Non Toxic/Lead Free Bullet Comparison

[Edinburgh Rifles]

Following a number of recent online discussions on Non Toxic bullets we decided that an comparative test of some of the main brands and a couple of new brands of non toxic bullets available in the UK might be of interest.

It is a subject that gets a lot of strong views.
There seem to be a number of aspects that are constantly mentioned when the subject of non toxic bullets is brought up:

· Why? - If its not mandatory why bother?

· Expense and Availability - at £50+ for 50 bullets and limited availability on the dealer shelf, the leading brands can be hard to justify

· Terminal Efficacy - Numerous stories of runners, failure to expand, "over penetration", poor accuracy, poor lot to lot consistency

· Accuracy, Legal Energy and Twist rate requirements - Expectations of driving lighter for calibre bullets at higher velocities to get the expansion from the "harder" bullet and difficulty reaching deer legal ME/MV levels with longer bullets in mid sized calibres. Will the higher MV give more carcase damage?

· Pressure/Fouling - Will they damage my rifle? Will I have to clean more?

Some Possible Answers:

· Why? - Weight retention and Less Carcase Damage/loss - less metal material in the carcase. Standard cup and core jacketed lead bullet designs shed up to 60-70% of there original mass. Much of it Lead in very small pieces. Monolithic, non-toxic bullets are designed to not only shed less material but still create efficient wound channels and organ destruction. What little material is shed is not lead. Lead toxicity has been a concern since the days of lead water pipes and leaded petrol. The argument is NOT whether copper is more toxic than lead, its all about how much is left in the carcase.

· Supply - If you can get a reliable source and a good price that is that answered.

· Terminal Efficacy - Accuracy on paper is easy to quantify. Terminal ballistics on live quarry is not as straight forward as the variables increase. However solid terminal performance under controlled conditions goes towards better understanding of effects on quarry. Field testing and analysis of variables adds further detail.

· Accuracy, Legal Energy and Twist rate requirements - Only really a concern with long for calibre weight and cartridge choices where a minimum bullet weight is required. Scotland, .243 100gr in 1:10" twist for example. Choosing a flat base shorter bullet and loading for accuracy rather than out-and-out higher velocity is one option.

· Pressure/Fouling - Huge advances have been made in both material composition and design to avoid the initial observations of the harder, monolithic copper derived bullets causing fouling and subsequent issues. Driving bands dramatically reduce initial chamber pressure and fouling without affecting velocity potential. A wider range of metals from 100% copper through copper alloys (mostly CuZn)

We embarked on a test of 4 brands:

Barnes TSX - U.S. made. Arguably the leading brand in the Non-toxic market in the UK
A solid copper, boat-tailed bullet with 4 deep driving bands, small meplat hollow point to initiate expansion, also available in a Ballistic Tipped version TTSX "Tipped Triple Shock X-panding".
Available in .224 through .577 Nitro
Factory Ammunition available through other brands, Sako, Norma, etc
Cost: £47-£82 per 50 bullets (RRP)
Claims "close to 100%" weight retention, excellent accuracy and reliable expansion 1.5-2x calibre (1800-2000fps impact velocity recommended), reliable penetration

Hornady GMX - U.S. made, Hornady's "Guilding Metal Expanding" bullet, the same material used in cup and core bullet jackets.
A Copper Alloy(CuZn5), boat tailed, ballistic tipped design with 2 shallow driving bands and a crimp cannelure
Available in .224 through .375
Factory Ammunition available
Cost: £42 to £115 per 50 bullets (RRP)
Claims "95% or more" weight retention, reliable expansion 1.5x calibre (2000fps impact velocity recommended) , excellent penetration (30" in gelatin tests) and excellent accuracy

Red Moose - Tarvas - Made in EU (Finland) -
A proprietary, Annealled, Copper Alloy (CuZnXX), Flat base bullet, with large meplat, hollow point and three shallow driving bands
Designed specifically to limit meat loss, create a straight, deep wound channel and maintain velocity through the target. The higher velocity inside the quarry claims to create a longer and larger wound channel.
http://www.redmoose.eu/tarvas_bullets/terminal-ballistics
Available: 6.5mm to .375 (smaller calibres in production)
Cost: RRP TBC indicated at £53 to £67 per 50 bullets
Claims 99% weight retention, extremely controlled expansion 1.1x calibre, Excellent penetration, Fast knock down and killing power, wide range of effective terminal velocities 1600fps to 3000fps.

Fox Bullets - Made in Slovenia
A Copper Alloy (CuZn10), flat based, cone Ogive, Rounded polymer tipped bullet, with large meplat and two pairs of driving bands.
Designed with deep central void to produce reliable expansion
Available in .224 through 9.3mm
Cost: RRP TBC indicated at £33 to £48 per 50 bullets
Claims 95+% weight retention, Reliable expansion to 1.5x calibre, Excellent penetration and accuracy

There are other products available from RWS, Nosler, etc

The Tests

4 Brands (Barnes (Factory Sako ammo), Fox, Hornady (Factory ammo), Tarvas)
5 weight classes (130gr .270, 139gr 7mm, 130gr/150gr/165gr .30cal)
3 cartridge derivations (.270, 7x57, .308)
Unfortunately the planned 180gr 300wm test was not completed

