I really liked UW 200 TMJ for a carry load but its no longer loaded. I was carring a hard cast load but I am curious to what everyone else is carring. What about the all copper loads? I woods carry for all but Griz.
If it were me, I'd opt for the Hornady 200XTP if you can find them loaded to 1200 -1240 fps.
Not all cast bullets are the same, some can pose feeding issues, Mr. Bear's attitude may take advantage of a misfeed jam. ::)
One of the reasons I got into handloading is to be able to load/test/carry what I like, to include casting my own stuff.
No Griz present in my neck of the woods.
I like Shadows 200 XTP recommendation. I'm also likely to carry 155gr TAC-XP by Buf Bore, 180gr Federal Bear Claw JSP, 200gr cast Bear Tooth by Dble Tap.....
Broke down and picked up some 10mm Lehigh 140gr xtreme penetrators to test out but far from ready to rely on them just yet.
How about Hornady factory load 180 gr XTP it penetrates 17 1/8 inches. It out penetrates 200 gr XTP and 180 gr JSP.
I just need to get into reloading, it make things easier.
Quote from: Rojo27 on September 13 2015 10:48:31 AM MDT
No Griz present in my neck of the woods.
I like Shadows 200 XTP recommendation. I'm also likely to carry 155gr TAC-XP by Buf Bore, 180gr Federal Bear Claw JSP, 200gr cast Bear Tooth by Dble Tap.....
Broke down and picked up some 10mm Lehigh 140gr xtreme penetrators to test out but far from ready to rely on them just yet.
I fired the Underwood Xtreme Penetrator version today. They were stout and a little "jumpier," compared to the Doubletap 230 grain hardcast I also fired. The 230 grain load from DT recoiled back in my hand more, while the UW 140 grain load jumped more at the muzzle.
One thing I didn't like about the Underwood load was the muzzle flash. The DT load didn't have any noticeable flash. Something important to shooters or hunters who carry at night, most especially as a backup gun in the woods where there is no unnatural light.
How would the UW 180gr TMJ hold up?
They would probably hold together and slide through the tissues without deforming, thus stretching the tissues open then they tissue would close back behind the bullet. Cast bullets can deform if they encounter bones or smash through, but they to can slide through the tissues.
Now a SWC design will cut a cleaner hole through the tissue it encounters, can deform on bones.
The Hornady XTP is a fairly tough bullet and will expand as it cuts through the tissues.
Quote from: The_Shadow on September 13 2015 07:08:51 PM MDT
They would probably hold together and slide through the tissues without deforming, thus stretching the tissues open then they tissue would close back behind the bullet. Cast bullets can deform if they encounter bones or smash through, but they to can slide through the tissues.
Now a SWC design will cut a cleaner hole through the tissue it encounters, can deform on bones.
The Hornady XTP is a fairly tough bullet and will expand as it cuts through the tissues.
Good to know.. I will keep the TMJ for practice.
Hornady needs to make that round.
I have been shooting HPR 200 grain Hornady XTP bullet loaded to 1150 fps if you wanted a 200 grain bullet loaded a lil hotter DT loads them 1250 fps
I keep my G 20 loaded with with my home cast and powdercoated 180 TC bullets.
(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w170/pumpkinheaver/E33ACBA1-9324-4BD6-AB12-33D9D2E0E824_zpsglko37pf.jpg) (http://s176.photobucket.com/user/pumpkinheaver/media/E33ACBA1-9324-4BD6-AB12-33D9D2E0E824_zpsglko37pf.jpg.html)
Whats would be the minimum velocity for a 200 gr bear-tooth or similar bullet to be effective? I have read in few places that the sweet spot starts at 1000 fps
The old standard for black bear and hog class animals has been .40 caliber, 200 grains, and 1000 FPS. That's been repeated by many of the old school gun rag authors whom I respect a lot. It also seems reasonable to me. That said, with ammo technology, I don't think the 200 grain minimum applies anymore. Bullets perform so much better than they did even 10 years ago and retain almost all their weight. That said, weight (momentum) is what gets that bullet where it needs to go.
