Why avoid Hornady DG bullets and ammunition?

sheephunterab · Jun 30, 2017

Red Leg, there seems to be this notion that I am somehow defending, recommending, whatever you want to call it, the DGX and the truth is, I'm just hear to talk about bullet performance as it relates to construction regardless of brand. Perhaps read back through the pages again and you'll see that. Not once have I said that anyone should use the DGX or have I even defended it. I've explained its construction and explained its terminal performance...nothing more. With that knowledge hopefully people can decide if its the right bullet for them or not. All I've tried to do is share my knowledge of bullet construction and how it relates to terminal performance. I posted some pictures of other manufacture's bullets that one poster instantly jumped on as not suitable for dangerous game either despite them being proven big game bullets. I like to look at each recovered bullet and decide how it ended up in that condition. Very, very, very rarely would I say a bullet failed. More often than not there is a logical explanation as to why it ended up in the shape it did. Manufacturer's pictures of perfect mushrooms have given most hunters a false impression of what success and failure is. Run enough bullets through enough animals and you'll see every shaped bullet possible. People are losing the ability to be analytical. When a TSX or GM X shed petals there are a dozen possible explanations besides failure. When an A-Frame blows to pieces there are likely another dozen possibilities. We are becoming way too quick to blame the bullet rather than understand the external forces that play into terminal performance. I'm not here to tell anyone to use the DGX...I don't use it myself but that doesn't meaqn the rational side of me can't discuss the construction and terminal performance of bullets. Go ahead, bash away at the DGX...I couldn't care less. I was just pointing out that some of the comments were false. If you want a bullet that does something else, you should shoot something else. I've been in this exact same position discussing the TSX but since I don't work on a TV show sponsored by Barnes the personal attacks are less. Perhaps I just like to discuss bullet performance and there is nothing nefarious about my participation. Just a thought.

sheephunterab · Jun 30, 2017

Bullet failure or a bullet pushed outside its performance envelope?

lwaters · Jun 30, 2017

Don't know nothing about all these other bullets. I do know that the nosler partition looks pretty much the same and don't think a guy could go wrong using them.

IdaRam · Jun 30, 2017

In specific regard to "old" cup and core bullets, I think it's a bit of a mistake (maybe) to generically associate the Hornady DGX with the broad mix of cup and core bullets. It does in fact have some differences when compared to other cup and core bullets.
Going off on a tangent for a bit, I've shot a fair number of deer and elk over the years with cup and core bullets in cartridges from .243 to .338 and from various manufacturers. I've generally been satisfied with performance. I have seen many mushrooms with jacket and core still in tact. I shot a cow elk going straight away with a .338 Win Mag using a Sierra 250 gr Game King. It busted the left hip and ended up under the skin on the brisket. Dead elk, nice mushroom and about 190 gr still in tact. Is my sample size large enough to draw conclusions and make blanket statements. No, not hardly. Over almost 40 years of big game hunting I have probably shot around 50 or so deer, elk, moose and sheep. I have never experienced a catastrophic failure that I am aware of like we have been discussing here with the DGX. I did shoot a mule deer once with a .30 cal Nosler Ballistic Tip. Once. I thought it was a good idea at the time. I was interested to see what the result would be. It was a 2x3 muley buck at about 40 yards with a 150 gr ballistic tip out of my .300 Short Mag. It was a center lung shot and I half expected the old bang-flop. Nope, jump and run. Over the lip of a hill and down. Waaaay down. No exit wound, but inside was a mess. The explosive fragmentation had distributed lead and jacket material throughout the insides of that deer including back through the diaphragm and through the guts. What a mess. I ended up in a creek after dark attempting to clean all the mess out of the meat. Lesson learned.
Anyway, there is a growing data sample of "failure" with the DGX. By failure I am talking about fragmentation, jacket separation, failure to penetrate bone and reach the vitals, etc. I get it, some argue that is not failure, but performance in keeping with design. Phooey!

