Why avoid Hornady DG bullets and ammunition?

[PHOENIX PHIL]

Just remembered an old hunt report from Michael McCourry. He used to have a membership here, but I can't seem to tag him and draw him back on to AH.

He used I believe a CEB solid in a .458B&M on a buff hunt a few years back. Somehow he managed to shoot a tree, some 8" or so in diameter. The bullet passed thru the tree, hit his buff and completely passed thru the bull. Yes, he had the pictures to prove it. If I can find them, I'll try to post them.

 

[sheephunterab]

A solid in this situation had better not be too sensitive to twigs or small branches.

How a bullet reacts to hitting a branch or twig is 100% voodoo and shape and construction and velocity all play little role in predicting the outcome. Hit a branch with any bullet and it may or may not deflect. There is no predicting. Again, there's some great reading on the subject.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

Phil type whatever caliber you want in front of "TSX bullet failure" and you'll get pages of results. Pretty much the same for any popular bullet. People love to hate bullets.

Have to get on with my day. But I did a few quick googles of:

375 tsx bullet failure
416 tsx bullet failure
458 tsx bullet failure

all pointed to threads where the bullets were not of those calibers but were medium bores.

I substituted "swift a-frame" and "north fork" for "tsx" and saw nothing on quick perusal. I'll try later again and give it more time. I tried the same with DGX and DGS and had far more obvious hits to such threads.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

How a bullet reacts to hitting a branch or twig is 100% voodoo and shape and construction and velocity all play little role in predicting the outcome. Hit a branch with any bullet and it may or may not deflect. There is no predicting. Again, there's some great reading on the subject.

Yes there is. I believe you're a member over at the "other place" too. If you've not read the threat on terminal ballistics over there started by Michael McCourry, you should. But it's about 300 or so pages, so it will take awhile.

 

[lwaters]

I think a 260 grain nosler partition would have killed the cat dead. I would hunt lions with a 300 win mag with 180 partitions. Every bullet that Ive recovered looked the same.

 

[sheephunterab]

The last lion I saw killed was with a 180 grain Hornady SST out of a 300WM...One and done. They definitely aren't bullet proof!

 

[gizmo]

I think a 260 grain nosler partition would have killed the cat dead. I would hunt lions with a 300 win mag with 180 partitions. Every bullet that Ive recovered looked the same.

I agree that the 300 mag shooting premium quality bullets would be a great cat round. I can't speak for Noslers as I have limited experience with them.

 

[sheephunterab]

Have to get on with my day. But I did a few quick googles of:

375 tsx bullet failure
416 tsx bullet failure
458 tsx bullet failure

all pointed to threads where the bullets were not of those calibers but were medium bores.

I substituted "swift a-frame" and "north fork" for "tsx" and saw nothing on quick perusal. I'll try later again and give it more time. I tried the same with DGX and DGS and had far more obvious hits to such threads.

There are quite a few for 375 TSX for sure...most of the DGS/X come back to this site... Have a great day!

 

[gizmo]

If I had it to do over again I would have hunted my lion and buff with my 375 H&H shooting 300 grain swifts.

 

[Hank2211]

+1

OK, I admit it. I am not cool. What does BPAC mean?!!

 

[Bert the Turtle]

I really don't think comparing the DGX to a Barnes, A-Frame or a Northfork is a fair comparison, IMO they are all better bullets than the DGX. What we should compare the DGX to is the Nosler Partition, the DGX preforms just like the NP, so ask yourself this question, if you show up for a Buff hunt with your 416 Rigby and 400 grain NP what PH would tell you "I'm sorry sir your NP is not adequate for this hunt". I believe the Barnes, A-Frame and the Northfork are much better bullets then the DGX or the NP. Today most DG hunters only consider the NP for leopard and lion hunts but 40 years ago they wold have used the NP for everything.

40 years ago they would likely have used a solid on buffalo.

 

[Hank2211]

How was saying that the bullet may have struck a tree limb or branch out of line?

I was hunting buffalo in Benin a few months back, using a .416 Rigby shooting Barnes 400 gr TTSX's. I did hit a tree which was in the way, and the bullet seems to have hit the buffalo sideways. It penetrated deeply enough to break the leg and sever an artery, giving us a great blood trail (or should I say spray?) to follow for the two hundred yards until we found him standing under a tree.

