Hornady DGX bonded failure

[Nhoro]

My thoughts are that soft bullets fail in two ways: 1. They fail to expand. If shot placement is good ie double lung and heart, then your animal may travel a further 50 to 100 m. Small problem because your animal will be down and recovered.2. Bullet breaks up on impact or turns off course before the vitals on a well placed shot. This is a huge problem because you did everything right but the bullet failed. Much bigger problem.

Neither of the above failures are very common. The DGX is accused of being too soft and over expanding- not pencilling through like a solid. So bullet failure is more likely to be shooter error.

 

[Redfishga1]

My thoughts are that soft bullets fail in two ways: 1. They fail to expand. If shot placement is good ie double lung and heart, then your animal may travel a further 50 to 100 m. Small problem because your animal will be down and recovered.2. Bullet breaks up on impact or turns off course before the vitals on a well placed shot. This is a huge problem because you did everything right but the bullet failed. Much bigger problem.

Neither of the above failures are very common. The DGX is accused of being too soft and over expanding- not pencilling through like a solid. So bullet failure is more likely to be shooter error.

Im confused on how shooting it in the heart would be considered a shooter error?

 

[Riflecrank]

... The DGX is accused of being too soft and over expanding- not pencilling through like a solid. So bullet failure is more likely to be shooter error.

Nope.
The DGX and DGX-Bonded are accused of being erratic in their expansion,
sometimes asymmetric, lopsided, too little on one side, too much on the other side. Prone to veer off course because of bad steering.
Steel jacket and lead core don't work well as "soft nose" whether bonded or not.
DGS is better but could be even better with a nose shape like the CEB and North Fork SOLIDS.
It is the Woodleigh Weldcore softs that are accused of over-expanding, pancaking.

 

[analog_peninsula]

I think that may be unfair to Woodleigh in that they are designed for conventional velocity windows and they explicitly print those windows on the box. I would not expect them to behave as desired in my .378 or .416 Weatherby.

 

[Muskox]

First I have read this. Calling bullshit. A 25 yard shot is going to destroy any bullet. Buffalo is dead.

Not really anything else to see or say.

That bullet looks perfect.

 

[375Fox]

First I have read this. Calling bullshit. A 25 yard shot is going to destroy any bullet. Buffalo is dead.

Not really anything else to see or say.

That bullet looks perfect.

You need to try some better bullets and go hunting more if you think 25 yards will destroy any bullet. Barnes TSX, Swift A Frames, Trophy bonded bear claws are frequently suggested for a reason.

 

[Riflecrank]

Noted. The soft Woodleighs are best used in the antiques and low velocity big bores.
No limits to MV on their HYDRO brass solids,
but the CEB brass solids are better.

 

[Fordy]

Gday riflecrank
Sorry for late reply as was a little busy clocking up critters on a new bullet design to test its effectiveness
Anyway moving onto below that are based off actual critter results not some text book theory

Fordy has shown that filling hollow points with melted beeswax will improve expansion of monometal copper hollow points.
Solidifies and stays put, no detriment to field use.
Beeswax is noncompressible and acts like hydraulic fluid on impact ?

Yes done a lot of critter testing on multiple brands & without a doubt the beeswax was a important factor that gave greater consistency from shot to shot on the vast majority of designs & understanding what brand designs gave consistency which in turn gives us better results if we apply the design within its ability / capabilities to what we are asking it to do under the potential circumstances ahead of us
But in the case of a Barnes it is a no brainer

Now on the importance of this ?
It is taken in various ways
some will not understand the importance of consistency
While others don’t know what consistency is
Some do get consistency

The other interesting part is on a few of these threads we get the fun ones to show up
Eg
The critter died so all good gang along with
The it’s not happened to me brigade
& these 2 are hard people to deal with as facts are often dismissed or some other lame excuse is put forward so it’s just better to wait until they either loose a critter or get one of those bad results themselves as then watch some of them start to ask questions on what occurred , that’s leaving out the every bullet will fail gang & yes they will ALL fail but compare say a Aframe vrs Barnes & get the % of these on a fail base the Barnes has a higher % of failure rates not saying one is better to use aframe over Barnes all the time as some circumstances it is better to use a Barnes over a Aframe as what’s potentially ahead will show what bullet for that potential situation is better suited

