Why Match/Target Bullets For Hunting

[Fartrell Cluggins]

This is going to be a barrage of questions. It will help to view me as a skeptic relative to the matter at hand. I am going to do some load development for my new 6mm Creed. I live in the southeast where shots are rarely taken at more than 100 yards. But, I fancy that I will take a trip out west one day to hunt antelope, so I am going to do my load development with an eye toward the possibility that I might shoot out to say (for the sake of discussion) 500 yards. This is a hunting gun.

Time to order bullets. I see questions asked frequently across various forums asking about using XYZ match bullets for hunting. Why would I order a box of 95 grain TMKs? I realize at the ragged edge of reasonable hunting distances that the high BC bullets will show an advantage over less slippery bullets, is that what it's all about? Maybe my rifle will group hunting bullets into 3/4 of an inch and match bullets into a half? Is that what it's about? At what distance would that begin to matter?

Let's shift gears slightly. The .224 77 grain TMK is venerated here. The posters who sing its praises are very credible in my eyes. Based on the testimony of the posters here I have confidence that it will work well in Antelope hunting applications. Why would someone who was doing load development with that bullet seek it out as opposed to the Swift Scirocco 75 grain hunting bullet if there wasn't a substantial body of evidence that it works well?

Tying the first thoughts together, let's go back to my 6 Creed. Why would I try the TMK in my 6 Creed when the manufacturers website says this: "While they are recognized around the world for record-setting accuracy, MatchKing® and Tipped MatchKing® bullets are not recommended for most hunting applications. " Just because? As with the 224 77 TMK and the 75 Scirocco example, there are bullets that were designed for hunting that are very close to the match peers in BC. So why try the match? And when you answer that question, try to give me some substance as to how any perceived advantage may play out.

Lastly, if the .224 77 TMK is as good as I am led to believe it is, why in the world wouldn't Sierra bill it as a match/hunting bullet rather than warn consumers that it's not recommended for hunting? Wouldn't the dual purpose billing bring in more sales? Does Sierra know something our learned members here don't know? Do we know something that Sierra doesn't? The Sierra example is just one of several. Scenars would be another.

It's a rainy day and I took the day off. I have been pondering some of this for a while so I thought I'd toss it out there. I know there are lots of questions wrapped up in there. Take a stab at one or all.

 

[menhaden_man]

I would buy as many as you can at this point. Reloading supplies are mostly nonexistent but for some reason my local shop still has a good supply of 6 mm bullets.

But I also have similar questions to you - why do match bullets get marketed for paper punching if they are better on game than those marketed for game?

 

[TN2shot07]

Not sure that it’s much help but I picked up some Federal loaded Sierra Matchkings from a local shop in 260. (Lucky for me not a popular caliber here) I haven’t hunted with them but it was nice to find some stuff to practice with and it was only a couple adjustments to zero back to my accubonds and these were way cheaper to shoot.

 

[BjornF16]

I'll take a swing...just my opinion based on my current knowledge.

Many hunters were/are using SMK as hunting bullets with mixed results. That may be the genesis of why Sierra lists the "warning" on SMK and TMK bullets.

The SMK often didn't work well because the tip would be clogged with skin, etc and wouldn't open, fragment, expand...resulting in pencil beam in and out (if it exited).

Comes the TMK with plastic tip which forces expansion and often fragmentation.

SMK/TMK are cup core (soft) bullets prone to detonation in the right circumstances.

Scirocco bullets are bonded. They aren't going to explode like the TMK (or ELD-M). They will expand and have a relatively high weight retention as compared to TMK.

So what is the key killing mechanism? Lots of debate on that...and opinions.

Fragmenting bullet to reach out internally? Localized destruction with intact bullet?

I haven't decided one way or the other. I'm leaning monos but I see the utility of TMK style bullets.

The two most impressive DRT I've personally experienced with vital zone shots were 7RM 139 GMX at 250 yds on Texas Axis bull (~250 lbs) and 280 Rem 125 Kalahari at 200 yds on Texas whitetail doe. (The Kalahari bullet is very similar to the Hammer bullets, mono with 4 fragmenting petals).

All the vital zone shots I've taken with bonded or cup and core bullets, the deer/elk have walked/run a ways (10-100 yds). Just my experience.