The difference I see between the DGX and traditional cup and core bullets:
The DGX has a copper clad steel jacket that appears to shear off as it peels back.
The DGX has a high tin and antimony lead core which is quite hard and seems to fragment instead of "flowing".
The jacket is of an interlock design, yet frequently the jacket separates from the core.
My two bits, I would much rather the DGX have a copper jacket, not steel, bonded to a softer lead core that was not as prone to fragmentation.
The idea of a solid and a soft (DGS & DGX) with the same weight and shape that shoot close to same POI, that feed reliably due to design geometry is a solid concept. It is simply my opinion that Hornady has missed the mark on the finer points and is producing a product which had the potential to be great, but has a few fundamental flaws that make them poor performers (I'm being generous) as Dangerous Game bullets.
I suspect sales are good despite these short comings because Hornady ammo is about all you can get off the shelf for the Ruger cartridges and the bullets themselves are relatively cheap for reloading in comparison to most of the other bullets people would properly choose for DG.
Too bad really because once again in my opinion they could be good bullets with some smart changes. But that might require Hornady to concede that a change was needed.
That, and it might require an investment to change design and re-tool.
Well, I've probably stepped in it again...

Just can't keep my mouth shut and all that.

sheephunterab · Jun 30, 2017

It's not like Hornady has sat around doing nothing...they keep introducing the GMX in larger calibers each year. This year the .416 for those looking for a "tougher" bullet. I suspect we'll see bigger offerings in the future. The DGX has enough of a following, much like the Woodleigh Weldcore, that I doubt you'll see too much tweaking with it. Nice thing is that there's lots of other options out there for those looking for something different.

gizmo · Jun 30, 2017

sheephunterab said:
Haha...my point was that they do penetrate and kill in contradiction to what was posted...we have 100 years of proof. Have there been bullet advancements since then? Absolutely.

Hell a enthusiasticly thrown rock will kill still doesn't mean it's a reliable option.

gizmo · Jun 30, 2017

I've said it before and will again. It would be glorious if someone like Federal, Norma, Nosler etc... would start offering 416 and 375 Ruger. It would make all the difference in the world.

colorado · Jun 30, 2017

sheephunterab said:
Bullet failure or a bullet pushed outside its performance envelope?

Good question. Woodleigh has recommend impact velocities for their bullets. In my opinion, for a dangerous game bullet (and Hornady named them DGX) the assumption should be there will be shots inside of 25 yards and some of them may hit heavy bone particularly if the animal is coming. As long as the bullets are being fired out of a standard velocity (not wildcat) DG cartridge the bullet maker should figure on the muzzle velocity being the impact velocity. Any DG bullet has to be able to break bone and penetrate to vitals as long as the shot is well placed. If it can't I don't want to use it. A TSX may lose petals but it keeps on going, I've heard of A-Frames have lead squeeze out of the hole in the base (I wish there was no hole there) but I've never seen it, but I believe those who have. No bullet is perfect, but some bullets are better than others.

sheephunterab · Jun 30, 2017

gizmo said:
I've said it before and will again. It would be glorious if someone like Federal, Norma, Nosler etc... would start offering 416 and 375 Ruger. It would make all the difference in the world.

I know you've said you are an experienced reloader but won't reload for dangerous game...just curious why?

gizmo · Jun 30, 2017

sheephunterab said:
I know you've said you are an experienced reloader but won't reload for dangerous game...just curious why?

It's actually odd that I'm that way. I have never had a hang fire or a fail to fire out of my hand loads. I have with factory ammo in small bore calibers though. My fear is that a primer or something sit around too long and be where the metal meets the meat and have some form of ammo malfunction. For everyday hunting I almost exclusively use my hand loads. For the same reason though when clients use my rifles/ammo I have them use factory. There is, supposed to be anyway, a bit of comfort in factory loads performing as advertised. Sure can things happen, absolutely. This entire conversation is example of that but.... if I'm hunting something that bites back I dont ever want to have to worry if something in my loading process compromised the load. While it may be miss placed, it seems as a bit of a safety net with me. In truth I would probably be happier with my own DG loads as I could load them however I deem necessary but like I said, whether misplaced or not, there is comfort in using factory ammo for DG hunting with me.

sheephunterab · Jun 30, 2017

Fair enough. Why not get some custom loaded ammo then?

gizmo · Jun 30, 2017

sheephunterab said:
Fair enough. Why not get some custom loaded ammo then?

