Why avoid Hornady DG bullets and ammunition?

[colorado]

Uh ya, it was my lion. Royal has seen the video as well as many others on here. It took 7 rounds all of which were excellent shot placement to finally kill it. Damn near got eaten because of the crappy DGX/DGS performance. The picture he showed of the solid was either the 6 or 7 shot as the last two were solids. I know because I pulled the cartridges apart to confirm the bullet type. DGX performance was even worse on my Cape Buffalo though I admittedly pulled the shot a bit. Even still I've wondered for the last two years had I been shooting a better bullet if the results would have been better despite my poor shot placement on my buff. At the end of the day I will say that the buff debacle was my fault however while I got it done on the lion it very well could have ended in someone getting hurt or worse due to poor bullet performance.

The sad thing is that well respected people in the hunting community keep showing up in the Hornady DGX advertisements. I keep thinking of TV celebrities selling reverse mortgages. It's actually very sad.

 

[ActionBob]

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

Bullet proof lions? Really?

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!

 

[sheephunterab]

It's not fair to say the TSX is better when the sole metric is the degree of fragmentation. It's not designed to fragment. Of course if that's the only metric considered the TSX will come out on top. The DGX is designed to shed weight. It's two different types of bullet performance...both with their fans. Both kill. If the sole metric was how fast an animal hit the ground after a soft tissue hit or which one expanded best at low velocity hits, that would hardly be fair to the TSX. They are two bullets of extremely different construction designed to behave differently upon impact. That's why it's not fair. I shoot mono metals for much of my hunting and cup and cores for other parts. I pick the one the best suited to the performance envelope of that bullet for that hunt. I'm not loyal or blinded by either. I just understand how they work.

 

[gizmo]

The sad thing is that well respected people in the hunting community keep showing up in the Hornady DGX advertisements. I keep thinking of TV celebrities selling reverse mortgages. It's actually very sad.

A whole lot of truth to that. I bought Boddingtons shpeal hook line and sinker. I almost lost a buffalo and almost had lion take a chinch outta my ass as a result. It all about$$$$. People now days will say/support anything if they have enough money thrown at them to do it. Hornady is a master of marketing though. They've convinced a lot of people that their stuff is gold. I still do like their old 30 cal spire boing boat tails but outside of that their stuff sucks. Unfortunately it's all that's available locally for me unless I order on line.

 

[Royal27]

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

Erik always told me it meant Ballistic Performance and Coefficient, but I'm not an engineer, so I could be wrong.

 

[Royal27]

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.

You two guys need to get it together!!!! Per our esteemed colleague, @Velo Dog , it is a frozen HERRING that is effective on buffalo (but what's the point?), not mackerel.... Mackerel isn't worth a crap on anything larger than a kudu! Geez.... everyone with any sense knows that....

 

[PeteG]

You two guys need to get it together!!!! Per our esteemed colleague, @Velo Dog , it is a frozen HERRING that is effective on buffalo (but what's the point?), not mackerel.... Mackerel isn't worth a crap on anything larger than a kudu! Geez.... everyone with any sense knows that....

Frozen Herring, Warm Mackerel... thats the DGS / DGX equivalent right there...

 

[Art Lambart II]

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.

First let me say my pick for a premium expanding bullet is the "A-Frame" IMO it is the gold standard of expanding bullets. I never suggested the DGX should not be considered a DG round but comparing a DGX to a "A-Frame" is like comparing a Cadillac to a Bentley, both are luxury cars but you expect more from the Bentley. People are attracted to the DGX because of the price, it cost less for a reason, its not as good as its competition.

 

[Red Leg]

First let me say my pick for a premium expanding bullet is the "A-Frame" IMO it is the gold standard of expanding bullets. I never suggested the DGX should not be considered a DG round but comparing a DGX to a "A-Frame" is like comparing a Cadillac to a Bentley, both are luxury cars but you expect more from the Bentley. People are attracted to the DGX because of the price, it cost less for a reason, its not as good as its competition.

More like a "vintage" Chevy to that Bentley

 

[Hank2211]

Erik always told me it meant Ballistic Performance and Coefficient, but I'm not an engineer, so I could be wrong.

I am reliably informed that you are correct. And that's all I have to say about that.

People are attracted to the DGX because of the price, it cost less for a reason, its not as good as its competition.

If a bullet or cartridge is not as good as its competition, why on earth would you carry it half way around the world to use it on animals that bite? I suppose I can understand using cheaper ammo at the range, but I can't understand spending thousands on a hunt and then saying you won't spend an extra $20 or whatever for a box of decent rounds. If I were a PH, that would give me cause for concern.

 

[CTDolan]

The sad thing is that well respected people in the hunting community keep showing up in the Hornady DGX advertisements. I keep thinking of TV celebrities selling reverse mortgages. It's actually very sad.

This is why I never watch hunting shows any longer. Each is nothing other than a not so carefully crafted advertisement. It makes me sick.

 

[siml]

@CTDolan, amen! You just knocked the frozen fish out of the park!!!!

 

[Velo Dog]

First let me say my pick for a premium expanding bullet is the "A-Frame" IMO it is the gold standard of expanding bullets. I never suggested the DGX should not be considered a DG round but comparing a DGX to a "A-Frame" is like comparing a Cadillac to a Bentley, both are luxury cars but you expect more from the Bentley. People are attracted to the DGX because of the price, it cost less for a reason, its not as good as its competition.