Inside 100 yds on whitetail or axis, I like neck shots. All those have been DRT regardless of bullet type (for me).

In some cases, I've lost minimal meat with cup and core. In other cases, lost a lot of shoulder meat.

 

[wind gypsy]

I think Bjorn’s assessment above in relation to smk/tmk association makes a lot of sense. I wouldn’t use a SMK for hunting but wouldn’t hesitate to use a tmk.

In regards to 77 tmk vs 75 scirocco I think the TMK makes sense because of how massive the wound channels are for a small bullet. Small, tough bullet sounds like a recipe for a narrow wound channel.

In regards to general performance differences between match and bonded bullets, the limited amount I’ve shot with bonded bullets at distance was not competitive with Berger’s from the same rifle. I don’t know why but I can guess that the bonding process makes it tougher for bullets to be as consistent (concentric, balanced, BC variance, etc) and those inconsistencies might not show up at 100 yards like they do at range.

Match bullets are typically cheaper.

I think a lot of us (guilty) get lost in the mental masturbation that is ballistic number crunching that may not matter in most hunting situations.

A lot of people prefer a fragmenting bullet and wide wound channel to a deeper and narrower wound channel. IMO the deep penetration thing is largely steeped in outdated bullet dogma.

Regardless, I’ve not had issue with any reasonably chosen bullet (hunting or match) killing with any shot that could be reasonably expected to kill. I think we way overthink this.

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

I would buy as many as you can at this point. Reloading supplies are mostly nonexistent but for some reason my local shop still has a good supply of 6 mm bullets.

But I also have similar questions to you - why do match bullets get marketed for paper punching if they are better on game than those marketed for game?

For folks like me, and there are many, absent any data to the contrary, won't use a bullet for hunting if the manufacturer says it's not recommended for hunting. Surely they are losing sales as a result. I don't get it.

 

[BjornF16]

In regards to general performance differences between match and bonded bullets, the limited amount I’ve shot with bonded bullets at distance was not competitive with Berger’s from the same rifle. I don’t know why but I can guess that the bonding process makes it tougher for bullets to be as consistent (concentric, balanced, BC variance, etc) and those inconsistencies might not show up at 100 yards like they do at range.

I've not considered this, but thus far my shots have all been within 300 yds. I'd like to stretch that out some so maybe I'll revisit the TMK.

I think a lot of us (guilty) get lost in the mental masturbation that is ballistic number crunching that may not matter in most hunting situations.

Regardless, I’ve not had issue with any reasonably chosen bullet (hunting or match) killing with any shot that could be reasonably expected to kill. I think we way overthink this.

Guilty

A lot of people prefer a fragmenting bullet and wide wound channel to a deeper and narrower wound channel. IMO the deep penetration thing is largely steeped in outdated bullet dogma.

Concur

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

As a general note, I didn't want to compare a match bullet to a bonded bullet specifically. I could substitute the 69 GK for the 75 Swift. So it's not a specific bullet or bullet construction question, but rather why a match bullet over any bullets designed and marketed for hunting.

 

[Wapiti1]

A lot of people prefer a fragmenting bullet and wide wound channel to a deeper and narrower wound channel. IMO the deep penetration thing is largely steeped in outdated bullet dogma.

I don't think deeper penetrating bullets are outdated dogma. They are just another means to an end and situation specific.

I hunt thick timber for elk and deer a lot and take off angle shots. I want a heavier and tougher bullet in that situation. I have no problem accepting the smaller wound volume in the vitals. I'm trading wound volume for the certainty that I'll at least get a wound in the vitals.

When I hunt antelope, or plains deer I shoot a high BC soft bullet knowing that I might take a long shot and that I will not have to take an off angle shot. I'll do this when hunting elk too in open country.

Choose your bullet for your application. Just like you aren't going to frame a house with a finish nailer.

Jeremy

 

[EmperorMA]

A lot of people prefer a fragmenting bullet and wide wound channel to a deeper and narrower wound channel. IMO the deep penetration thing is largely steeped in outdated bullet dogma.

I don't think that is old dogma at all. Try hunting elk in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, where the forest is so think that the only shot you might get will be at 30 yards as you spot part of the bull between two trees and four bushes. You will want to be able to break heavy bone and drive through to the vitals from almost any angle in country like that. Even though I have no problem with folks who hunt with target bullets, I sure ain't choosing one for that.

