Why avoid Hornady DG bullets and ammunition?

[ActionBob]

Phil, I think you are being a bit melodramatic but each to their own.

You obviously do not know Phil, he is a man who thinks before he speaks. He is anything but melodramatic... I would describe him as precise and well spoken with the ability to get his thoughts into type much better than average. You could get away with calling me that, but not Phil.

 

[sheephunterab]

You obviously do not know Phil, he is a man who thinks before he speaks. He is anything but melodramatic... I would describe him as precise and well spoken with the ability to get his thoughts into type much better than average. You could get away with calling me that, but not Phil.

Some of the best writers are melodramatic....often it's part of being a good writer. I have no doubt he put a lot of thought into his post and the ensuing melodrama to make his point. I agree, there was a high level of skill and the writing was indeed eloquent. By the way, my comment was in regards to him comparing bullets to medical equipment not the lion incident.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

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.

As a long standing lover of the Nosler Partition, I can't agree with you more that it is a poor comparison NP to A-Frame/TSX/North Fork.

But the DGX comparison to an NP is in an inaccurate comparsion. The NP is two seperate pieces of lead with the rear section protected by copper.

40 years ago, yes a PH would welcome the Partition. But we're not talking 40 years ago, we're talking today. And I have numerous PH's over the last several years tell me they don't want the NP in camp for a DG hunt. They likely won't tell you on the day you arrive, but they will if you book your hunt in plenty of time.

Again it's not about the DGX ever killing a large dangerous animal, it's about better choices being available. No one has yet defended that choice being the DGX. Again I ask why would anyone choose the DGX over TSX/A-Frame/North Fork?

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

By the way, my comment was in regards to him comparing bullets to medical equipment not the lion incident.

Wasn't being melodramatic at all. Medical equipment and ensuring the quality thereof is what I do for a living and have been for over 15 years now. If someday you are the customer of one of my companies products, perhaps you'll understand. I'm quite certain our customers appreciate the dedication of myself and my colleagues.

But I'll make another effort to convey my thoughts perhaps with less drama.

You're on a tuskless cow hunt. You're now 15 yards from your quarry. There are many other elephants nearby including the grumpy matriarch. Your cow now turns and presents the perfect frontal head shot. At this moment do you want the bullet that works 9 times out of 10, or the one that works 99 times out of 100?

 

[ActionBob]

Some of the best writers are melodramatic....often it's part of being a good writer. I have no doubt he put a lot of thought into his post and the ensuing melodrama to make his point. I agree, there was a high level of skill and the writing was indeed eloquent. By the way, my comment was in regards to him comparing bullets to medical equipment not the lion incident.

Hmm, I took the medical device explanation as a great way of using facts and figures to make a precise point. Never even gave it a thought that it might be melodramatic... Different ways of perceiving things I guess.

I still think you were out of line on several of the comments on the lions. And I thought Phil put it graciously (especially considering how close he is to the men directly involved) when he explained you had probably not been around and thus had not seen the video.

 

[sheephunterab]

Wasn't being melodramatic at all. Medical equipment and ensuring the quality thereof is what I do for a living and have been for over 15 years now. If someday you are the customer of one of my companies products, perhaps you'll understand. I'm quite certain our customers appreciate the dedication of myself and my colleagues.

But I'll make another effort to convey my thoughts perhaps with less drama.

You're on a tuskless cow hunt. You're now 15 yards from your quarry. There are many other elephants nearby including the grumpy matriarch. Your cow now turns and presents the perfect frontal head shot. At this moment do you want the bullet that works 9 times out of 10, or the one that works 99 times out of 100?

I have no doubt you are very knowledgeable about the equipment you sell and I have no doubt that it's top shelf. That was never in question. You seem to not understand the meaning of melodrama...no big deal.

Your scenario sounds like time for a DGS or some other solid. Obviously one needs to pick the bullet for the right application. Not sure how we went from lions to elephants. Would you want a TSX in that situation?

 

[sheephunterab]

Hmm, I took the medical device explanation as a great way of using facts and figures to make a precise point. Never even gave it a thought that it might be melodramatic... Different ways of perceiving things I guess.

I still think you were out of line on several of the comments on the lions. And I thought Phil put it graciously (especially considering how close he is to the men directly involved) when he explained you had probably not been around and thus had not seen the video.

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

 

[CTDolan]

Certainly PH's should concerned about the client's chosen bullet and load but, most of all, the client's ability to shoot their chosen rifle eclipses all.

So, use the best, please, but most of all shoot it a lot. Get good with your gear, then work on getting even better.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

I have no doubt you are very knowledgeable about the equipment you sell and I have no doubt that it's top shelf. That was never in question. You seem to not understand the meaning of melodrama...no big deal.

Your scenario sounds like time for a DGS or some other solid. Obviously one needs to pick the bullet for the right application. Not sure how we went from lions to elephants. Would you want a TSX in that situation?

No I wouldn't want a TSX. And the fact that @gizmo could recover a DGS from a lion, I for damn sure don't want that piece of junk either. Think about the physics of that. Recovering a DGS from a lion, how is that possible?

 

[Royal27]

BPAC

 

[sheephunterab]

Recovering a solid from a lion could be explained in a few ways but the most logical is that it deflected before impact and struck sideways or some way other than point first. There's typically a logical explanation. I've seen many pictures of unexpanded TSX and TTSX recovered from animals and many of them without petals and insert any bullet name before "bullet failure" in Google and you'll get pages of results. I suspect most have a logical explanation but most just want to instantly blame the bullet despite it having a long and proven track record.

