Why avoid Hornady DG bullets and ammunition?

[Bert the Turtle]

All bullets can and as demonstrated above, do fail.

The relevant factor is the rate at which they fail in a potentially dangerous manner. For a dangerous game bullet, it is, in my opinion, better to fail by not expanding rather than fail by breaking apart to the degree that they don't reach the vitals.

We have above examples of a failed TSX and a few failed A-frames. Farther up, many examples of failed DGX. What we don't have is a reliable way of knowing the actual number of any of the bullets that failed (the numerator) nor the number fired (the denominator). So we do not know the actual rate of failure for any of these bullets in field conditions.

What we do know is the the Hornady is apparently designed to be more frangible than the other two bullets. We do have some test media results that seem to show the Hornady is more frangible at least in the test media at the tested velocity. It is not unreasonable to conclude that it is not as tough a bullet as the A-frame or the TSX.

Whether this makes it a bad bullet or not all depends on what you want your bullet to do. Is a Jeep Wrangler better than a LaFerrari? Not on a track, but surely in the woods. Define your desired performance, and pick a bullet to match.

If you want a bullet that does maximum damage on a between the ribs broadside shot on a leopard, you would want a softer more frangible bullet than if you want a bullet that reaches the heart from the ass end of a buffalo. The latter bullet will almost assuredly not produce the spectacular result on the leopard that the former will.

I personally prefer (even on plains game) a bullet that penetrates deeply, preferably through the animal. I accept that it will not do as much damage under ideal conditions as a more fragile bullet in exchange for increasing my odds of reaching the vitals under less than ideal conditions. Particularly in Africa where I could end up shooting an eland or a springbok, I want a fairly deep penetrating bullet. Better to put a small hole through the springbok than to break an eland's shoulder without reaching the vitals as far as I'm concerned. On the other hand, when hunting at home on whitetail where one can always wait for the ideal shot, I cannot argue with my son for choosing a soft bullet that makes spectacular kills under the ideal shot condition he is willing to wait for.

With dangerous game, I am even more interested in being able to reach the vitals from less than ideal angles. But, I am planning to use a TSX not a solid at least for my first shot on buffalo this fall. So, I haven't gone all the way to penetration over expansion. Others choose a cup point solid for probably more penetration and less expansion than my TSX. At least one of us firmly supports the DGX. The best information I can find indicates to me that bullet is too soft/fragile for my comfort, but I'm not the one shooting it. If you understand what the bullet is likely to do and use it, you will probably get what you ask for. At this point, it seems relatively clear what the DGX does. Perhaps we should move on to a discussion of what we want a bullet to do rather than continue with this.

 

[gizmo]

I could post more if you like but I think I made my point. I didn't post any of these to bring the quality of these bullets into question as I believe they are very good bullets but rather to show that performance can be dictated by circumstances within and not within our control.

I doubt posting more will be necessary. You have showed beyond a shadow of a doubt through pictures and excuses how truly terrible Hornady DG ammo is. There are 20 pages of lame excuses for failures. It is beyond obvious what your intentions here are. You are paid by Hornady to stand up for their sub par products. It's a hellava lot cheaper to pay you and others than it is to do research and put the effort in to fix and marketing a decent product as after all it's a limited market.

 

[sheephunterab]

I thought you were trying to equate those images to the reported failures of the DGX, to make the argument that such failures happen with all bullets. Sorry for the misguided poke.

No harm!

 

[sheephunterab]

If you understand what the bullet is likely to do and use it, you will probably get what you ask for. At this point, it seems relatively clear what the DGX does. Perhaps we should move on to a discussion of what we want a bullet to do rather than continue with this.

Bingo!

 

[Pheroze]

No harm!

Shame really, I quite amused myself with that one. I will save it for another argument.

 

[sheephunterab]

Shame really, I quite amused myself with that one. I will save it for another argument.

I didn't post those pictures as examples of failures.

 

[IdaRam]

Perhaps we should move on to a discussion of what we want a bullet to do rather than continue with this.

What the hell, I'll take a stab at it.
A solid is pretty straight forward, right? For DG (Ele & Buff) we want deep, straight line penetration. We don't want deformation or fragmentation when penetrating through both tissue and bone. I'm sure there can be volumes written about solids, but the conversation has mostly been about softs, so...
In a Dangerous Game soft for Cape Buffalo my choice would be a heavily constructed bullet designed to reliably bust through heavy bone and still penetrate deeply to reach the vitals. Probably in a caliber that begins with a 4.
In the case of lion, my ideal bullet would be of heavy enough construction to reliably break shoulder bones or spine and remain intact, retaining enough weight to penetrate through the vitals. Yet expand more rapidly to a large mushroom and create a lot of soft tissue damage. Probably in a .375 or .416.
For Leopard I would probably choose a bonded soft point bullet in a .375. Something I had confidence in being able to bust shoulder bones and pass through the vitals, preferably exiting the offside.
For charging DG such as meercat or spring hare I would definitely want a double stuffed with solids
OK, that should get us another 22 pages...

