I have shot the partitions in my 300 ultramag and they work great... very devastating. I have never used the fail safe but they appear to be tougher and should be good as a high velocity bullet but I would be concerned that they may not expand enough at extended ranges with lower vel.
Didn't the fail safe used to be known as the black talon? Those were on the market a few years ago in both rifle and handgun versions before the anti-gun nuts created a stir. Winchester pulled them off the market for awhile before the "fail safe" came out in rifle ammo some time later. Lesson learned is if you're going to name a bullet, don't consider names like "devastator," "expando-cut," or "death shredder." Instead, choose something like "super safe," "enviro-care," or "Casper the Friendly Bullet."
Glaser produces a bullet designed to break up into a whole lot of little tiny pieces on impact, which you'd think would give the antis something to crow about in terms of breaking up inside a body or defeating forensics. But it's tough to demonize something named the "safety slug."
Back on topic, I've never used fail safes, and don't know how much advantage they'd give over partitions. I've heard a lot of good things about partitions, though. Had a buddy one time that put seven of them through the vitals of an Alaskan brown bear with a .338, and six exited the far side (takes those things awhile to die). He showed me number 7 and it was in great shaped -- mushroomed about halfway down. If I was going after something heavy like elk or bear, I'd give either one strong consideration.
[ This Message was edited by: expatriate on 2003-03-16 21:25 ]
I've shot an elk here in Idaho with my 375H&H using failsafe, I think they were 200gr. One shot at 25 feet broadside through both lungs, the bullet stopped on the hide on the opposite side. I know this isn't the normal rifle distance, but the bullet performed perfectly expanding enough to not go all the way through the other side.
There are still some who insist a scope is not needed for the type hunting they do, ignoring the advances of the last 150 years in optical sights. (Even the ultra-conservative US Army has adopted optical sights.) The idea that in some special circumstances open iron sights or aperture (peep) sights might be more useful is not lost on me, but with the inevitable advance of age comes the reduction in visual acuity needed for using iron sights.
I believe that many who completely resist the idea of...