I think that there is a misconception, fueled by the hunting/shooting magazines, that bullet expansion (say 1.5x or 2x or whatever plus certain % of weight retention) is necessary or your animal just walks away like nothing happened. Now this makes good ad copy and makes the writer look like a real genuis, till you discover for yourself that the truth is seldom black and white as presented.
Good wound channel? - I gotta ask, not trying to be mean or a jerk, have you looked at the wound channel from a WFN or LFN in .40 cal or greater? I know it is hard to believe but lack of expansion does not mean lack of wound channel. It's all in the nose shape. Until you see the destruction it's just hard to believe it's possible, given the information we have been fed for the last few decades (or longer).
Frankly I had my doubts as welll, tried the cast handgun bullet on faith, and when the knife comes out, the truth is revealed.
I've been intending to take some photos of wound channels and post them after busting something with a handgun & the Beartooth bullets, now I guess I need to get this project on the front burner, and see if this is useful information for the forum.
It's ironic that the 'nose shape' of an expanded bullet usually looks like a round nose, which we know tends to produce the poorest wound channel of all (compared to other nose shapes at the same diameter/impact velocity, etc.). The reason it works at all is that the diameter of the new 'nose' can be several times the diameter that the bullet started at. So, our plan is to take a marginal shape for wounding, increase it to the point that it actually starts to help, and in the meantime the increase in diameter limits our bullet penetration. Hmmmm.......
Now.... we clearly need expansion on the small rifle calibers, but then they have the speed to make all of this work. I'm referring strictly to handgun velocities (say 1200-1500fps).
Another thing, I don't think that % of retained weight means all that much, but it gets a lot of press. Now my favorite cast bullets don't lose much if any weight, but my favorite rifle bullets do and I think that is OK. Partitions blow the nose core up generally, but those pieces are going somewhere and doing something. Last pig I shot, nice broadside through the ribs, the exit hole through the far ribs had bits of lead and jacket stuck in it, in a pattern several inches across. Those pieces of the nose core were making plenty of extra holes through the lungs, which in this case was a great thing.
Anyway... I will not dispute the contention that JHPs in the .44 mag and such are just fine for deer. They certainly are, our little south and central Texas deer might tip the scales at a hundred pounds dripping wet. But..... I do not see how they are more effective than the proper cast bullet - dead is dead! A deer might drop in the spot, it might run 100 yards, and for the most part this isn't predictable, no matter what the caliber, rifle, handgun, or bow. The last deer I 'knew' would drop in it's tracks was one I shot in the head with a .22-250, and that's hardly a typical hunting scenario.
Anyway I've stated in the past, the number 1 reason I just the cast bullet in handguns isn't for the little deer around here, I just want to be ready when Mr. Pig shows up. Since the cast bullet is every bit as effective as the jacketed, in my experience, I'll go with what works for every situation.
Well anyway like I said, not trying to start any fights, just want to expand (ha ha) my thoughts on the subject.
If you have all the confidence in the world that one bullet style is for you and that the others won't work as well, then by all means stick with what makes you happy. There is nothing that will drop your success in the field more than wondering about the outcome when you are squeezing the trigger.
The reason that I ask is that I will be ordering my new Corbin swaging dies and press in the next month. I'm tired of not being able to produce bullets during the winter here, as I cast in the outdoors or garage with the door open and a fan right behind the Pro-Melt.