 

[Paul Edwards]

All bullets can and as demonstrated above, do fail.

The relevant factor is the rate at which they fail in a potentially dangerous manner. For a dangerous game bullet, it is, in my opinion, better to fail by not expanding rather than fail by breaking apart to the degree that they don't reach the vitals.

We have above examples of a failed TSX and a few failed A-frames. Farther up, many examples of failed DGX. What we don't have is a reliable way of knowing the actual number of any of the bullets that failed (the numerator) nor the number fired (the denominator). So we do not know the actual rate of failure for any of these bullets in field conditions.

What we do know is the the Hornady is apparently designed to be more frangible than the other two bullets. We do have some test media results that seem to show the Hornady is more frangible at least in the test media at the tested velocity. It is not unreasonable to conclude that it is not as tough a bullet as the A-frame or the TSX.

Whether this makes it a bad bullet or not all depends on what you want your bullet to do. Is a Jeep Wrangler better than a LaFerrari? Not on a track, but surely in the woods. Define your desired performance, and pick a bullet to match.

If you want a bullet that does maximum damage on a between the ribs broadside shot on a leopard, you would want a softer more frangible bullet than if you want a bullet that reaches the heart from the ass end of a buffalo. The latter bullet will almost assuredly not produce the spectacular result on the leopard that the former will.

I personally prefer (even on plains game) a bullet that penetrates deeply, preferably through the animal. I accept that it will not do as much damage under ideal conditions as a more fragile bullet in exchange for increasing my odds of reaching the vitals under less than ideal conditions. Particularly in Africa where I could end up shooting an eland or a springbok, I want a fairly deep penetrating bullet. Better to put a small hole through the springbok than to break an eland's shoulder without reaching the vitals as far as I'm concerned. On the other hand, when hunting at home on whitetail where one can always wait for the ideal shot, I cannot argue with my son for choosing a soft bullet that makes spectacular kills under the ideal shot condition he is willing to wait for.

With dangerous game, I am even more interested in being able to reach the vitals from less than ideal angles. But, I am planning to use a TSX not a solid at least for my first shot on buffalo this fall. So, I haven't gone all the way to penetration over expansion. Others choose a cup point solid for probably more penetration and less expansion than my TSX. At least one of us firmly supports the DGX. The best information I can find indicates to me that bullet is too soft/fragile for my comfort, but I'm not the one shooting it. If you understand what the bullet is likely to do and use it, you will probably get what you ask for. At this point, it seems relatively clear what the DGX does. Perhaps we should move on to a discussion of what we want a bullet to do rather than continue with this.

Yes, let's move on. This thread came to a fork in the road quite some time ago: 1) opinions on Hornady bullets, ammo, hunters and 2) opinions on how various bullets should perform under various circumstances. Let's move on to No. 2 under a new thread as I have retired from the stick business

Thank you, all.

 

[petrusg]

here are some real life tests done with Hornady bullets
use it don't use it its up to you but ill stay away from them for Dangerous game


Bullet Performance
We all know that bullet performance is crucial when hunting animals, but how much of that trust is earned and how much is just hey say because of the brand you choose.

Well this weekend i decided to put two bullets to the test to see if they could stand up to their name. The first bullet was loaded with a Peregrine 480gr VRG-3 point and 92gr of S335 powder and the second was a Hornady 480gr DGX also loaded with 92gr of S335. Both of these rounds were shot out of my Sabatti .450 Nitro Express at a speed of 2150 f/s.

So the test was shooting at a paper target into a heap of sand and then recovering the soft point to see the performance of the bullet.

The bullet on the left was the 480gr Peregringe VRG-3 and the one on the right the 480gr Hornady DGX.

From the pics above you can see that both bullets mushroomed but that the Hornady has deformed completely and has lost its lead core. So after this i weighed both of these points to check the weight retention.

The bullet above is the 480gr Peregrine VRG-3, it only lost 8gr from its original weight. To me that is unbelievable performance!

The bullet above is the 480gr Hornady DGX, this point has lost more than 216gr which in my opinion is pathetic performance from a dangerous game bullet from a well known supplier.

So if we compare the stats from above the Peregrine had 98% weight retention and the Hornady had 45% weight retention. My question to you would be the following : If you are hunting Dangerous game and your bullet performance is of utmost importance, would you risk your life on the Hornady or the Peregrine?



PH, Petrus Geldenhuys

 

[colorado]

The thing about Paritions, A-Frames, TSX's and I'm guessing the North Fork Bonded soft points is that even if you hit the shoulder full on they will still penetrate but will lose a good part of their front portion (petals for the TSX). A non bonded, non partitioned cup and core bullet will essentially just disintegrate and not penetrate.. I prefer the top of the heart shot, but somtimes particularly if the animal is charging bullet placement isn't perfect. Good placement with a good bullet should be good enough.

 

[sheephunterab]

A non bonded, non partitioned cup and core bullet will essentially just disintegrate and not penetrate..