I'm a new 10mm shooter and after much thought, went with the UW 180 TMJ. It's easy to shoot fast and accurately from my G29, which IMHO are two of the most important characteristics of a defense load of any kind. Even though it's FMJ, it's totally encapsulated and looks like it will hold together very well. It also has a nice flat meplat for tissue damage, unlike almost all FMJ's with their round noses. It may not be the best load for the woods, but I can't imagine it being a poor choice. If you've already got some, then I'd say carry it with confidence. I read on an Alaska forum that more than a few residents there carry that load. Those guys can get mauled taking out the garbage :)).
The TMJ is very different than a genuine FMJ. It's a soft-lead, swaged, plated bullet. They don't experience jacket separation the same as jacketed bullets do, but they do deform like a swaged lead bullet (not unlike Hornady lead bullets). This makes the nose shape and meplat less of a performance factor, compared to hard-cast flat-nose bullets. Add to that, the plating thickness and hardness can vary a lot from manufacturer to manufacturer, and some of them lot to lot. They aren't designed nor intended to be used as a hunting or defense bullet, but that doesn't mean they won't be effective in those situations, at least sometimes.
I might us my 180 gr JSP for woods carry. I also have Underwood 200 gr and 180 gr XTP's. Too many choices for the ten. I guess it is a good problem to have.
Ill be using handloaded Hornady XTP's also in a 180 grain. I wish Federal made a hunting round in their Fusion line. I really like the Fusion bullets. I have them for my 357 Mag, 308, 243 and a 12 gauge slug. Ive taken deer with both rifles and the slug.
Quote from: DM1906 on September 27 2015 09:43:37 AM MDT
The TMJ is very different than a genuine FMJ. It's a soft-lead, swaged, plated bullet. They don't experience jacket separation the same as jacketed bullets do, but they do deform like a swaged lead bullet (not unlike Hornady lead bullets). This makes the nose shape and meplat less of a performance factor, compared to hard-cast flat-nose bullets. Add to that, the plating thickness and hardness can vary a lot from manufacturer to manufacturer, and some of them lot to lot. They aren't designed nor intended to be used as a hunting or defense bullet, but that doesn't mean they won't be effective in those situations, at least sometimes.
The TMJ may work very well for hunting actually. There is a guy over on a Marlin forum who uses 240gr TMJ in a 444 for hunting Elk and swears by them. Like you are saying they can deform but not very likely to have jacket separation as they are bonded like Speer's Gold Dot. Gold Dot's do very well in barrier blind tests such as thru safety glass that requires a very tough bullet to perform well. I think the TMJ would hold together even better, but have not seen any tests.
Quote from: DAVIDF on October 05 2015 09:27:22 AM MDT
Quote from: DM1906 on September 27 2015 09:43:37 AM MDT
The TMJ is very different than a genuine FMJ. It's a soft-lead, swaged, plated bullet. They don't experience jacket separation the same as jacketed bullets do, but they do deform like a swaged lead bullet (not unlike Hornady lead bullets). This makes the nose shape and meplat less of a performance factor, compared to hard-cast flat-nose bullets. Add to that, the plating thickness and hardness can vary a lot from manufacturer to manufacturer, and some of them lot to lot. They aren't designed nor intended to be used as a hunting or defense bullet, but that doesn't mean they won't be effective in those situations, at least sometimes.
The TMJ may work very well for hunting actually. There is a guy over on a Marlin forum who uses 240gr TMJ in a 444 for hunting Elk and swears by them. Like you are saying they can deform but not very likely to have jacket separation as they are bonded like Speer's Gold Dot. Gold Dot's do very well in barrier blind tests such as thru safety glass that requires a very tough bullet to perform well. I think the TMJ would hold together even better, but have not seen any tests.
