Post by: elksnout on September 14, 2011, 08:22:07 PM
Post by: Special T on September 14, 2011, 09:22:36 PM
Post by: SniperDanWA on September 14, 2011, 09:41:42 PM
Post by: ribka on September 14, 2011, 10:05:36 PM
http://www.cabelas.com/product/Shooting/Ammunition/Rifle-Ammunition (http://www.cabelas.com/product/Shooting/Ammunition/Rifle-Ammunition)|/pc/104792580/c/104691780/sc/104532480/Hornady-Superformance8482-SST-Rifl
Post by: JimmyHoffa on September 14, 2011, 10:30:12 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on September 14, 2011, 10:51:55 PM
.... Pretty much the ideal bullet/velocity is one that doesn't exit, but is flattened out on the opposite side of the rib cage--everything gets transferred to internal organs. Not great for tracking (assuming they survive).
This is exactly what I've seen from the cheap Federal Power Shok's... and what really sold me on them. One shot to an elk... Lungs and heart turned to goo, round held together for the most part, and was stuck in the hide on the other side. $1 rounds. Why pay $4/ea?
Post by: bobcat on September 14, 2011, 11:31:34 PM
Quote
Nosler, Accur-bond and Triple Shock. Which one?
Well, the Accubond is a Nosler bullet. I assume you are referencing the Nosler Partition, and the Nosler Accubond. Either one is fine and is a lot better than the Core-Lokt for elk. They will each retain about the same weight. Now the Triple shock, that's made by Barnes, and it's a 100% copper bullet. It will retain at least 90% of its weight, and chances are it will go all the way through an elk no matter the angle or distance. The Triple Shock would be my #1 choice if it shoots reasonably well out of your rifle.
Post by: KNOPHISH on September 15, 2011, 06:34:54 AM
Post by: jackmaster on September 15, 2011, 06:48:39 AM
Post by: GoldTip on September 15, 2011, 07:46:00 AM
Post by: GoldTip on September 15, 2011, 07:49:59 AM
Post by: bobcat on September 15, 2011, 07:55:07 AM
Post by: elksnout on September 15, 2011, 07:15:27 PM
Post by: Ridgeratt on September 15, 2011, 07:27:57 PM
A while back there was a post on here about 180 gr 30-06 factory loads. I remember Federal Premium Cartridges being recommended as a good choice for elk. So tonight I went down to buy a box to see how well they will group from my M77. Holy crap, there's three different bullets in that weight and cartridge type. Nosler, Accur-bond and Triple Shock. Which one? I have been using Core-loks for years and have had decent success with them. However, last fall my son and I each took our elk at close range in the big timber. And the bullets didn't pass through either rib cage. Stopped short on the far side. So I was thinking to ramp up the horsepower a bit. Staying with the '06. Any one of the above bullets better suited than the other?
Considering the Kinetic energy of a 06. The fact that it was all transferred to the animal and didn't pass thru I would be ecstatic. Besides I like to pick the round out of the far side of the hide to see how it proformed. :twocents:
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on September 15, 2011, 07:39:02 PM
Post by: Rick on September 15, 2011, 07:58:55 PM
As far as ammo goes,I'd pick the ammo that shoots the best in your rifle. An Accubond,Partition,TSX,or Trophy Bonded will all kill elk easily.
I shoot 165gr Accubonds out of my '06. The last elk I shot ran about 20 yds and died. A 180 wouldn't have killed it any faster.
IMO the 165 is the best all around weight for an '06.
Post by: bobcat on September 15, 2011, 08:04:26 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on September 15, 2011, 08:22:44 PM
I don't believe in the theory of a bullet that stays in the animal transferring more energy. .
Called conservation of energy. The total stays the same---before the impact equals the exited bullet plus what was transferred to the animal.
Post by: twistiron on September 15, 2011, 08:36:35 PM
Post by: bobcat on September 15, 2011, 08:40:18 PM
I don't believe in the theory of a bullet that stays in the animal transferring more energy. .
Called conservation of energy. The total stays the same---before the impact equals the exited bullet plus what was transferred to the animal.
Yeah, I know. I've read a lot of theories on that subject, but I just don't believe in the "transfer of energy" from a bullet to an animal. I like a hole all the way through an animal and a good blood trail.