If the Hornady did deflect and if it did hit the lion sideways, it didn't cause much damage. I wonder what would have happened it I had used a DGX on the buffalo and it had hit it sideways, if it can't penetrate a lion? Given the penetration I got on the buffalo, I think it would have gone straight through a lion.

By the way, we believe it hit sideways because of the entrance wound. The skin had a rectangular hole about the length of the bullet.

So yes, I was lucky, but without insulting Arnold Palmer, you get luckier if you use better equipment.

 

[gizmo]

OK, I admit it. I am not cool. What does BPAC mean?!!

Sent you a PM. Shhhhhh

 

[Hank2211]

Sent you a PM. Shhhhhh

I know nothing.

 

[Bert the Turtle]

Sent you a PM. Shhhhhh

me too, please!

 

[gizmo]

I know nothing.

Your in the circle of trust now. Need to be careful not to end up like this.
. O

 

[sheephunterab]

I was hunting buffalo in Benin a few months back, using a .416 Rigby shooting Barnes 400 gr TTSX's. I did hit a tree which was in the way, and the bullet seems to have hit the buffalo sideways. It penetrated deeply enough to break the leg and sever an artery, giving us a great blood trail (or should I say spray?) to follow for the two hundred yards until we found him standing under a tree.

If the Hornady did deflect and if it did hit the lion sideways, it didn't cause much damage. I wonder what would have happened it I had used a DGX on the buffalo and it had hit it sideways, if it can't penetrate a lion? Given the penetration I got on the buffalo, I think it would have gone straight through a lion.

By the way, we believe it hit sideways because of the entrance wound. The skin had a rectangular hole about the length of the bullet.

So yes, I was lucky, but without insulting Arnold Palmer, you get luckier if you use better equipment.

I don't doubt your experience at all and go back to my comment about deflections being voodoo...no two are the same and no two results are the same. In a world filled with rules it's hard for many to accept there are few rules when it comes to terminal performance of bullets. There's a hundred variables each time a bullet strikes an animal. Change one of them and the results can be dramatically different.

 

[siml]

I am seriously siding with the frozen Macarel theory.... Just don't know how I am going to keep them frozen in the northern Mozambique heat!!! Surely slightly defrosted won't affect too much penetration.

 

[Red Leg]

I am seriously siding with the frozen Macarel theory.... Just don't know how I am going to keep them frozen in the northern Mozambique heat!!! Surely slightly defrosted won't affect too much penetration.

In that heat a warm mackerel might be considered a form of chemical warfare or weapon of mass destruction (or at least mass nausea). Still, likely more effective than a 50's era technology DGX cup and core SP.

 

[fourfive8]

Puzzled by why it's not fair to compare the Hornady DANGEROUS GAME EXPANDING to other dangerous game bullets. It is Hornady's name and inference for their bullet not mine nor anyone else's. If Hornady calls it a dangerous game bullet and sells it as a dangerous game bullet it should be compared to other dangerous game bullets simple as that.

I included the North Fork Cup Point comparison because the NF CPS does retain a small flat rivet like meplat as it penetrates. Hornady says their DGX bullet does that (as printed on their bullet box) and that statement is supported by a fraudulent illustration also on the box!

Obviously the Barnes TSX is promoted by Barnes as their expanding bullet and as their dangerous game expanding bullet in the larger calibers . Why is that not a fair to compare the DGX to the TSX? Would it be more fair to compare the Hornady Dangerous Game Expanding (DGX) to a frangible, non-bonded cup and core bullet like a Sierra, Berger's so-called "hunting bullet" (aka Berger bomb) or a Nosler Ballistic Tip…. well maybe because, IMO, those bullets are in about the same category as the Hornady DGX.

Another observation about the discussions on bullet performance. Seems there is a "school of thought" that promotes or believes that unless a bullet shows some kind of "explosive" terminal result on a big game animal, does a huge amount of tissue damage and causes an animal to do a "ground gainer" in a cloud of dust, the performance of that bullet is deemed a failure. I can only guess that is what may be behind at least some of the reports of failures of the Barnes TSX. Some hunters grew up getting grins and giggles about shooting relatively small whitetails with fast 7 MMs or 30 Cals with frangible bullets then high fiving each other as those hits nearly blow the animal in half may deem the performance of a deep penetrating truly controlled expanding bullet a failure. "Why didn't that (name the big or dangerous game animal) flop over dead when hit with the Barnes TSX?" or I hit that (name the game animal) at 653 "ranged" yards and it ran off…. and so on. ughh