Brass used - Norma
Primers used - CCI200
Powders used - N140/N160

Accuracy
Load development for indication of Optimum Charge Weight

Penetration
Bullets shot into NATO (formula) 20% Ballistic Gelatine 100yds
Additional Water containers behind gel used to contain any bullets that managed to penetrate the 7 x 8" (20cm) gel blocks

Wound Cavity
Bullets shot into Ballistic Grade Clay

Weight Retention and Expansion
Measurements of Unfired, Fired/cleaned (gel), Fired/Cleaned (clay)


Accuracy
Accuracy was tested on 1" square target paper with 1/4" feint squares
Only a 3 shot group was used as an indication and is by no means definitive
Accuracy ranged from very average to showing real potential
Obviously the results are specific to this test and rifle ammo combinantion but they are indicative of potential
These are raw loads, not tuned for OAL or specific accuracy
The two factory loads were not modified
Figures below are centre to centre group size:


Fox .270 130gr - 0.71" (best load 56.5gr N160)
Fox .308 130gr - 0.64" (best load 45gr N140)
Fox .308 150gr - 0.63" (best load 43gr N140)
Hornady GMX 139gr - 1.20"
Barnes .270 130gr - 1.65"
Tarvas .308 165gr - 0.60" (Best load 42.5gr N140)













Summary:
Great potential to tune handloads for most of them
Factory ammo was marginal in these rifles but handloading is likely to produce much more acceptable results


Penetration Gel
NATO formula (20%) Ballistic Gel was used to better indicate penetration rather than the slo-mo expansion often shown in gel tests on much softer 10% gel formulae
This gel has a much higher chance of bullet recovery and was cast in eight individual blocks 12"x8" 30cmx20cm
These were lined up horizontally, with four 5litre plastic bottles filled with water comprising a further 80cm behind as a back up.
Penetration was measured from the front impact to the position of the recovered bullet (where applicable!)
Only one weight class was tested due to cost of gel

Tarvas 165gr .308 (MV C 2750fps) - 240cm (8 block and 4 water - recovered in the last bottle having dented the rear panel)
Fox 130gr .270 (MV C2950fps) - 115cm (block 6)
Barnes .270 130gr .270 (MV C3050) - 75cm (block 4
GMX 7mm 139gr (MV 2750fps) - N/A (exited side of block 3)

some "raw" footage of the test:

Summary:

The path taken by the bullets was largely in a straight line with some minor deviation shown by the Fox and Barnes.
The Tarvas did not deviate at all and almost penetrated the entire test medium, only being recovered having dented the rear panel of the last bottle.
The GMX was not recovered as it passed through two blocks and exited through the side of the third
What we noted from slow motion video is the different shock wave each different bullet produced.
The GMX, Barnes and Fox show dramatic transfer of energy/shock into the first and second blocks but limited transfer further in.
The Tarvas shows less dramatic transfer at the first block but more obvious transfer deeper into the medium


Wound Cavity

The test were not conclusive....fun, but not conclusive
The clay was 70cm thick sealed in plastic. unfortunately we got a lot more destruction and movement to draw much in the way of data on wound cavity
The blocks did serve a much denser penetration test and allowed recovery of 2 of the 4 brands
The Tarvas bullet penetrated the entire stack (70+cm)
The Fox penetrated 65cm
The Barnes penetrated 60cm
GMX exited out the side...


Weight Retention

Bullets weighed in grains following test media removal, cleaning and drying
(figures before cleaning clay and gel off the bullet were markedly different)

Barnes
unfired -130gr
Fired Gel -128.6 (98.9% retained)
Fired Clay -43.4gr (33.3% retained)

Fox
Unfired -150gr
Fired Gel -148.8gr (99.2% retained)
Fired Clay -107.0gr (71.3% retained)

Tarvas
Unfired -165gr
Fired Gel -163.2 gr (98.9%)
Fired Clay -N/A Full penetration

GMX
Unfired - 139gr
Fired Gel - N/A Exited Side
Fired Clay - N/A Exited Side


Expansion

Bullets measured across widest point after recovery

Barnes
Gel - 0.594" / 15.10mm (214%)
Clay - 0.869" / 22.07mm (313%)

Fox
Gel - 0.63" / 15.95mm (204%)
Clay - 0.455 / 11.57mm (147%)

Tarvas
Gel - 0.353" / 8.97mm (114%)
Clay - n/a

GMX
Gel - n/a
Clay - n/a

Summary:
Expansion where designed was very good
It should be noted that the Tarvas bullet is designed to work not by expanding and using energy to deform into a larger front area and creating a wound channel whilst slowing down, like a standard cup and core.
Wound tracts from these bullets get smaller from entry to exit
It is designed to maintain velocity, the flat front area creating a pressure wave and primary cavity, penetrate completely and leave a wide wound tract through the entire target.
Certainly penetration is not in question

Weight retention figures were lower than manufacture's marketing, some markedly so, especially when encountering significant resistance.
Failure to recover bullets to measure was partly due to shortage of material and more penetration than expected, partly down to non-linear wound channel and bullets exiting the side of the media.