Post by: C-Money on September 15, 2011, 08:44:00 PM
Post by: Ridgeratt on September 15, 2011, 08:49:14 PM
I don't believe in the theory of a bullet that stays in the animal transferring more energy. .
Called conservation of energy. The total stays the same---before the impact equals the exited bullet plus what was transferred to the animal.
Yeah, I know. I've read a lot of theories on that subject, but I just don't believe in the "transfer of energy" from a bullet to an animal. I like a hole all the way through an animal and a good blood trail.
Well if a 06 180 grain leaves the @ 2700 with approx. 2913 ft. lbs of energy and it contacts it's target @ 200 yards with 2217 ft pounds of energy and doesn't pass thru just were does that force go?
Post by: bobcat on September 15, 2011, 08:54:27 PM
Post by: hub on September 15, 2011, 09:08:03 PM
Post by: Ridgeratt on September 15, 2011, 09:11:41 PM
That "energy" is just a number, it means nothing. Again, just my opinion. I have my theories and you're all welcome to yours.
Dang I always thought physics was involved as well. :dunno:
Post by: bobcat on September 15, 2011, 09:46:31 PM
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs3.htm (http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs3.htm)
Post by: jackmaster on September 16, 2011, 06:49:30 AM
Post by: magnanimous_j on September 16, 2011, 10:43:29 AM
This kind of explains the way I feel about the whole energy transfer theory:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs3.htm (http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs3.htm)
I've read this argument before, it makes sense and I believe that energy transfer is overblown in comparison to shot placement, but I don't believe that its the whole story.
The writer of the article basically argues that the bullet is like the tip of a rapier. It's only a kill shot if it hits a vital organ or blood vessel.
Which makes logical sense, but if that is all there is to it, then why does a rifle hit harder than a pistol? On a human target, why would a 7.62x39 fmj that made a clean exit wound do more damage than a 9mm fmj that made a clean exit wound (assuming the same shot placement)?
Post by: GoldTip on September 16, 2011, 11:06:11 AM
First of all,there is no such thing as "knock down" power. Its physics,if the bullet had enough power to knock an animal over,it would knock the shooter over as well.
As far as ammo goes,I'd pick the ammo that shoots the best in your rifle. An Accubond,Partition,TSX,or Trophy Bonded will all kill elk easily.
I shoot 165gr Accubonds out of my '06. The last elk I shot ran about 20 yds and died. A 180 wouldn't have killed it any faster.
IMO the 165 is the best all around weight for an '06.
No offense but that is a totally flawed argument. Lets take it to very basic principles with "knock down power". If a lineman has enough energy to knock over a running back, by your argument, the line man would have to be knocked down as well. You are correct that it is very simple physics, and that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, but you are not acounting for the fact that there is recoil energy absorbed by the rifle prior to it being transferred to the person holding the rifle.
I think one of the problems everyone has is with the formula used to create a number known as Kinetic energy which gives a great proportion of it's value to velocity. I prefer to feel the Taylor Knock out formula gives a better picture of what a bullet will do when it encounter flesh. This uses diameter of bullet, length of bullet, weight of bullet and velocity to determine the energy it will transfer to flesh.
Post by: littletoes on September 16, 2011, 08:51:30 PM
Have a buddy climb a 10 foot ladder, stand under it, and have him drop a penny on your head from the top...next, have him drop a silver dollar on your head.
Feel the difference? Next try a bowling ball....is the energy different??? They aren't actually traveling at much different speeds.... :o :o :P
Post by: HuntandFish on September 16, 2011, 09:55:47 PM
I use 180 :twocents:
H&F
Post by: bobcat on September 16, 2011, 10:20:41 PM
Quote
This isn’t because the hunter in question has actually studied the subject, but because he heard stuff ’round the campfire or read it in magazines. Among other things, he’s been told that “shock” is a major factor in how expanding bullets work. When asked to explain shock the hunter in question often becomes irate, and responds with, “Everybody knows what shock is!” Maybe, maybe not. Let’s look up shock in an unabridged descendant of Noah Webster’s dictionary. It turns out there are a bunch of shocks, including sheaves of grain, the physiological effect of an electric current and being startled, as in “the rebuke came as a shock.” Obviously those don’t apply, since hunters don’t zap deer with 110 AC, slap them with a wheat-whip, or rebuke them into the freezer. The definitions that could apply are:
1.) A sudden and violent blow or impact; collision.
