.300 wsm shooters

[deleted BGS]

Anybody out there have any long range ballistics? Not sure on what bullet i want to shoot, gotta send in ballistics to leupold for my cds. Leaning on 165 gr as an all around bullet, deer, elk bear wont have any trouble. I have thought about hand loading, does anybody have ballistics out to 700 yards. For example, looking for your zero, then yardage with bullet drop in inches?

[bobcat]

You should try playing around with a ballistic calculator. You'll need the ballistic coefficients of the various bullets, you can get these from each bullet manufacturer's website. Then you'll also need a muzzle velocity, so use your reloading manuals or get info online.

Here's one to try:   http://www.biggameinfo.com/BalCalc.aspx

[400out]

YOu know I haven't measured it, really don't plan on going out that far. but I can tell you nosler accubond 165gr match load 1.5 high at 100 and hits 1 low at 400 

[iusmc2002]

I personally use and like this one


http://huntingnut.com/index.php?name=PointBlank

 

[coachcw]

The 180 accubonds work well and will retain more energy down range . 

[carpsniperg2]

If you go to winchester ammo. They have a ballistic calculator that you just pick the ammo and your zero and click shoot. Then it will tell you the drop, its nice because you can put the 165 against the 180 and see them shot side by side. There is a lot of great programs out there but it works pretty good.

What game are you wanting to hunt? If you are going to be shooting more deer and lopes I would go to the 165's, if you are after bigger stuff like moose I would go to the 180's. The 180's will have a better bc.

[bobcat]

In the 300 WSM I would go with a 165 or 168, for everything. I just don't think going to a 180 is going to give any benefit even on larger animals. Now in a bigger 30 caliber cartridge like an Ultra Mag I would then go with 180 as a minimum and up to 200. But from what I've seen you'll get your best performance from a 165 out of the WSM, IF you go with a good premium bullet.

[huntnphool]

 Rebarrel and neck down to 7mm, 168 VLD's.

[coachcw]

the 180's have aprox 200 more ft lbs of KE at 500 yards . the 165's 1.3 at 100 and -17 at 400 . the 180's 1.5 at 100 and -19 at 400 at 500 yards the 165's drop 39 and the 180's drop 38 . so past 500 i'd go with the 180's better bc and energy.

[deleted BGS]

You should try playing around with a ballistic calculator. You'll need the ballistic coefficients of the various bullets, you can get these from each bullet manufacturer's website. Then you'll also need a muzzle velocity, so use your reloading manuals or get info online.

Here's one to try:   http://www.biggameinfo.com/BalCalc.aspx

when i pull it up i cant see most of the words 

[deleted BGS]

Will be shooting all game, deer, bear, elk, and hopefully a sheep at some point.
This is my 2nd rifle, so just want i to reach out and touch something. 165 gr is faster and hits harder at 500 yards, from what i have read in the past

[luteai]

You should try playing around with a ballistic calculator. You'll need the ballistic coefficients of the various bullets, you can get these from each bullet manufacturer's website. Then you'll also need a muzzle velocity, so use your reloading manuals or get info online.

Here's one to try:   http://www.biggameinfo.com/BalCalc.aspx

when i pull it up i cant see most of the words 

try Hornady's website, their ballistic calculator is made for my old eyes !

[bobcat]

the 180's have aprox 200 more ft lbs of KE at 500 yards . the 165's 1.3 at 100 and -17 at 400 . the 180's 1.5 at 100 and -19 at 400 at 500 yards the 165's drop 39 and the 180's drop 38 . so past 500 i'd go with the 180's better bc and energy.

Foot pounds of energy I disregard completely. To me it's a meaningless number and not even worth looking at. As for the difference in drop between the two, we're really just splitting hairs. They're virtually the same. What I like best about going with the slightly lighter bullet, especially in a WSM which will tend to be a relatively light rifle, is that it will recoil less. To some that's not important but to me, it is.

[bobcat]

You should try playing around with a ballistic calculator. You'll need the ballistic coefficients of the various bullets, you can get these from each bullet manufacturer's website. Then you'll also need a muzzle velocity, so use your reloading manuals or get info online.

Here's one to try:   http://www.biggameinfo.com/BalCalc.aspx

when i pull it up i cant see most of the words 

I'm not sure why. It looks great to me. Maybe try a different browser. (Firefox?)

[Biggerhammer]

I've used the 150 and 165gr Accubonds on Mulies here in Eastern WA and both have performed excellent. I settled on the 165 Accubond in both my .300 WSM and .300 Win Mag. I shoot allot of Nosler 165gr seconds Ballistic Tips in the off season because they are a fraction of the cost of the Accubond and shoot the same  point of impact, they also make a real mess of groundhogs and coyotes. I have not recovered a 165 Accubond from a Mulie yet but I did recover a 150gr Accubond from a mature Mulie, shot with a .300 WSM on top of H4350 at 379 yards. The bullet was recovered from just under the hide on the off side.

In the open wheat field country I like them flat and fast.

Recovered 150gr Accubond, 379 yards. 76% weight retention. Not bad for also hitting a rib on the impact side.