Why aren't target rounds suitable for hunting?

[south]

As we know there are 'target' and 'hunting' rounds available.

Not that I'm an expert by any means, but the guy at the shop showed me some berger 'hunting' hollow points and some 'target' hollow points and they looked identical to me.

The guy at the store didn't seem real confident in his explanation of the difference, I got some vague description that they "hold together" better and he was quick to wrap things up and stop trying to explain anything further.

Weight is one factor that has me thinking, target shooting usually favours heavier pills which if you're shooting .30 cal might be 175gr - 200gr. Heavy and hard hitting on weight alone, regardless of other factors.

Some more info would be great, thanks.

[Mick280]

From memory,If you have a real close look at the Berger hunting projectiles,They have very faint perforation lines running 3 or 4mm,s down the length of the projectile from the tip to aid expansion as opposed to the target projectile has not.
Mick.

[Gwion]

Jacket construction and core construction vary bullet to bullet but basically a hunting round is designed to expand upon impact and a target round is not. Some bullets, like the Amax, are designed for target but are effective hunting rounds. This is not the case with all target rounds so it is best to leave them for target work. In the same way, some hunting rounds are very precisely made and you can probably do ok with them as a target bullet but premium hunting round aren't cheap due to the R&D and cost of manufacturing special performance cores.

Simply put, target rounds are purely designed and made with accuracy in mind where as hunting rounds are designed & made with 'terminal performance' in mind.

[Apollo]

Most all Berger Target Bullets are suitable for hunting and are marked as such on the package. Some lines are marked "Not suitable for Hunting" but despite this many thoughts have changed over the years by Berger following feedback from hunters. It probably depends a lot on what sort of creature they are used on and what the results have been. Basically Target Bullets have a thicker J4 Jacket. Many hunting type bullets are used for target shooting.

See Berger FAQ...

"Our Target and Tactical bullets are designed with thicker jackets that withstand more stress before bullet degradation occurs. A target or tactical shooter generally fires multiple rounds in a row, causing the barrel to heat up and more stress on bullet. To keep performance high, we give these bullets thicker jackets.

Our Varmint and Hunting bullets have slightly thinner jackets. This means that the bullet will expand more effectively, creating a large wound cavity that devastates the animal using hydrostatic shock. Hunters generally shoot 1-3 bullets at a time, so bullet degradation is not as much of a concern as expansion.

Read more here: http://www.bergerbullets.com/informatio ... d-designs/ "

[WhelanLad]

yeah right! I thought target rounds were only just hangin together an so once shot into game, just don't hold up an lack penetration?

but I've never once used a target round..... so whata I know

[Apollo]

And another bit from the Berger FAQ....

"▶ Can I use my Target bullets for Hunting?
We do not recommend that you use Target bullets for hunting. The wound channel with a Target bullet is narrow compared to the wound channel of a Hunting bullet. The wider wound channel produced by the Hunting bullet is more likely to impact vital organs if the shot placement is not ideal."

Sometimes one may not want a huge wound channel like hunting for skins as the softer more fragile bullets just destroy the skin on the exit side, if there is an exit. A lot is experimenting to determine if they are suitable for your chosen use and typical shooting distance / animal.

As far as I have established the internal lead core of these is the same.

[Gwion]

As far as I have established the internal lead core of these is the same.

Not sure about Berger in particular but i have seen some info from bullet manufacturers re: various jacket/core bonding processes to improve penetration through weight retention, etc. From this i was under the impression that various techniques where also used to construct the core to enhance both expansion and weight retention. Neither of these factors are important in a target bullet.

[bladeracer]

As we know there are 'target' and 'hunting' rounds available.

Not that I'm an expert by any means, but the guy at the shop showed me some berger 'hunting' hollow points and some 'target' hollow points and they looked identical to me.

The guy at the store didn't seem real confident in his explanation of the difference, I got some vague description that they "hold together" better and he was quick to wrap things up and stop trying to explain anything further.

Weight is one factor that has me thinking, target shooting usually favours heavier pills which if you're shooting .30 cal might be 175gr - 200gr. Heavy and hard hitting on weight alone, regardless of other factors.

Some more info would be great, thanks.

I think primarily, it's that the manufacturer has made zero effort to design the bullet to kill cleanly, and they don't want forums flooded with dissatisfied hunters bagging their product.
The bullet might work well, it might even be outstanding, but if the manufacturer has done no testing they're unlikely to advertise it as a hunting bullet.
As has happened with Berger, some hunters have had success with one of their target bullets so the company has done some testing and found it to work well enough.

