Hornady Dangerous Game Ammunition

[LRich]

I don't see much mention of the Hornady DGX and DGS ammunition being talked about when the topic of "which bullet to use." Is it because there are so many great bullet manufacturers now or that hunters just haven't tried them.

Would appreciate hearing from those of you with experience using these Hornady's. They are one of the very few companies loading for the 404 Jeffery.

 

[James.Grage]

LRich

I used Hornady 450NE DSX and DGS last year...they worked great...

I rented the double rifle from the PH and went with 3 boxes 2 solids and 1 expanding...and left what i had over there...which was 2 and 1/2 boxes...ammo is difficult to get in the bush.

I tried the rifle out on a tree and the bullets bounced-ricocheted off the tree...hard tree and i was lucky i did not shoot anyone...so much for my practice...

shot 2 buffalo with the gun and the rest was history...i would use the hornady ammo again and plan to have a 404 jeff built next year..for my 2014 safari..

 

[Lpart]

I used the 300 grain DGX in a 375 Ruger on a buff last month. One shot was all I needed. Bullet didn't exit but it totally destroyed the heart and the lungs.

 

[JPmbogo]

Does anyone know what powder Hornady uses in its Dangerous Game series ammo?

 

[Rare Breed]

Be careful. You are correct in that for my 450-400 only Hornady is available. Many members here have shared some bad experiences and some have had no problems with the DGX. My point is since I do not want any chance of the problem on my Buffalo hunt I have done the following. I bought 200 rounds for practice of DGX. I have my reloading dies and Swift-A frame bullets I will use for the ammunition I am taking to Africa

 

[Tanks]

I think the original problems were resolved years ago and current batch is fine. Kind of similar to the rep .458 Win ammo got decades ago.

 

[TOBY458]

From what I've read, the newer bonded DGX is a good bullet. I especially doubt you'll have any issues at 450/400 velocities.

 

[CJW]

Does anyone know what powder Hornady uses in its Dangerous Game series ammo?

Give them a call. They were very accomodating when I called and asked about a factory load and reloading options.

 

[BeeMaa]

From what I've read, the newer bonded DGX is a good bullet. I especially doubt you'll have any issues at 450/400 velocities.

Exactly. The older bullets were not bonded. As a result they suffered from core-jacket separation and lack of penetration because of it. Wounded DG animals...trophy fees lost...possible injury to hunting party. A whole lot of not so good.

The new bullets are in fact bonded, but that doesn't mean that several people still don't shy away from Hornady bullets. Once bitten, twice shy.

I'll stick with Barnes TSX, Swift A-Frames and Norma Oryx for my premium bullets. If I were a reloader, I'd find some Peregrine, Rhino's and Woodleigh's to round out my arsenal.

 

[fourfive8]

I did a comparative test between the old DGX and new DGX bonded using a 450 Watts firing the 480 gr 458 cal at about 2200 fps impact into tough wet pack. No doubt, the results very clear- no comparison between the old DGX and new bonded version. The difference was most impressive. I wouldn’t use the old one for anything but paper. The new bonded one, IMO, good to go for DG.

 

[Rare Breed]

From what I've read, the newer bonded DGX is a good bullet. I especially doubt you'll have any issues at 450/400 velocities.

All 200 rounds I have are bonded DGX

 

[fourfive8]

Hornady I think has had a rough time getting past the bad rep of some of their hunting bullets, in particular the DGX un-bonded. There is a reason they are some of the only DG bullets still available during this industry wide outage. There is a very clear message in the story to any company exec. or bean counter that goes tone deaf and chooses to remain so for so long!.

To the original question. I always use the same test media and it is tough on bullets. Most expanding hunting bullets don't it make it 20". The original DGX 480 gr 458 made it about 10" but that is only an estimate because the jacket ruptures shortly after entry and scattered pieces along the track with the largest piece of lead core making to about the 11" mark. The DGX bonded fired with the same load out of the same rifle at the same velocity into the same media straight line penetrated to 20" and remained nose first, with 90% weight retention. The old and new DGX are identical in appearance and measurements including the crimp groove location. Both have the thin steel jacket. But the biggest differences appear to be the bonding and the internally skived jacket of the DGX bonded. Eight skvies produced 8 perfect petals in the mushroom of the tested DGX bonded.

 

[fourfive8]

^^Mercy, I try to catch the auto corrects, but always seem to miss some. One of these days I'll just disconnect it!

 

[gizmo]

Absolutely garbage ammo. Myself and multiple others have shared our experiences a jillion times and feel free to look up my 2015 hunt reports. Do not trust your life to this crap. Ammo is the cheapest part of a Safari, it also happens to be the most important part. I don’t care what Hornady has said they’ve done to fix it, I will never trust it. It’s ironic that they “fixed” it considering for years they denied there was a problem and personally told me that I had to have done something to have caused bullet failure.

