Post by: jake on January 23, 2008, 06:05:37 PM
Post by: jdb on January 23, 2008, 08:35:53 PM
Post by: tmike on January 23, 2008, 08:45:51 PM
Post by: mossback91 on January 23, 2008, 08:51:28 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 23, 2008, 09:01:03 PM
Post by: washingtonmuley on January 23, 2008, 09:38:26 PM
Good luck
Post by: Bookworm on January 23, 2008, 09:51:56 PM
Post by: jake on January 23, 2008, 10:14:12 PM
Post by: dbllunger on January 24, 2008, 08:23:15 AM
Post by: GoldTip on January 24, 2008, 08:38:44 AM
The Nosler Accubond is another very good bullet which I have seen perform quite well on one Moose, one whiteatil buck and one elk out of my buddies 300 wsm. Also 180gr.
Post by: Intruder on January 24, 2008, 01:52:39 PM
The accuracy and terminal performance of this bullet has been fantastic for me. I've killed elk, moose, antelope and mule deer w/ the 168. That's all I shoot any more in my 300.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 24, 2008, 02:28:07 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 24, 2008, 10:42:38 PM
Nosler Partition. The ONLY hunting bullet I have EVER had fail was a 160gr 7mm Speer Grand Slam. I gave it the benefit of the doubt the first two elk, but the third time was enough proof. All elk were recovered, but just pencil holes all the way through like a FMJ.
That's odd...I've loaded 180 grain Grand Slams for my brother's 300 mag, and for my dad's 30-06, and both have killed elk and moose with no problems. The bullets that were recovered had mushroomed perfectly. Having said that I don't use them anymore and either do they. Not because they didn't work but because there are now better options available.
Post by: Intruder on January 25, 2008, 10:09:07 AM
What kind of groups are we talking @ 100 yards?
Not sure if that was intended for me... if so 7/8". 77.5 grns of RL-19, Fed 215 Match primer, 168 TSX. Pretty high pressure but in my gun I've consistantly chronographed at 3375. May try backing off on it to see if I can improve the pressure signs w/out sacraficing too much velocity. That being said I've never really had any issues... sticky bolt or anything....
Post by: dbllunger on January 25, 2008, 10:53:06 AM
Post by: Intruder on January 25, 2008, 11:30:17 AM
Post by: PacificNWhunter on January 25, 2008, 01:25:05 PM
Post by: wapitislayer on January 26, 2008, 11:25:43 AM
Post by: dbllunger on January 27, 2008, 07:45:58 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 27, 2008, 07:53:44 PM
Post by: mossback91 on January 27, 2008, 09:41:25 PM
Nosler Partition. The ONLY hunting bullet I have EVER had fail was a 160gr 7mm Speer Grand Slam. I gave it the benefit of the doubt the first two elk, but the third time was enough proof. All elk were recovered, but just pencil holes all the way through like a FMJ. All were dbl lung broadside shots at 150, 100, and 250 yds. One required a second shot, one two more, and the last one took a total of four (Entire gun capacity) before falling down. The last one took four dbl lung shots in a pattern of about 6-7 inches, and then finally just layed down and died. 7mm STW at 3300fps.Weird Ive seen them kill the *censored* out of elk and deer.
Post by: dbllunger on January 28, 2008, 07:27:05 AM
Post by: GoldTip on January 28, 2008, 07:57:28 AM
Post by: Intruder on January 28, 2008, 08:36:04 AM
Bobcat...yes you can calculate wind including degrees to the wind. I covered all the issues of penatration with my SD comment. As bullets with higher Sectional Density will normally out penatrate lower SD bullets even if they are at a lower velocity. In regards to higher BC the 180 is slighty higher then the 165. Heavier bullets always resist wind deflection more then lighter bullets velocity being equal. Long range shooters prefer heavier bullets if they group well over lighter bullets for what you mentioned. I would disagree with energy is meaningless as it is critical to proper penatration and bullet expansion. I did not try to advocate one bullet weight over the other, but just printed out what the program said.I agree with the general premisses outlined here with the exception of the higher SD = better penetration. I see that you do qualify it as "normally" though. Based on the research I've done, SD is extremely hard to quantify in any objective terms related to performance. While there is a certain amount of accuracy to the statement I think it has to do more w/ the bullet weight than the SD. Generally speaking bigger cal bullets w/ more mass are going to have a higher SD.... so there's certainly a relationship. IMO, in terms of overall terminal performance in hunting situations bullet construction is a more critical aspect for penetration if we're not talking about radical velocity or weight difference.
Some what nitpicking I guess :)
Post by: GoldTip on January 28, 2008, 08:50:13 AM
Post by: TheKid#10 on January 28, 2008, 09:49:18 AM
Post by: dbllunger on January 28, 2008, 01:22:55 PM
Post by: dbllunger on January 28, 2008, 01:50:00 PM
165@3275 = -27.4"/2165fps/1718lbs @ 500yds
180@3150 = -28.9"/2199fps/1933lbs @ 500yds
I would guess I either entered or did something wrong with the Oehler program. Will check it later and report back.