2.) Pathology: A collapse of circulatory function, caused by severe injury, blood loss, or disease, and characterized by pallor, sweating, weak pulse and very low blood pressure.
Many hunters take the first definition. They think that a bullet hits so hard that a deer is shocked into unconsciousness, like a movie bad guy being lifted off his feet by a shotgun blast. Often kinetic energy is quoted, as in “the bullet hit with 2,000 ft.-lbs. of force.” Sometimes this is even turned into “a ton of energy,” conjuring images of a Hollywood car chase.
This sounds good, but a 2,000-pound compact car going 60 m.p.h. (88 fps) develops around 240,000 ft.-lbs. of kinetic energy, almost 100 times as much energy as a 180-grain .30-’06 Sprg. bullet retains at 100 yards. The car’s energy will lift a deer off its feet, but the bullet won’t.
In fact if a rifle bullet developed 240,000 ft.-lbs. of muzzle energy the rifle would slam its shooter to the ground, since the average hunter is about the same size as a mature whitetail buck. This is because of an old Newtonian rule of physics: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This is what we feel when a .30-’06 Sprg. recoils, the “equal and opposite reaction” to the bullet leaving the muzzle.
Actually our shoulder feels a little more than that, because part of a rifle’s recoil is the rocket effect of hot powder gas leaving the muzzle—which the deer doesn’t receive. Yet when firing a .30-’06 Sprg. we’re not slammed to the ground; instead our shoulder is pushed back an inch or two.
To demonstrate this lack of knock-down power I once built a “deer” out of a 3-foot-long wooden box and some 2x4s. When the box was filled with moist earth the deer weighed 150 pounds. I shot into the broadside box from 100 yards away, starting with .223 Rem., then .257 Roberts, .30-’06 Sprg., .338 Win. Mag. and, finally, the .416 Rem. Mag. The bullets were all stopped by the fake deer. The .416 seemed to rock the box a little, but the others didn’t move it, even slightly.
So why do bullets sometimes appear to “knock down” an animal? Most of the time this occurs because the animal was hit in the spine. It isn’t knocked down, but falls down because the spinal cord is severed. Sometimes, however, a bullet passes close enough to the spine to temporarily disrupt the nervous system, often by striking a rib or the “dorsal processes” on top of the vertebrae. If the bullet passes under the spine, through the lungs, the deer probably will go down and stay down, but if the bullet hits the top of the spine the deer may get up and run away.
A related theory is that a bullet that stays inside a deer expends all its energy, thus somehow “shocking” the deer more severely. Well, not exactly. Bullets that stay inside usually do so because they expanded widely. This slows them down quickly, due to resistance—but the wider bullet also creates a bigger hole in the deer’s vital organs. The bigger hole, not kinetic energy shocking the deer, kills quickly.
http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/how-expanding-bullets-work/ (http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/how-expanding-bullets-work/)
Post by: hub on September 16, 2011, 11:32:43 PM
A while back there was a post on here about 180 gr 30-06 factory loads. I remember Federal Premium Cartridges being recommended as a good choice for elk. So tonight I went down to buy a box to see how well they will group from my M77. Holy crap, there's three different bullets in that weight and cartridge type. Nosler, Accur-bond and Triple Shock. Which one? I have been using Core-loks for years and have had decent success with them. However, last fall my son and I each took our elk at close range in the big timber. And the bullets didn't pass through either rib cage. Stopped short on the far side. So I was thinking to ramp up the horsepower a bit. Staying with the '06. Any one of the above bullets better suited than the other?Tell us more. Did those two elk die on the spot? How far did they go after being shot ? Did you use 180,s ? Ya did not really say. Is your issue the lack of a pass thru at close range or is the issue the lack of a quick clean kill at close range.
Post by: littletoes on September 17, 2011, 07:19:55 AM
After reading years of FBI files on the subject, if the bullet could just penetrate the skin on the far side of the animal, then fall on the ground wasted, there would be another opening for blood to flow from, the animal would die FASTER.