I think the whole target bullet thing started with the long-range crowd demanding more accuracy when ringing steel out to 1,000 yards and beyond, where even tiny incremental improvements in accuracy do matter. They had confidence in their abilities to hit animals at greater distances with these accurate bullets and loads, so they tried them while hunting. Then they found that the softer bullets actually worked really well on animals at distance, as they would still open up and/or fragment at the lower impact velocities. Win/win. Now, due to the increase in accuracy of modern bullets and the technology in optics & rangefinding, we have a group of shooters/hunters who actually try to shoot animals at distance rather than stalking as closely as possible. Some of these shooters are highly-skilled and they demand the utmost in accuracy to practice their craft. Match bullets give them the confidence on the range and their performance on game at distance has proven itself.

My bottom line is choose a bullet for how you hunt. I have changed my preferences over the years, going from a light/fast approach where I was looking for good performance out to max PBR ... "just hold on fur and pull the trigger" ... to seeing the benefit of the velocity retention and wind-bucking capabilities of long, sleek bullets and preferring them now. I don't use target bullets because I often hunt in very thick woods in the PNW where shots can be quite short and the farthest shot I have ever taken on game is 435 yards, so I have never felt a need to use a softer bullet capable of slightly better 1,000 yard accuracy. I do, however, really like what the new sleek and heavy hunting bullets such as the ABLR, ELD-X and TGK offer in terms of better BCs to go along with modern cartridges and barrel twist rates while still maintaining the ability to hold together in close. These bullets, especially the ABLR, give me great confidence from 6 - 600 yards. That is about all I need with my current level of practice and confidence in hitting game for a quick and humane kill.

 

[wind gypsy]

I don't think deeper penetrating bullets are outdated dogma. They are just another means to an end and situation specific.

I hunt thick timber for elk and deer a lot and take off angle shots. I want a heavier and tougher bullet in that situation. I have no problem accepting the smaller wound volume in the vitals. I'm trading wound volume for the certainty that I'll at least get a wound in the vitals.

When I hunt antelope, or plains deer I shoot a high BC soft bullet knowing that I might take a long shot and that I will not have to take an off angle shot. I'll do this when hunting elk too in open country.

Choose your bullet for your application. Just like you aren't going to frame a house with a finish nailer.

Jeremy

I agree. I think the tough bullet, deep penetration thing is pushed on all applications by some when it sure isn’t needed for all.

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

I don't think that is old dogma at all. Try hunting elk in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, where the forest is so think that the only shot you might get will be at 30 yards as you spot part of the bull between two trees and four bushes. You will want to be able to break heavy bone and drive through to the vitals from almost any angle in country like that. Even though I have no problem with folks who hunt with target bullets, I sure ain't choosing one for that.

I think the whole target bullet thing started with the long-range crowd demanding more accuracy when ringing steel out to 1,000 yards and beyond, where even tiny incremental improvements in accuracy do matter. They had confidence in their abilities to hit animals at greater distances with these accurate bullets and loads, so they tried them while hunting. Then they found that the softer bullets actually worked really well on animals at distance, as they would still open up and/or fragment at the lower impact velocities. Win/win. Now, due to the increase in accuracy of modern bullets and the technology in optics & rangefinding, we have a group of shooters/hunters who actually try to shoot animals at distance rather than stalking as closely as possible. Some of these shooters are highly-skilled and they demand the utmost in accuracy to practice their craft. Match bullets give them the confidence on the range and their performance on game at distance has proven itself.

My bottom line is choose a bullet for how you hunt. I have changed my preferences over the years, going from a light/fast approach where I was looking for good performance out to max PBR ... "just hold on fur and pull the trigger" ... to seeing the benefit of the velocity retention and wind-bucking capabilities of long, sleek bullets and preferring them now. I don't use target bullets because I often hunt in very thick woods in the PNW where shots can be quite short and the farthest shot I have ever taken on game is 435 yards, so I have never felt a need to use a softer bullet capable of slightly better 1,000 yard accuracy. I do, however, really like what the new sleek and heavy hunting bullets such as the ABLR, ELD-X and TGK offer in terms of better BCs to go along with modern cartridges and barrel twist rates while still maintaining the ability to hold together in close. These bullets, especially the ABLR, give me great confidence from 6 - 600 yards. That is about all I need with my current level of practice and confidence in hitting game for a quick and humane kill.