Post by: dbllunger on January 28, 2008, 04:24:04 PM
165 @ 500yds = -25.6"/1863lbs
180 @ 500yds = -26.8"/2072lbs
Post by: GoldTip on January 28, 2008, 05:11:59 PM
Post by: dbllunger on January 28, 2008, 05:20:11 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 28, 2008, 07:35:07 PM
I would disagree with energy is meaningless as it is critical to proper penatration and bullet expansion.Not trying to pick on you or anything but the reason I say energy is a meaningless number is that it is just a number calculated using the velocity and the weight of the bullet. It's just a theoretical number. I would say velocity and bullet construction is what determines penetration and bullet expansion, not foot-pounds of energy. But that's just my way of looking at it. I used to pay lots of attention to energy figures but came to realize they just don't mean much. Again, just my opinion.
Post by: dbllunger on January 28, 2008, 09:25:06 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 28, 2008, 10:01:09 PM
I've only started making exceptions in the case of the Barnes x bullets. With them you can easily go lighter and still get better performance than you would with a heavier, standard construction type bullet. I'm even considering 150 grain bullets out of my 30/06 for elk. I definitely will not go heavier than the 168 with the Barnes TSX. With any other bullet I wouldn't use anything but a 180, for elk.
Post by: Bookworm on January 28, 2008, 10:14:56 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 28, 2008, 10:17:25 PM
Post by: Bookworm on January 28, 2008, 10:32:02 PM
Post by: GoldTip on January 29, 2008, 06:54:49 AM
Post by: NORRISKI2 on February 03, 2008, 08:36:52 PM
Post by: NORRISKI on February 10, 2008, 06:03:27 PM
Post by: Intruder on February 14, 2008, 11:07:48 AM
I too tend to agree w/ the general feeling that energy figures are somewhat over-used to try and quantify killing capacity.
I'm a total advocate of bullet construction being a top priority in killing capacity. As such, if I'm able to achieve high weight retention I'm less motivated to shoot the heavy bullets for caliber. I'm not saying shoot "light" bullets per se'. To me, ya gotta find that balance between weight, speed, BC, accuracy that works in your gun no matter what cal.
Post by: GoldTip on February 14, 2008, 11:30:01 AM
Post by: Curly on February 16, 2008, 08:39:51 AM
It might seem odd to say a 168 grain bullet is good for moose. Conventional thinking says to go with a 200 grain Nosler Partition for elk and moose; end of story. But, times have changed now that we have the TSX available to us. With the TSX, you loose hardly any weight as the bullet travels through the animal. If you retain 90% of the 168TSX, the bullet will weigh 151 gr. If you use a 200 gr. NP and it retains 70% then the bullet will weigh 140 gr after hitting the animal. So, as you can see, the 168TSX should retain more weight than the 200 gr. NP.
I've had good luck with H1000 in my 300 win mag rifles (at least as far as accuracy and small extreme spread over the chronograph). RE22 gave me better velocities but the H1000 gave better accuracy.
Post by: Intruder on February 19, 2008, 10:11:40 AM
I do like the 168TSX too. I wouldn't hesitate to use it on Moose.
It might seem odd to say a 168 grain bullet is good for moose. Conventional thinking says to go with a 200 grain Nosler Partition for elk and moose; end of story. But, times have changed now that we have the TSX available to us.
I used that very bullet to kill a moose the past fall. I absolutely love that bullet in my 300. My only gripe is the BC isn't as good so it doesn't buck the wind at long range. That being said, it don't make a hill a beans of difference under 300 yards.
Post by: 92xj on January 09, 2018, 05:44:51 PM
Looking for powder references for heavy weight bullets in the 300wm. Wanting to change my setup from 208gr amax pushed by rl25 to something better for animals, 190gr, 210gr or 215gr. Thinking either accubond LRs or eld-x. Anyone have any proven data to start working loads.
Post by: jrebel on January 09, 2018, 05:54:22 PM
Was thinking H1000 pushing 210 grain Berger VLD hunting, 210 grain accubond lr or 200 grain accubond. The Berger and Accubond LR will depend on COAL and whether or not I can fit it in the gun I purchase.
Post by: Magnum_Willys on January 09, 2018, 06:13:43 PM
Post by: hogslayer on January 09, 2018, 06:16:13 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on January 09, 2018, 06:20:39 PM
Post by: 92xj on January 09, 2018, 07:07:03 PM
Tagging....will be doing the same here shortly. :tup:
Was thinking H1000 pushing 210 grain Berger VLD hunting, 210 grain accubond lr or 200 grain accubond. The Berger and Accubond LR will depend on COAL and whether or not I can fit it in the gun I purchase.
I still think you should buy my bare gun for tour project. You can paint it shiny for your likings.
I've always wanted to try the Berger's and the day I'm about to pull the trigger on them, I'll come across another random post about them failing so I back down. I've shot plenty with the amax and they kill perfectly and turn the innards into liquid but I'm wanting an exit hole for the next few animals and just itching to tinker.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on January 09, 2018, 07:43:28 PM
Tagging....will be doing the same here shortly. :tup:All the more reason to buy or make a gun that doesn’t have mag length restrictions if you want the most out of the 200+ grain bullets.
