As a practicing veterinarian with over twenty years experience in taking and interpreting radiographs, I'd like to make a few observations on the one presented here:

1) It is a horrible view. It is so under-exposed that I can barely identify the anatomical region it was taken from (and even then only the general region). It is certainly of no diagnostic value, in that it shows almost no anatomic structures due to the underexposure. It is clear that the exposure was manipulated for the sole purpose of demonstrating the fragmentation (which is fair to do, if that is the stated purpose). However it obscures the main damage to the large bone that it HAD to have impacted to fragment like that. The under-exposure makes it impossible to evaluate the wound tract path, and structures involved, as well as the extent of the damage they sustained. Large-game hunting bullets don't fragment without hitting fairly substantial bone.

2) Having radiographed hundreds of dogs shot with everything from BB guns to deer rifles, including many large-breed, heavy-boned dogs like Rottweilers, that pattern of fragmentation exceeds anything I've ever seen. No normal hunting bullet I've ever seen would fragment like that, even on hitting a solid bone. I have not seen any patients shot with "frangible" ammunition, but I can't imagine that they could possibly fragment any more than this bullet did.

3) No one would ever radiograph a dead deer unless they are looking to see the fragmentation pattern. Bullet manufacturers typically use gelatin to demonstrate performance. Whoever took this one was definitely trying to show the fragmentation pattern because it's useless for anything else. The manipulation of the exposure to maximize the appearance of the fragmentation causes one to question the motives of the one who took it, simply because it does not follow normal radiographic technique. It COULD still be unbiased, but there's ample evidence that it could also very easily be biased to demonstrate a pre-determined conclusion. It would be much more legitimate if it followed standard radiographic technique, but it wouldn't be anywhere near as impressive (i.e. intentional underexposure makes the tiniest fragments show up brighter and more vivid/"impressive", while all anatomic detail is lost in a "white-out").

4)The vast majority of fragments that come off of a normal hunting bullet will be found to be pieces of the copper jacket. When removing bullets surgically, the main lead core of the bullet is almost always still together for the most part. If we were to analyze the fragments shown, most of them would be copper (and as stated before - if this isn't a frangible bullet, it is the most extreme case of fragmentation of a normal bullet I've ever seen).

5) It's very hard to imagine that any animal hit like this (i.e. hard enough to cause such extraordinary fragmentation) would ever be "lost" to later die and be eaten by scavengers. This deer would have been collected at the point it was standing when the bullet impacted, or maybe a few scant yards away. Animals who are lost are generally poorly-hit (gut-shot, etc.) which means that the bullet either wholly or mostly only impacted soft tissue, or light bones like ribs, which results in minimal fragmentation. An exception to this would be an upper extremity, with the bullet hitting a large bone and fragmenting, but not causing enough immobilization to prevent the animal from being lost to die later.