Thank you for the well thought out and reasoned post.

 

[Formidilosus]

I see questions asked frequently across various forums asking about using XYZ match bullets for hunting. Why would I order a box of 95 grain TMKs? I realize at the ragged edge of reasonable hunting distances that the high BC bullets will show an advantage over less slippery bullets, is that what it's all about? Maybe my rifle will group hunting bullets into 3/4 of an inch and match bullets into a half? Is that what it's about? At what distance would that begin to matter?

The short answer of why to use match bullets on game is they kill better and hit better (not group size- decreased wind drift). On average they create larger wounds, and the reduced wind drift gives a larger margin of error in misjudged wind calls

Let's shift gears slightly. The .224 77 grain TMK is venerated here. The posters who sing its praises are very credible in my eyes. Based on the testimony of the posters here I have confidence that it will work well in Antelope hunting applications. Why would someone who was doing load development with that bullet seek it out as opposed to the Swift Scirocco 75 grain hunting bullet if there wasn't a substantial body of evidence that it works well?

Increased wound size primarily. It creates the largest wounds while reliably penetrating deep enough to reach vitals. Secondary reason is that it is one of the highest BC .224 bullets that can be mag fed from an AR15. I’m going to post some pictures below, for the comparison between 77tmk and 75 scirocco, reduce the wound overlay to 1/3rd or so.

Tying the first thoughts together, let's go back to my 6 Creed. Why would I try the TMK in my 6 Creed when the manufacturers website says this: "While they are recognized around the world for record-setting accuracy, MatchKing® and Tipped MatchKing® bullets are not recommended for most hunting applications. " Just because?

Not recommended, means not tested. Or, tested, but for other reasons not published. When a bullet is designed for, built for, tested for, a advertised as suitable for hunting, it closes the door for some uses.

As with the 224 77 TMK and the 75 Scirocco example, there are bullets that were designed for hunting that are very close to the match peers in BC. So why try the match? And when you answer that question, try to give me some substance as to how any perceived advantage may play out.

See next post

Lastly, if the .224 77 TMK is as good as I am led to believe it is, why in the world wouldn't Sierra bill it as a match/hunting bullet rather than warn consumers that it's not recommended for hunting? Wouldn't the dual purpose billing bring in more sales? Does Sierra know something our learned members here don't know? Do we know something that Sierra doesn't? The Sierra example is just one of several. Scenars would be another.

Answered above on why Sierra with the TMK.

 

[LookinforDirt]

I can mostly only repeat what I’ve read on the subject (I never had or intend to hunt with bullets a manufacturer doesn’t recommend for hunting). From hunters with experience shooting many animals with many types of bullets, match and hunting. Some from guides who record the rifle and bullet used to take game. The consensus I get is match bullets can and do kill game. But the problem is consistency and the now even more important need for perfect shot placement. Match bullets sometimes expand and retain weight, sometimes pencil through, and sometimes disintegrate without consistency on when they decide to do what. A hunting bullet will perform the way it is expected to with far greater consistency. Then there is shot placement. With a match bullet you need a perfect shot to the vitals. Hit bone or shoulder, need to pull off a quartering shot, etc and the match bullet is not up to the task. Or will fail to often to make it acceptable. People can post experiences saying otherwise. But people are much more inclined to tell their success stories than their failures.

There are plenty of hunting bullets that shoot so close to match bullets that I don’t know why one would even chance it. The extra accuracy realized from match bullets also needs a rifle, other components, ammo matched to the rifle, and a shooter with the skills to bring it all together. Also shots at distances that allow those things to come into play. 500 or 600 yards probably isn’t it. That weeds out a lot of hunters and hunting situations. Most can’t outshoot even the best hunting bullets (and I’m not saying they are not skilled shooters) so why even bother with a bullet not designed for hunting?

 

[wyosam]

Regardless, I’ve not had issue with any reasonably chosen bullet (hunting or match) killing with any shot that could be reasonably expected to kill. I think we way overthink this.