Barnes TSX 130gr .270
Before, Recovered from Gel, Recovered from Clay





Fox 150gr .308
Before, Recovered from Gel, Recovered from Clay



Tarvas 165gr .308
Before, Recovered from Gel





It should be noted that this test was by no means exhaustive and whilst some conclusions can be drawn from it the data sample is very small
It does however demonstrate that there are some exciting products coming out of Europe

We also have some samples out with stalkers for field testing

There are numerous videos of Tarvas bullets in action and they certainly look to work as expected knocking down target animals very quickly

https://www.facebook.com/redmoose.eu/videos/739607379464609/

https://www.facebook.com/redmoose.eu/posts/1182510808507595

https://youtu.be/pJV0Ee4TwvI

https://www.facebook.com/redmoose.eu/posts/728292370596110


We would be very interested in speaking to anyone who would like to test some of the Fox and Tarvas bullets on larger deer (fallow/red) in the field and can provide load data and a small sample in return for (ideally) video and photographic data.
There will be some more calibres available shortly and we hope to have a full range available within the next 2 weeks

[Simon J]

Very good stuff. Are you getting 6.5mm and .224 bullets in from Fox too? I've seen their website and that you were going to import them.

[Simon J]

Very good stuff. Are you getting 6.5mm and .224 bullets in from Fox too? I've seen their website and that you were going to import them.

 

Unfortunately, it seems the anti-lead mob have copper in their sights too, as I have seen a scientific paper in which only tin was found to be environmentally satisfactory - that isn't precisely what the paper said but its a half-decent summary.

[TSG]

Useful info particularly the other bullets than the Barnes which I have been involved in testing in the past. I use Barnes in 308, 300 Win mag and 405 Winchester. It is however in my opinion more difficult to demonstrate accuracy with Barnes and often shows variable results between rifles of the same manufacture in factory loads which are apparently required for some stalking (FC?) I have not as yet had much success with 6.5 x55 or 260.

The other issue is shootingand zeroing on MOD ranges. I suspect it would not be officially approved as bullet behaviour has not been predicted for the range template and the fact that it does not clump in sand backstops and from personal experience can come back out of the sand!

That said, the availability of more options will encourage more people to try the non lead option. Well done

[Edinburgh Rifles]

Simon

Yes, full range

I plan to test the 55gr .224 in 1:14" and faster and 6mm 100gr in 1:10"

7mm will be here next week

 

There is a factory option for them as well in the most popular cartridges initially

 

Range testing will have to be confirmed by the RCO and Range managers

arguably these are more predictable than FMJ which can be found in pieces, whole and bent. and in various stages of destruction on impact

[Chris-NZ]

Interesting as a casual read I guess but very little merit from the scientific method point of view. You're comparing green apples with pink elephants with ...

 

As for the accuracy of Barnes TTSXs, this widely used bullet in NZ is capable of far better average accuracy that this "study" shows. Like all expanding monolithics, they like being driven hard to expand well. I'd recover maybe only one in four from deer, and that's about the experience of other shooters here loading TTSXs in their 7-08s and .308s.

[phaedra1106uk]

Monolithic bullets are not permitted on MOD ranges due to the increased ricochet risk and possibility of them traveling outside the range danger area.

[Edinburgh Rifles]

Interesting as a casual read I guess but very little merit from the scientific method point of view. You're comparing green apples with pink elephants with ...

 

As for the accuracy of Barnes TTSXs, this widely used bullet in NZ is capable of far better average accuracy that this "study" shows. Like all expanding monolithics, they like being driven hard to expand well. I'd recover maybe only one in four from deer, and that's about the experience of other shooters here loading TTSXs in their 7-08s and .308s.

By no means a scientific study, as indicated, data set too small for a start

Hopefully it did show what happens to green apples and pink elephants when fired into the exact same material, on the same day at the same range from the same gun

Also accuracy of the tsx was highlighted as factory, likely to be better if handloaded.

Not everyone will get good results from their rifles with all bullets,

Barnes does have a sketchy reputation for accuracy over here factory or otherwise as indicated by the post above.

 

We can't always get Barnes in good supply here and the prices are only going up

[Chris-NZ]

Barnes does have a sketchy reputation for accuracy over here factory or otherwise as indicated by the post above.

 

 

There are -many- T3s here converted to "Bush Pigs" - barrel chopped to 16" and a can fitted. Here's mine before it was fluted and a 2.5-8 VX3 fitted for lighter weight:

 

 

They're generally either 7-08s or .308s shooting 120 and 130gr TTSXs respectively. Here's my last sight-in :

 

 

The load is doing 2940 from memory and certainly kills well up to 300yds, in fact I've shot maybe half a dozen deer past there and they all went down well, no runners.

I just asked the load devel't guy at NZ Hunter what his experience is with these projectiles- he's now done "without doubt" load devel't for "at least a hundred" of these builds, about equal in each calibre with the odd .260 thrown in. He says the .308s tend to shoot slightly better but nothing leaves the shop if it's not clearly under an inch and usually a lot better than that. He texted me a selection of 3-shot groups under 0.2 including some true one-holers. So I can safely say the projectile per se isn't the limiting factor for accuracy.

[Simon J]

Simon

Yes, full range

I plan to test the 55gr .224 in 1:14" and faster and 6mm 100gr in 1:10"

7mm will be here next week

 

There is a factory option for them as well in the most popular cartridges initially

 

Range testing will have to be confirmed by the RCO and Range managers

arguably these are more predictable than FMJ which can be found in pieces, whole and bent. and in various stages of destruction on impact

the 55gr 224 in 1 in 14 - that's my twist rate, so looking forward to that in particular.

