What Kind of bullet do you Professional Hunters use/prefer?

[Proneshooter]

Not a PH but I know what my favorite PH uses. Woodleigh softs and solids in his 505. He has a large distain for the cup point solids, but likes the flat point solids his clients use.

 

[mark-hunter]

@IvW
Yes. I am limited in options of available ammo. Att the moment I have available PPU and Oryx in local shops. But, earlier you mentiioned it is too soft.

 

[fourfive8]

Find and study cross sectioned photos or images of bullets. You can very well predict how they will probably act. The Norma Oryx, Remington Core-Lokt Ultra Bonded and Woodleigh Weldcore. ALL are simply thin jacketed, conventional cup and core designs that have been bonded. When they meet tough resistance they will expand rapidly. If they meet hard and/or tough resistance at close range at higher velocity, they can over expand and come apart and suffer inadequate penetration just like the non-bonded forms of same bullet. The only way to work around that with a thin jacketed, conventional cup and core bullet, for example on buffalo, would be to use a heavy-for-caliber bullet at lower velocity with a higher sectional density. I personally would rather use both a tougher bullet and heavy-for-caliber especially in the 375 for buffalo- just my opinion.

For DG like buffalo no matter if you are hunting or backing up, most everyone with experience recommends a tougher expanding bullet. Bonding is fine but it is no substitute for a tough design. There are three bullets out there that are very similar in design to the one IVW is recommending. These bullets are bonded, cup and core but have a thick base with heavy tapering jacket. They are: the missing-in-action in Sweden North Fork Soft Point, the RSA Rhino Soft Point and the US Trophy Bonded Bear Claw. A slightly more complex design with similar terminal characteristics would be the Swift A-Frame. The other common tough bullet for DG would be the Barnes TSX. Depending on where you are, most all ammo and components are becoming increasingly difficult to find and options are thinning rapidly. International availability is another complex hurdle.

I've added a couple of pics to illustrate the difference between a "soft" bonded bullet and a "tough" bonded bullet. I have experience with both and I will never again use the soft design, bonded or not for any big game much less something like a buffalo. Should be easy to predict the terminal potentials based on the design. The Norma Oryx cross section looks nearly identical to the Remington Core-Lokt Ultra. The Rhino Soft Point is very similar in design to the TBBC.

 

[Thumper Mcgee]

Could you use the norma Oryx on leopard

Find and study cross sectioned photos or images of bullets. You can very well predict how they will probably act. The Norma Oryx, Remington Core-Lokt Ultra Bonded and Woodleigh Weldcore. ALL are simply thin jacketed, conventional cup and core designs that have been bonded. When they meet tough resistance they will expand rapidly. If they meet hard and/or tough resistance at close range at higher velocity, they can over expand and come apart and suffer inadequate penetration just like the non-bonded forms of same bullet. The only way to work around that with a thin jacketed, conventional cup and core bullet, for example on buffalo, would be to use a heavy-for-caliber bullet at lower velocity with a higher sectional density. I personally would rather use both a tougher bullet and heavy-for-caliber especially in the 375 for buffalo- just my opinion.

For DG like buffalo no matter if you are hunting or backing up, most everyone with experience recommends a tougher expanding bullet. Bonding is fine but it is no substitute for a tough design. There are three bullets out there that are very similar in design to the one IVW is recommending. These bullets are bonded, cup and core but have a thick base with heavy tapering jacket. They are: the missing-in-action in Sweden North Fork Soft Point, the RSA Rhino Soft Point and the US Trophy Bonded Bear Claw. A slightly more complex design with similar terminal characteristics would be the Swift A-Frame. The other common tough bullet for DG would be the Barnes TSX. Depending on where you are, most all ammo and components are becoming increasingly difficult to find and options are thinning rapidly. International availability is another complex hurdle.

I've added a couple of pics to illustrate the difference between a "soft" bonded bullet and a "tough" bonded bullet. I have experience with both and I will never again use the soft design, bonded or not for any big game much less something like a buffalo. Should be easy to predict the terminal potentials based on the design. The Norma Oryx cross section looks nearly identical to the Remington Core-Lokt Ultra. The Rhino Soft Point is very similar in design to the TBBC.