Think on how an arrow kills, it cuts. Bullets do the same thing.
The actual tissue damage done by the PERMANENT wound channel is a more permanent and reliable method of killing, or possibly instant killing if a major bone (spine, hip, shoulder), is hit.
Those large "bone" hits show off "knock-down" power better than anything else.
Lets not waste our time on the Temporary wound channel, flesh is surprisingly able to "bounce" back. Less damage is transferred than what was once earlier thought, to living tissue.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on September 17, 2011, 07:42:26 AM
I have actually knocked a deer clean off its feet at about 10yrds with core locks I believe. Yes knock down power is a relevant argument here, and is not related to the kick a rifle gives, Rather type of bullet and load used, and of course placement of shot, all determines how much of the bullets energy will be transferred. If the bullet does not leave the animal 100% of bullet energy (at site of impact) has been transferred, if bullet passes through not all energy has been used. Neither of these scenario's means a poor performance from the bullet or load. It is a carefull balance which is hard to obtain, I would say that if you have bullets getting caught in the hide on the opposite side of the entry wound it is ideal, leaving maximum amount of distance traveled within the body cavity and all the energy transferred.hunt and fish ...did that deer get up and take off when hit with that Core Lokt ?
I use 180 :twocents:
H&F
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on September 17, 2011, 07:46:28 AM
Try this little experiment of mine....hahaha Thats funny sheet their now !!! :chuckle: :tup:
Have a buddy climb a 10 foot ladder, stand under it, and have him drop a penny on your head from the top...next, have him drop a silver dollar on your head.
Feel the difference? Next try a bowling ball....is the energy different??? They aren't actually traveling at much different speeds.... :o :o :P
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on September 17, 2011, 07:47:51 AM
Some interesting stuff from John Barsness:Thats a good write up ..... :tup: :tup:QuoteThis isn’t because the hunter in question has actually studied the subject, but because he heard stuff ’round the campfire or read it in magazines. Among other things, he’s been told that “shock” is a major factor in how expanding bullets work. When asked to explain shock the hunter in question often becomes irate, and responds with, “Everybody knows what shock is!” Maybe, maybe not. Let’s look up shock in an unabridged descendant of Noah Webster’s dictionary. It turns out there are a bunch of shocks, including sheaves of grain, the physiological effect of an electric current and being startled, as in “the rebuke came as a shock.” Obviously those don’t apply, since hunters don’t zap deer with 110 AC, slap them with a wheat-whip, or rebuke them into the freezer. The definitions that could apply are:
1.) A sudden and violent blow or impact; collision.
2.) Pathology: A collapse of circulatory function, caused by severe injury, blood loss, or disease, and characterized by pallor, sweating, weak pulse and very low blood pressure.
Many hunters take the first definition. They think that a bullet hits so hard that a deer is shocked into unconsciousness, like a movie bad guy being lifted off his feet by a shotgun blast. Often kinetic energy is quoted, as in “the bullet hit with 2,000 ft.-lbs. of force.” Sometimes this is even turned into “a ton of energy,” conjuring images of a Hollywood car chase.
This sounds good, but a 2,000-pound compact car going 60 m.p.h. (88 fps) develops around 240,000 ft.-lbs. of kinetic energy, almost 100 times as much energy as a 180-grain .30-’06 Sprg. bullet retains at 100 yards. The car’s energy will lift a deer off its feet, but the bullet won’t.
In fact if a rifle bullet developed 240,000 ft.-lbs. of muzzle energy the rifle would slam its shooter to the ground, since the average hunter is about the same size as a mature whitetail buck. This is because of an old Newtonian rule of physics: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This is what we feel when a .30-’06 Sprg. recoils, the “equal and opposite reaction” to the bullet leaving the muzzle.
Actually our shoulder feels a little more than that, because part of a rifle’s recoil is the rocket effect of hot powder gas leaving the muzzle—which the deer doesn’t receive. Yet when firing a .30-’06 Sprg. we’re not slammed to the ground; instead our shoulder is pushed back an inch or two.