[borbal]

While there is evidence that the use of lead shot in wet-lands is harmful to the birds and other wildlife in those areas, there is no evidence at all that lead bullets cause any problem what-so-ever to wildlife or the environment by way of pollution or poisoning. However, the argument by the Greens to ban ammo with any lead content is hard to counter as a "good idea" and so it gains traction.

 

And... the idea is fully supported by the gun trade. Why? Because a ban on lead bullets will mean everybody will have to buy new rifles that can shoot lead-free ammo. It will be a cash bonanza for the gun trade.

[Chanonry]

everybody will have to buy new rifles that can shoot lead-free ammo. It will be a cash bonanza for the gun trade.

 

 

why's that then ? don't see why my rifle can't shoot current lead-free offerings as is ??

 

If that was truly the case, it would be a very good reason for the failure of lead-free ammo to establish a place in the market.

[gbal]

boreal,thank you for you informed comment on BB/AI and fluting.

 

However,you may be somewhat less up to date-it's not in the uk-on lead bullet fragmentation risks to some wildlife-there is rather well documented evidence for the California Condor Corridor birds in USA. This research led to legislation in California (much of the research was done in eg Arizona) which has correlated with condor population increases.

The seminal study was done by Dr M Finkenstein,and there is a goood video interview of her by Jeff McLauchlan,also reported in the publication of the National Academy of Sciences.

This is rather good forensic science-She found Xray evidence of tiny lead fragments in Condors,who scavenged hunted areas(both deer-where gut/gralloch was left,and prairie dog fields,where many carcasses were left (shot by highly frangile bullets).Blood lead levels were monitored in Condors,and colatin injections given to reduce lead poisoning in the 45-95% affected.The elevated lead was also seasonal-correlating with hunting pressure. Arizona State Game and Fsh Dept noted reduced lead poisoning with provided lead free ammo,and voluntary removed of shot carcass/offal.(hunters reported no reduced efficiency of ammo).Lead isotope ratio analysis confirmed the findings,and showed no other source of lead in the areas tested. This is recent work-legislation followed in California in 2015.HIgh toxicity levels build up in chicks fed the 'free lunches' the adult birds bring to their nests,with corresponding mortality.

 

Similar studies I the mid west states showed similar very fragmentary lead in shot deer carcasses,and led to a recommendation that pregnant women,and young children should not consume such shot venison.(the effects of lead poisoning in young children is separately well documented-removal of lead water pipes raised school performance in eg Glasgow.

 

OK,I take your points about commercial interest-though for bullet producers it's a s much an opportunity-hunters will still shoot,and it's unlikely that profit margins on lead free bullets will be reduced compared to lead-test tend to show such bullets work ok too,but that is a differnt issue to health of human consumers,and conservation of wild creatures.

 

Of course there will be support from 'green' and even 'bambi' factions-but there is little doubt about the scientific status of the condor studies-there seem as yet,rather few follow ups-though the deer studies are at least a cautionary case...

Note the contamination is not at the level of the odd No6 shotgun pellet in a roast pheasant ( which is in humans is a 'through and through' the digestive tract )but very small fragmentary lead-down to dust size,revealed BU Xray,in shot game,which remains in surviving birds.

 

Good research seldom acts against conservation of wildlife or healthy populations,which are very definitely in hunters interests too.

There is often too the kind of fuss all round that lead free shot in UK wetlands provoked....but the sensible application of scientific research needs teasing out from not too well thought out legislation etc.

 

Bit like barrel fluting,really-best have the facts and decide accordingly,for which thanks,again!

 

Gbal

[borbal]

 

 

why's that then ? don't see why my rifle can't shoot current lead-free offerings as is ??

 

Because you need a faster twist in the barrel to stabilise lead free bullets - and then there are issues of barrel life, which trials have shown is shorter with copper alloy bullets.

[gbal]

 

why's that then ? don't see why my rifle can't shoot current lead-free offerings as is ??

 

Because you need a faster twist in the barrel to stabilise lead free bullets - and then there are issues of barrel life, which trials have shown is shorter with copper alloy bullets.

 

OK,possibles...but what is the barrel life reduction Ir realistic terms for say a stalking rifle....the modal number of shots at deer is probably single figures annually for most stalkers (let's say 20 shots). Compared to a (possibly shortened lead poisoned lifespan!) is that significant?(more critically,would it offset established health etc benefits,were such to be firmly established-which is not so,yet).

A complete hunting ban-or shooting ban- would of course extend barrel life indefinitely,but we are a long way from that,in terms of research support,rather the contrary-conservation,yet again,means good management is the more consensus view.

G

[maximus otter]

...lead-free ammo... will be a cash bonanza for the gun trade.

 

Not in the long run it won't.

 

Never forget that the ultimate aim of the "Green" movement is the banning of shooting. If they can't get it done in a one-er, they are content to nibble our rights away until they achieve their objective.

 

The extra faff and expense of being required to use lead-free bullets will be a sufficient sickener to induce a percentage of shooters to dispose of their rifles. As far as the Green Glob is concerned: Result!

 

maximus otter

[Edinburgh Rifles]

Pollution - as an environemental biologist by education I can tell you that the volume of lead going into the environment pales into insignificance when compared to that deposited by the military....or that exists naturally, ...or in comparison to other sources of heavy metal pollution.

