User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/9/2020 7:39:22 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'll take your word for it, but on a strictly personal level I am leery of trusting hunting anecdotes when gel tests from trustworthy sources show significant underpenetration or marginal penetration from longer barrels. The Black Hills documentation shows a 14.5" barrel shot barely making it past the 12" mark. Maybe a consistency thing? Don't get me wrong, I love hunting results and I think they can tell us things that gel alone cannot. However, I like for a round to perform consistently well in as many gel tests as possible and use the effects on game animals as a complement to them. I'm weird like that. That’s fair. I’ve never had any underpenetration issues of any kind with the TMK on whitetail at high impact velocities, so I tend to extrapolate those results to a human chest cavity. I think of gel as an extremely useful way to compare bullets in a given caliber (for example, I fully expect a 62gr Barnes TSX to penetrate 50%+ further than the 77gr TMK in any soft target, which gel shows very well), but it does not necessarily show you what happens inside the chest cavity of a medium sized animal. Relative penetration compared to other bullets, absolutely. Actual penetration in an animal? Probably not. I respect your opinion completely, but I’ll always defer to live tissue over synthetic gelatin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2020 8:26:37 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That’s fair. I’ve never had any underpenetration issues of any kind with the TMK on whitetail at high impact velocities, so I tend to extrapolate those results to a human chest cavity. I think of gel as an extremely useful way to compare bullets in a given caliber (for example, I fully expect a 62gr Barnes TSX to penetrate 50%+ further than the 77gr TMK in any soft target, which gel shows very well), but it does not necessarily show you what happens inside the chest cavity of a medium sized animal. Relative penetration compared to other bullets, absolutely. Actual penetration in an animal? Probably not. I respect your opinion completely, but I’ll always defer to live tissue over synthetic gelatin. I totally respect this position. Realistically, I have no doubts about the ability of the TMK to deal not only fatal, but rapidly incapacitating wounds to a human or comparably-sized game animal under many (perhaps even most) circumstances -- even when fired longer barrels at close ranges. Hunting anecdotes let us see things like how a given bullet handles bone strikes or how much of that lovely stretch cavity translates to damage on real tissue rather than simply being an artifact of an elastic test medium. I will readily admit that I'm strict on the 12" standard to the point of being obsessive. I would just feel more comfortable if it penetrated a bit deeper in the gel tests in question, as people/agencies wiser than me have decided that the 12" of gel can be used to extrapolate adequate performance against human attackers while accounting for non-ideal shots. Conversely, deer can be of varying sizes and many hunting scenarios do consist of ideal shot placement, or close to it. Just my feelings on it the matter; I would never denigrate anyone's choice of a TMK, nor would I feel under-gunned having it in my magazine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2020 8:47:00 PM EDT
[#3]
Studies find that gel simulates expansion and penetration characteristics in actual tissue pretty well. Ballistic gel is in fact composed of animal product, namely ground up pork collagen.
