For the record one big misconception is that all balistic tip designs are a general purpose bullet. In general ballistic tips (particularly nosler bt's and others) are not for shots under a 100 yards. Read nosler's site if you question this.

95% of the time when I hear about a hunter going sour on BT's its because they have shot some medium or large sized game in the shoulder at less than 100 yards, most within 70 yards and it failed to take the game down. BT's give rapid expansion compared to bullets such as the tried and true nosler partition. This rapid expansion is a big problem at close range and a big plus at long range. The rapid expansion make it easier for the bullet to expand when the energy levels are lower at 200 and 300 yards; where a design such as the partition may not give the best expansion.

Not all BT's follow this rule though...

I have never hunted with a Nosler BT and have never hunted with anyone that has used them. My understanding was they don't hold up at close range.???
I would guess that. If you were to hit some hard bone at 100 yds or less they would fragment. If you went between two ribs and hit a vital. They would be fatal.

I have the understanding that the design, for example, of the Accubond and the Interbond are designed for quick expansion at the tip but, because of the bonded core and thicker jacket at the belly. Retain weight for better penetration at all "hunting" ranges. Thus, giving the hunter a "better" bullet that would/could be counted on to hold up at a greater or lesser impact/resistance.

I don't know if there is such a thing as the perfect big game bullet but, they have gotten a little closer with these new designs. I would like to see a flat base design (Speer Hot Cor) of the Accubond or interbond. To shorten the length and have more allowance for the capacity of the short case rounds.
At up to 400 yds. The flight/retained energy difference between it and a boattail design would be very minimal.

Don't think I totally agree with you on that one Don. I do concur that the original Barnes X Bullets had problems, which is why they developed the Triple Shock. Every PH I have talked to, including my own, are absolutely wild about the Triple Shock. African game is a lot tougher than our domestic game. Every plains game animal is a survivor as there are many more predators on the dark continent. The reason that Win and Barnes have developed the MRX and XP3 (the new poly-tipped bullets) is because they have tungsten cores instead of lead. Tungsten is one of the hardest metals known. The poly tip rapidly expands the copper jacket. Tungsten being denser and much harder than lead, will not deform as easily, so you have to have a thinner jacket toward to tip to allow for expansion. They are complicated, and I just about agree with you that they are over built. However, Triple Shocks are far from defunct. Fail Safes however, are going away. They are complicated, and they are expensive to manufacture.

Bonded bullets have the same basic advantages as their non-bonded counterparts, only they have less tendancy to over expand at close range and high velocity (read: blow up). I am comparing the Ballistic Tip to the Accubond here. Not that non-bonded bullets aren't good, for whitetails I recommened them almost exclusively. Deer are not very tough in the greater scheme of things. But for bigger, tougher game with I-Beam like bones, I want a tough bullet that will get through an elk shoulder and keep on eating through to the other side.

So, what do you guy's like and why?

For deer, I shoot mostly a 7mm08. I handload 120gr Barnes Triple Shock X Bullets and have yet to have one not open up for me just as advertised. I load the lighter 120 instead of the standard 140s simply because I get a little bit flatter trajectory with them. The only time I carry a rifle anyway is when my shots will likely be 75 yards or more. 75% of the time I am in the deer woods, I carry a bow.

My mid-range gun is a win 94 in 30/30 Ackley Improved. I shoot the old school orginal X bullets. The flat nose 30/30 bullet is basically a hollow point and looks much like a handgun bullet. Once again, they have never not expanded reliably.

There are many good deer bullets out there and it doesn't take a well-made projectile to kill light-skinned animals - just a bullet that shoots well enough so you can consistently hit the kill zone.

My rifles love Nosler Ballistic Silvertips via Winchester on deer and either the Winchester loaded AccuBond or Federal High Energy Partitions for elk.

Your mileage may vary; just choose something that shoots and expands well enough for the game intended. Deer get lighter constructed bullets than heavier big game animals. Its as simple as that and no need to make it more complicated.

Swamp Collie,

I think your right about African game, in fact I'm sure of it. Actually after reading both of JJ Hack's writtings on bullet's, I have given a lot of though to my own position. I still don't believe that the expensive custom bullet's will give you any great advantage on deer size game but on game that's tuffer, say hog's (never shot one), elk, moose, bears ect. it might be well to go with a tuffer bullet. I have no doubt that with the proper choice of bullet and cartridge, all those animals can be handled very cleanly. But I also think that perhaps the little extra that the expensive bullet's cost is a small price to pay for pease of mind. Never had a problem with that until JJ came along either. It was very hard to ignor such well written and documented stuff!

Also, as Dugaboy pointed out, I'm a strong believer in the best bullet for the cartridge used. I don't fool around with bullet weight's much except in 24 cal and below. I use 117gr bullet's in my 25-06, 140gr in both my 6.5-06 and 6.5x55. When I shot 28 cals (one of my favorite cal), I used 139gr in 280Rem, 154gr in 7x57 and 160gr in 7mm Rem mag. I seldom ever deviated.

Good point and well said! I might also add 180-gr. for .308 diameter bullets.