Explaining Bullet Selection to Your Average Shooter

[ArTeeKay]

I was at the local range the other weekend, and happened to be there in the middle of a demonstration from a wildlife conservation researcher heralding the benefits of lead free bullets for hunting. I mostly tried to keep to myself, but the gentleman presenting came over with a local newspaper reporter after noticing I was tagging the 500 yard steel, and asked me if I'd be willing to comment about what I was shooting, the bullets I was using, and why I picked that particular bullet.

I happened to be shooting Sierra SMK that day, and so commented on the features I appreciated: good, consistent BC, reasonable cost, consistently available both locally and online, good effect on target at the distances I use the rifle at. They asked why I picked them over something like a Barnes bullet (the bullet they happened to be hyping that day). I told them I had used Barnes LRX bullets before, and just hadn't gotten the results I wanted, both accuracy and target effect wise. The researcher seemed frustrated that I wasn't corroborating his claims, but I wasn't about to lie, especially since my name was going to be attached to my comments.

But since then, I've been thinking some about how to explain bullet choice to folks who aren't in the know about bullet construction, and how to coach people into picking the right bullet for their application. Marketing has turned BC into one of the primary selling points for bullets designed for any purpose, but if I'm hunting dangerous game, or shooting through barriers to hit my targets, BC is likely a tertiary concern.

How would you approach starting a discussion about how to pick the right bullet for a task with someone who's a complete beginner?

 

[KnowNothing256]

I was at the local range the other weekend, and happened to be there in the middle of a demonstration from a wildlife conservation researcher heralding the benefits of lead free bullets for hunting. I mostly tried to keep to myself, but the gentleman presenting came over with a local newspaper reporter after noticing I was tagging the 500 yard steel, and asked me if I'd be willing to comment about what I was shooting, the bullets I was using, and why I picked that particular bullet.

I happened to be shooting Sierra SMK that day, and so commented on the features I appreciated: good, consistent BC, reasonable cost, consistently available both locally and online, good effect on target at the distances I use the rifle at. They asked why I picked them over something like a Barnes bullet (the bullet they happened to be hyping that day). I told them I had used Barnes LRX bullets before, and just hadn't gotten the results I wanted, both accuracy and target effect wise. The researcher seemed frustrated that I wasn't corroborating his claims, but I wasn't about to lie, especially since my name was going to be attached to my comments.

But since then, I've been thinking some about how to explain bullet choice to folks who aren't in the know about bullet construction, and how to coach people into picking the right bullet for their application. Marketing has turned BC into one of the primary selling points for bullets designed for any purpose, but if I'm hunting dangerous game, or shooting through barriers to hit my targets, BC is likely a tertiary concern.

How would you approach starting a discussion about how to pick the right bullet for a task with someone who's a complete beginner?

I’d start by asking what was on the other end of the bullet: paper, steel, meat, or body armor. I don’t partake in the harvesting of two-legged critters, so for me I don’t need to consider AP or incendiary rounds.

For me with a hunting bullet (where most of the debate seems to occur), if a shot on big game was inside say 400 yards, I like the concept of a monolithic, since they have a great reputation for leaving a nice blood trail out the far side. If I thought I might surprise an animal up close, then that’s a +1 for the monos, since many hunting bullets blow up at close range (although there are plenty that don’t). However, if I was expecting a long-range shot, I’d take BC and accuracy of high-quality jacketed bullets over the monos, which suffer from lower BC for caliber and (typically) inferior accuracy; add to that the fact that they need to impact at higher velocities to trigger expansion, and that steers me towards lead-core bullets.

For target shooting, I’m of a similar mind to you: accuracy, price, and availability. I don’t need bleeding-edge BC for the mid- to long-range games I play, and watching Berger Hybrids and LRHTs be utterly unobtainable for two years while Hornady HPBTs could be found in the thousands landed me firmly in the latter's camp. I have since picked up 147 ELDM for the 6.5CM to make power factor for NRLH, but have plenty of the 140 HPBT and have no bullet-related problem at all at my “local” 600 yd match. For the 22BR it’s the 88 ELDM: great BC, very good accuracy (likely still inferior to the Berger 85.5 but not playing the unobtainium game), can be found in stock, and is half the price of the Bergers to boot.

I understand wanting to simplify it for a novice, but there’s so much marketing chaff out there that the second they take to someone else they’ll get steered in a different direction. Bullet selection can be simplified if your requirements aren’t very stringent (buy a bullet with decent accuracy reputation and good availability, plus moderate cost), or are very specific (tends to narrow your options very quickly). Unfortunately, “accuracy” is the one that’s hardest to compare when looking at the numbers on the box; the best you can do is look at the brand and model names, but that takes experience, either personal or aggregate. Berger continues to top the pile, Hornady does generally very good work, SMKs are about the same quality as Hornady with some exceptions (exploding 147 ELDM, for example) although typically lower BC for a given weight, and Nosler reviews are mixed. Swaged monos like Barnes (I think they’re swaged) are pricey and aren’t terribly accurate but they can do ok; machined monos are a specialty tool for people who want to shell out for very specific performance, and aren’t really appropriate for a conversation with a novice.