Certainly, what a bullet looks like externally has very little bearing on how it is designed to function at impact.

Nowadays most manufacturers are designing hunting bullets that are so accurate I can't see any reason not to use them.

Bullet design is becoming more and more complex as we push the physical limits. I think monolithic bullets are a great way of addressing most of them, but with less mass.
I was reading recently about how the manufacturers have to find a balance in jacket thickness to control the temperature of the lead. If the lead gets hot enough, the outside of it begins to melt, loses bond with the jacket, and no longer spins at the same rate as the jacket, causing all sorts of stability problems.

[brett1868]

Another possibility is that Hunting bullets are the ones that don't quite pass the QA for target use.

[Barnard]

i use both, as i regularly target shoot and hunt a fair bit, and have looked into this several times.
even to the point of dissecting many projectiles to see their constructions inside etc.
contrary to belief of many, target bullets are not 'harder' than hunting bullets, but if anything are (on average) ;

softer (so not to be formed 'out of round' from the barrel rifling).
longer and sleeker more pointed (to increase their ballistics)
and have very thin copper jacket around the base of the projectile.

this is not to say they wont perform well on game though. It's just that hunting bullets have other traits to make them better at the job, such as;

'slightly' harder copper jacket (to withstand the forces induced from the projectile 'mushrooming' upon impact etc)
less pointed (this helps initial mushrooming of the projectile as it enters the animal,.......to a degree)
a slightly thicker copper jacket,..at the base of the projectile (to help prevent total fragmentation as it passes through bone and heavy flesh).

having said all that,.......it really comes down to which individual projectiles you're referring to and against what type of hunting you wish to do with them.
'Some' target bullets make great hunting bullets too.

[happyhunter]

creating a large wound cavity that devastates the animal using hydrostatic shock.

Bullet makers need to market different products to stay in business. They say anything to sell what they make. Hydrostatic shock causes no tissue damage except to brain and liver tissue. Hydostatic shock being devastating to flesh and the other organs is complete bulls**t.

[bladeracer]

creating a large wound cavity that devastates the animal using hydrostatic shock.

Bullet makers need to market different products to stay in business. They say anything to sell what they make. Hydrostatic shock causes no tissue damage except to brain and liver tissue. Hydostatic shock being devastating to flesh and the other organs is complete bulls**t.

You ever seen the eyeballs pop out with a head shot?
If that's not "disrupted tissue" I don't know how else to describe it.
Even the skin is blown apart by the shock wave moving through flesh.

[happyhunter]

creating a large wound cavity that devastates the animal using hydrostatic shock.

Bullet makers need to market different products to stay in business. They say anything to sell what they make. Hydrostatic shock causes no tissue damage except to brain and liver tissue. Hydostatic shock being devastating to flesh and the other organs is complete bulls**t.

You ever seen the eyeballs pop out with a head shot?
If that's not "disrupted tissue" I don't know how else to describe it.
Even the skin is blown apart by the shock wave moving through flesh.

All headshot with a 204 Ruger. Only one has it's eyes bugging out, pushed out by exploding brain tissue and bone fragments. Like I said, hydrostatic shock only damages very soft tissue of the brain and liver. Read up on Dr. Frackler so you don't have to bother me for the explanation.

[happyhunter]

creating a large wound cavity that devastates the animal using hydrostatic shock.

Bullet makers need to market different products to stay in business. They say anything to sell what they make. Hydrostatic shock causes no tissue damage except to brain and liver tissue. Hydostatic shock being devastating to flesh and the other organs is complete bulls**t.

You ever seen the eyeballs pop out with a head shot?
If that's not "disrupted tissue" I don't know how else to describe it.
Even the skin is blown apart by the shock wave moving through flesh.

All headshot. No eyes bugging out. I can post 30-40 more. Some with eyes bugging out, some not. Or maybe accept the fact that the reference was to tissue damage. Head shots are unredictable in the outcome and it's a very small space. Use your common sense and you might realise that.

[bladeracer]

All headshot with a 204 Ruger. Only one has it's eyes bugging out, pushed out by exploding brain tissue and bone fragments. Like I said, hydrostatic shock only damages very soft tissue of the brain and liver. Read up on Dr. Frackler so you don't have to bother me for the explanation.

I've heard of Frackler, like so many others I disagree with his views.
You are free to believe anything, but that doesn't make it fact.
Besides, I believe all of his data were based on military ball ammo rather than hunting or defensive bullet designs?