 

Copper is far more toxic than lead when in the right (or wrong) form and situations

 

Bans on lead in wetlands arguably leads to more pricked and wounded wildfowl than saves through reduction in polution. (steel shot has been demonstrated as less effcicient due to its density compared to lead)

Oil and plastics kills millions more than hunters do

 

Raptors and major corvids are known to feed on shot carcases or the gralloch containing lead fragments have been shown to carry significant amounts of lead in their system

The delivery through carrion is relevant

 

Politics is politics - there will always be pressure on something from somewhere.

 

But...

 

The material is not the issue.

The design is.

Traditional Cup and Core Bullets are designed to shed material. Up to 60-70% of non-frangible expanding bullet weight is shed in the form of lead particles.

Those particles are significantly reduced with monlithic designs which boast up to 100% retained weight

All of the solid copper and CuZnxx alloys used in "non-toxic", Lead free bullets significantly increase retianed weight whilst maintaining the mechanism to kill game efficiently either through expansion to create a large frontal area or through the meplat design to increase primary cavity in front of the bullet, maintain velocity and destroy organs and tissue

 

Exits or thr whole bullet will still see the bullet in the environment, but the key element is it is not in the meat, either for human consumption or to be left as carrion.

 

The argument that it is perpetuated by the bullet industry is not a great one, sporting bullets make up such a small proportion of the major manufacturers it is left to smaller independents to develop effective and efficient monolithic hunting bullets

 

The improvements to materials used and design has dramatically reduced, (arguably to zero) any ill effects to the hardware longenvity.

Appropriate twist rates only come into effect with a very small proportion of bullet twist rate combinations

.243 and 100gr is probably the only one of relevance in any volume in the UK

.224 and 50gr is not an issue as many .223 rifles are much shorter twist rate than the .222 counterparts at 1:14"

 

The bullet design is also key

Flat base small/low calibre tangent ogive (vs High calibre radius Secant ogive and boat tailed bullets) are much more efficient in slower twist barrels when using "long for calibre bullets"

 

Both the new entrants from the EU follow this design principle for exactly this reason.

[bobthenailer]

Misfire post

[bobthenailer]

Hello all, I have been following this thread with interest and thought i would pitch in my findings regards non lead projectiles.

 

I was an under stalker on a large estate in Dorset for a total of 9 years culling aprox 600 Sika Hinds per year. For the first 4 years I used my .243 along side the Head stalker who also used a .243. We both used 95GN BT's myself using Hornaday SST's and "J" using Nosler. During that period we experienced little problems despite the myth that "SIKA are hard to kill". My experience is that like all other species of deer if you place the projectile ( a good projectile) in the correct area they will die. I know that the internet will say different but that is just my findings having culled in excess of 4000 or so.

 

The estate then took on the idea of going lead free due to some poorly written paper by some bearded flip-flop wearing yoghurt muncher who had zero knowledge about ballistics, rifles, ricochet templates etc. Unfortunately this idea was given credence by an equably poor written magazine article about how wonderful lead free ammo was.

 

We presented our case to the estate manager explaining the increased risk of ricochet backed up by the fact that when we were both serving Military any solid copper projectile was deemed prohibited even on a range that was cleared for 155 Howitzer direct fire. We presented data collected by the German government regards the use of non lead projectiles for hunting (who also at that time were going down the lead free route) A decision in which they did a complete U turn after several fatalities and near misses due to ricochet and thru and thru passes.

 

We were eventually told that is the way it is, If we didn't want the job we could resign.... Testing started that first year using Barnes TSX projectiles in .243 80GN as these at the time were the only available projectiles. Accuracy was pin point absolutely hole on hole when load testing however we noted that as expected we did have ricochets even from a soft sand berm. We again approached the estate manager with our concerns only for it to fall on deaf ears.

 

After much discussion between J, myself and an independent ballistic specialist it was decided to proceed with caution onto the live tissue testing. More animals were passed up within that first two months than were culled. This was due to our fear of ricochet so we not only ensuring a safe backstop we had to take into consideration any risk of ricochet. Thankfully one of our neighbours was a military range so when the range was active we could be mildly confident the the sea that surrounded part of the estate would be clear of shipping as the range had a danger area monitored by the radar station. This area of the estate was almost the only part that we could feel a little more confident.

 

As far as the live tissue testing was concerned this was disastrous, we experienced a difficult time, We started to stalk together so one could act as spotter as the physical reaction was so slight and sometimes non apparent. Strike scenes were bereft of pins, paint and left very little evidence of a strike at all. The spotters job became all important. Very often blood would only become apparent after a significant distance. All data was recorded via GPS from shot site to recovery. From memory (I have the data stored at home) the longest track was almost 600M and the hind had been hit double lung. All carcasses upon inspection showed almost no expansion (even a shoulder shot) and little if any transfer of energy.

 

Due to us working in close partnership with a University who where conducting several studies into Sika deer we were supplying them with lots of data collected during both before the cull and the gralloch giving every available weight and measurement from the carcass, This allowed us the opportunity to have some carcasses (picked at random by the university) placed within an MRI scanner to examine the wound channel within the carcasses. This backed up with science that plain and simple there was little or no expansion. It were as if the deer had been stabbed with a 6mm spike.

It was suggested that the Barnes TSX needed to be driven at max velocity to get the best from them, Well I was pushing them so fast that I burnt my Brl out that first year, Any faster and they would have needed a launch code .

