Well, against my better judgement, I am going to try one more time as well.
And T.J., I really appreciate you rejoining our discussion. We will all benefit from every experienced voice. I think we are actually largely in agreement; we have merely reached different conclusions. And it is perfectly ok for equally informed people to draw different conclusions from the same observable data. In the end, I believe we all want a bullet which consistently, and effectively kills the game we are hunting. For me, based upon my experience, a deep straight penetration with lots of retained mass is the starting point for cape buffalo and larger plains game (it would also be the case for lion - but I have no personal experience killing lions). That personal prerequisite is effectively achieved over a fairly wide range of velocities by at least half a dozen premium bullet manufacturers and via at least four different manufacturing techniques. By the way, I include the new cup-nose solid designs in that list.
I also am inherently distrustful of any purposely designed frangible bullet. In my three decades in the military, we did a lot of experimentation with them. Except for ammunition load, the .223 is a pretty awful military round and for four decades we have experimented periodically with frangibles to try and turn it into a man-stopper. A frangible also would be a fairly easy way to technically stay within Geneva protocols. We could never get one to work. There was simply no way to predict what the fragments would do or when they would do it. Also bear in mind, we are not entirely upset with merely wounding an adversary, as he becomes a significant headache for the enemy. But all of that research, made me pretty certain I never wanted to shoot a deer with such a bullet - much less a large animal which can hit back (I would argue, that includes leopard - I want to drill a hole where I am aiming - not hope bits of debris act optimally). You, therefore, can imagine how off-putting I find an accidentally or occasionally frangible design.
So with DGX, we have a bullet which seems to sometimes behave like a frangible at high velocities - whether caused by very short range or original MV. There is a lot of observable evidence which indicates that sometimes happens. It has clearly happened to members of this forum. So, my conclusion, drawn from that observable evidence - and recognizing my previously reached conclusion that deep straight-line penetration is critical - is that the DGX is unsuitable for large and/or heavy-boned DG / PG. Note, that I did not say the bullet wouldn't kill them, but I am personally unwilling to take the risk of fragmentation when so many other bullets will deliver the characteristics I most value far more consistently. And of course, "bullet failure" - and by that, I mean the bullet not performing
as I desire a bullet to perform against that particular target - has a much different context when poking cape buffalo rather than, say, a whitetail. Hence, my informed personal lack of regard for the DGX and my concern about its use by inexperienced African hunters who would never recognize the bullet design's limitations - or, if you are fan - its optimal performance window. And certainly, Hornady offers no such caveat in proclaiming the virtues of its product.
To digress, I will be wading around that infernal Zambezi Delta in October with my .375 R8 loaded with the 300gr Woodleigh Hydro. It checks off 90+% of my DG preconditions, and does so, in .375, over a wide range of velocities from muzzle to 300 meters. I will use it on everything from buff to duiker. Like the North Fork cup-nose, it is a solid which, nevertheless, leaves a devastating wound channel. I can personally attest that in its 9.3 guise, it is decisive on bear. The 10% of failing to meet my preconditions will be broadside presentations in a herd. The potential for pass-through is higher than a normal soft. For me, that is a known and fully manageable characteristic with which I am willing to live in order to take advantage of the bullet's other attributes. I am unwilling to live with any surprise performance deviations of any bullet. The DGX design seems rife with such surprises under field conditions.
