As is often the case, I disagree with Chuck Hawks.
I do agree with his definition of standard C&C (‘cup and core’) bullets. Since I started big game hunting in 1982, I’ve killed exactly two big game animals with such bullets. The first was a bull elk in ’83 or ’84 that I took with a 7mm RM and a 162g Hornady BTSP InterLock. The bull dropped in its tracks but the bullet retained less than 50% of its original weight even though it hit only one rib. The next year I switched to Speer Grand Slams and used them exclusively and with zero complaints until 2001 when I took a buck antelope with the 7mm RM and a 160g Barnes XLC. (That experience so disgusted me that I went back to Grand Slams.) The second, and only other animal I’ve taken with standard C&C bullets, was a buck antelope taken with my Marlin in .375 Win and a 220g Hornady bullet in 2003.
During the last 25 years, while my own experience has been somewhat limited, I have been fortunate to witness a fair number of kills by others using a variety of bullets. The result of both types of experience is that these days my hunting loads include standard C&C bullets only in the .30-30 (Speer 170g), the .375 Win (Hornady 220g) and the .45-70 (Speer and Hornady 350g). That said, I have only taken game with the .375 Win and its 220g Hornady bullet – the .30-30 tends to get hunted with a 170g Nosler Partition RN and the .45-70 has dropped all of its game with a North Fork 350g bullet. In the bolt guns I tend to use North Fork bullets in the field, although I also load a few others including AccuBond and A-Frame (both in .357 Roberts), TSX (.257 Roberts, .308W, .30-06, .300WM) and MRX (.300 WM). As time allows I will undoubtedly try the TTSX and Tipped Trophy Bonded bullets.
So much for what I shoot. To my disagreements with Hawks:
…
These standard type bullets are deadly on medium size (CXP2) big game animals. If you are hunting non-dangerous animals ranging in size from about 50 pounds to, say, 400 pounds, these are usually the best bullets to use. Let me repeat that: standard bullets are usually the best choice for CXP2 game.
In my case standard C&C bullets are RARELY the best choice. Thanks Chuck, but I’ll decide what is “best” for me. I use C&C bullets in the .375 Win only because I can’t get a Grand Slam, Partition, North Fork, A-Frame TSX or AccuBond or other bullets I would prefer. And while I load C&C bullets in the .30-30 and .45-70, as noted before I hunt these rifles with my Partition RN and North Fork loads instead.
Standard bullets will ordinarily provide more expansion and faster kills than premium controlled expansion bullets on animals such as pronghorn antelope, whitetail deer, blacktail deer, mule deer, mountain goats, wild sheep, black bear, caribou, and similar size animals worldwide. These are all relatively light framed animals, so a bullet that penetrates into the heart/lung area and expands violently, thus destroying the maximum amount of tissue, gives the quickest, most humane, kills.
Of course, you do have to get any bullet into a vital spot. You can break an animal's leg with the best bullet on earth, and it is not going to result in a quick kill.
The challenge of getting a bullet to the vitals is exactly the reason I prefer not to use C&C bullets. Yes, they can be spectacularly effective on broadside shots. (They can also cause spectacular but shallow wounds and not particularly effective wounds as well.)
The problem is that even with a perfect set-up things can go wrong. An animal can turn as the trigger breaks, for instance, and the broadside shot can suddenly become a raking shot. My philosophy is to shoot until the animal is down and stays that way. Although I’ve seen a fair number of animals lost during my hunting career, none have been mine. If Murphy comes knocking I want a bullet that will perform on a raking shot or, if absolutely necessary to put down a wounded and fleeing animal, a Texas Heart Shot. While even a Grand Slam would give me confidence in such situations, there are very few C&C bullets I would trust in calibers .30 and under.