 

By the next season the NEW TTSX had arrived, alas this proved no better. Secretly without the knowledge of the head stalker or the estate I had reverted back to lead projectiles keeping a mag loaded in my pocket with the non lead rounds should the head stalker want to see, He never did ask and to this day I'm sure he knew but preferred to remain able to deny any knowledge. I didn't like to deceive my friend like this but such was the lack of confidence with the lead free options available at that time.

 

Shortly afterwards with the lead free argument gathering pace newer projectiles became available from more manufacturers, Enter Hornady GMX and Nosler E-Tip, At first we could only find a supply of these in .308 cal so in for a variation for .308, I used .308 for many years but had switched to .243 some years earlier and had used it to good effect from everything from Roe to Reds, with the CORRECT projectile and accurate shooting the .243 in my opinion punches well above its weight.

Testing began with Hornaday GMX in 150.5 GN heads, Accuracy was found to be best around middle of the road velocity's. Too fast and the shots seemed to string vertically. (This was confirmed by several of my shooting friends using a variety of rifles and load data.

 

Live tissue tests were good, Animals showed good reaction to shots having good deep and wide wound channels, Unfortunately we had lost the ability to have the carcass inspected by the MRI test but that was not needed as the wounds were clear to see.The Nosler E Tips performed in much the same way but didn't seem fussy regards the velocity of the projectile. The increased ricochet risk was still present but much reduced in comparison to the Barnes projectiles. Just out of curiosity we loaded some Barnes in .308, Again absolute hole on hole accuracy......and poor terminal effect on live tissue. As a foot note to this I was speaking a few years later to another ballistic specialist who's opinion was that the Barnes head both TSX & later the TTSX was best suited and designed for North American game where deep penetration and the ability to punch thru thicker hide and denser bone structures where the key and where typically there are wider or more open areas the risk of injury from ricochet is reduced.

 

This is not meant to be a "Bash Barnes Bullets" thread, it is just a reflection of what my findings were at that time with the non lead projectiles that were available at the time (11 years ago).

I have lots of carcass pictures and MRI prints somewhere at home (somewhere after 2 house moves and a divorce) and will post them if there is interest to see them.

 

My advice would be if you don't need to use non toxic / lead free projectiles then don't. But everyone is free to make up there own minds and use what they wish, If it works for the next man then all good, Just let me know if its near me and I will dig out my kevlar vest and hat!

Sorry for the long post, didn't mean it to go on so long and I have condensed several years of non lead testing into the above. Happy to answer any questions either via the thread or PM.

 

Kind Regards Bob.

[srvet]

Hello all, I have been following this thread with interest and thought i would pitch in my findings regards non lead projectiles.

 

I was an under stalker on a large estate in Dorset for a total of 9 years culling aprox 600 Sika Hinds per year. For the first 4 years I used my .243 along side the Head stalker who also used a .243. We both used 95GN BT's myself using Hornaday SST's and "J" using Nosler. During that period we experienced little problems despite the myth that "SIKA are hard to kill". My experience is that like all other species of deer if you place the projectile ( a good projectile) in the correct area they will die. I know that the internet will say different but that is just my findings having culled in excess of 4000 or so.

 

The estate then took on the idea of going lead free due to some poorly written paper by some bearded flip-flop wearing yoghurt muncher who had zero knowledge about ballistics, rifles, ricochet templates etc. Unfortunately this idea was given credence by an equably poor written magazine article about how wonderful lead free ammo was.

 

We presented our case to the estate manager explaining the increased risk of ricochet backed up by the fact that when we were both serving Military any solid copper projectile was deemed prohibited even on a range that was cleared for 155 Howitzer direct fire. We presented data collected by the German government regards the use of non lead projectiles for hunting (who also at that time were going down the lead free route) A decision in which they did a complete U turn after several fatalities and near misses due to ricochet and thru and thru passes.

 

We were eventually told that is the way it is, If we didn't want the job we could resign.... Testing started that first year using Barnes TSX projectiles in .243 80GN as these at the time were the only available projectiles. Accuracy was pin point absolutely hole on hole when load testing however we noted that as expected we did have ricochets even from a soft sand berm. We again approached the estate manager with our concerns only for it to fall on deaf ears.

 

After much discussion between J, myself and an independent ballistic specialist it was decided to proceed with caution onto the live tissue testing. More animals were passed up within that first two months than were culled. This was due to our fear of ricochet so we not only ensuring a safe backstop we had to take into consideration any risk of ricochet. Thankfully one of our neighbours was a military range so when the range was active we could be mildly confident the the sea that surrounded part of the estate would be clear of shipping as the range had a danger area monitored by the radar station. This area of the estate was almost the only part that we could feel a little more confident.

 

As far as the live tissue testing was concerned this was disastrous, we experienced a difficult time, We started to stalk together so one could act as spotter as the physical reaction was so slight and sometimes non apparent. Strike scenes were bereft of pins, paint and left very little evidence of a strike at all. The spotters job became all important. Very often blood would only become apparent after a significant distance. All data was recorded via GPS from shot site to recovery. From memory (I have the data stored at home) the longest track was almost 600M and the hind had been hit double lung. All carcasses upon inspection showed almost no expansion (even a shoulder shot) and little if any transfer of energy.

