First off, I've really enjoyed this thread, but we could continue this discussion forever..there are no perfect bullets in my opinion, there are some that are better, but no where near perfect. Impact velocity plays a huge role in what bullets do just as what they impact. A bullet will almost certainly act differently at 100 yards than it will at point blank range. Plus, a huge factor in this is....90 - 95 percent of most handgun hunters are probably shooting deer and boar, with a few bears thrown in for fun..the guys and girls out west are shooting elk and pronghorn..point being, the majority of all the bullets we have discussed will work wonderfully on these animals if WE PUT THEM IN THE KILL ZONE 😉😬😜
Impact distance is irrelevant. A bullet is not going to act any different at 3' than it will at 300yds if the impact velocity is the same. The question remains, do you really want to go afield with a bullet you KNOW is suspect at close range? Where is the line drawn, 50yds, 100? I don't want to work in such a narrow margin. I want a bullet that works at both ends of my effective range.
We also have many reports of bullets failing on deer-sized game. So it is all relevant.
Yup. Shot placement trumps all else.
I have used all of the major brands of bullets and lead ones I cast. Never had an issue as long as I did my part.
In any discussion of terminal ballistics, shot placement is a
given. It also does not make up for bullet failure. I don't know why this keeps getting parroted. It's in essence tangent to the discussion here.
So why are you trying so hard to discredit reports of failures???