It’s complicated, but I do think your intended target, range, quantity, and budget do narrow the field rapidly no matter what your use case.

 

[ArTeeKay]

I’d start by asking what was on the other end of the bullet: paper, steel, meat, or body armor. I don’t partake in the harvesting of two-legged critters, so for me I don’t need to consider AP or incendiary rounds.

For me with a hunting bullet (where most of the debate seems to occur), if a shot on big game was inside say 400 yards, I like the concept of a monolithic, since they have a great reputation for leaving a nice blood trail out the far side. If I thought I might surprise an animal up close, then that’s a +1 for the monos, since many hunting bullets blow up at close range (although there are plenty that don’t). However, if I was expecting a long-range shot, I’d take BC and accuracy of high-quality jacketed bullets over the monos, which suffer from lower BC for caliber and (typically) inferior accuracy; add to that the fact that they need to impact at higher velocities to trigger expansion, and that steers me towards lead-core bullets.

For target shooting, I’m of a similar mind to you: accuracy, price, and availability. I don’t need bleeding-edge BC for the mid- to long-range games I play, and watching Berger Hybrids and LRHTs be utterly unobtainable for two years while Hornady HPBTs could be found in the thousands landed me firmly in the latter's camp. I have since picked up 147 ELDM for the 6.5CM to make power factor for NRLH, but have plenty of the 140 HPBT and have no bullet-related problem at all at my “local” 600 yd match. For the 22BR it’s the 88 ELDM: great BC, very good accuracy (likely still inferior to the Berger 85.5 but not playing the unobtainium game), can be found in stock, and is half the price of the Bergers to boot.

I understand wanting to simplify it for a novice, but there’s so much marketing chaff out there that the second they take to someone else they’ll get steered in a different direction. Bullet selection can be simplified if your requirements aren’t very stringent (buy a bullet with decent accuracy reputation and good availability, plus moderate cost), or are very specific (tends to narrow your options very quickly). Unfortunately, “accuracy” is the one that’s hardest to compare when looking at the numbers on the box; the best you can do is look at the brand and model names, but that takes experience, either personal or aggregate. Berger continues to top the pile, Hornady does generally very good work, SMKs are about the same quality as Hornady with some exceptions (exploding 147 ELDM, for example) although typically lower BC for a given weight, and Nosler reviews are mixed. Swaged monos like Barnes (I think they’re swaged) are pricey and aren’t terribly accurate but they can do ok; machined monos are a specialty tool for people who want to shell out for very specific performance, and aren’t really appropriate for a conversation with a novice.

It’s complicated, but I do think your intended target, range, quantity, and budget do narrow the field rapidly no matter what your use case.

I'm with you on all that. The other piece of the puzzle, that I myself neglect on a regular basis is bullet weight. Velocity can make up for a lot of ballistic sins, and as @lowlight likes to remind us, you gotta have enough ass behind the bullet to take advantage of high BC numbers in the case of long range shooting, and in the short range (relatively) there are plenty of hunting bullets that have a fairly narrow speed window where the bullet performs as designed.

I think in the case of big game hunting specifically, chasing higher and higher BC numbers is gonna lead folks away from the bullets that actually offer the best terminal performance. Granted, tipped bullets, and certain varieties of bullet cores offer a lot more leeway than the simple cup and core bullets of the past. In any case, I wouldn't bring banded solids to a varmint shoot, and I certainly wouldn't take highly frangible flat base bullets to shoot a bear. And I'll admit that any guide or PH worth their salt is going to check before they take their client out blasting at critters, but for the new guys going out alone on a public land hunt, I fear poor bullet choice could really sour the experience if they end up placing the bullet badly and don't have enough spare bullet performance making up for that sin to put the animal down.

I guess the question inside the question is how do we frame the scope of our experiences into something that gives weight to our recommendations beyond the shiny marketing wank from Hornady or Berger or Barnes? I think you answered part of that question, in having folks make an honest accounting of what they're shooting at, but I think the battle of getting folks to then use that data point in the decision making process is where lots of people get hung up.

 

[KnowNothing256]

...but I think the battle of getting folks to then use that data point in the decision making process is where lots of people get hung up.