This last fall I had just such an incident – a buck mule deer was quartering away at about 150 yards. The deer was highly alerted and I fully expected it to bolt. A couple of steps at most would put it out of sight. Just as the trigger broke the buck stepped forward while turning away and the bullet hit the right ham. Fortunately I was using a 140g North Fork in my 7mm RM, launched at 3200fps. The buck dropped in its tracks and was dead before we got to it. The bullet was recovered from the front of the chest cavity.
Would a C&C bullet have worked as well? Perhaps, but we’ll never know. My take, however, is that a bullet that “penetrates into the heart/lung area and expands violently“ on a broadside is unlikely to have survived and penetrated as deeply (something over three feet) as the North Fork.
Do C&C’s work well when everything is perfect? Yes, but for that matter most game I’ve taken could have been easily killed with my.22-250 and a 50g varmint bullet to the ribs, too.
Note that it is not necessary for the bullet to be recovered largely intact. Bullets that fragment after reaching the vitals do more tissue damage than those that are recovered looking like perfect little mushrooms. Bullets that shoot through and through usually do less internal damage than those that are found in pieces under the hide on the off side.
Occasionally I get correspondence that reads something like this: "Last season I dropped a buck in his tracks with one shot, but when we dressed him we found that the bullet had come apart inside of the animal. What went wrong? Should I change bullets?"
My answer is that nothing went wrong. The bullet performed perfectly. Congratulations on a humane, one shot kill. Don't change anything! A deeper penetrating bullet would result in a slower, less humane kill.
“Bullets that fragment after reaching the vitals” – would that be 4-6” of penetration on an antelope or more on a mulie or black bear? Are broadside shots all that will be taken or will more penetration be required?
How about using a bullet that provides good penetration AND kills quickly, like the Grand Slams that worked so well for me for over 20 years? Or the North Forks I’m using now, or the Trophy Bonded my hunting buddy uses?
Sorry Chuck, but a bullet that fragments after reaching the vitals (a relatively short distance on a broadside shot) is likely a poor penetrator and not something I care to use except on varmints.
The only real "problem" with standard bullets is that many shooters and hunters have been propagandized to believe that all recovered bullets should look like those shown in the advertisements, and that any bullet that does not retain most of its weight and shoot through and through is no good. (Why? It should be obvious that a bullet that goes clear through the animal is wasting its remaining energy on the landscape.)
Chuck is ignoring the “real” problem with C&C bullets. Frankly, I don’t care if recovered bullets are perfect mushrooms or not, although I believe that uniform expansion tends to lead to more uniform and predictable results. My interest is more in performance after impact. The “real” problem with most C&C bullets is that performance can vary so widely. My experience with Grand Slams, North Forks and Trophy Bonded is that they perform well over a wide range of velocities. In 25 years I have had no bullet blow-ups, no shallow wounds, a good number of exit wounds, and my fair share of DRT results with no animals lost. What I’ve witnessed with C&C bullets over those years has included some impressive DRT kills and some exit wounds but has also included some bullet blow-ups resulting in shallow wounds and lost animals. There is NOTHING humane about the latter two.
I’ll take a bullet that performs consistently over one that does not. And if a bullet exits, so what – all but one of my Grand Slams exited (it took me 20 years to recover one and that one wrecked both shoulder joints in a 5x5 bull elk and still retained over 70% of its original weight) and all killed effectively. Other factors being equal, a bullet that retains the most weight will penetrate the furthest.
Granted, even premiums can fail – as I’ve witnessed with Barnes XLC’s. On average, however, the premiums will kill quickly and perform consistently over a wider range of velocities than any C&C bullets.
That is fine if your goal is to sell expensive premium bullets, which is exactly what the ammo and bullet makers want to do. It is no secret in the trade that premium ammo has a much higher profit margin than standard ammo, so that is what the manufacturers prefer to sell. Unfortunately, this propaganda is misleading at best and flat wrong at worst, if the buyer is looking for quick kills on deer size animals.