Apples and oranges. I don't disagree that some TMJ bullets my be well suited for effective hunting, caliber/cartridge notwithstanding. I would use them, if not for the legalities. However, a bonded jacket bullet, especially a hollowpoint such as the GDHP, is very different than any TMJ, HP or otherwise. Very few TMJ bullets (copper electro-plate, by definition), are capable of higher velocities, even many pistol velocities. The most popular TMJ/plated bullets in many pistol calibers actually do very poorly, with only a couple exceptions. Berry's .41M and .44M are the only exceptions I've found (none of Ranier's did), while X-treme .40 and .45 HP's do very well, 1400-2000+ FPS. Copper plated rifle bullets are a different animal, and designed for the much higher velocities. A 240 gr. .444 at 2300+ FPS is hardly comparable to a 180 gr. 10mm at 1200 FPS, in almost any context.
Quote from: DM1906 on October 05 2015 11:14:22 AM MDT
Quote from: DAVIDF on October 05 2015 09:27:22 AM MDT
Quote from: DM1906 on September 27 2015 09:43:37 AM MDT
The TMJ is very different than a genuine FMJ. It's a soft-lead, swaged, plated bullet. They don't experience jacket separation the same as jacketed bullets do, but they do deform like a swaged lead bullet (not unlike Hornady lead bullets). This makes the nose shape and meplat less of a performance factor, compared to hard-cast flat-nose bullets. Add to that, the plating thickness and hardness can vary a lot from manufacturer to manufacturer, and some of them lot to lot. They aren't designed nor intended to be used as a hunting or defense bullet, but that doesn't mean they won't be effective in those situations, at least sometimes.
The TMJ may work very well for hunting actually. There is a guy over on a Marlin forum who uses 240gr TMJ in a 444 for hunting Elk and swears by them. Like you are saying they can deform but not very likely to have jacket separation as they are bonded like Speer's Gold Dot. Gold Dot's do very well in barrier blind tests such as thru safety glass that requires a very tough bullet to perform well. I think the TMJ would hold together even better, but have not seen any tests.
Apples and oranges. I don't disagree that some TMJ bullets my be well suited for effective hunting, caliber/cartridge notwithstanding. I would use them, if not for the legalities. However, a bonded jacket bullet, especially a hollowpoint such as the GDHP, is very different than any TMJ, HP or otherwise. Very few TMJ bullets (copper electro-plate, by definition), are capable of higher velocities, even many pistol velocities. The most popular TMJ/plated bullets in many pistol calibers actually do very poorly, with only a couple exceptions. Berry's .41M and .44M are the only exceptions I've found (none of Ranier's did), while X-treme .40 and .45 HP's do very well, 1400-2000+ FPS. Copper plated rifle bullets are a different animal, and designed for the much higher velocities. A 240 gr. .444 at 2300+ FPS is hardly comparable to a 180 gr. 10mm at 1200 FPS, in almost any context.
Yes, I agree. For clarity, I was referring only to Speer's TMJ which, correct me if I am wrong, is bonded like their Gold Dots. That is the bullet that Underwood uses for their "Full Metal Jacket" loads.
Quote from: DAVIDF on October 06 2015 05:55:58 AM MDT
Quote from: DM1906 on October 05 2015 11:14:22 AM MDT
Quote from: DAVIDF on October 05 2015 09:27:22 AM MDT
Quote from: DM1906 on September 27 2015 09:43:37 AM MDT
The TMJ is very different than a genuine FMJ. It's a soft-lead, swaged, plated bullet. They don't experience jacket separation the same as jacketed bullets do, but they do deform like a swaged lead bullet (not unlike Hornady lead bullets). This makes the nose shape and meplat less of a performance factor, compared to hard-cast flat-nose bullets. Add to that, the plating thickness and hardness can vary a lot from manufacturer to manufacturer, and some of them lot to lot. They aren't designed nor intended to be used as a hunting or defense bullet, but that doesn't mean they won't be effective in those situations, at least sometimes.
The TMJ may work very well for hunting actually. There is a guy over on a Marlin forum who uses 240gr TMJ in a 444 for hunting Elk and swears by them. Like you are saying they can deform but not very likely to have jacket separation as they are bonded like Speer's Gold Dot. Gold Dot's do very well in barrier blind tests such as thru safety glass that requires a very tough bullet to perform well. I think the TMJ would hold together even better, but have not seen any tests.