Hello Art Lambart II,

No doubt there are those who still use cheap bullets for an expensive safari but, I do not know any of these personally but if my father had been a hunter, likely he would have been like that (anything to save a penny, including the risk of death)

Otherwise, I'm under the impression that most who have used the DGX bullets in Africa, did so simply because the only live factory ammunition available for the caliber rifle they owned, was strictly GMX or nothing for a soft point.

That being said (and fully aware that I am the weird uncle here), yours truly shot a buffalo with one each hand-loaded DGX and DGS respectfully because, they were the ones that regulated in the tightest groups, from my antique double rifle du jour.

Regulating occurred sharply at 2050 fps muzzle velocity and upon consulting with the PH on this, he suggested it would work fine at that casual speed, it did.
(Photos of recovered bullet in my photo file, within this forum).

Cheers,
Velo Dog.

PS:
Whipping a dead horse here, the Swift A-Frame is IMO, the most reliable premium bonded bullet of our time.

 

[sheephunterab]

Regulating occurred sharply at 2050 fps muzzle velocity and upon consulting with the PH on this, he suggested it would work fine at that casual speed, it did.
(Photos of recovered bullet in my photo file, within this forum).

Cheers,
Velo Dog.

.

I'd say that's a good example of understanding bullets and bullet performance. Your muzzle velocity was barely above the required impact velocity for mono metals and premium bonded bullets to expand reliably. I think you kind of answered your question as to a reason why people would use a more frangible bullets like the DGX. Those are the kinds of velocities where they shine. Drive them hard and yes they are explosive just as mono metals and bonded bullets expand poorly without velocity. A bullet can't be all things! It's critical to understand the one that fits your needs. Apparently you do! It's no shock that the DGX is popular with much of the double crowd.

 

[Red Leg]

I'd say that's a good example of understanding bullets and bullet performance. Your muzzle velocity was barely above the required impact velocity for mono metals and premium bonded bullets to expand reliably. I think you kind of answered your question as to a reason why people would use a more frangible bullets like the DGX. Those are the kinds of velocities where they shine. Drive them hard and yes they are explosive just as mono metals and bonded bullets expand poorly without velocity. A bullet can't be all things! It's critical to understand the one that fits your needs. Apparently you do! It's no shock that the DGX is popular with much of the double crowd.

With all do respect, you starting to reach for conclusions. The GMX is popular in spite of its performance, because it is, indeed, the only thing available in a factory load to all those double shooters. Regrettably, Hornady apparently has no compunction at all about loading those bullets at velocities which clearly exceed their performance envelope - "where they shine" as I believe you said. And if you are correct, then it is very nearly criminal for them to ignore the field reports of .375 / .4o cal. class failures and to continue to allow customers to launch those things at 2400 - 2500 fps. Or does that not square with what you seemingly believe constitutes a sufficiently informed "example of understanding bullets and bullet performance?"

 

[Royal27]

^^^

Double like

 

[IdaRam]

"Those are the kinds of velocities where they shine."
Interesting that Hornady loads their 416 Ruger ammo to 2400 fps with a 400 gr DGX.
Maybe you should have a chat with them

 

[gizmo]

With all do respect, you starting to reach for conclusions. The GMX is popular in spite of its performance, because it is, indeed, the only thing available in a factory load to all those double shooters. Regrettably, Hornady apparently has no compunction at all about loading those bullets at velocities which clearly exceed their performance envelope - "where they shine" as I believe you said. And if you are correct, then it is very nearly criminal for them to ignore the field reports of .375 / .4o cal. class failures and to continue to allow customers to launch those things at 2400 - 2500 fps. Or does that not square with what you seemingly believe constitutes a sufficiently informed "example of understanding bullets and bullet performance?"

Exaaaaaaactly!!!! As always you are much better at explaining things than I am.

 

[sheephunterab]

With all do respect, you starting to reach for conclusions. The GMX is popular in spite of its performance, because it is, indeed, the only thing available in a factory load to all those double shooters. Regrettably, Hornady apparently has no compunction at all about loading those bullets at velocities which clearly exceed their performance envelope - "where they shine" as I believe you said. And if you are correct, then it is very nearly criminal for them to ignore the field reports of .375 / .4o cal. class failures and to continue to allow customers to launch those things at 2400 - 2500 fps. Or does that not square with what you seemingly believe constitutes a sufficiently informed "example of understanding bullets and bullet performance?"

I believe you mean DGX...the GMX is a mono metal that thrives on velocity. And loading them(DGX) at 2400 would make them ideal for slightly longer ranges......it's the shooter that must decide if they are been used at their optimal impact velocity not the manufacturer. Because Barnes bullets are loaded in 270 does that put them at fault when someone shoots them at 600 yards? The other thing to consider is that driving the DGX at high velocity doesn't make it ineffective, it just makes it predictable that you are going to experience high fragmentation inside the animal. Drive an Accubond LR at high velocity and expect the same issues. Is that Nosler's fault if you choose to shot a moose at 15 yards? If you think shots are going to come with high impact velocities there are likely better choices but that's up to you to decide...not the manufacturer....right?

 

[sheephunterab]

"Those are the kinds of velocities where they shine."
Interesting that Hornady loads their 416 Ruger ammo to 2400 fps with a 400 gr DGX.
Maybe you should have a chat with them

Thus making them shine when you are shooting around 150 yards. You seems to be confusing muzzle velocity with impact velocity. The 416 is a very apt 150 yard cartridge if I'm not mistaken.