Elvis wrote:

that is Slimjims post/testing

Correctomundo, Elvis. I have been doing terminal performance testing to help CavityBackBullets develop and mature their product line. I now hunt with their bullets by choice. I'm testing 125 and 168 grain bullets .308 bullets this weekend and helping to develop their ballistic tip variants. These CBB bullets out expand any lead-core and monolithic bullets from the major manufactures. I think of them as mechanical broadheads for rifles and they promote more blood lose than any other projectile I've seen.

I think that should read...they produce more blood loss than any MONOLITHIC projectile Iv'e seen...... good old school cup n core is still pretty hard to beat. those Partitions ol John dreamt up are good today as when he first created them way back in 1900 and nuts n bolts......

Elvis wrote:

I think that should read...they produce more blood loss than any MONOLITHIC projectile Iv'e seen......

I have tested, hunted, and harvested with both. They promote more blood lose than any other projectile I've seen. I didn't say they create more internal trauma than I've seen.

Hey Vince, how are you doing mate. Been a bit since your last entry.
Anyhow I wanted to let you know my 120MKZ are in the mail heading to my reload table. I look forward to working with something new to do testing with.
Slimjim,s load he gave me at around 3200 fps is really whooping ass. I like it.

I also just bought a new side arm concealed carry gun. A Diamondback DM9
or in 9mm. Just ordered a holster for it from Alien concealed holster products.
9mm cost $372.00 and holster cost $71.00. Went to Gander mountain and purchased two 50 round boxes of Browning,s 9mm 147gr fmj for a start up.
also got on order a 20 round box of Buffalo Bore ammo to carry while trout fishing ect.. I can imagine they will kick like a mule. It,s 8:37 am EST in the U.S. here now and I,m sipping a hot cup of coffee. Outside temp. is 2 Deg,s F. Later folks, TS

TwoSeventy wrote:

Hey Vince, how are you doing mate. Been a bit since your last entry. ...

Gidday mate...been in the background keeping quiet while I do battle with a couple of problems. Apart from that, I'm not doing too poorly.

slimjim wrote:

Elvis wrote: I think that should read...they produce more blood loss than any MONOLITHIC projectile Iv'e seen...... I have tested, hunted, and harvested with both. They promote more blood lose than any other projectile I've seen. I didn't say they create more internal trauma than I've seen.

knew we should have gone fishing today

slimjim wrote:

Elvis wrote: that is Slimjims post/testing Correctomundo, Elvis. I have been doing terminal performance testing to help CavityBackBullets develop and mature their product line. I now hunt with their bullets by choice. I'm testing 125 and 168 grain bullets .308 bullets this weekend and helping to develop their ballistic tip variants. These CBB bullets out expand any lead-core and monolithic bullets from the major manufactures. I think of them as mechanical broadheads for rifles and they promote more blood lose than any other projectile I've seen.

Kinda curious about the 168's, not that I need more bullets to test. I looked at Cavity Back's website and it appears they have a massive hollow point and some relief cuts that form the petals. Do you know if they are planning a tipped version of them?

hunterjoe21 wrote:

Do you know if they are planning a tipped version of them?

I'm testing prototypes of the tipped 168 MKZ this month. Tips typically retard expansion but I'm not finding that to be the case with these bullets. I'm not sure when they would reach production. Initially, the bullet may come as a hollow point with tips the user can insert if they have room in the magazine length.

hunterjoe21, what rifle would you using it in? What distance do you normally hunt?

Slim,

I know that it is a tall task, but I am ultimately looking for a bullet that I can develop loads in both the .308 Win and the .300 Win Mag. My wife carries the .308 while I use the .300. Once I have accurate loads, using the same bullet, my plan is to keep the .308 inside 300 yards and the .300 inside 500. I don't see myself ever taking a shot at a game animal at any longer range than that.

I currently have on hand Nosler Partitions in 150, 165, and 180 grain. Barnes TSX and TTSX, both in 165 and 168 grain. Hornady GMX in 165 grain and ELDX in 178 and 200 grain. Some were purchased knowing that they might not be suitable in both rifles, but I picked them up anyway. I have some friends who also would like some help developing loads for their rifles ( 1 has a .300 Win Mag, the other a .30-06) who are willing to relieve me of the cost of some of the surplus bullets I have, rather than purchasing full boxes to experiment with.

hunterjoe21 wrote:

I am ultimately looking for a bullet that I can develop loads in both the .308 Win and the .300 Win Mag.