Apples and oranges. I don't disagree that some TMJ bullets my be well suited for effective hunting, caliber/cartridge notwithstanding. I would use them, if not for the legalities. However, a bonded jacket bullet, especially a hollowpoint such as the GDHP, is very different than any TMJ, HP or otherwise. Very few TMJ bullets (copper electro-plate, by definition), are capable of higher velocities, even many pistol velocities. The most popular TMJ/plated bullets in many pistol calibers actually do very poorly, with only a couple exceptions. Berry's .41M and .44M are the only exceptions I've found (none of Ranier's did), while X-treme .40 and .45 HP's do very well, 1400-2000+ FPS. Copper plated rifle bullets are a different animal, and designed for the much higher velocities. A 240 gr. .444 at 2300+ FPS is hardly comparable to a 180 gr. 10mm at 1200 FPS, in almost any context.
Yes, I agree. For clarity, I was referring only to Speer's TMJ which, correct me if I am wrong, is bonded like their Gold Dots. That is the bullet that Underwood uses for their "Full Metal Jacket" loads.
As I said, I don't disagree that some "TMJ" bullets may be suited for other duties. However, a TMJ bullet is not "bonded" or "jacketed", in the same sense as is a bonded or jacketed bullet. Every TMJ/plated bullet is "bonded", by the nature of the process, but is only bonded in the same sense the chrome on your truck bumper is "bonded". Bonded jacketed bullets can be such due to their unique process, because the jacket is a pre-formed shell/cup, with a soft lead core swaged into them. Also, there are several process options to "bond" a true jacketed bullet, mechanical (adhesive, cor-lok, etc.) chemical, induction, electrolytical, among a few, all varying in their unique performance values. The Speer TMJ bullet may acceptable for "woods defense", as claimed by Underwood, but I find their product labeling misleading, perhaps disingenuous. They label them "FMJ", while they are, in fact, "TMJ", or more appropriately, plated. They are not the same, although most consumers wouldn't know the difference, or wouldn't care, and probably wouldn't see any difference in the result. Speer is one brand among many, and as we know, no one brand is the best in any category. Without actually testing them (I haven't), I remain skeptical as to the their TMJ's comparative quality.
Quote from: DM1906 on October 06 2015 10:42:51 AM MDT
Quote from: DAVIDF on October 06 2015 05:55:58 AM MDT
Quote from: DM1906 on October 05 2015 11:14:22 AM MDT
Quote from: DAVIDF on October 05 2015 09:27:22 AM MDT
Quote from: DM1906 on September 27 2015 09:43:37 AM MDT
The TMJ is very different than a genuine FMJ. It's a soft-lead, swaged, plated bullet. They don't experience jacket separation the same as jacketed bullets do, but they do deform like a swaged lead bullet (not unlike Hornady lead bullets). This makes the nose shape and meplat less of a performance factor, compared to hard-cast flat-nose bullets. Add to that, the plating thickness and hardness can vary a lot from manufacturer to manufacturer, and some of them lot to lot. They aren't designed nor intended to be used as a hunting or defense bullet, but that doesn't mean they won't be effective in those situations, at least sometimes.
The TMJ may work very well for hunting actually. There is a guy over on a Marlin forum who uses 240gr TMJ in a 444 for hunting Elk and swears by them. Like you are saying they can deform but not very likely to have jacket separation as they are bonded like Speer's Gold Dot. Gold Dot's do very well in barrier blind tests such as thru safety glass that requires a very tough bullet to perform well. I think the TMJ would hold together even better, but have not seen any tests.
Apples and oranges. I don't disagree that some TMJ bullets my be well suited for effective hunting, caliber/cartridge notwithstanding. I would use them, if not for the legalities. However, a bonded jacket bullet, especially a hollowpoint such as the GDHP, is very different than any TMJ, HP or otherwise. Very few TMJ bullets (copper electro-plate, by definition), are capable of higher velocities, even many pistol velocities. The most popular TMJ/plated bullets in many pistol calibers actually do very poorly, with only a couple exceptions. Berry's .41M and .44M are the only exceptions I've found (none of Ranier's did), while X-treme .40 and .45 HP's do very well, 1400-2000+ FPS. Copper plated rifle bullets are a different animal, and designed for the much higher velocities. A 240 gr. .444 at 2300+ FPS is hardly comparable to a 180 gr. 10mm at 1200 FPS, in almost any context.