 

Due to us working in close partnership with a University who where conducting several studies into Sika deer we were supplying them with lots of data collected during both before the cull and the gralloch giving every available weight and measurement from the carcass, This allowed us the opportunity to have some carcasses (picked at random by the university) placed within an MRI scanner to examine the wound channel within the carcasses. This backed up with science that plain and simple there was little or no expansion. It were as if the deer had been stabbed with a 6mm spike.

It was suggested that the Barnes TSX needed to be driven at max velocity to get the best from them, Well I was pushing them so fast that I burnt my Brl out that first year, Any faster and they would have needed a launch code .

 

By the next season the NEW TTSX had arrived, alas this proved no better. Secretly without the knowledge of the head stalker or the estate I had reverted back to lead projectiles keeping a mag loaded in my pocket with the non lead rounds should the head stalker want to see, He never did ask and to this day I'm sure he knew but preferred to remain able to deny any knowledge. I didn't like to deceive my friend like this but such was the lack of confidence with the lead free options available at that time.

 

Shortly afterwards with the lead free argument gathering pace newer projectiles became available from more manufacturers, Enter Hornady GMX and Nosler E-Tip, At first we could only find a supply of these in .308 cal so in for a variation for .308, I used .308 for many years but had switched to .243 some years earlier and had used it to good effect from everything from Roe to Reds, with the CORRECT projectile and accurate shooting the .243 in my opinion punches well above its weight.

Testing began with Hornaday GMX in 150.5 GN heads, Accuracy was found to be best around middle of the road velocity's. Too fast and the shots seemed to string vertically. (This was confirmed by several of my shooting friends using a variety of rifles and load data.

 

Live tissue tests were good, Animals showed good reaction to shots having good deep and wide wound channels, Unfortunately we had lost the ability to have the carcass inspected by the MRI test but that was not needed as the wounds were clear to see.The Nosler E Tips performed in much the same way but didn't seem fussy regards the velocity of the projectile. The increased ricochet risk was still present but much reduced in comparison to the Barnes projectiles. Just out of curiosity we loaded some Barnes in .308, Again absolute hole on hole accuracy......and poor terminal effect on live tissue. As a foot note to this I was speaking a few years later to another ballistic specialist who's opinion was that the Barnes head both TSX & later the TTSX was best suited and designed for North American game where deep penetration and the ability to punch thru thicker hide and denser bone structures where the key and where typically there are wider or more open areas the risk of injury from ricochet is reduced.

 

This is not meant to be a "Bash Barnes Bullets" thread, it is just a reflection of what my findings were at that time with the non lead projectiles that were available at the time (11 years ago).

I have lots of carcass pictures and MRI prints somewhere at home (somewhere after 2 house moves and a divorce) and will post them if there is interest to see them.

 

My advice would be if you don't need to use non toxic / lead free projectiles then don't. But everyone is free to make up there own minds and use what they wish, If it works for the next man then all good, Just let me know if its near me and I will dig out my kevlar vest and hat!

Sorry for the long post, didn't mean it to go on so long and I have condensed several years of non lead testing into the above. Happy to answer any questions either via the thread or PM.

 

Kind Regards Bob.on Roe has

 

Hi Bob

Really interesting information. Can you remember bullet weights you were using. My experience which is mainly on Roe has been very favourable with Barnes bullets, however (and this point is in my opinion important) the bullets seem to lose their ability to transfer significant energy earlier than lead core designs. This seems to relate to terminal velocity and bullet design rather than terminal energy. In view of this keeping the bullet weight down and velocity up seems to work pretty well at ranges under 200 yards. At least for 130g TTSX at 3000fps muzzle velocity.

[bobthenailer]

Good evening,

The Barnes bullets in .243 were 80 grain ( both the TSX & the TTSX ) the Hornady GMX WERE 150.5 grains in .308 cal, Do you have to use non toxic / lead free projectiles?

I'm assuming from the weight of the Barnes bullets you are using your are also using .308 cal? If you don't need to use non toxic from your own findings would you not be better using a more traditional lead projectile? No doubt as I found you are finding the Barnes very very accurate, but what I have learned over the last 20 years or so of semi professional culling ( not stalking ) is that tiny groups on paper dosnt kill deer, one well aimed shot with a projectile that has good expansion and transference of energy does kill.

 

That wasn't or isn't meant to sound pompous or finger wagging, I do not claim to know all about anything..... However I have culled several thousand deer and the one thing that stands out is " shoot it well, shoot it with a good performing projectile" Unfortunately things don't always go to plan and believe me I have cocked shots up with the best of them, I have also met stalkers who claim never to have cocked up or lost a deer. Well they are better than me but time has shown me that it's easier to recover a poorly shot beast that has been shot with a well performing projectile than it is to recover a well shot beast with a projectile that dosnt perform. ( if that makes sense)

Kind regards Bob.

[Treedave]

Bob,

An interesting piece on your experience with the early tsx from Barnes. I'm wondering if your 80 gr in 243 was "heavy for calibre" in terms of monolithic bullets.I've no experience with 243 & Barnes, my experience is with 308 & Barnes. Which has led me to the conclusion that 150gr monolithic bullet is "heavy" for 308, with 130 gr being a better performer (easier to get the velocities and terminal performance required). My preferred bullets are made by GS custom, whose extensive reloading data/testing (across a mind numbing array of calibres) gave me the required confidence to try them out. As I've stuck to their recommended speed, barrel twist and bullet weight suggestions, I've had nothing but good results from them. This includes .260 rem on large reds (inc. chest shot at distances of 150m+)- a 95 gr bullet, 308 on the same with similar effect - a 103 gr bullet, and both calibres on roe at various ranges. These results I would put down to finding the right bullet for my rifle(s) at the right speed, in this case supported by the manufacturers data.