[happyhunter]

All headshot with a 204 Ruger. Only one has it's eyes bugging out, pushed out by exploding brain tissue and bone fragments. Like I said, hydrostatic shock only damages very soft tissue of the brain and liver. Read up on Dr. Frackler so you don't have to bother me for the explanation.

I've heard of Frackler, like so many others I disagree with his views.
You are free to believe anything, but that doesn't make it fact.
Besides, I believe all of his data were based on military ball ammo rather than hunting or defensive bullet designs?

yeah no worries. You disagree with a field surgeon with years of experience treating gun shot wounds. Whatever you rekon.

[bladeracer]

All headshot with a 204 Ruger. Only one has it's eyes bugging out, pushed out by exploding brain tissue and bone fragments. Like I said, hydrostatic shock only damages very soft tissue of the brain and liver. Read up on Dr. Frackler so you don't have to bother me for the explanation.

I've heard of Frackler, like so many others I disagree with his views.
You are free to believe anything, but that doesn't make it fact.
Besides, I believe all of his data were based on military ball ammo rather than hunting or defensive bullet designs?

yeah no worries. You disagree with a field surgeon with years of experience treating gun shot wounds. Whatever you rekon.

Sure, I choose to disagree with him and agree with all the other experts that also disagree with him.

[Apollo]

Maybe I misread some of the context of the replies BUT, aren't we supposed to be discussing "Hunting Bullets" not little calibre Varmint Bullets and Varminting which in my view is an entirely different subject... ??

[Oldbloke]

Hunting bullets are designed to expand in a controlled way in order to cause plenty of damage. Some expand quicker than others depending on intended use. Weight retention is considered important too.

None of the above is considered when designing a target bullet, so a bit hit and miss for hunting.

[Gamerancher]

The price of some "match" bullets vs. hunting bullets may be a factor in choice also, especially in 6.5 & 7mm. Then again some "u-beaut" hunting bullets can be ridiculously priced also. Terminal performance at target , whether paper, steel or living is the most important factor. This is usually best found out by yourself, using your loads, in your rifle.

[Norton]

Maybe I misread some of the context of the replies BUT, aren't we supposed to be discussing "Hunting Bullets" not little calibre Varmint Bullets and Varminting which in my view is an entirely different subject... ??

Varminting is different thing.

Back to the topic at hand... Hunting game requires bullets that are designed to expand in a consistent fashion and retain weight, to ensure transfer of energy and sizeable wound channel.

Match bullets are not. Expansion can be unpredictable or explosive, or lacking and pencil through. They're designed for accuracy, not to kill well.

[Bigtravoz]

As we know there are 'target' and 'hunting' rounds available.

Not that I'm an expert by any means, but the guy at the shop showed me some berger 'hunting' hollow points and some 'target' hollow points and they looked identical to me.

The guy at the store didn't seem real confident in his explanation of the difference, I got some vague description that they "hold together" better and he was quick to wrap things up and stop trying to explain anything further.

Weight is one factor that has me thinking, target shooting usually favours heavier pills which if you're shooting .30 cal might be 175gr - 200gr. Heavy and hard hitting on weight alone, regardless of other factors.

Some more info would be great, thanks.

The difference is that the hunting ones don't meet weight spec or are start of a batchin manufacturing otherwise they're exactly the same

[Gwion]

As we know there are 'target' and 'hunting' rounds available.

Not that I'm an expert by any means, but the guy at the shop showed me some berger 'hunting' hollow points and some 'target' hollow points and they looked identical to me.

The guy at the store didn't seem real confident in his explanation of the difference, I got some vague description that they "hold together" better and he was quick to wrap things up and stop trying to explain anything further.

Weight is one factor that has me thinking, target shooting usually favours heavier pills which if you're shooting .30 cal might be 175gr - 200gr. Heavy and hard hitting on weight alone, regardless of other factors.

Some more info would be great, thanks.

The difference is that the hunting ones don't meet weight spec or are start of a batchin manufacturing otherwise they're exactly the same

Nope. Construction of hunting bullets and target bullets (for the large part) are completely different from jacket thickness and hardess to construction of the core and bonding between core and jacket.

[bigfellascott]

Here's some of the different projectiles I was using at the time for culling work. I found the Nosler Solid Base was the best out of them all, the animal would just drop dead on the spot and you could hear a very distinct thump when it hit home compared to the others. The others worked fine also but that Solid Base just did a better job IMHO.