The next portion of people are the ones who get it imo & look @ failure as not a option yet also understand every thing will fail but also look @ those failures from a different perspective of how erratic the results of the design is or how consistent it is as that’s what matters to them

So overall I’m not really surprised on the comments in this thread as pretty well we have seen all of those different levels of acceptance in this thread as we do in many others

I’ll leave this thread with the following picture that I received off a young ph 4 days ago asking what he should use now in his 458 as he just got a result that showed him if he kept using these the writing was on the wall on what he could rely on if things went a little pear shape ,yep it was not acceptable to him as his journey as a ph grows yet it was already pointed out around a year ago & just a matter of time ( bingo raffle as I call it ) & now his number got called out in that bingo raffle for which I’m personally glad he’s seen it now & his words to me give me great satisfaction this young ph gets it now

I don’t know what one of these 2 recovered pills didn’t get into chest cavity after hitting the shoulder or if both didn’t get in , but dosent matter as that’s a failure in my book & neither of those pass in my book anyway for what that’s worth

& only way that buff died was the follow up shot/s I’m not sure on numbers of follow up shot/s ( oh that was after many many many km )as was around 4am my time when I briefly talked to him after the voice message came through so I wasn’t completely coherent as less than 2hrs sleep does that to me but once things settle a bit i will get a better run down on them & will do my best to examine these pills in person but once again for what that’s worthwill be taken in different ways

Anyway carry on people I’m out as the merry go round will continue & I’m off this one from the many dead critters I’ve taken with the DGX as I know from entering those results in my field note book the hornady DGX is total $HIT for what that’s worth but those words will also vary depending on different views which is fine




Cheers

 

[SStomcat]

It is all just internet problems. In the past, the outcome of the hunt was what mattered, not what the bullet looked like afterwards. Besides, many of us did not know how a bullet was supposed really to look like after impact.

Before bonded bullets, monolithic copper bullets, and other modern projectile designs came along, what was primarily used for dangerous game?
I recently came across some of my grandfather's old Paradox gun ammunition, which he reportedly used when hunting tigers and Indian bears. The projectiles were large spherical metal balls with cracks or cuts in them. My guess is that they were designed to fragment or splinter on impact, but I'm not sure.
From what I've read, dangerous-game hunters of the era generally relied on soft-nose lead-core bullets and various types of solids, but I'm curious about the specifics. Were split or segmented balls commonly used on predators like tiger, while solids were reserved for elephant and buffalo?

 

[Hunting Hitman]

I find it interesting how we have Hornady DGX apologist…yet I never see people post about how their Swift A-Frames, TBBC, or Northfork SS failed them on Safari.
HH

 

[Riflecrank]

You need to try some better bullets and go hunting more if you think 25 yards will destroy any bullet. Barnes TSX, Swift A Frames, Trophy bonded bear claws are frequently suggested for a reason.

Made me laugh, so true.
Add North Fork, CEB and Hammer Bullets to that list.
List is getting pretty long.

 

[grand veneur]

Before bonded bullets, monolithic copper bullets, and other modern projectile designs came along, what was primarily used for dangerous game?
I recently came across some of my grandfather's old Paradox gun ammunition, which he reportedly used when hunting tigers and Indian bears. The projectiles were large spherical metal balls with cracks or cuts in them. My guess is that they were designed to fragment or splinter on impact, but I'm not sure.
From what I've read, dangerous-game hunters of the era generally relied on soft-nose lead-core bullets and various types of solids, but I'm curious about the specifics. Were split or segmented balls commonly used on predators like tiger, while solids were reserved for elephant and buffalo?

According to the Jeffery catalog from 1912–13, the following bullets below were recommended for big and DG game hunting. Previously, earlier authors had recommended the use of 8-bore or even 4-bore double rifles, also for elephant hunting and, consequently, the use of pure lead bullets. I shot my first seven or eight buffalo just over 30 years ago using only FMJ bullets, with cartridges caliber 9,3mm or 375 H&H Magnum, and also 10,75x68. When I switched to larger calibers for buffalo hunting, I tried to use SP bullets, like the classic ones from Hornady, and did that until recently. Even I no longer use such bullets, I still try to defend them because they always delivered good results for me, even when there was a weight loss or the bullets mushroomed irregularly. Many things are often misunderstood. Nowadays, with the excellent bullets available to us, there is no reason to go back to old-fashioned bullet designs. However, as long as there are people who use Stone Age tools like bows and arrows for hunting, there is no reason why others should not continue using classic SP bullets, like the DGX from Hornady, if they can kill buffalo with it, regardless of what the bullet looks like afterwards.