To demonstrate this lack of knock-down power I once built a “deer” out of a 3-foot-long wooden box and some 2x4s. When the box was filled with moist earth the deer weighed 150 pounds. I shot into the broadside box from 100 yards away, starting with .223 Rem., then .257 Roberts, .30-’06 Sprg., .338 Win. Mag. and, finally, the .416 Rem. Mag. The bullets were all stopped by the fake deer. The .416 seemed to rock the box a little, but the others didn’t move it, even slightly.
So why do bullets sometimes appear to “knock down” an animal? Most of the time this occurs because the animal was hit in the spine. It isn’t knocked down, but falls down because the spinal cord is severed. Sometimes, however, a bullet passes close enough to the spine to temporarily disrupt the nervous system, often by striking a rib or the “dorsal processes” on top of the vertebrae. If the bullet passes under the spine, through the lungs, the deer probably will go down and stay down, but if the bullet hits the top of the spine the deer may get up and run away.
A related theory is that a bullet that stays inside a deer expends all its energy, thus somehow “shocking” the deer more severely. Well, not exactly. Bullets that stay inside usually do so because they expanded widely. This slows them down quickly, due to resistance—but the wider bullet also creates a bigger hole in the deer’s vital organs. The bigger hole, not kinetic energy shocking the deer, kills quickly.
http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/how-expanding-bullets-work/ (http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/how-expanding-bullets-work/)
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on September 17, 2011, 07:54:23 AM
Post by: HuntandFish on September 17, 2011, 09:35:20 AM
The reason for the energy that is given to the bullet itself not effecting the target as one would think (knock down power) is due to its deceleration rate, which comes from the bullet design expanding slow enough and small enough to slowly(relative term) release that energy. You must keep in mind that any type of effect a physics principle that we are talking about has on a bullet is lost exponentially due to other principals at work.
The analogy of a car hitting a deer vs. a bullet is a poor one. A car does not penetrate a deer and lose its energy, the body of the deer has to transfer all of that energy instantly(baring a few smaller absorptions) that is why the deer is knocked over. If you hit a deer at a speed that would create 2900 lbs of force the deer would be knocked over as well.
:sry: to keep the disagreement going. And Bowhunter that deer never moved an inch after it was knocked over. The knock over was due to the bullet hitting the shoulder blade and expanding rapidly, thus transfer more energy then usual.
Once again this is my :twocents: but these principals are easily proven.
H&F
Post by: Firing Pin on September 17, 2011, 09:38:21 AM
Post by: Atroxus on September 17, 2011, 10:05:56 AM
This business that the same amount of energy is absorbed by your shoulder that is carried with the bullet is flawed. For every action there is a reaction it is a simple law of physics. The guy that wrote that article and many of you on here seem to grasp that principal, but it is your application of the principal that is flawed. First you are dealing with an explosive force which is giving energy off in all directions, there is significant amount of energy traveling down the barrel with the bullet , as well as energy given off in muzzle rise, energy absorbed by the movement of the rifle and energy transferred from one componet to the next, as well as the absorption of energy into a recoil pad if you have one. But the biggest concept to grasp here is how energy is dissipated rapidly by many different function leaving your shoulder absorbing a substantially less.
The reason for the energy that is given to the bullet itself not effecting the target as one would think (knock down power) is due to its deceleration rate, which comes from the bullet design expanding slow enough and small enough to slowly(relative term) release that energy. You must keep in mind that any type of effect a physics principle that we are talking about has on a bullet is lost exponentially due to other principals at work.
The analogy of a car hitting a deer vs. a bullet is a poor one. A car does not penetrate a deer and lose its energy, the body of the deer has to transfer all of that energy instantly(baring a few smaller absorptions) that is why the deer is knocked over. If you hit a deer at a speed that would create 2900 lbs of force the deer would be knocked over as well.
:sry: to keep the disagreement going. And Bowhunter that deer never moved an inch after it was knocked over. The knock over was due to the bullet hitting the shoulder blade and expanding rapidly, thus transfer more energy then usual.
Once again this is my :twocents: but these principals are easily proven.
H&F
Actually Mythbusters did an episode where they explored the myth of people being knocked off their feet by bullets. They found that even a shotgun slug will NOT knock someone off their feet. It's a question of mass, 180 grains of lead/copper is not going to move 150 pound deer significantly.