 

If you want to/have to go for a monolithic bullet, there are good and not so good ones out there. Which is which depends on you're rifle and your situation/style of hunting, just like lead cores bullets.

 

A couple of things I hear that I can't get my head round are these;

"They're too expensive" - yep they cost more, especially as factory ammo, but set against the carcass revenue the extra £1ish per round, is pretty small beer. If your a pro stalker it may add up, but then are you buying the ammo?

"They don't kill like lead/ I get more runners with copper" - Perhaps they don't kill like lead, but then I've found them to be be very very accurate and kill within 10 yards (if I do my bit properly). They can require a different mindset from lead, as in, a fast light lead bullet in a shoulder shot can do horrendous damage, with a copper bullet it leaves less carcass damage for the same shot (again, just my experience).

 

In summary, my experience has shown that copper bullets can work well and be very effective at killing deer, including out to longer ranges. It doesn't need a change of rifle, barrel or change of standards as to what is a humane kill. What it does need is a willingness to reload in a different way, with much lighter bullets and a fresh start to developing an accurate & humane load. It may also need a willingness to change the way you shoot.

 

Just in case you've come to the conclusion that a sandal wearing, bearded, tree hugging type, I'm not. On occasions where I'm allowed to shoot lead, going to be culling large numbers and carrying the expense of the ammunition, I'm happy to shoot lead.

 

For those that are interested,

http://gscustom.co.za/

[srvet]

Hi Bob

Sorry I should have said, 130g in 308 and 140g in 7mm RM . Of the two the 308 drops roe hardest but I am a recreational stalker and do not shoot anywhere near as many as you. It is interesting that opinions can be so polarised in general. My own impression is that when delivered correctly in terms of calibre (frontal area) and impact velocity that non lead bullets can surpass the performance of lead core but the optimal performance envelope is smaller and finishes more abruptly with the monometal bullets. In essence I get fewer runners and far more drop on the spot with the Barnes TTSX than the 150 to 165g soft points I used to use. Another very valid advantage of the monometal is the cleaner carcass. I was recently talking with an FC manager who reported increased venison revenue since going monometal. Their concensus seemed to be that the 150g Hornady superformance was pick of the bunch form readily available factory ammo. They had stopped using some non lead as a consequence of ricochet. Incidentally I was out load testing yesterday and encountered huge problems with ricochets (perhaps 18 out of 20 rounds zinged off) using a lead core 130g Berger VLD out of my 6.5x47! I have also had unacceptable ricochets with the Lapua Scenars... It's not just the monometal bullets that can bounce!

[Chris-NZ]

The reduced waste of meat is definitely an advantage with the monolithics. Before I "Bush Pigged" my 7-08, I used to shoot 139 SSTs out of the standard non-suppressed barrel. It truly levelled deer but a completely wasted front end was the frequent outcome, ie, both shoulders gone.

 

The 120 TTSXs seem to flatten them nearly as well but with vastly reduced meat wastage. It's common for TTSXs to bust both shoulders and still exit out the other side, but there is still plenty to salvageable meat to be had.

 

There are -many- NZ deer shooters than use 130gr TTSXs in their .308s/120s in the 7-08s/ 100s in the 6.5s and happily anchor deer. If there was a big issue with under-performing projectiles, they would quickly be out of favour. I'd confidently say the average NZ deershooter gets far more deer annually than those in the UK so has ample opportunity to judge terminal bullet performance.

[bobthenailer]

The meat waste has never been my prime concern, I would happily loose a few quid in reduced revenue from written off shoulders and have the deer "On the floor" so to speak. I know that some of the more frangible BT's can and do make a mess to the front of the carcass particularly if a bone is hit but I would still prefer to poke a big hole in the vitals and have it drop or go the shortest possible way.

This is particularly important to me when culling large groups so I can get as many down in a shorter time as possible. Not to everyone's taste I know, but I am not a recreational stalker.

 

I no longer stalk for enjoyment, sadly those days have gone for me, Its work. Work that I enjoy don't get me wrong but its unfortunately all about the numbers whilst remaining mindful to do the best most humane job I can. For me I choose to use a standard jacketed soft nose lead projectile (Sako 123GN) for all species. This works plain and simple for me.

 

That said I am not in the position that I now have to use Lead Free or Non toxic so I choose not to, But if I had to for what ever reason I would approach it with an open mind as things often will and do change. improvements have no doubt taken place with the non lead projectiles and I am sure the improvements have been made for the better both for the shooter and the deer giving a quick clean kill in the safest possible way which is the most important factor in my book. If I was put in the position where for whatever reason I had to use lead free again I would certainly seek the advice of others on this forum who have found a working combination. That is the beauty about like minded people sharing experiences.

 

The sharing of information is the same as most things in life,people are free to pick and choose what is important to them at that time. I wouldn't want to come across as somebody saying don't do this don't do that. Its all horses for courses and if lead free ammo suits the next man and performs to a standard that is acceptable to them then its all good. For me having tried the non lead projectiles that were available at the time that I needed them, I had mixed views ranging from pure dislike and fear to use to finding a workable solution.

 

Kind regards Bob.