Was thinking H1000 pushing 210 grain Berger VLD hunting, 210 grain accubond lr or 200 grain accubond. The Berger and Accubond LR will depend on COAL and whether or not I can fit it in the gun I purchase.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on January 09, 2018, 07:53:35 PM
Tagging....will be doing the same here shortly. :tup:All the more reason to buy or make a gun that doesn’t have mag length restrictions if you want the most out of the 200+ grain bullets.
Was thinking H1000 pushing 210 grain Berger VLD hunting, 210 grain accubond lr or 200 grain accubond. The Berger and Accubond LR will depend on COAL and whether or not I can fit it in the gun I purchase.
So not all magnum actions will take large caliber bullets? I don’t quite understand this.
Post by: j_h_nimrod on January 09, 2018, 07:57:44 PM
Tagging....will be doing the same here shortly. :tup:All the more reason to buy or make a gun that doesn’t have mag length restrictions if you want the most out of the 200+ grain bullets.
Was thinking H1000 pushing 210 grain Berger VLD hunting, 210 grain accubond lr or 200 grain accubond. The Berger and Accubond LR will depend on COAL and whether or not I can fit it in the gun I purchase.
So not all magnum actions will take large caliber bullets? I don’t quite understand this.
It has to do with the optimum seating depth of the bullet and if it will fit in the magazine of the rifle. It is pretty easy to seat a VLD bullet longer than will feed in most rifles.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on January 09, 2018, 08:00:37 PM
Tagging....will be doing the same here shortly. :tup:All the more reason to buy or make a gun that doesn’t have mag length restrictions if you want the most out of the 200+ grain bullets.
Was thinking H1000 pushing 210 grain Berger VLD hunting, 210 grain accubond lr or 200 grain accubond. The Berger and Accubond LR will depend on COAL and whether or not I can fit it in the gun I purchase.
So not all magnum actions will take large caliber bullets? I don’t quite understand this.
It has to do with the optimum seating depth of the bullet and if it will fit in the magazine of the rifle. It is pretty easy to seat a VLD bullet longer than will feed in most rifles.
Got it, thanks.
Post by: Biggerhammer on January 09, 2018, 08:40:01 PM
Post by: 92xj on January 10, 2018, 07:07:45 AM
Post by: Curly on January 10, 2018, 07:30:32 AM
Post by: Jason on January 10, 2018, 07:30:48 AM
What powder would be recommended for sub 200 great bullets? Say the 190 accubondLR or the 178 eld-x?H1000. RL22 also is a solid choice.
Post by: Biggerhammer on January 10, 2018, 02:41:03 PM
What powder would be recommended for sub 200 great bullets? Say the 190 accubondLR or the 178 eld-x?H1000. RL22 also is a solid choice.
I like RL-22, it will give you the velocity.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi90.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk269%2Flandonmoses%2FIMG_0020_zpse229fd94.jpg&hash=ed42f8a230003274ad240bad5fbf6e0571a66ef0) (http://s90.photobucket.com/user/landonmoses/media/IMG_0020_zpse229fd94.jpg.html)
Post by: 92xj on January 10, 2018, 03:13:28 PM
Post by: hogslayer on January 10, 2018, 04:41:40 PM
Post by: CarbonHunter on January 10, 2018, 05:10:47 PM
I initially used a 200gr Nosler Partition in my 300 winny but had problems with them with deer. I loved them on elk, but the two deer I shot with that load, the bullet seemed to blow through the deer and have very little expansion and did not seem to impart much energy onto the deer. Very little exit hole or blood trails, so I was less than impressed. Hunting Idaho and Montana, unlike here, elk season and deer season are open at the same time, so I set out to find the best bullet combo for both animals. I settled on the Swift Scirocco at 180gr probably 8 years ago and have never looked back. Multiples of each species have fallen to that bullet for me with nothing but excellent performance. From what I have seen out of my buddies 300wsm, the 180gr accubond performs much the same.
:yeah:
I moved to 180 gr Sciroccos in 2008 and never looked back. I had to change my powder from RL22 but once I got them to shoot straight they’ve never let me down. I killed a lot of elk with the partition but I find the Scirocco is better at shots over 200-300 where the partition falls off.
Another thing I like is the bullet surprisingly does not waste much meat. I have buddies who use the ELD’s and those shoot longer but waste a lot of meat in our experience. I usually recover the Scirocco if it hits bone (over 300 yards) and they are usually open but still intact.
Post by: Biggerhammer on January 10, 2018, 09:39:09 PM
Post by: jasnt on January 21, 2018, 06:32:07 AM
Post by: Mulie87 on January 21, 2018, 02:57:21 PM
Post by: Mulie87 on January 21, 2018, 03:01:15 PM
Post by: Magnum_Willys on January 21, 2018, 03:29:37 PM
Post by: jasnt on January 21, 2018, 04:33:35 PM
I Like bondeds best, at what range do I need to switch from bondeds to bergers? 700 yards ?i would say that depends on velocity for a given bullet to expand. The begers do expand better imo at lower velocitys than most bonded bullets. Also would depend on the game your after.