That is probably exactly what I am going to do on the next DG hunt when ever that happens. I'm really hope to be able to somehow miraculously pull the finances out of my arse for a leopard or elephant hunt in the next few years. If that happens I will use factory loads for my 375 H&H for leopard. I may end up doing the same for ele unless I do have custom ammo loaded for my 416. I love the caliber just very limited on off the shelf products for it.

Michael Dean · Jul 1, 2017

sheephunterab said:
Red Leg, there seems to be this notion that I am somehow defending, recommending, whatever you want to call it, the DGX and the truth is, I'm just hear to talk about bullet performance as it relates to construction regardless of brand. Perhaps read back through the pages again and you'll see that. Not once have I said that anyone should use the DGX or have I even defended it. I've explained its construction and explained its terminal performance...nothing more. With that knowledge hopefully people can decide if its the right bullet for them or not. All I've tried to do is share my knowledge of bullet construction and how it relates to terminal performance. I posted some pictures of other manufacture's bullets that one poster instantly jumped on as not suitable for dangerous game either despite them being proven big game bullets. I like to look at each recovered bullet and decide how it ended up in that condition. Very, very, very rarely would I say a bullet failed. More often than not there is a logical explanation as to why it ended up in the shape it did. Manufacturer's pictures of perfect mushrooms have given most hunters a false impression of what success and failure is. Run enough bullets through enough animals and you'll see every shaped bullet possible. People are losing the ability to be analytical. When a TSX or GM X shed petals there are a dozen possible explanations besides failure. When an A-Frame blows to pieces there are likely another dozen possibilities. We are becoming way too quick to blame the bullet rather than understand the external forces that play into terminal performance. I'm not here to tell anyone to use the DGX...I don't use it myself but that doesn't meaqn the rational side of me can't discuss the construction and terminal performance of bullets. Go ahead, bash away at the DGX...I couldn't care less. I was just pointing out that some of the comments were false. If you want a bullet that does something else, you should shoot something else. I've been in this exact same position discussing the TSX but since I don't work on a TV show sponsored by Barnes the personal attacks are less. Perhaps I just like to discuss bullet performance and there is nothing nefarious about my participation. Just a thought.

Disingenuous once again. You're not here objectively engaging in conversation; review of the past 21 pages shows that 35-40% of the posts are yours defending and making excuses for DGX. You've got a relationship with the company and you want us to believe you're being objective, simply adding to the conversation, hogwash.

CTDolan · Jul 1, 2017

IdaRam said:
In specific regard to "old" cup and core bullets, I think it's a bit of a mistake (maybe) to generically associate the Hornady DGX with the broad mix of cup and core bullets. It does in fact have some differences when compared to other cup and core bullets.
Going off on a tangent for a bit, I've shot a fair number of deer and elk over the years with cup and core bullets in cartridges from .243 to .338 and from various manufacturers. I've generally been satisfied with performance. I have seen many mushrooms with jacket and core still in tact. I shot a cow elk going straight away with a .338 Win Mag using a Sierra 250 gr Game King. It busted the left hip and ended up under the skin on the brisket. Dead elk, nice mushroom and about 190 gr still in tact. Is my sample size large enough to draw conclusions and make blanket statements. No, not hardly. Over almost 40 years of big game hunting I have probably shot around 50 or so deer, elk, moose and sheep. I have never experienced a catastrophic failure that I am aware of like we have been discussing here with the DGX. I did shoot a mule deer once with a .30 cal Nosler Ballistic Tip. Once. I thought it was a good idea at the time. I was interested to see what the result would be. It was a 2x3 muley buck at about 40 yards with a 150 gr ballistic tip out of my .300 Short Mag. It was a center lung shot and I half expected the old bang-flop. Nope, jump and run. Over the lip of a hill and down. Waaaay down. No exit wound, but inside was a mess. The explosive fragmentation had distributed lead and jacket material throughout the insides of that deer including back through the diaphragm and through the guts. What a mess. I ended up in a creek after dark attempting to clean all the mess out of the meat. Lesson learned.
Anyway, there is a growing data sample of "failure" with the DGX. By failure I am talking about fragmentation, jacket separation, failure to penetrate bone and reach the vitals, etc. I get it, some argue that is not failure, but performance in keeping with design. Phooey!
The difference I see between the DGX and traditional cup and core bullets:
The DGX has a copper clad steel jacket that appears to shear off as it peels back.
The DGX has a high tin and antimony lead core which is quite hard and seems to fragment instead of "flowing".
The jacket is of an interlock design, yet frequently the jacket separates from the core.
My two bits, I would much rather the DGX have a copper jacket, not steel, bonded to a softer lead core that was not as prone to fragmentation.
The idea of a solid and a soft (DGS & DGX) with the same weight and shape that shoot close to same POI, that feed reliably due to design geometry is a solid concept. It is simply my opinion that Hornady has missed the mark on the finer points and is producing a product which had the potential to be great, but has a few fundamental flaws that make them poor performers (I'm being generous) as Dangerous Game bullets.
I suspect sales are good despite these short comings because Hornady ammo is about all you can get off the shelf for the Ruger cartridges and the bullets themselves are relatively cheap for reloading in comparison to most of the other bullets people would properly choose for DG.
Too bad really because once again in my opinion they could be good bullets with some smart changes. But that might require Hornady to concede that a change was needed.
That, and it might require an investment to change design and re-tool.
Well, I've probably stepped in it again... Just can't keep my mouth shut and all that.