In fact, standard bullets will also work just fine on large, CXP3 game like elk and moose if they are delivered to the heart/lung area from the front or side. Standard bullets are not the ticket, however, for smashing through heavy shoulder joints or for so-called "raking" shots on heavy game. (In other words, shooting a north bound animal in the south end.) A premium, controlled expansion bullet is better in that scenario.
What is “misleading” is Chuck’s implication that C&C bullets are necessarily quicker and more humane killers. Yes, they can be impressive on broadside shots, but they can also blow up on the same shots and may fail to penetrate adequately in situations where a better bullet would perform well. Hunters can easily choose not to shoot if the initial opportunity isn’t perfect, but when things go wrong and a follow-up shot is required a C&C may well not be up to the task.
Frankly, a manufacturer’s profit margin is of no concern to me – if the bullets are affordable and suit my needs I will use them. For the most part, C&C bullets fail the “suit my needs” test.
I would argue, however, that one should not attempt raking shots in the first place. They are always risky, with any kind of bullet. Wait until you have a clear shot at the heart/lung area, or don't shoot. So what if you have to stalk closer, or even lose a trophy, because a good shot is not available. That's why our sport is called "hunting." Your duty as a responsible hunter is a quick kill. If you are not certain of that result, you are obliged to hold your fire. If you want an easy sport, take up racket ball.
There are a several things wrong with this paragraph. First, Chuck is discussing initial shots but ignores the reality that second shots are often required and that waiting for a perfect opportunity in such situations may well mean no shot at all and lost game as a result. Second, getting closer is not always possible. Third, the risk in raking shots are highly dependent on a variety of factors, not the least of which is bullet construction. There are many times I’ve had an opportunity that I would have refused to take with a C&C bullet that I would have been quite comfortable taking with a Grand Slam, Partition, North Fork, Trophy Bonded, TSX or other bullet.
Sorry, Chuck, but while I work hard to get the best possible shot opportunity and while the most of game I’ve taken has fallen to broadside shots, the few quartering shots I’ve taken have, without exception, resulted in impressive damage to the vital organs and DRT kills. Then again, none have been taken with C&C bullets.
A complaint often heard about fast expanding bullets is that they destroy too much meat. My answer is that the whole point is to destroy a lot of tissue in order to cause a quick, humane death. The shooter, not the bullet, is responsible for what tissue is destroyed. If you put the bullet into the heart/lung area, little if any edible meat is destroyed, since most people don't eat internal organs. If you put the bullet into the animal's hip it is going to destroy a lot of meat, for sure, but the hip is not a vital organ. This is a bullet placement, not a bullet performance, problem.
Many shooters today seem to be obsessed with accuracy. Frankly, for the hunter this obsession is sometimes counter-productive, but the good news is that standard bullets are also usually the most accurate bullets. Their relatively uncomplicated design apparently results in a more uniform finished product, and uniformity is the key to hair splitting accuracy.
The bottom line is that premium bullets are neither required nor desirable for most hunting. Animals the size of deer, antelope, sheep, goats and caribou comprise the most sought after game species all around the world. These CXP2 class animals are what the standard bullets were designed to kill. That is why they are standard bullets. …
Sorry again, Chuck, but I’ve seen front quarters where little was left after being hit broadside with poly-tipped C&C bullets. If I want to minimize meat damage I’ll go big and slow or I’ll use a premium, controlled expansion bullet.
The best accuracy I’ve gotten out of several of my rifles has been with premium bullets (North Fork, AccuBond, TSX and A-Frame), so while C&C bullets can be quite accurate, premium bullets often do as well or better.
I agree with Chuck that premium bullets are not required for most hunting, although I would expand the sentiment and say they are not required for ANY hunting. I draw the line there, however, as I prefer to use premium bullets for all my hunting.
Unlike Chuck, I lay out the facts as I’ve witnessed them and let others decide for themselves what is “best” for their needs. If someone decides C&C bullets meet their needs I have no problems with their choice. For Chuck to flatly suggest that premium bullet users are lazy, brainwashed hunters displays both arrogance and ignorance.