Yes, I agree. For clarity, I was referring only to Speer's TMJ which, correct me if I am wrong, is bonded like their Gold Dots. That is the bullet that Underwood uses for their "Full Metal Jacket" loads.
As I said, I don't disagree that some "TMJ" bullets may be suited for other duties. However, a TMJ bullet is not "bonded" or "jacketed", in the same sense as is a bonded or jacketed bullet. Every TMJ/plated bullet is "bonded", by the nature of the process, but is only bonded in the same sense the chrome on your truck bumper is "bonded". Bonded jacketed bullets can be such due to their unique process, because the jacket is a pre-formed shell/cup, with a soft lead core swaged into them. Also, there are several process options to "bond" a true jacketed bullet, mechanical (adhesive, cor-lok, etc.) chemical, induction, electrolytical, among a few, all varying in their unique performance values. The Speer TMJ bullet may acceptable for "woods defense", as claimed by Underwood, but I find their product labeling misleading, perhaps disingenuous. They label them "FMJ", while they are, in fact, "TMJ", or more appropriately, plated. They are not the same, although most consumers wouldn't know the difference, or wouldn't care, and probably wouldn't see any difference in the result. Speer is one brand among many, and as we know, no one brand is the best in any category. Without actually testing them (I haven't), I remain skeptical as to the their TMJ's comparative quality.
Well, at least one person has had very good luck with Speer TMJ's going thru shoulder's of Elk. Those TMJ's seem to stand up very well and aren't limited to loading to a maximum velocity as many other TMJs.
I wish underwood would load a 200gr bear tooth type hard cast.
After reading this
http://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2911043/m/21810798?r=43810798#43810798
I decided to load mags to fire a string of XTP, XTP, lead, XTP, XTP, lead, (XTP, lead, lead) x whatever fits. I figured, in the very unlikely event that I need to shoot an animal AND actually get the gun out in time, alternating distracting hollow points and deeply penetrating flatpoints would be the way to go.
That JJHack is either a BSer of the highest caliber or someone who should be taken very seriously. To me, what he writes sounds very believable.
Quote from: BuckRimfire on October 10 2015 04:22:49 PM MDT
After reading this
http://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2911043/m/21810798?r=43810798#43810798 (http://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2911043/m/21810798?r=43810798#43810798)
I decided to load mags to fire a string of XTP, XTP, lead, XTP, XTP, lead, (XTP, lead, lead) x whatever fits. I figured, in the very unlikely event that I need to shoot an animal AND actually get the gun out in time, alternating distracting hollow points and deeply penetrating flatpoints would be the way to go.
That JJHack is either a BSer of the highest caliber or someone who should be taken very seriously. To me, what he writes sounds very believable.
While he is a "BSer of the highest caliber", take what he said seriously. Keep in mind, he was referring, specifically, to a .44M in a dedicated hunting revolver, capable of 150-300% of what you'll chamber in your 10mm. Quantity rarely ever outweighs quality.
I've never been an advocate of staggered magazine/cylinder, and would never recommend it. If you know of a way to persuade the target (whatever that may be) to follow
your plan, I'm all ears. If you think deer cross where the sign is, because that's where the sign is, well......
Obviously the 10 mm is second best (or more like third best) to the .43 Magnum*. So? The same point would be true: a pencil-thin, deep wound may be fatal eventually, but it probably won't hurt enough to distract the animal from coming at you fast. OTOH, a decent JHP disrupts more tissue near the surface, where the pain receptors are actually located, and will be more likely to divert the animal's attention, letting you shoot again.
There's just no way I'm going to carry my 7.5" Redhawk while hiking or mountain biking. Too big and heavy. My 10 mm carries concealed and comfortably in a fanny pack holster. The choice is not between the .44 and the 10 mm. It's between the 10 mm and nothing. I hope the 10 mm is better than nothing.
*Semi-jokingly used to deflect .45 Colt guys who can't resist pointing out that the .44 isn't really .44".