Your points are spot on (I'm also glad to see that you confirmed my suspicion regard the core, it's brittleness).

I do believe that, if the issues are as prevalent and persistent as it would appear, Hornady will have another look at their DGX. @sheephunterab , perhaps you know someone with whom you can initiate a conversation? You may not want to turn them onto this thread but might mention the chatter and show a few examples of the performance spoken of here. It's something they'd want to know about if their reputation as a supplier of DG ammunition means anything to them (which would appear to be the case as they've invested heavily in the market over the last 10+ years, something for which I give them tremendous credit as it's a small slice of a rather massive pie, the DG market versus all the other areas in which they could invest resources).

Paul Edwards · Jul 1, 2017

gizmo said:
Ha! Perfect. I'll have to check into the folks a see if they do a good job. That really makes me happy.

And there are still other options available for those who purchase ammunition rather than, or in addition to, handloading:

http://www.doubletapammo.net/index.php?route=product/category&path=128_427

Pheroze · Jul 1, 2017

CTDolan said:
Your points are spot on (I'm also glad to see that you confirmed my suspicion regard the core, it's brittleness).

I do believe that, if the issues are as prevalent and persistent as it would appear, Hornady will have another look at their DGX. @sheephunterab , perhaps you know someone with whom you can initiate a conversation? You may not want to turn them onto this thread but might mention the chatter and show a few examples of the performance spoken of here. It's something they'd want to know about if their reputation as a supplier of DG ammunition means anything to them (which would appear to be the case as they've invested heavily in the market over the last 10+ years, something for which I give them tremendous credit as it's a small slice of a rather massive pie, the DG market versus all the other areas in which they could invest resources).

23 pages of why DGX suck should get someone's attention.

cagkt3 · Jul 1, 2017

Man, a guy goes to Alaska for a couple weeks and wow....

Let me see if I got the gist of the conversation - DGX and DGS are fantastic bullets. Am I close? Did I get it right?? :A Stirring:

sheephunterab · Jul 1, 2017

cagkt3 said:
Man, a guy goes to Alaska for a couple weeks and wow....

Let me see if I got the gist of the conversation - DGX and DGS are fantastic bullets. Am I close? Did I get it right??

Hahaha...something like that!

salesman · Jul 1, 2017

sheephunterab said:
@salesman what was the weight on those two DGX from the cape buffalo?

DGX #1. 323 grains
DGX #2. 317 grains

Just for full disclosure the A-Frame retained weight was 394 grains.

sheephunterab · Jul 1, 2017

Thanks

Why avoid Hornady DG bullets and ammunition?

sheephunterab

sheephunterab

Attachments

lwaters

IdaRam

sheephunterab

gizmo

gizmo

colorado

sheephunterab

gizmo

sheephunterab

gizmo

Michael Dean

CTDolan

Paul Edwards

Pheroze

cagkt3

sheephunterab

salesman

sheephunterab

Members online

Forum statistics

Proudly sponsored by

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

Buffalo Hunt with Henry Griffiths Safaris $10000

Share this page