Actually they even revisited the myth with a .50 caliber. You can view it at Myths Revisited 2 - Blown Away (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCzD5uhSViY#)
Post by: HuntandFish on September 17, 2011, 10:25:39 AM
I understand the point mythbusters is making, I also would like to point out mythbusters is a tv show that has some very flawed logic at times, and does not take into account allot of variables. And just because you saw it on mythbusters doesn't mean its true ;) My point is the rifle kick does not equal bullet energy. My deer may have just been a fluke, but if you were there you wouldn't disagree with me.
And yes I beileve 2900 lbs is enough to nock me off my feet if the energy could be transfered at once, diffucult to do, maybe if you were holding a steel plate and somehow were able to shoot a bullet that would not deform and thus loose its energy.
Mass–energy equivalence does not imply that mass may be "converted" to energy, and indeed implies the opposite.
H&F
Post by: Atroxus on September 17, 2011, 11:44:04 AM
As to your deer I would be more inclined to believe that it jumped when shot in such a way that it looked like the bullet knocked it back.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on September 17, 2011, 11:49:43 AM
This business that the same amount of energy is absorbed by your shoulder that is carried with the bullet is flawed. For every action there is a reaction it is a simple law of physics. The guy that wrote that article and many of you on here seem to grasp that principal, but it is your application of the principal that is flawed. First you are dealing with an explosive force which is giving energy off in all directions, there is significant amount of energy traveling down the barrel with the bullet , as well as energy given off in muzzle rise, energy absorbed by the movement of the rifle and energy transferred from one componet to the next, as well as the absorption of energy into a recoil pad if you have one. But the biggest concept to grasp here is how energy is dissipated rapidly by many different function leaving your shoulder absorbing a substantially less.nothen taken ... do not need to tell me about shoulders and shoulder blades :chuckle: :chuckle: Core Lokts do serious damage :chuckle:
The reason for the energy that is given to the bullet itself not effecting the target as one would think (knock down power) is due to its deceleration rate, which comes from the bullet design expanding slow enough and small enough to slowly(relative term) release that energy. You must keep in mind that any type of effect a physics principle that we are talking about has on a bullet is lost exponentially due to other principals at work.
The analogy of a car hitting a deer vs. a bullet is a poor one. A car does not penetrate a deer and lose its energy, the body of the deer has to transfer all of that energy instantly(baring a few smaller absorptions) that is why the deer is knocked over. If you hit a deer at a speed that would create 2900 lbs of force the deer would be knocked over as well.
:sry: to keep the disagreement going. And Bowhunter that deer never moved an inch after it was knocked over. The knock over was due to the bullet hitting the shoulder blade and expanding rapidly, thus transfer more energy then usual.
Once again this is my :twocents: but these principals are easily proven.
H&F
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on September 17, 2011, 11:55:06 AM
WAY OFF TOPIC.... But would like to know, Bowhunter45...are the ladies in your avater going to be present in their attire anywhere close??? :chuckle: :chuckle:No but I was wishing for a birthday wish yesterday :chuckle: :chuckle: :yeah:
Post by: bowelkin on September 17, 2011, 11:56:12 AM
Post by: HuntandFish on September 17, 2011, 12:10:27 PM
Good times :IBCOOL:
H&F
Post by: elksnout on September 17, 2011, 08:53:15 PM
To answer a couple of the questions directed back at me....
Both elk ran 80-100 yards. No tracking blood. Bullets stopped on inside of hide on the off side. 180gr Remington.
My issue was the lack of pass through at close range. I firmly believe of an entry and exit hole. So my question was really about this.....is there a better suited 30-06 bullet than my current set up?
Post by: addicted on September 17, 2011, 08:57:38 PM
wheater it passes through or not, whether or not all the energy is left in the animal, it all comes down to one question on whether or not your going to kill that animal in a timely enough manner to find it......
Did you take out the heart and lungs?
Post by: bobcat on September 17, 2011, 09:01:29 PM
Post by: elksnout on September 17, 2011, 09:09:55 PM
Thank you Bobcat for your sincere advise. And with that I will lay this post to rest and spin a few down my barrel to see how they group.
Thank you all and happy and safe hunting this fall.