You could get some of the 168 MKZs now and do load development and get experience with the bullet (distance from the lands, accuracy, muzzle vel, powder, etc.). When the tip version comes out, you will be all ready to go.

For those that might be interested in the new MKZs, I did some preliminary work in my 300 BO to get some data points for powder charges. I did some terminal performance tests at 25 yards. MVs were:

125gr - 18.0 AA1680 -1804 fps; distance to lands = 2.190"; COAL with crimp in first grove was 2.140"
168gr - 20.0 AA1680 - 1862 fps; distance to lands = 2.235"; COAL w/ gas seal in case mouth was 2.225"

S&B 124gr FMJ shown in the middle as an example of how little bullet is in the case neck of many 300 BO rounds.

Below is a comparison of how several .308 bullets open up at lower velocities. The 125 MKZ expansion was over 0.9" in diameter. The 168 MKZ expanded to a diameter of 0.75". This is significantly better than other 130 to 180 grain .308 bullets I have tested in this speed range and larger than any of the .308 bullets I have tested at full energy levels, even in a 300 WinMag.

Add the 168 MKZ's to the list of test bullets I need to work with....

One other "wish list" item I have would be to develop a load for each rifle that would result in same POI, but with bullets that are significantly cheaper for practice at around 200 yards. Might be a reach...

slimjim wrote:

hunterjoe21 wrote: I am ultimately looking for a bullet that I can develop loads in both the .308 Win and the .300 Win Mag. You could get some of the 168 MKZs now and do load development and get experience with the bullet (distance from the lands, accuracy, muzzle vel, powder, etc.). When the tip version comes out, you will be all ready to go. For those that might be interested in the new MKZs, I did some preliminary work in my 300 BO to get some data points for powder charges. I did some terminal performance tests at 25 yards. MVs were: 125gr - 18.0 AA1680 -1804 fps; distance to lands = 2.190"; COAL with crimp in first grove was 2.140" 168gr - 20.0 AA1680 - 1862 fps; distance to lands = 2.235"; COAL w/ gas seal in case mouth was 2.225" S&B 124gr FMJ shown in the middle as an example of how little bullet is in the case neck of many 300 BO rounds. Below is a comparison of how several .308 bullets open up at lower velocities. The 125 MKZ expansion was over 0.9" in diameter. The 168 MKZ expanded to a diameter of 0.75". This is significantly better than other 130 to 180 grain .308 bullets I have tested in this speed range and larger than any of the .308 bullets I have tested at full energy levels, even in a 300 WinMag.

Curious...

Are you using "COAL" as Cartridge Overall Length"?

I stopped using the overall length of a cartridge as a value unless it applies to magazine length.

Please do not consider this as an attack on your methods, but just as an inquiry as to how your measurements are recorded.

FWIW, I use OAL as a mag length measurement and COAL as a measurement obtained using my Comparator. (Comparator Over All Length). It's somewhat misleading, but works in my shrinking brain...

hunterjoe21 wrote:

Are you using "COAL" as Cartridge Overall Length"?

Yes, I use OAL/COAL for mag length comparison/reference. If you are working with distance to the lands, then comparative overall length is better. From what little I have done with comparative measurements, there doesn't seem to be a standard for what diameter to measure the ogive at. I tried to make a tool and found variation of several thousandths when searching for references on the web. This doesn't matter if the value is for your own use and is consistently measured. Also, the MKZs are CNC machined so the ogive is very precise unlike lead-core bullets. I haven't found much variation if I seat the bullet by OAL or with a comparator.

Hey folk,s I was going over some of my entries and I see where I entered the wrong model on the Diamondback DB-9.

What I had wrongly entered was DM-9.

Anyhow God Bless all us that we don,t blow our self up doing reloads. Ha Ha

Later. TS

I received the 168 MKZ's today. They do have a huge hollow point cavity as compared to other monolithic hollow point bullets I have on hand. Keep us updated on the progress of the tipped version.

CBB doesn't list a BC for this particular projectile at this point. Is this something you are assisting with?

One other thing I noticed that's new on their site...a .243/6MM version is in the works...

I'm gonna call them and ask if it's OK to stop in the next time I pass through Bozeman.