There may be a degree of variation, but for the most part, differences in observed penetration can be attributed to the non-homogenous construction of a body. Fat and lung tissue offer less resistance than muscle tissue, while bone is obviously tougher to penetrate. You can also have some empty space in a body cavity, and tissue density of various game species may differ. Whether you need more penetration is really up for you to decide. Personally, I tend to see the 12" standard as more of a pass/fail, at least with rifle bullets. More is nice, but not required. I might note that the 12" standard was established to ensure adequate performance under inoptimal conditions. Technically, most shots do not require it; a bullet that traveled only 10" would usually work. I certainly like to have the safety margin, though. Apparently he also did a 16" test, with all the shots just barely managing to make it to 12". With that in mind, I certainly wouldn't trust it against bigger/tougher game. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2020 9:05:01 PM EDT
[#4]
All very good points, my friend. Like you said, folks far smarter and more experienced than you or I have proven that 12 - 18” of properly calibrated gel penetration has very good correlation with adequate real world results. Even though I did talk a bit critically of the TSX earlier in this thread, one thing I will concede is that it you never have to worry about underpenetration with a bullet like that. As far as gel tests go, the one that showed underpenetration out of a 20” barrel does puzzle me quite a bit. The same user testing the black hills loading at an even higher muzzle velocity (2770 FPS I believe), obtained 13.1” of penetration. Another test (no video unfortunately) reported 11.4” of penetration at something like 2940fps impact velocity, which is well above what you’d get even out of a 20” AR. I’m thinking that the Cor-Bon loading that achieved 9.5” doesn’t have a cannelure, while the black hills loading uses an exclusive version of the 77gr TMK that does have one. Food for thought I guess. Apologies if it seems like I’m trying to too hard to convince you to give the black hills 77gr TMK a shot, I’m just enamored with the prospects of such a deadly bullet available in the 5.56 AR platform. TSX might very well be a better choice for someone like you.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2020 9:12:43 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Studies find that gel simulates expansion and penetration characteristics in actual tissue pretty well. Ballistic gel is in fact composed of animal product, namely ground up pork collagen. ... Quote HistoryQuoted: Studies find that gel simulates expansion and penetration characteristics in actual tissue pretty well. Ballistic gel is in fact composed of animal product, namely ground up pork collagen. ... You said it better than I could have; this perfectly sums up my thoughts on the matter. I like the margin of safety that comes with extra penetration, even if it's not strictly necessary on a "good" shot. And while I can't speak to the sort of shots taken by most hunters in this thread, I imagine a lot of them were good shots into the boiler room area which primarily impacted soft tissue like that of the lungs, plus rib or two. A deer-centric analogue to what the 12" gel standard is intended to emulate in humans would consist of shots considered by many hunters to be irresponsible: a round placed in the animal's haunch as it's quartering/facing away from you, forcing the bullet to travel the entire length of the animal. This is just me postulating, though. To my knowledge, Andrew has only done one 16" gel test with the 77 gr TMK. You may be referring to my personal gel testing results, which were pinned in a comment. I might note that my measurements were probably a little conservative, I'd expect average penetration to be just shy of 13". Indeed I was! I misread the comment in question and assumed it was testing Andrew had done off-camera or something. Thanks. I wonder how an 18" barrel would do in gel as far as hitting 12"? I would imagine it's borderline. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2020 9:23:03 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Apologies if it seems like I’m trying to too hard to convince you to give the black hills 77gr TMK a shot, I’m just enamored with the prospects of such a deadly bullet available in the 5.56 AR platform. TSX might very well be a better choice for someone like you. As well you should be  The TMK has a lot going for it. If I wasn't dead-set on going all-copper, I'd be giving it a serious look. As far as the cannelure goes, you may very well be onto something there. The TMK reloading component that I'm assuming Cor-Bon uses doesn't have it. And someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but back when the original Mk 262 was being tested and ironed out, the DoD insisted on the cannelure and it was found to be a part of the round's consistent terminal performance. Certainly something to look into if one had the resources I should think.