The Ammunition Triangle: Accuracy, Lethality & Economy

“It’s okay. I brought the good stuff,” a student proclaimed as he started to unpack his ammunition for our first long-range precision shooting lesson. As I peered into his bag, I noticed some excellent hunting ammo, to which I asked, ‘is it under all these soft points?’ Confused, he replied, “No, that’s what I brought.”

I can’t fault him for his decision, as it certainly was “good” stuff, which was partially indicated by its expensive price tag, but it wasn’t going to reach 1,100 yards with any level of discernible consistency. After spending the afternoon with him, I was reminded of a police officer that I had worked with who would regard his full-metal jacket practice ammunition as “junk” merely because it wasn’t particularly useful as duty ammunition. Adding that story to the Africa-bound student who intended on using match-grade target ammo on his safari, it seems the world could use some more information regarding the three basic types of rifle ammunition and how to match their strengths to their best use.

I believe the best place to start is with a concept that I refer to as the “Ammunition Triangle.” Picture this to be a right triangle, where the hypotenuse is longer than the other two sides. This side represents the main goal that the manufacturer is trying to achieve. When boiled down to my basic three, this will either be lethality, accuracy or economy. Like many things in life, increasing one aspect draws from the others.

Looking at ammunition built exclusively for accuracy, in most cases, this is usually a manufacturer’s most costly offering, and rightly so. The Ammunition Triangle focuses more on the bullet than any other component, but the same principles typically follow the other components as well. That being said, a tremendous amount of engineering and development goes into ensuring that it flies as straight as it possibly can for as long as it possibly can.

To a lesser extent, the same principle holds true for the case, powder charge and primer, as the company’s best and brightest are employed to build a loaded cartridge. Seeing the reasoning behind the elevated cost isn’t too tough, however, the loss in lethality isn’t as obvious. Creating a perfectly balanced bullet means that most, if not all, of the properties needed for terminal performance must be shed. Exposed lead is now covered with copper to help the meplat retain its shape during flight, and cavernous hollow points are shrunk down to a point where they only provide aerodynamic stability and no longer foster expansion. Cavities inside of a bullet that aids in the mushrooming effect are filled to make a more consistent core, and jackets built to shatter are now thickened to better stand up to rifling.

If we consider match ammunition to be the most expensive, it stands to reason that practice fodder requires the smallest investment. Being that the highest level of competitors use upwards of 20,000 rounds a year of this style of ammunition, it isn’t fair to call it “junk.” This ammo is built to give its intended users precisely what they need without an ounce more. This helps the manufacturer produce these products as economically as possible, which reduces the cost to the consumer. Bullets for these cartridges are typically FMJs, but sometimes solid lead is used, as it’s the only projectile that is cheaper than that. Full-metal-jacketed bullets are the most common type of projectile, and that in itself has a natural cost-cutting measure built in. Aside from that, there isn’t a whole lot that goes into swaging a lead core into a copper cup.

Being that the average engagement distance is typically much shorter than it is with match ammo (or the target larger), less work goes into balancing it, and it is held to less stringent quality control standards. This reduces the rejection rate and puts more of the finished product on the shelf. Said finished product is typically less polished than premium offerings, which is fine, because ammo doesn’t need to be pretty to work well. It’s also typically shipped in less luxurious packaging, which cuts a surprising amount of distribution costs. While there aren’t any blanket statements with ammunition, I feel comfortable saying that if a company’s match product produces sub-m.o.a. accuracy, its practice line will produce something like 1.5- to 3-m.o.a. groups. Printing these groups at extreme distances is likely off the table, but it’ll still provide the growing shooter with everything they need to develop their skills.

This brings us to hunting ammunition, which has taken on many forms over the years. For that reason, I’d like to limit this portion to cartridges built with classic soft-point bullets. Building these bullets involves most of the same steps as making an FMJ, except a lead tip is exposed to initiate expansion—sometimes it is pointed to help raise its ballistic coefficient. This involves a few more manufacturing steps than building a basic FMJ bullet, but nowhere near as many associated with making a match projectile.

Nonetheless, the bullet is leading with its softest material and, therefore, will experience some form of deformation during flight. However, being that the average medium-big game shot occurs well inside of 300 yards, these effects are usually never realized. Hunters can expect success beyond that distance, but there is a reason why you don’t find many competitors running these rounds when X-ring accuracy at extended distance is concerned.

Of course, there are bullets out there that claim to expand on two (or more) sides of the Ammunition Triangle, making these exceptionally handy to have around. Products like Hornady’s ELD-X or ELD-VT bullets provide near-match-grade accuracy with reliable expansion when used for hunting. The same holds true for Berger’s VLD Hunting bullets. Naturally, getting two premium qualities from a bullet or its associated factory-loaded fodder comes with a monetary cost, but considering their utility, most shooters meet it head-on.

Believe it or not, sometimes you get accuracy without the cost, too. As I write these words, I’m reminded of a foreign service rifle match that I clinched while shooting Wolf steel-cased FMJ Military Classic. For whatever reason, the SKS that I own just loves the load and is capable of shooting inside of the roughly 1-m.o.a. X-ring that is used, reminding us that it pays off to try a variety of different ammunition through your individual firearm. I’ve also seen sub-m.o.a. accuracy out of soft-point bullets like the ones loaded into Remington’s classic Core-Lokt line, I just wouldn’t expect either round to do the same far beyond 300 yards. Lastly, let’s not forget that nearly all NATO ammunition is built with an FMJ bullet, and although less than ideal, it has proven effective for military purposes.

Manufacturers understand that gun owners hit the range or the field for a plethora of reasons and typically respond with multiple product lines to include as many shooters as possible. Understanding these lines and building realistic expectations from each is critical for success. Alternatively, those who don’t are doomed to sub-optimal experiences. Sadly, the manufacturer typically also shares in this misfortune as user error is often discredited as product malady, which just isn’t fair. Maybe there just isn’t such a thing as “good” ammo, perhaps only “correct” ammo.