This is the right answer. I think actual “bullet failures” are far less common than they seem on the internet. A good percentage of the ones I see involve the phrase “I know it was hit well”. I’ve seen a lot of animals shot, and of the ones that involved long tracking or were never found, I can’t think of any that were actually hit well.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Formidilosus]

So why use projectiles labeled as match bullets? Three reasons, and none are “accuracy”. The reasons are terminal ballistics performance, increased hit rates, and longer expansion/upset range.

Right at the start- if you’re reading this and think “this is too deep, none of this matters, I just hunt”... ok fine and it probably doesn’t make a noticeable difference to you most of the time. But, if you shoot beyond a couple hundred yards, and/or care about performance and consistency at all, then you need to understand a subject and start to have to look at details with something that’s trending more towards data.


Let’s get the big one that people seem to gravitate to- “accuracy”.
Incremental, insignificant differences in group size do nothing to help hit rates in the field. I’m going to use the Apploed Ballistics WEZ calculator to demonstrate. For information on what the WEZ is go here- Weapon Employment Zone The short version is it uses user supplied data with regards to weapon, user, target, and environmentals; puts them into a 6 DOF calculator and produces a probability of hit score. It is VERY accurate when input with good data.


What is the difference in hit rates between a .5 moa system, a 1 MOA system, and a 1.5 moa system? Well first, let’s define what that means. A 1 MOA system for this use means that 95% of shots fired will land within .5 moa of the point of aim- 1 MOA extreme spread, with 95% certainty.
How does this translate? Most decent factory hunting rifles with decent factory ammo can be expected to produce around 2 moa. That is- 19 of 20 shots are within a 2 inch circle at 100 yards (roughly). If someone doesn’t believe this, try it. Shoot 20 rounds from your regular hunting rifle at the exact same target, counting every single round regardless of where it lands, and see what you get. Most hunters/shooters will be astonished to find out that their “moa all day long” rifle is really a 2.5 moa rifle.
A really solid factory hunting rifle and load will be in the 1.2-1.6 moa range. Top normal/light weight hunting rifles with good ammo can be in the .8-1.1 moa range or so. Real .5 moa systems exist. They’re called 20lb bench test rifles. I’ve used hundreds of precision rifles, and have seen two legitimate .5 MOA carry able systems in all of them.

In any case, let’s use the WEZ to see the difference is hit rates with differing groups sizes. All calculations will be at SAC, and we’ll assume a perfectly zeroed rifle (not likely), match quality ammo (because you shoot a 6.5 CM... grin), a shooter with no error (not happening), a 12 inch target at 600 yards (vitals of deer), and a trained shooter (regular match shooter with training or school trained sniper) that can call wind to within +/- 4 MPH in moderate conditions, I.E.- broken terrain, but not true canyons, wind generally consistent in direction, but fluctuating between 8 and 12MPH. Rifle is a 6.5 CM using 147gr ELD-M’s at 2,700fos muzzle velocity. The only change will be base precision of rifle.


Hit rate at .5 moa is 54.1%



1 MOA is 53.3-




1.5 moa is 51.2%-



So from a true competition bench rest rifle, to a factory $500 Tikka (.5 to 1.5 moa) gives us a whopping 3% higher hit rate. What’s even more, is that you really can’t see any difference in actual shooting until around 10% difference. Baseline benched precision is meaningless, or nearly so, in field conditions. If you can get your rifle/load to true 1.5 MOA you’re not missing deer or elk at 600 yards because of “accuracy”.




(Edited to correct BC error).

 

[Flyjunky]

I can mostly only repeat what I’ve read on the subject (I never had or intend to hunt with bullets a manufacturer doesn’t recommend for hunting). From hunters with experience shooting many animals with many types of bullets, match and hunting. Some from guides who record the rifle and bullet used to take game. The consensus I get is match bullets can and do kill game. But the problem is consistency and the now even more important need for perfect shot placement. Match bullets sometimes expand and retain weight, sometimes pencil through, and sometimes disintegrate without consistency on when they decide to do what. A hunting bullet will perform the way it is expected to with far greater consistency. Then there is shot placement. With a match bullet you need a perfect shot to the vitals. Hit bone or shoulder, need to pull off a quartering shot, etc and the match bullet is not up to the task. Or will fail to often to make it acceptable. People can post experiences saying otherwise. But people are much more inclined to tell their success stories than their failures.