Quote from: BuckRimfire on October 10 2015 10:24:27 PM MDT
Obviously the 10 mm is second best (or more like third best) to the .43 Magnum*. So? The same point would be true: a pencil-thin, deep wound may be fatal eventually, but it probably won't hurt enough to distract the animal from coming at you fast. OTOH, a decent JHP disrupts more tissue near the surface, where the pain receptors are actually located, and will be more likely to divert the animal's attention, letting you shoot again.
There's just no way I'm going to carry my 7.5" Redhawk while hiking or mountain biking. Too big and heavy. My 10 mm carries concealed and comfortably in a fanny pack holster. The choice is not between the .44 and the 10 mm. It's between the 10 mm and nothing. I hope the 10 mm is better than nothing.
*Semi-jokingly used to deflect .45 Colt guys who can't resist pointing out that the .44 isn't really .44".
The 10mm is quite a ways down the line, in areas that it really counts. But, as you say, the 10mm is better than nothing. Actually, it's better than most would consider carrying. If you live in brown bear country, the discussion was already had, and you probably already have a .454 or better. Most folks who live in the "other" areas, are lucky to have anything better than hairspray (bear-spray). Any bear that challenges you for your pic-i-nic basket needs to be put down. We stopped relocating these bears long ago. They just return later, looking for their free lunch. A once-spoiled bear is an always-spoiled bear. The problem is, it isn't the bear's fault. I never liked putting them down, but it's a necessary end. Unfortunately, the tree-huggers ensure we always have an overpopulation of them.
*No explanation necessary, but it's actually .429, which is way less than .430.
Quote from: DM1906 on October 11 2015 12:50:26 AM MDT
*No explanation necessary, but it's actually .429, which is way less than .430.
:))
Quote from: BuckRimfire on October 10 2015 10:24:27 PM MDT
Obviously the 10 mm is second best (or more like third best) to the .43 Magnum*. So? The same point would be true: a pencil-thin, deep wound may be fatal eventually, but it probably won't hurt enough to distract the animal from coming at you fast. OTOH, a decent JHP disrupts more tissue near the surface, where the pain receptors are actually located, and will be more likely to divert the animal's attention, letting you shoot again.
There's just no way I'm going to carry my 7.5" Redhawk while hiking or mountain biking. Too big and heavy. My 10 mm carries concealed and comfortably in a fanny pack holster. The choice is not between the .44 and the 10 mm. It's between the 10 mm and nothing. I hope the 10 mm is better than nothing.
*Semi-jokingly used to deflect .45 Colt guys who can't resist pointing out that the .44 isn't really .44".
try a 4 5/8 or 5.5 blackhawk...you could go d/a with the Alaskan but follow ups would be a bitch
Quote from: DM1906 on October 06 2015 10:42:51 AM MDT
Quote from: DAVIDF on October 06 2015 05:55:58 AM MDT
Quote from: DM1906 on October 05 2015 11:14:22 AM MDT
Quote from: DAVIDF on October 05 2015 09:27:22 AM MDT
Quote from: DM1906 on September 27 2015 09:43:37 AM MDT
The TMJ is very different than a genuine FMJ. It's a soft-lead, swaged, plated bullet. They don't experience jacket separation the same as jacketed bullets do, but they do deform like a swaged lead bullet (not unlike Hornady lead bullets). This makes the nose shape and meplat less of a performance factor, compared to hard-cast flat-nose bullets. Add to that, the plating thickness and hardness can vary a lot from manufacturer to manufacturer, and some of them lot to lot. They aren't designed nor intended to be used as a hunting or defense bullet, but that doesn't mean they won't be effective in those situations, at least sometimes.
The TMJ may work very well for hunting actually. There is a guy over on a Marlin forum who uses 240gr TMJ in a 444 for hunting Elk and swears by them. Like you are saying they can deform but not very likely to have jacket separation as they are bonded like Speer's Gold Dot. Gold Dot's do very well in barrier blind tests such as thru safety glass that requires a very tough bullet to perform well. I think the TMJ would hold together even better, but have not seen any tests.