 

[gizmo]

A lot of you seem to be missing the point...I was never calling the skill or grit of anyone into question but just saying that simple physics says something happened. It could have been as simple as the bullet striking a branch. We always want to blame bullet failure when things go wrong but experience says there's usually another answer.

There again having no first hand knowledge of a situation has you sounding foolish. The first two shots into my lion were in heavy brush however, the next 5 were wide open with no possibility of deflection and no obstruction. Now I know 1 shot went completely through the lion. Either the 6 or 7th which was a solid. ( I fired 2 solids, 1 was recovered one wasn't. The other ultimately killed the lion as it actually acted as a soft staying together and expanding. That bullet penetrated 1 lung and the heart.) one soft went completely through which would have been shot 1-5. So we recovered 5 of the 7 rounds which were nothing but scrap metal with the exception of the DGS that killed the lion. I don't remember now as it's been 2 years but I weighed each recovered bullet. If memory serves the DGS had in the 60-70% weight retention range. The recovered DGX's were in the 30-40% range and with the exception of the pass through only penetrated about 5 inches due to fragmentation. This was at 20 yards with a 416 Ruger.
Your belief that something being fired into an animal at 2600 ft per sec having to be ultimately fatal is dead wrong period. I don't care what a book says. Real life experience in hunting dangerous game has proven otherwise period. There are many factors that go into fatality and external ballistics only tells part of the story. Ultimately fatality is determined in the realm of terminal ballistics which is a whole different cat entirely, pun intended.
At the end of the day I could care less what you choose to hunt with. Get after it if you love Hornady ammo and I wish you all the success in the world. But that doesn't change the fact that in this instance you are wrong and making assumptions based on your opinions and beliefs of the way things should work according to printed media, ballistics charts, and the latter. The real world experiences have taught me different. Ignoring that can easily get one killed in the real world under hunting conditions squaring off with lions and buffalo etc.... I personally know of two instances where DGX and one where DGS has failed. Both against lions. I was personally involved in one as it was my hunt. The other, Rienhart wasn't so lucky and if it weren't for Jacques wouldn't have made it out of that. Both instances were 100% the fault of the ammo. Otherwise being hit by 2600 ft per sec bullet would have stopped it instantly. The proof is in the pudding.

 

[sheephunterab]

Ummmm....I don't believe I said anything hitting a lion at 2600 fps would be fatal.....I'm all for an exchange of thoughts but please do me the courtesy of not putting words in my mouth that I never said.

 

[Royal27]

The proof is in the pudding.

how did we go from marshmallows to pudding?

 

[gizmo]

Common sense and physics says if a lion barley flinches with a shoulder shot at close range with a big bore that something else went horribly wrong beside bullet performance....seriously guys...think about it! Hit them with a marshmallow at that range at 2600 fps and you'd get more than a flinch. Sometimes it's easy to lose sight of common sense as stories grow! Bullet deflection. Poor angle hit and glanced off. Sure. Square on shoulder...seriously...think about it!

Perhaps this may help.

 

[sheephunterab]

And you would get more than a flinch but no where did I say it would be fatal.

 

[gizmo]

BPAC

+1

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

Recovering a solid from a lion could be explained in a few ways but the most logical is that it deflected before impact and struck sideways or some way other than point first. There's typically a logical explanation. I've seen many pictures of unexpanded TSX and TTSX recovered from animals and many of them without petals and insert any bullet name before "bullet failure" in Google and you'll get pages of results. I suspect most have a logical explanation but most just want to instantly blame the bullet despite it having a long and proven track record.

I've seen the unexpanded TTSX/TSX pics too. It's one reason I shy away from them. However I've only seen this in the small/medium bores, not the big bores that are used for DG. Perhaps there are reports of the same in the bigger bullets, please provide a link if you have any. I've mentioned this problem on a number of occasions on AH. The difference is that I find far more bad reports on the DGX/DGS than I do on the Barnes products.

I used a TSX on my African trip. Hit a small twig about a foot in front of my barrel when shooting at an impala. This caused the bullet to deflect a bit and hit a much larger branch of a fallen tree. Took out about an inch of the branch. The bullet continued on and hit the ram, and it appeared the bullet was now spinning on the vertical axis, not just the horizontal axis as the onside hole was just bit wider than the length of the bullet. The bullet continued thru the impala and exited out the other side.

Perhaps that solid of Erik's did deflect a bit off a twig , but it should have easily passed thru the lion. I would say the most logical explanation falls in line with the many reports I've read about the DGS. They're straight line penetration is pretty poor.

Do some looking around specifically at the North Fork and Cutting Edge Bullets solids. Their shape and profile are quite similar. They both have a flat meplat and the shoulder angle is the same. They were specifically designed this way using lab results to maximize penetration as well as maintaining a straight line.

As I understand it, the North Fork Cup Solid, the expanding solid if you will, came out of a request for a solid which actually wouldn't penetrate as far as the regular solid.

In other words, yes I do believe there are better choices than the DGS.

Also if you didn't read the recent elephant hunt thread by mrpoindexter, you might want to. Elephants manage to get into some of thickest bush. A solid in this situation had better not be too sensitive to twigs or small branches.

 

[gizmo]

And you would get more than a flinch but no where did I say it would be fatal.

Last time I checked a fatal shot was the desired outcome and one could almost believe that what you said has a hint of that implication.
Also for the record if they're pissed enough even a marshmallow at 2600 fps won't illicit a flich in the least.

 

[sheephunterab]

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.