View attachment 384711




View attachment 384710

 

[mark-hunter]

@fourfive8
Thanks for thoroguh answer.
So far, the buffalo list of bullets may be defined as follows:
Sweden North Fork Soft Point, the RSA Rhino Soft Point, US Trophy Bonded Bear Claw, Barnes TSX.
Based on other comment on forum, swift A frame, as well?
Those would be acceptable?
On the other hand, Hornady DGS and DGX have questionable reputation, so far?

 

[fourfive8]

Yes, those are the most commonly recommended expanding type bullets for DG like buffalo. North Fork was bought by a company in Sweden and was supposed to be preparing to produce the excellent line of North Fork Bullets for export. That's been over a year ago, so who knows? Rhino is a company in South Africa and I've never seen them available here in the US. TBBC bullets are available in the US but given the current situation in the market, you have to really search and they are expensive.

If I were setting up for buffalo using an expanding bullet out of the 375, I'd go with a 300 gr or possibly even a 350 gr of one these types of bullets.

As to the DGX? Hornady really fouled up their future market, when they didn't do adequate homework on the original DGX. They remained in denial too long especially in this age of instant communication among the hunting community. Confidence, once lost, is hard to regain. The original iteration of the DGX relied on a very flawed design idea- a thin, hard steel jacket would take the place of a thick, malleable tapered copper jacket for deep penetration with predicable controlled expansion as expected for a DG bullet. I have tested both the original DGX and the new bonded DGX with identical loads, velocities, weights in a tough, standardized media of 100% water saturated phone book paper. The original DGX failed badly, fragmenting with very poor penetration. The new bonded DGX expanded properly with 8, evenly separated petals, reflecting the internally skived nose jacket, The bonding kept the core attached to the jacket with the jacket supporting a proper mushroom shape at the terminus. The penetration was straight line and the depth was on par with other tough expanding bullets similar to those mentioned earlier.

Given current supply problems you might also look at CEB and Peregrine. The limited testing I've done on CEBs indicates they perform as advertised. I have no experience with Peregrine and like Rhino I've never seen them available here.

 

[WAB]

Yes, those are the most commonly recommended expanding type bullets for DG like buffalo. North Fork was bought by a company in Sweden and was supposed to be preparing to produce the excellent line of North Fork Bullets for export. That's been over a year ago, so who knows? Rhino is a company in South Africa and I've never seen them available here in the US. TBBC bullets are available in the US but given the current situation in the market, you have to really search and they are expensive.

If I were setting up for buffalo using an expanding bullet out of the 375, I'd go with a 300 gr bullet from this list: North Fork, Rhino, TBBC, A-Frame, TSX

As to the DGX? Hornady really fouled up their future market, when they didn't do adequate homework on the original DGX. They remained in denial too long especially in this age of instant communication among the hunting community. Confidence, once lost, is hard to regain. The original iteration of the DGX relied on a very flawed design idea- a thin, hard steel jacket would take the place of a thick, malleable tapered copper jacket for deep penetration with predicable controlled expansion as expected for a DG bullet. I have tested both the original DGX and the new bonded DGX with identical loads, velocities, weights in a tough, standardized media of 100% water saturated phone book paper. The original DGX failed badly, fragmenting with very poor penetration. The new bonded DGX expanded properly with 8, evenly separated petals, reflecting the internally skived nose jacket, The bonding kept the core attached to the jacket with the jacket supporting a proper mushroom shape at the terminus. The penetration was straight line and the depth was on par with other tough expanding bullets similar to those mentioned earlier.

Given current supply problems you might also look at CEB and Peregrine. The limited testing I've done on CEBs indicates they perform as advertised and I have no experience with Peregrine.

Excellent analysis. My experience with buffalo is limited to the TBBC, A-Frame and original iteration of the DGX. I fully endorse the TBBC and A-Frame. Based on their performance on a buffalo in Mozambique, I feel fortunate that the original iteration of the DGX didn’t get me killed.