Apples and oranges. I don't disagree that some TMJ bullets my be well suited for effective hunting, caliber/cartridge notwithstanding. I would use them, if not for the legalities. However, a bonded jacket bullet, especially a hollowpoint such as the GDHP, is very different than any TMJ, HP or otherwise. Very few TMJ bullets (copper electro-plate, by definition), are capable of higher velocities, even many pistol velocities. The most popular TMJ/plated bullets in many pistol calibers actually do very poorly, with only a couple exceptions. Berry's .41M and .44M are the only exceptions I've found (none of Ranier's did), while X-treme .40 and .45 HP's do very well, 1400-2000+ FPS. Copper plated rifle bullets are a different animal, and designed for the much higher velocities. A 240 gr. .444 at 2300+ FPS is hardly comparable to a 180 gr. 10mm at 1200 FPS, in almost any context.
Yes, I agree. For clarity, I was referring only to Speer's TMJ which, correct me if I am wrong, is bonded like their Gold Dots. That is the bullet that Underwood uses for their "Full Metal Jacket" loads.
As I said, I don't disagree that some "TMJ" bullets may be suited for other duties. However, a TMJ bullet is not "bonded" or "jacketed", in the same sense as is a bonded or jacketed bullet. Every TMJ/plated bullet is "bonded", by the nature of the process, but is only bonded in the same sense the chrome on your truck bumper is "bonded". Bonded jacketed bullets can be such due to their unique process, because the jacket is a pre-formed shell/cup, with a soft lead core swaged into them. Also, there are several process options to "bond" a true jacketed bullet, mechanical (adhesive, cor-lok, etc.) chemical, induction, electrolytical, among a few, all varying in their unique performance values. The Speer TMJ bullet may acceptable for "woods defense", as claimed by Underwood, but I find their product labeling misleading, perhaps disingenuous. They label them "FMJ", while they are, in fact, "TMJ", or more appropriately, plated. They are not the same, although most consumers wouldn't know the difference, or wouldn't care, and probably wouldn't see any difference in the result. Speer is one brand among many, and as we know, no one brand is the best in any category. Without actually testing them (I haven't), I remain skeptical as to the their TMJ's comparative quality.
If you read Speer's catalog (http://www.speer-bullets.com/resources/catalog/speerbullets-catalog/offline/2013_Speer_Catalog.pdf) the TMJ and Gold Dot appear to be bonded in the exact same manner. In fact, Speer refers to their TMJ as a using Uni-Cor technology which as everyone knows, Speer allows other ammo manufacturers to label their Gold Dots as such. They swage the core the same way as their Gold Dots. So, yes, the Speer TMJ and the Gold Dot are manufactured the same way. With the only difference being the open hollow point of the Gold Dot.
I tremendously dislike flogging deceased equine, but....
No, it doesn't work that way. I don't care what they call it, it is what it is. A jacket is not a plate, a plate is not a jacket. The GDHP begins life as a copper tube and a copper plated swaged lead core. The TMJ (and GDHP core) begins life as a lead wire, swaged to shape, then copper is plated onto it. This also spells the difference between FMJ and TMJ. FMJ bullets have either an exposed or a capped lead base. The reason being, that they are made exactly the same as traditional JHP bullets, except the core is swaged from the base rather than the point. The "bonded" label applies to the method of adhering or affixing a jacket to a core. The TMJ plating process, by its very nature, is "bonded", but in no way, the same as the former. Any bullet that is completely encapsulated is, in fact, plated. "TMJ" is, in fact, a misnomer. The GDHP is unique, in that the jacket is a copper tube that is glued (bonded) and swaged onto a plated base/core. The trademark "gold dot" is nothing more than the top of the TMJ core, visible through a hole in the HP cavity.
That said, in my experience, Speer makes fine bullets, and the GDHP is as good as any high performance HP handgun bullet. Better? No. I like/use them a lot, but they separate and lose mass just as often/much as any other common HP bullet, such as XTP or Zero. They do hold together well at extreme velocities. However, those velocities far exceed the wildest capabilities of any 10mm Auto handgun.
Snake oil never once cured tuberculous, even though some were labeled and claimed exactly that. Most didn't even contain any snake oil.