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2020 9:30:27 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Out of curiosity, what are you basing this on? Most assessments I've seen of the TSX put them in the same category as JSPs in regards to tissue damage. I don't recall Doc ever suggesting that there was any notable difference in terminal performance between monolithics and his various recommended soft points unless first passing through auto glass or sheet metal. This seems to be borne out by the various tests I've seen in gel where the TSC/PSC and expansion are comparable to bonded soft points for the most part, not to mention countless hunting anecdotes. Based on literally hundreds of rounds on game of all sorts (mostly pigs), from all angles, barrel lengths, and ranges. Gel is great, because it gives us apples to apples comparisons. But it aint flesh, and you get a lot of cherry picked results, especially on youtube. Most folks are fanbois of whatever they read on the web without ever shooting it, so anecdotes are worth what you pay for them, mine included. Likewise, what makes the TSX roundly superior to GMX? GMX sucks. They are harder and more brittle. So they both expand less, have a higher expansion threshold, and are prone to shedding pedals (see Leid's pic). In the first 20 rounds, I had one fail on me (didn't slow the pig down, left a pathetic wound track, not really an icepick, but close), so I quit shooting them. In around a hundred I've never had a TSX fail that I knew of (I don't always open them up). If you're concerned about expansion threshold due to engagement distance and impact velocity, I would argue the 50-grain would be the worst option, no? Yes, they're loaded hot and scream out of the barrel, but they also bleed energy very fast and have a much higher threshold for expansion than the other TSX loads. Possibly, but not inside of 150 or so yards. Someone with a ballistics calculator could give you a better idea. I appreciate all input and I'm not trying to second-guess anyone, I'm just curious because these are very definitive claims that run contradictory to what else I've seen on the topic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2020 9:42:37 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I wonder how an 18" barrel would do in gel as far as hitting 12"? I would imagine it's borderline. In practical terms that'd probably still be ok. The FBI's own (admittedly somewhat arbitrary) scoring equation does penalize a loading slightly for every bullet that falls under 12", but it's not an immediate disqualification. Personally, I'd probably prefer the ballistics of a 12.5" - 16" barrel for a primary defensive gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2020 9:47:42 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:Based on literally hundreds of rounds on game of all sorts (mostly pigs), from all angles, barrel lengths, and ranges. Gel is great, because it gives us apples to apples comparisons. But it aint flesh, and you get a lot of cherry picked results, especially on youtube. Most folks are fanbois of whatever they read on the web without ever shooting it, so anecdotes are worth what you pay for them, mine included. I agree to an extent, but see above for the discussion about gel. I'm not at all discounting your own experience and I don't doubt for a second that you've seen such patterns, but even in this thread we have someone comparing the lethality of TSX to TBBC on game. The anecdotes I've heard from users in hunting and military applications hasn't been particularly conclusive in placing the TSX below soft points insofar as terminal performance is concerned -- and the gel tests likewise put them in similar company when barriers aren't in play, hence my skepticism. Also, I just found this which is an interesting and in-depth at the subject: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969712013848#f0010 No gel, just examinations of wounds inflicted on real game animals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2020 5:11:56 PM EDT
[#10]
Thanks guys. This is exactly the info I needed.
My son and I will use 16" ARs. Ifi need something more, I move up to my 16" Armalite AR-10 with 168 gr ballistic silvertips. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2020 8:20:54 PM EDT
[#11]
This thread has motivated me to acquire a supply of
BH 5.56 62gr TSX rounds and perhaps sell off my 77gr stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2020 9:20:59 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This thread has motivated me to acquire a supply of BH 5.56 62gr TSX rounds and perhaps sell off my 77gr stuff. The BHA 5.56MM 62GR. TSX is a very capable load. I compared MV and water shot expansion/fragmentation of the BHA 5.56MM 62GR. TSX load to the DOD 62GR. MK 318 MOD 0 SOST from a 10.0" M4 (below). The BHA 5.56MM 62GR. TSX will chrono approx. 2850 FPS from a 14.5", & 3013 FPS from a 20" in 1x7 chrome lined COLT barrels@80F/300ft. MSL/29.92". I am a retired B737 driver from KIAH with a life-long passion for hunting/shooting/terminal performance. HTH L-R: I cut the petals off the an expanded 62GR. TSX with a pair of HD cutters to get a idea of what the bullet core would weight so we could compare it to the Mk 318 MOD 0 SOST core. The bent/unexpanded 62GR. TSX went thru a 4" oak tree before keyholing into a buck's spine as the buck chased a doe with its yearling during the rut. This is the only 0.224" TSX/TTSX game-shot bullet I have recovered from a whitetail. All others exited.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2020 11:17:22 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This thread has motivated me to acquire a supply of BH 5.56 62gr TSX rounds and perhaps sell off my 77gr stuff. That said - don't feel like you're out-gunned with 77gr SMK. If you aren't worried about barriers, it's going to be pretty tough to beat heavy OTMs provided they're moving at something like 2100+. They go off like bombs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2020 11:32:53 PM EDT
[#14]
FWIW... Black Hills facebook page has a lot of useful ballistic gel pics, and info.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2020 4:02:18 PM EDT
[#15]
Had to come home for a few days to replace a laser rangefinder that quit. Here are the results of a water-shot test of 62GR. CCCu indicating designed expansion/fragmentation.
 Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2020 5:51:35 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By leid: Had to come home for a few days to replace a laser rangefinder that quit. Here are the results of a water-shot test of 62GR. CCCu indicating designed expansion/fragmentation. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/42284/62GR__CCCu_at_1880_FPS_Water_Shot__3__jp-1409978.JPG Would you say that those 6 petals/fragments act very similarly to the typical fragmentation “snowstorm” you’d see out of a TMK or typical unbonded bullet in regards to enhancing tissue damage? I know that the wounding mechanism of fragmentation involves weakening the structural integrity of tissue, making it more susceptible to damage from the TSC. Does that also apply to 6 large fragments, like in the case of the CCCu? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2020 6:37:32 PM EDT
[#17]
Interestingly No. Because of their non-aerodynamic banana-peel shape, the (5) 62GR. CCCu fragments took off at some relatively acute angles (30 degrees?) as compared to the core which appeared to track fairly straight. A 3 gal peanut oil jug I had sitting several feet away from the track of the CCCu core took hits from fragments that exited the sides of my water trap when I attempted to test the 62GR. CCCu at full 5.56MM NATO pressure velocity (2721 FPS from a 10.5" w M4 can). And not only did they penetrate the jug, they exited. I had to reduce the impact velocity to 1880 FPS to capture all the components of the 62GR. CCCu after expansion/fragmentation had taken place. 77GR. TMK fragments enlarge the wound cavity. But they appear to stay much closer to the track of the core. And "snow storm" is a very good description on the 77Gr. TMK's level of fragmentation especially when compared to the large chucks of the 77GR. SMK when fired from a 10" class barrel (below). Be sure to note the unexpanded tips of all (3) 77GR. SMK OTM water-shots. That is the reason JAG ruled that the 77GR. SMK OTM based BHA MK 262 MOD 0/1 was a Hague compliant, non-expanding ammunition type.
 Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2020 8:43:33 PM EDT
[#18]
@leid
have you had a chance to try out Mk318 Mod 1 yet? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2020 9:15:23 PM EDT
[#19]
I have tested the MK 318 MOD 0 SOST but not the MOD 1. MK 318 MOD 0/1 is a Hague complaint, non-expanding, fragmenting round. Any Hague compliant round is leaving the advantage of expansion on the table. IMO, our best 5.56MM loads available today harness high 5.56MM velocity with expansion, fragmentation, and deep penetration. It is a little early to call it yet, but the 5.56MM 62GR. CCCu may be an accurate, expanding, fragmenting, deep penetrating round that is also barrier blind. Unless I am wrong, the BHA 62GR. Dual Purpose load may see DOD GWOT application as a possible replacement for the expanding/non-fragmenting/deep penetrating 70GR. TSX based 5.56MM OPTIMIZED brown tip X bullet load. I can tell you first hand that the 5.56MM 62GR. CCCu groups well inside the 5.56MM 70GR. TSX based brown tip DOD load. And I have killed multiple varmints/predators/whitetail/hogs with both. So far, overall advantage goes to the 5.56MM 62GR. CCCu. But more test results are needed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2020 10:29:51 PM EDT
[#20]
@Leid do you feel the exit on a white tail with the CCCu would provide good bloodflow? Or will it be a pinprick from the back half? Broadside 175#.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2020 10:57:25 PM EDT
[#21]
All flesh & bone targets bled out quickly from a 62GR. CCCu hit from a 10.5". Trauma level should only be greater with higher impact velocity. As is typical of most 5.56MM entry wounds, they will look almost like dart holes. Exit wounds are significantly larger though. Blood loss thru the exit wounds was very significant, much like a garden hose if hit thru the chest vitals/head/neck.