I think you're right here, for sure. Sometimes I can empathize with people just getting drowned in marketing hype, and honestly not everyone has the interest or the opportunity to read hundreds or thousands of points of anecdotal evidence around bullet selection and terminal performance. Another piece of the puzzle is just how many data points are available to the hunter versus the target shooter: the latter gets feedback just about every time they pull the trigger on their key metrics (accuracy, basically), but the hunter doesn't get to put that whole box in an animal, much less hundreds or thousands of rounds per year. So we really are stuck with either ballistic gel tests which have their own limitations, reading through hunting forums to try to figure out what communities have aligned on, or just saying screw it and buying what's on the shelf at the LGS.

But other times I'm short on empathy, and get irritated when someone won't just listen to my damn advice

 

[ArTeeKay]

That's a really good point about getting feedback from your target. A steel or paper target is gonna act pretty much the same way no matter what bullet you're using. But flesh and bone and fur are a whole other animal (pun intended) and variables like muscle and bone density, angle of attack, particular bullet speed, all matter a lot.

I guess maybe I should go hang up a road killed elk at the range this fall, and let people test out their hunting rounds on a low risk target, so they can maybe rethink using those Berger match bullets on a 1000 pound animal...

 

[KnowNothing256]

Never understood why there isn’t more pig carcass testing, the Mythbusters used those things all the time…

 

[JMGlasgow]

I've shot game with Barnes TTSX and LRX as well as Sierra Pro Hunter and SGK. All were accurate and terminal performance was acceptable. The Barnes bullets seem to be either really good or really bad in the accuracy department. It seems to be related to the lot to lot consistency. As far as an accurate hunting bullet the Hornady 165gr Interbond were hands down the best and easiest to load. I've never taken game closer than 300 yards, and not any further than 350. All shots were also placed in the heart and lung area.

 

[ArTeeKay]

I like those choices for game, apart from my own misadventures with Barnes. But there are other things need shot besides antlered and horned beasties, so I'd like to find a good way to talk through those things beyond "this bullet shoots pretty good, in my experience ".

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Most hunters need to be overgunned and use bullets with better terminal performance because they need to make up for the lack of skill. As probably 95-99% of shooters in general don’t shoot enough or know enough.

For proper explanation, you first need to educate them about shooting in general. Which can be a challenge because men generally tend to have ego tied to shooting. Even though there is nothing natural or instinctual about it. So you need to start there.

Otherwise, advise them to shoot a cartridge or two higher then needed with bullets such as eld-x or Barnes or partitions, etc etc.

If they have the required skill, then bullet selection matters far less. When you shoot something in the heart or head, it dies. I’ve shot just as many things with match bullets as hunting bullets and haven’t experienced any need to get into weeds with bullet selection.

Last year, Jacob killed two nilgai with 6cm factory ammo. One shot each. One was about 400yds.

Gunwerks recommends (or used to) Berger match bullets. Because it was easier to make good shot placement with them than everything else.

It’s a complicated question and it starts with education in general shooting before getting to bullet selection.

 

[Huskydriver]

Public ranges....wtf

 

[Haney]

Most hunters need to be overgunned and use bullets with better terminal performance because they need to make up for the lack of skill. As probably 95-99% of shooters in general don’t shoot enough or know enough.

For proper explanation, you first need to educate them about shooting in general. Which can be a challenge because men generally tend to have ego tied to shooting. Even though there is nothing natural or instinctual about it. So you need to start there.

Ego, that's all take away from your comments . Why not give it a break ? Your preaching and know it all crap sucks the life right out of these conversations .

 

[308pirate]

How would you approach starting a discussion about how to pick the right bullet for a task with someone who's a complete beginner?

I wouldn't say anything until I was asked to give advice.

I also don't understand why you would allow yourself to be interviewed. My only answer would be that I have nothing to say.

 

[308pirate]

Ego, that's all take away from your comments . Why not give it a break ? Your preaching and know it all crap sucks the life right out of these conversations .

Nobody gives a fuck about your opinions here.

Absolutely no one.

 

[ArTeeKay]

I wouldn't say anything until I was asked to give advice.

I also don't understand why you would allow yourself to be interviewed. My only answer would be that I have nothing to say.

Typically, I don't talk to the press, as a matter of principle. However, I had an opportunity to be an ambassador of the shooting community, and so did my best to present a friendly, thoughtful answer to the questions asked of me. I figure actions like that are far more effective than trying to shout down my congress critters, in so far as creating goodwill and understanding among those who are still on the fence.

 

[308pirate]

Typically, I don't talk to the press, as a matter of principle. However, I had an opportunity to be an ambassador of the shooting community, and so did my best to present a friendly, thoughtful answer to the questions asked of me. I figure actions like that are far more effective than trying to shout down my congress critters, in so far as creating goodwill and understanding among those who are still on the fence.

I guess that will last until you see your comments edited beyond recognition in print

 

[ArTeeKay]

I guess that will last until you see your comments edited beyond recognition in print

It's turned out ok so far, the handful of times my opinions been asked. But typically, I agree with you. No need to give anyone any more excuse than strictly necessary to misinterpret me.