To my knowledge, these things are still literally unproven. You would think that the internet would just be flooded with information from hog hunters, deer hunters, people who have shot actual living game and not only observed the effects but then did a full necropsy and documented it. dressing a deer in a garage and taking a video isn't good enough, we need dozens. The big makers have always sent people out in the field to do testing, and these bullets were just put in the hands of youtube shooters.
Maybe they will prove themselves to be more deadly than smallpox. Time will tell. Until I find a lot of information I'm going to put them in a category of "i wouldn't trust my life or a deer's life on it". I suggest that you also use a more traditional round.
The argument that it can't be any worse than a solid lead, or other round that fails isn't valid, all that says is that if it fails, well, lots of other things fail as well, and we should just let it go at that. Shooting a deer with a .45 musket ball will kill it, but for over a century we have spent billions of dollars and millions of hours improving on that lead musket ball, and that lead musket ball can only claim superiority to a glass marble or steel ball bearing.
Working in gel isn't the same as working in live game. If lehiegh had put dozens of men in the field with an organized hog hunt and done a scientific breakdown of the results, I'd call it good and pretty much accept the results.
My thoughts are "no" simply because you are about to drop as much as $100 maybe getting enough to sight in and test them, then go out for game. You don't really know what will happen. What you do know is that you can get good results from any of a dozen or more traditional rounds that have been proven by time.
A while back I went to my range, there were three of those things scattered on the ground, unfired, up at the twenty foot mark. WTH? Those weren't accidentally dropped, nobody loads a .380 magazine up at the targets when a range is otherwise occupied. Sure, you can walk up and fire a magazine, but it's unlikely that someone will allow you to take the range over completely for the time it takes to test a box of ammo.
The impression that I have of the event is that the gun failed to work with them. The guy didn't even bother to pick them up.
Again, this is practically meaningless in any real sense, but it does raise questions for me. Who walks away from several dollars worth of ammo, and why?
I've often wondered why they cnc machine them. We swage lead, and with sufficiently powerful equipment those things could be easily swaged from bronze or brass, or even straight copper. They could have been done by powder metallurgy. But that doesn't sound as good, and there are other reasons, I'm sure, but they went to a great amount of effort that wasn't truly necessary.
Maybe they will prove themselves to be more deadly than smallpox. Time will tell. Until I find a lot of information I'm going to put them in a category of "i wouldn't trust my life or a deer's life on it". I suggest that you also use a more traditional round.
The argument that it can't be any worse than a solid lead, or other round that fails isn't valid, all that says is that if it fails, well, lots of other things fail as well, and we should just let it go at that. Shooting a deer with a .45 musket ball will kill it, but for over a century we have spent billions of dollars and millions of hours improving on that lead musket ball, and that lead musket ball can only claim superiority to a glass marble or steel ball bearing.
Working in gel isn't the same as working in live game. If lehiegh had put dozens of men in the field with an organized hog hunt and done a scientific breakdown of the results, I'd call it good and pretty much accept the results.
My thoughts are "no" simply because you are about to drop as much as $100 maybe getting enough to sight in and test them, then go out for game. You don't really know what will happen. What you do know is that you can get good results from any of a dozen or more traditional rounds that have been proven by time.
A while back I went to my range, there were three of those things scattered on the ground, unfired, up at the twenty foot mark. WTH? Those weren't accidentally dropped, nobody loads a .380 magazine up at the targets when a range is otherwise occupied. Sure, you can walk up and fire a magazine, but it's unlikely that someone will allow you to take the range over completely for the time it takes to test a box of ammo.
The impression that I have of the event is that the gun failed to work with them. The guy didn't even bother to pick them up.
Again, this is practically meaningless in any real sense, but it does raise questions for me. Who walks away from several dollars worth of ammo, and why?
I've often wondered why they cnc machine them. We swage lead, and with sufficiently powerful equipment those things could be easily swaged from bronze or brass, or even straight copper. They could have been done by powder metallurgy. But that doesn't sound as good, and there are other reasons, I'm sure, but they went to a great amount of effort that wasn't truly necessary.