didn't shut it down locomotively or cerebrally, it can and often will run, even with massive damage. You created a Shrodinger deer, both dead and not dead all at the same time, but only briefly, maybe only a few seconds to a few minutes.

I don't entirely agree about hydrostatic shock since I have made broadside heart shots from a lot further away with my 30-30 that dropped them DRT. As a matter of fact, the little cull buck I took a week ago with my .270 dropped dead right where I hit him with a double lung shot. If that 300wm from basically point blank didn't create enough hydrostatic shock to stun her, then nothing will. I do think you are correct that it depends as much on the animal and how far they can run with the oxygen left in thier brain.