 

[fourfive8]

Yep, from the beginning of their rise in the bullet business, they have been in denial. Their first attempt at mitigating the bullet failure so common to regular cup and core designs was the addition of a little bitty ridge or two around the inside of the jacket claiming that would prevent core separation and bullet failure. The "Interlock". Hah! Lot of good it does as the jacket comes apart and the lead cores breaks or extrudes in all directions. They have always seemed to produce a reasonably accurate bullet at a cheap price. That is a positive thing to say about Hornady. The big negative for years has been, at least 30, arrogant refusal to listen to hunters relating experiences of bullet failure. Not just a couple either... a lot. From the beginning, the founder, Joyce Hornady would, when confronted with about it, would respond with a cocky reply, something like, "It killed the animal didn't it-- how is that bullet failure?". And Hornady continues to make and market the Interlock model as a big game bullet. In reality they work about like all standard thin jacketed cup and core bullets- little different from any number of cheap bullets and little better than target/match bullets. But if you shoot a small whitetail with a 30 cal 180 Interlock or Berger match or Sierra match or similar zipping along out of a magnum rifle, the bullet construction won't make any difference about the outcome other than the percentage of mess it makes during the process. Never mind Dangerous Game, even Hornady's regular bonded bullet, their InterBond, is nothing special. They look to be very similar in design to the Remington Ultra Bonded. I guarantee either bullet can and likely will come apart if bone is encountered. They are nothing more than thin jacketed cup and core bullets with bonded cores. No jacket-core base support and very little taper and likely no consideration for matching ductile characteristics between jacket and core. For comparison- TBBC, Rhino and North Fork soft point bonded, lead core bullets are examples of correctly designed bonded core hunting bullets. And of course the A-Frame with the additional mechanical barrier to failure.

Enough of Hornady bashing, here's some pic showing diff between old and new 45 cal 480 gr Hornady DGXs.

 

[CJW]

The sad part is Hornady is capable of producing the most accurate ammo I have tried and their bullets for reloading are always consistent for me. I've always wanted to give Hornady more credit but hearing how they have treated some customers is very disappointing. It should not have taken them this long to fix the DGX and it shouldn't have been put out in the first place. Unfortunately I have seen first hand how business owners give something the "good enough" pass.

 

[ldmay375]

Yep, from the beginning of their rise in the bullet business, they have been in denial. Their first attempt at mitigating the bullet failure so common to regular cup and core designs was the addition of a little bitty ridge or two around the inside of the jacket claiming that would prevent core separation and bullet failure. The "Interlock". Hah! Lot of good it does as the jacket comes apart and the lead cores breaks or extrudes in all directions. They have always seemed to produce a reasonably accurate bullet at a cheap price. That is a positive thing to say about Hornady. The big negative for years has been, at least 30, arrogant refusal to listen to hunters relating experiences of bullet failure. Not just a couple either... a lot. From the beginning, the founder, Joyce Hornady would, when confronted with about it, would respond with a cocky reply, something like, "It killed the animal didn't it-- how is that bullet failure?". And Hornady continues to make and market the Interlock model as a big game bullet. In reality they work about like all standard thin jacketed cup and core bullets- little different from any number of cheap bullets and little better than target/match bullets. But if you shoot a small whitetail with a 30 cal 180 Interlock or Berger match or Sierra match or similar zipping along out of a magnum rifle, the bullet construction won't make any difference about the outcome other than the percentage of mess it makes during the process. Never mind Dangerous Game, even Hornady's regular bonded bullet, their InterBond, is nothing special. They look to be very similar in design to the Remington Ultra Bonded. I guarantee either bullet can and likely will come apart if bone is encountered. They are nothing more than thin jacketed cup and core bullets with bonded cores. No jacket-core base support and very little taper and likely no consideration for matching ductile characteristics between jacket and core. For comparison- TBBC, Rhino and North Fork soft point bonded, lead core bullets are examples of correctly designed bonded core hunting bullets. And of course the A-Frame with the additional mechanical barrier to failure.

Enough of Hornady bashing, here's some pic showing diff between old and new 45 cal 480 gr Hornady DGXs.

View attachment 397092

View attachment 397094

View attachment 397095

The Bonded looks like good performance.
What was the estimated velocity at impact ?

 

[spike.t]

I did a comparative test between the old DGX and new DGX bonded using a 450 Watts firing the 480 gr 458 cal at about 2200 fps impact into tough wet pack. No doubt, the results very clear- no comparison between the old DGX and new bonded version. The difference was most impressive. I wouldn’t use the old one for anything but paper. The new bonded one, IMO, good to go for DG.

That's great info...now any chance of not bringing up hornady dgx/dgs stuff...as it's been done to death....or even more done to death if thats possible.........

 

[IvW]

Still not controlled exspansion, still not weight forward design.... better options availible especially for a once in a lifetime dg safari and certainly for the ph keeping your bacon in one piece....

 

[Rare Breed]

Still not controlled exspansion, still not weight forward design.... better options availible especially for a once in a lifetime dg safari and certainly for the ph keeping your bacon in one piece....

I’m with you IvW. I’m practicing with Hornady but taking Swift A frames on my Buffalo hunt