I don't think that's accurate at all. We've got several instances on this thread alone of buffalo being shot and killed very dead, very quickly with cup and cores. The shooters were actually quite pleased with how fast the buffalo died. The bullets hardly disintegrated but yes they did shed a fair amount of weight as expected. The ones that @salesman posted sounded like they had a pretty rough trip in the buffalo but still managed to penetrate and retain what appears to be 70-80% weight. A traditional cup and core will unquestionably shed more weight than a bonded or mono metal but saying it will disintegrate and not penetrate isn't an accurate reflection of performance at all.

 

[sheephunterab]

Let's not forget that cup and cores killed animals for around 100 years before bonded bullets showed up on the scene.

 

[gizmo]

Let's not forget that cup and cores killed animals for around 100 years before bonded bullets showed up on the scene.

They certainly did until technology allowed for better more reliable bullet designs. 100,000 years ago cave men successfully killed mammoths with spears consisting of heads fashioned out of stone but just because thats all they had at the time doesn't make it reliable or even suggested today.

 

[Bert the Turtle]

They certainly did until technology allowed for better more reliable bullet designs. 100,000 years ago cave men successfully killed mammoths with spears consisting of heads fashioned out of stone but just because thats all they had at the time doesn't make it reliable or even suggested today.

Damn, you beat me to it. I was about to say exactly the same thing about spears with stone heads!

 

[sheephunterab]

Haha...my point was that they do penetrate and kill in contradiction to what was posted...we have 100 years of proof. Have there been bullet advancements since then? Absolutely.

 

[Red Leg]

Let's not forget that cup and cores killed animals for around 100 years before bonded bullets showed up on the scene.

That is the first really nonsensical thing you have said since we reentered this discussion. Let's see, based upon that logic, ammunition makers should never have explored alternatives to the good old cup and core. I mean heck, if they work even 80% of the time, why change. I mean, so what if the 20% potentially occurs on an in-bound lion or buffalo.

No, you are wrong - and it is a logic which could result in people being dead wrong. What we have is 100 years of evidence that something better was needed. The partition was the first really effective alternative. We now have any number of others. It is just stunning to me that a major manufacturer would tout 100 year old technology as a recommended dangerous game solution.

But this discussion has reverted to the mere argumentative yet again, and I am done with it.

 

[sheephunterab]

That is the first really nonsensical thing you have said since we reentered this discussion. Let's see, based upon that logic, ammunition makers should never have explored alternatives to the good old cup and core. I mean heck, if they work even 80% of the time, why change. I mean, so what if the 20% potentially occurs on an in-bound lion or buffalo.

No, you are wrong - and it is a logic which could result in people being dead wrong. What we have is 100 years of evidence that something better was needed. The partition was the first really effective alternative. We now have any number of others. It is just stunning to me that a major manufacturer would tout 100 year old technology as a recommended dangerous game solution.

But this discussion has reverted to the mere argumentative yet again, and I am done with it.

I love my posts being taken way out of context followed by a personal insult. Please carry on!

 

[Red Leg]

I am sorry - I thought I quoted you exactly. And I made no deragatory comment about you personally. I did note that using 100 years of cup and core use was a nonsensical basis for an argument concerning modern dangerous game loads.

Almost as nonsensical as it would be to point to 250 years of round-ball use to justify a current manufacturers offering a round ball loading.

We can do better than both now, and Hornady ought to be at the cutting rather than trailing edge of that development.

 

[sheephunterab]

Red Leg you are one of those guys that I believe has a lot of knowledge and actually takes the time to read posts before quoting them and replying to them so your flippant attitude and obviously attempt at misdirection was surprising. My comment was aimed solely, and I pointed this out, at one blanket statement that said cup and cores disintegrate and fail to penetrate. This obviously isn't the case as we have multiple cases in this very thread where they did penetrate and we have 100 years of history to fall back on too. This is regardless of manufacturer. I also went onto to say of course there have been advances in bullet construction by all manufactures. If you want to carry on with the fallacious argument fine but it does seem a bit beneath a man of your intelligence.

 

[Red Leg]

I have just reread the last couple of pages. You are correct that the statement I quoted was out of context. However, It is easy to infer from the statement within that larger context, that Hornady is justified in offering cup and core technology for a Dangerous Game load simply because the technology has been around for so long. If that is not a correct inference, then please accept my apologies. I would be grateful to understand what the point is that you are making.

Look, of course, cup and core would still work fine for most applications. Most deer killed in this country succumb quite handily to such designs. I won't use them any longer, but they are cheap, and for most thin skinned game, they will work. But opening an argument with a buffalo or closing an argument with a lion using such a design is, I believe, just plain dangerous. And I frankly think it is irresponsible for Hornady to tout the round as an African dangerous game do it all.

Hornady, might want to pay attention to some of the concerns being raised by experienced hunters on forums like this. If you go to AR or any of the others, we are not alone. This particular discussion involves at least half a dozen folks with more practical dangerous game experience than I will ever hope to have. None - not one of those - has risen to the defense of this load. (And apologies Velo, I include you with me in those aspiring for such a level of experience.)