This is about typical of a .223/5.56MM entry wound into flesh:  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2020 11:29:22 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By leid: All flesh & bone targets bled out quickly from a 62GR. CCCu hit from a 10.5". Trauma level should only be greater with higher impact velocity. As is typical of most 5.56MM entry wounds, they will look almost like dart holes. Exit wounds are significantly larger though. Blood loss thru the exit wounds was very significant, much like a garden hose if hit thru the chest vitals/head/neck. This is about typical of a .223/5.56MM entry wound into flesh: https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/42284/MK262_entrance_JPG-1410661.JPG Excellent. You feel this is more traumatic than the browntip or 75gr gold dot? Excellent. You feel this is more traumatic than the browntip or 75gr gold dot? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2020 12:52:17 AM EDT
[#23]
Yes. The 5.56MM 75GR. GD and 5.56MM 70GR. TSX brown tip are both top shelf expanding bullets offering very deep penetration. But both lack significant fragmentation. The 70GR. TSX does not normally fragment at all but the 75GR. Gold Dot does appear to over-expand then fragment to a small degree (10%ish in a 10" class barrel). So far, the 5.56MM CCCu load offers both expansion and fragmentation with barrier blind quality deep penetration in an accurate bullet design. The 62GR. CCCu has done very well in 10" class barrels. But we need to see further testing with the 62GR. CCCu bullet to determine its limits.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2020 1:10:52 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By leid: Yes. The 5.56MM 75GR. GD and 5.56MM 70GR. TSX brown tip are both top shelf expanding bullets offering very deep penetration. But both lack significant fragmentation. The 70GR. TSX does not normally fragment at all but the 75GR. Gold Dot does appear to over-expand then fragment to a small degree (10%ish in a 10" class barrel). So far, the 5.56MM CCCu load offers both expansion and fragmentation with barrier blind quality deep penetration in an accurate bullet design. The 62GR. CCCu has done very well in 10" class barrels. But we need to see further testing with the 62GR. CCCu bullet to determine its limits. It does well at meeting design parameters, or its causing faster drops, more blood loss, and greater tissue destruction? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2020 1:31:37 AM EDT
[#25]
The 5.56MM 62GR. CCCu is causing greater tissue destruction leading to greater blood loss for sure. But hits outside the CNS can really surprise you. Some go down at the shot while others manage to run until they bleed out. Some whitetail do not drop but run for a ways even when hit thru the vitals with large caliber rifles such as 300WM or .45/70. The doe I shot in the neck with the 5.56MM 62GR. CCCu went straight down and bled out very quickly. But the bullet did not hit the spine.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2020 2:30:40 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By leid: The 5.56MM 62GR. CCCu is causing greater tissue destruction leading to greater blood loss for sure. But hits outside the CNS can really surprise you. Some go down at the shot while others manage to run until they bleed out. Some whitetail do not drop but run for a ways even when hit thru the vitals with large caliber rifles such as 300WM or .45/70. The doe I shot in the neck with the 5.56MM 62GR. CCCu went straight down and bled out very quickly. But the bullet did not hit the spine. I really look forward to deer season! My ccu looked different from yours though. It had TSX bands.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2020 9:14:31 AM EDT
[#27]
I have been using these 62GR. CCCu bullets for 2-3 years now. Looks like Lehigh may have put some improvements on their current 62GR. CCCu bullet. Barnes came up with their Accu-grooves™ on their TSX bullets to help eliminated several problems we saw with the earlier non-grooved Barnes X bullets. That change would make sense on the CCCu. And that change gives me a good reason to buy some factory BHA 5.56MM 62GR. 62 Gr. Dual Performance™ ammo. Thanks for pointing it out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2020 6:05:32 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By leid: I have been using these 62GR. CCCu bullets for 2-3 years now. Looks like Lehigh may have put some improvements on their current 62GR. CCCu bullet. Barnes came up with their Accu-grooves™ on their TSX bullets to help eliminated several problems we saw with the earlier non-grooved Barnes X bullets. That change would make sense on the CCCu. And that change gives me a good reason to buy some factory BHA 5.56MM 62GR. 62 Gr. Dual Performance™ ammo. Thanks for pointing it out. The BHA CCCu I had was exceptionally accurate. My main concern is that the fragments do not enhance actual wounding in a meaningful way past 3-4" of penetration. I'd like to see them punch the entire torso of a deer. Don't "have to exit", but would like to see that. In water jugs, 100% of fragments were stopped in the 2nd job. 100% entered into the second jug. I do not know how much gelatin the side of a milk-jog equates to, but I'd say it's tougher than flesh for sure, so I'll conservatively call it 1.5" of gel. Right or wrong. That's 3" of gel (out and in), as well as 3.6" of gel using the standard correction factor for water. That leads me to think it will penetrate 5-8" in muscle tissue. The deer I shoot, I figure they are maybe 10-16" thick or so, and some of that is lung, which isn't nearly as dense. I would figure I'd recover 100% of the frags inside of a deer on a broadside, and that they SHOULD make it through all of the vitals (heart/lungs, although might find one in the heart). All just guesswork, the above. I need to shoot one to "know". |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2020 6:41:00 PM EDT
[#29]
I emailed Lehigh Defense and asked them if the design of their 62GR. CCCu bullet had been changed and whether the new BHA 5.56MM 62GR. Dual Performance™ load is using the revised version. Their responses to my questions are below.