 

[curt672]

Just got back from Africa and I had this thread on my mind. When I got into camp I reviewed this subject with my PH and ask him I he had a preference to the DGX or the TSX in my 416, as I had both on me. he said that the TSX might be a better choice, I felt he was being a bit political as he is friends with Steve Hornady, he did say he had a conversation with him on this and Steve felt it to be a mute point as all the bullets that he had been shown by hunters were from DEAD buffalo --, good point. With all that I took my Buff with the TSX at aprox 75 yards and a one shot kill, he ran maybe 60 to 80 yards and dropped dead. Can't wait to try the DGX next time

 

[Mark458]

Just got back from Africa and I had this thread on my mind. When I got into camp I reviewed this subject with my PH and ask him I he had a preference to the DGX or the TSX in my 416, as I had both on me. he said that the TSX might be a better choice, I felt he was being a bit political as he is friends with Steve Hornady, he did say he had a conversation with him on this and Steve felt it to be a mute point as all the bullets that he had been shown by hunters were from DEAD buffalo --, good point. With all that I took my Buff with the TSX at aprox 75 yards and a one shot kill, he ran maybe 60 to 80 yards and dropped dead. Can't wait to try the DGX next time

Nice buffalo you got there. Looks like the TSX did the job. I feel more confident since switching to the TSX. The included pictures are of some older Hornady Interbond from several years ago (458 Lott 500 grain). The two buffalo expired quickly and never got out of my site. The shots were broadside on one and a slight quarter away on the other. Both were at optimal angles and you can see the great deal of diformaty and weight loss of the bullets. What if large bone had been encountered. That's what led to my decision to switch to the TSX.

 

[375Fox]

Steve felt it to be a moot point as all the bullets that he had been shown by hunters were from DEAD buffalo --, good point. With all that I took my Buff with the TSX at aprox 75 yards and a one shot kill, he ran maybe 60 to 80 yards and dropped dead. Can't wait to try the DGX next time

That’s a very arrogant thing to say when someone could kill a buffalo with a 30/06 as well. I believe he had the same sentiment with the previous non-bonded version. Most of their problems are in 375 from what PHs tell me. The heavier slower bullets hold up better, but I just won’t understand for all the resources Hornady has why they wouldn’t want to make a better bullet. Their focus seems volume.

 

[Wiley64]

Why chance it? Montolithic’s are empirically better performing projectiles on large thick skinned game.

 

[curt672]

FYI I have loaded both the bullets in my 416 to 2575 fps --

 

[Mark458]

That’s a very arrogant thing to say when someone could kill a buffalo with a 30/06 as well. I believe he had the same sentiment with the previous non-bonded version. Most of their problems are in 375 from what PHs tell me. The heavier slower bullets hold up better, but I just won’t understand for all the resources Hornady has why they wouldn’t want to make a better bullet. Their focus seems volume.

I agree with the arrogant comment "DEAD" buffalo. Anyone here ever dig a bullet out of a "WOUNDED" buffalo. If so please include details.

 

[Russ16]

That’s a very arrogant thing to say when someone could kill a buffalo with a 30/06 as well. I believe he had the same sentiment with the previous non-bonded version. Most of their problems are in 375 from what PHs tell me. The heavier slower bullets hold up better, but I just won’t understand for all the resources Hornady has why they wouldn’t want to make a better bullet. Their focus seems volume.

Their focus just is definitely on volume. I can understand it, they probably sell more A-tips or ELDX in a week than they do DGX all year.

 

[375Fox]

Their focus just is definitely on volume. I can understand it, they probably sell more A-tips or ELDX in a week than they do DGX all year.

Definitely, but they have the ability to make DGX comparable to the lead core competition and just don’t, but then again Swift A Frames and Trophy bonded bear claws are only sporadically available. I think they choose volume route with DGX/DGS also.