There are plenty of hunting bullets that shoot so close to match bullets that I don’t know why one would even chance it. The extra accuracy realized from match bullets also needs a rifle, other components, ammo matched to the rifle, and a shooter with the skills to bring it all together. Also shots at distances that allow those things to come into play. 500 or 600 yards probably isn’t it. That weeds out a lot of hunters and hunting situations. Most can’t outshoot even the best hunting bullets (and I’m not saying they are not skilled shooters) so why even bother with a bullet not designed for hunting?

I'm going to disagree with a few things here. I'm moving from a "hunting bullet" to a "target bullet" for a reason you just explained, only in the opposite direction.

The last two animals I shot with a "hunting bullet" were an elk and mule deer with a 300wm shooting 180 barnes ttsx. The elk was taken at 487 yards and thankfully it was a perfect hit. He was out in the open having just fed out of the timber on a very, very, steep ridge 30 minutes before dark. I took out both lungs but he ran back into the trees as if he was never even hit. After a 45 minute climb up to the spot we found no blood, not a single drop. We follow the tracks and he died about 30 yards into the timber and luckily his antlers caught on a tree otherwise he would have slid a long ways down and having crossed grizzly tracks all day I would have much rather he DRT. Point to this? In the field dressing we found the entrance and exit, both the size of you pinky finger. The bullet never touched a bone in or out. If I would have hit a little farther back, higher up, etc and not touched a bone then the outcome would have been much different. I don't like tracking an elk with no blood trail in the dark in grizzly country. Accuracy had a lot to do with that kill, definitely not the hunting bullet, and that same shot with a fragmenting bullet would have performed much better. I most likely could have made a slightly worse shot with my 215 Bergers yet with the fragmenting and energy dump destroyed all the vitals.

The mule deer was much the same, only from much shorter distance. I'm done with Barnes as I've heard so many of the same things happening from others.

So, just because it's a hunting bullet doesn't mean it's infallible. I'll gladly take the accuracy and dumping all the energy I can into the animal.

Penciling in and out doesn't just happen to "target bullets"

 

[Formidilosus]

Now let’s look at the differences in hit rate between “match bullets” and “hunting bullets”. Using the exact same shooter, rifle, and target- 1 MOA precision, match quality ammo, moderate wind and terrain conditions, 12” target, 600 yards; and only changing the projectile and appropriate MV. Match bullet will be 147gr ELD-M at 2,700 MV. Hunting bullet will be 140gr Accubond at the same 2,700fps (7gr less weight, but increased bearing surface). These are real, like tailored loads for each

Match bullet has a hit rate of 53.3%-





Hunting bullet hit rate of 34.6%-




A 20% increase in hit rate is a significant, measurable and noticeable difference in the field (that is to say nothing of the increased terminal performance of the ELD-M at range).



(Edited to correct BC)

 

[Brendan]

My sense is that what caliber, weight, speed also play into the matter.

While I won't claim it to be the bet shot in the world, I hit a running Elk this year at 50 yards with a Berger 215 out of my 300 win mag. Quartering fairly steeply away, went in the rear ham, through the pelvis, continuing through to take out the spine and drop him in his tracks.

For a "target" bullet at close range hitting heavier muscle and bone, I'd say that was pretty decent performance.

Hit an antelope with the same bullet at 375 yards and he didn't take a step. Hit directly where I aimed and he died with a mouth full of food without knowing what hit him.

I am interested in copper for other reasons (Hammer / Cutting Edge) but have been happy in my limited experience.

 

[Formidilosus]

Next is terminal max effective range. I’ll explain in the next list what that means, but let’s just start with a expansion/upset that creates at least a 1 to 1.5 inch wide permanent wound channel.

Using the same two bullets (147gr ELD-M and 140gr Accubond), the ELD-M needs 1,750fps +/- impact velocity to achieve that. The Accubond needs 1,900fps +/- to do the same. Using the above rifle and conditions (SAC) the differences are as follows-

140gr Accubond 440 yards-



147gr ELD-M is 810 yards-



By using a match bullet (at least this one) you’ve increased your terminal effective range by nearly double.