"Yes, the design has changed. There is no difference in internal or external ballistics. Same load, same POI, same everything." "Yes, BHA is using the same bullet in the new rev." |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2020 7:16:21 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By leid: I emailed Lehigh Defense and asked them if the design of their 62GR. CCCu bullet had been changed and whether the new BHA 5.56MM 62GR. Dual Performance™ load is using the revised version. Their responses to my questions are below. "Yes, the design has changed. There is no difference in internal or external ballistics. Same load, same POI, same everything." "Yes, BHA is using the same bullet in the new rev." I, too, have spoken with them. I dealt with Lehigh years ago, around 2013? Back when you got the owner on the phone if you called. I have always found them to be honest and very direct. I may not always buy their stuff, but I'd buy them a beer any time. They're good people and communicate clearly and honestly with their customers. If they offer a product and so does a peer, I'll buy Lehigh. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2020 7:37:23 PM EDT
[#31]
Im sure its been mentioned. However on straight tissue the OTM or soft points are a bit better not huge differences imho . The area monos edge out or flat beat others is barriers or hunting in lead free areas if these are neither a concern nor a factor I'd go JSP. The other nice thing is just as a good jsp over FMJ and OTM they can be tailored to velocity ranges to therefore be less dependent on extreme velocity and perform as desired from a given barrel length. Sadly monos even for us who want those attributes and are rolling our own tend to be less cost effective, buying yours loaded only increases this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2020 11:37:37 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By leid: I emailed Lehigh Defense and asked them if the design of their 62GR. CCCu bullet had been changed and whether the new BHA 5.56MM 62GR. Dual Performance™ load is using the revised version. Their responses to my questions are below. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By leid: I emailed Lehigh Defense and asked them if the design of their 62GR. CCCu bullet had been changed and whether the new BHA 5.56MM 62GR. Dual Performance™ load is using the revised version. Their responses to my questions are below. Interesting! So at the end of the day, what are the differences between the Lehigh, Underwood, and BH loadings of the CCCu round? Quoted: Im sure its been mentioned. However on straight tissue the OTM or soft points are a bit better not huge differences imho . The area monos edge out or flat beat others is barriers or hunting in lead free areas if these are neither a concern nor a factor I'd go JSP. The other nice thing is just as a good jsp over FMJ and OTM they can be tailored to velocity ranges to therefore be less dependent on extreme velocity and perform as desired from a given barrel length. Sadly monos even for us who want those attributes and are rolling our own tend to be less cost effective, buying yours loaded only increases this. I've read lots of accounts on both sides about the difference in terminal performance between standard JSP and the monos. I've pretty much come to the conclusion that whatever difference there is wouldn't be of huge concern to me with the small amount of hunting I plan to do, all things considered. Barriers are a minor concern of mine, but only because I plan to use the round in question for all roles (hunting predators and medium game, plus defensive use) save plinking. My want for monos is really because my state requires expanding ammunition and since I plan to eat just about anything I shoot or feed it to my family, I'd rather avoid lead/fragmenting ammunition. I know there's very little data to suggest that eating animals shot by lead bullets has any health effects at all, this is purely a peace of mind thing on my end. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/18/2020 1:56:42 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Safton: Interesting! So at the end of the day, what are the differences between the Lehigh, Underwood, and BH loadings of the CCCu round? I've read lots of accounts on both sides about the difference in terminal performance between standard JSP and the monos. I've pretty much come to the conclusion that whatever difference there is wouldn't be of huge concern to me with the small amount of hunting I plan to do, all things considered. Barriers are a minor concern of mine, but only because I plan to use the round in question for all roles (hunting predators and medium game, plus defensive use) save plinking. My want for