Seems kind of hard to compare bullets by generalities- from hollow point monometals to mechanically controlled expansion partition types to bonded cores to solid base lead cores to thick jacketed to steel encased cores to whatever.....
Nosler Partitions and Swift A-Frames and the old H-Mantel are in a group by themselves. By far the toughest, most reliable IMO for DG is the A-Frame as it has slightly better jacket/internal design and has bonded front core. Very reliable and predictable penetration and expansion.
There are three similar bonded, lead core bullets with very heavy tapered jackets with very thick base support features- Rhino Soft Point, TBBC (Trophy Bonded Bear Claw) and the North Fork Soft Point. I have no experience with the Rhino but from reliable reports and looking at their construction, easy to predict their performance would be similar to both the TBBC and the North Fork Soft Point. In my experience, both the performance of the TBBCs and the North Fork Soft Points have been flawless and predictable-- much like the A-Frame.
Another contender might be the current bonded form of the Hornady DGX. It is one of the designs with a steel cased core. Based on my testing in tough media, it is a huge improvement over their original non-bonded DGX. But the stigma of the first model of the DGX is hard to shake. Sooo... someone else can report on actual performance on DG. I would pretty good.
Now the Barnes TSX, TTSX. I know for a fact, the TSX/TTSX design is far superior to the their original X- which, IMO, was a real POS! The only flaws I know of in the TSX/TTSX design are very low velocity unreliability and the occasional petal shedding at higher impact velocity and/or through hard tissue like bone. How a shed petal affects straight line penetration?- I don't know but the "rumor mill" indicates it does. I actually had one shed a petal on a buffalo and it didn't seem to matter. Penetration was more than adequate and within expectations and the penetration line was straight- so I am not convinced one way or another?? If you overdo the velocity, hit something hard, turn the bullet into a mangled shard it will likely go wacky no matter its construction
I did do a low velocity penetration test on both a spire point FMJ and a Barnes TSX two or three years ago. Both were 30 cal, 150 gr bullets with about 1300 fps impact velocity. Both acted similarly in tough media. Each began veering in an increasing arc shortly after penetration. Neither bullet deformed. That behavior makes sense as both are of similar profile if they don't deform. Both veered in a spiral path as stabilizing rotation slowed after impact. They did not tumble but yawed around their axis as they penetrated causing, IMO, the spiral penetration path. "Tumbling" may occur at the extreme terminus of penetration as a severely yawing bullet quits rotating. Of course that is only one test, so I won't extrapolate it to other conditions or velocities. My experience with the TSX on game has been excellent and I don't plan on shooting anything at a distance where my bullet has slowed to anywhere near 1300 fps!
I'll leave the sniping stunts to someone else. The longest shot I've had at an animal with a TSX was 260 yds broadside. The TSX 210 gr 338 cal bullet out of a 338-06 with a MV of 2550 fps and was probably going about 1950-2000 fps at impact. It passed through both shoulders of a large bull oryx which piled up dead after running about 50 yds. I assume the petals expanded some since the exit was about 1 1/2" diameter, but the exact extent of petal expansion?- anyone's guess.
I think bullets can be gyroscopically stabilized if spinning fast enough- no matter the media and can be "dart" stabilized as their rotation slows if their center of gravity is in front of the center of aerodynamic or hydrodynamic pressure... therefore
@IvW's reference to the "weight forward" attributes of certain bullets during penetration.
Curious,
@Jakalas, what is your background, where are you from?