monos is really because my state requires expanding ammunition and since I plan to eat just about anything I shoot or feed it to my family, I'd rather avoid lead/fragmenting ammunition. I know there's very little data to suggest that eating animals shot by lead bullets has any health effects at all, this is purely a peace of mind thing on my end. Even if there are terminal performance differences between monolithics and jsp/polymer tipped OTMs, you’re still hurling a sizeable chunk of lead or copper at a soft target at nearly 3000 FPS. It’ll mess shit up either way, so you’ll be served well by either the new black hills load or any flavor of TSX. So many choices these days that it’s hard to go wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/18/2020 12:00:42 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By cod0396: Even if there are terminal performance differences between monolithics and jsp/polymer tipped OTMs, you’re still hurling a sizeable chunk of lead or copper at a soft target at nearly 3000 FPS. It’ll mess shit up either way, so you’ll be served well by either the new black hills load or any flavor of TSX. So many choices these days that it’s hard to go wrong. This! The differences aren’t going to be enough to account for a miss or poor placement and either will do fine if put in the right place. One may edge out in one place or another but neither will be bad performing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/18/2020 12:08:41 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Safton: Interesting! So at the end of the day, what are the differences between the Lehigh, Underwood, and BH loadings of the CCCu round? I've read lots of accounts on both sides about the difference in terminal performance between standard JSP and the monos. I've pretty much come to the conclusion that whatever difference there is wouldn't be of huge concern to me with the small amount of hunting I plan to do, all things considered. Barriers are a minor concern of mine, but only because I plan to use the round in question for all roles (hunting predators and medium game, plus defensive use) save plinking. My want for monos is really because my state requires expanding ammunition and since I plan to eat just about anything I shoot or feed it to my family, I'd rather avoid lead/fragmenting ammunition. I know there's very little data to suggest that eating animals shot by lead bullets has any health effects at all, this is purely a peace of mind thing on my end. The peace of mind is Imo the most important factor most of the time. Sounds like anyone of the monos would fill your requirements of giving you a legal bullet for hunting, a solid performer for defense, and the peace of mind the family won’t be taking on any unnecessary lead. As for the lead even if there’s no health effects of the lead a mono is easier to track down then a fragment of lead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/19/2020 1:11:33 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Even if there are terminal performance differences between monolithics and jsp/polymer tipped OTMs, you’re still hurling a sizeable chunk of lead or copper at a soft target at nearly 3000 FPS. It’ll mess shit up either way, so you’ll be served well by either the new black hills load or any flavor of TSX. So many choices these days that it’s hard to go wrong. Quote HistoryQuoted: Even if there are terminal performance differences between monolithics and jsp/polymer tipped OTMs, you’re still hurling a sizeable chunk of lead or copper at a soft target at nearly 3000 FPS. It’ll mess shit up either way, so you’ll be served well by either the new black hills load or any flavor of TSX. So many choices these days that it’s hard to go wrong. Originally Posted By Gunnie357: The peace of mind is Imo the most important factor most of the time. Sounds like anyone of the monos would fill your requirements of giving you a legal bullet for hunting, a solid performer for defense, and the peace of mind the family won’t be taking on any unnecessary lead. As for the lead even if there’s no health effects of the lead a mono is easier to track down then a fragment of lead. My thoughts exactly, on both counts. I'm currently leaning toward the 70-grain VOR-TX once ammo becomes more readily available. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2020 2:56:05 PM EDT
[#37]
All vendors sold out the Black Hills 5.56 50 grain TSX after the riots nation wide. So now I just ordered the 62 grain TSX. Last week I saw plenty of the 50 grain TSX at many ammo vendors like luckygunner.com targetsportsusa.com, bulkammo and so on.
Grab them while you can. Hopefully the POI of these 62 grain will match the XM855 I got. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