Elksnout :)
Post by: hub on September 17, 2011, 10:32:38 PM
Wow! Four pages! I've learned more in a few days than in the last 30 years about bullets.....YES there is a 180 grain bullet better suited for close in elk. The world famous and time tested nosler partition. 180,s and 200,s are available in factory loaded ammo. Pass thru penetration is a common occurance with the heavier partitions at close range.
To answer a couple of the questions directed back at me....
Both elk ran 80-100 yards. No tracking blood. Bullets stopped on inside of hide on the off side. 180gr Remington.
My issue was the lack of pass through at close range. I firmly believe of an entry and exit hole. So my question was really about this.....is there a better suited 30-06 bullet than my current set up?
Post by: Rick on September 18, 2011, 07:17:31 PM
I really have to wonder about some of the guys I'm sharing the woods with each fall. :chuckle:
Post by: Sea3006 on September 18, 2011, 09:55:10 PM
http://www.bvac-ammo.com/BV30-06-9N.pdf (http://www.bvac-ammo.com/BV30-06-9N.pdf)
Post by: wreckerman5357 on September 22, 2011, 09:48:15 PM
Post by: Rooster1981 on September 23, 2011, 07:50:14 AM
Well I would have to say core locks are junk in my opinion, first reason in 2001 I shot a bull a 60 yards with a 30-06 shooting corelocks and the bullet stopped on the first rib never penitrated. Second in that same box was a 280. rem round mixed in with the 30-06 ammo. I still have that 280 as a reminder to never buy factory ammo again.
I usally reload and have done so since I was twelve. The absolutly best round I can make is a Horinody 165grn sst or btsp with 55grn of 4007sc. I would choose the 165 over the 180 any day to get that extra 100 yards of range. So my field test on my new round resulted in one dead elk at over 200yards the entry hole was the size of a golf ball, the exit hole was bigger than a baseball. That was with the new 165grn sst and the new 4007sc.
For many years I used Hornody 165grn btsp with 57 grns of imr 4831 and that round is a show stopper as well, and I would use it now as an alternitive round any day.
Rooster
Post by: bobcat on September 23, 2011, 07:59:32 AM
Quote
I would choose the 165 over the 180 any day to get that extra 100 yards of range.
Nothing wrong with 165's but where do you get the idea that they give you 100 yards more range? There's no difference in how far you can shoot with a 165 versus a 180. The 180 grain might drop a couple inches more at 400 yards, but they will both kill a deer or an elk just the same, if shot placement is good. The heavier bullets actually have an advantage because of the higher ballistic coefficient- they drift less in the wind.
Post by: Miles on September 23, 2011, 08:02:16 AM
QuoteI would choose the 165 over the 180 any day to get that extra 100 yards of range.
There's no difference in how far you can shoot with a 165 versus a 180.
Source?
Post by: bobcat on September 23, 2011, 08:03:38 AM
QuoteI would choose the 165 over the 180 any day to get that extra 100 yards of range.
There's no difference in how far you can shoot with a 165 versus a 180.
Source?
My brain and common sense. Do you have an opinion or only questions?
Post by: Miles on September 23, 2011, 08:05:54 AM
QuoteI would choose the 165 over the 180 any day to get that extra 100 yards of range.
There's no difference in how far you can shoot with a 165 versus a 180.
Source?
My brain and common sense. Do you have an opinion or only questions?
Thought so.
Are we not allowed to ask questions?
Post by: 300UltraMagShooter on September 23, 2011, 08:54:16 AM
This kind of explains the way I feel about the whole energy transfer theory:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs3.htm (http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs3.htm)
that's silly. no one ever suggested that it was literally the kenetic energy force that killed quickly. it is the kinetic energy that goes into the organs in such a way to cause them to turn to mush. while speed is more important than mass, a smaller bullet will lose it's energy much more quickly, sometimes not penetrating enough before it destroys enough critical tissue.
the best of both worlds is a big bullet going fast. you can't go wrong. a small bullet has more of a chance to turning itself into mush before reaching vitals.
:twocents:
perhaps larger isn't exactly true. a hard bullet, which resists mushrooming, can help with penetration, however, less mushrooming equals less energy going into tissue... therefore, less tissue damage.
Post by: Bofire on September 23, 2011, 09:23:56 AM
:chuckle:
Carl
Post by: elksnout on September 24, 2011, 08:07:08 PM
Post by: hub on September 24, 2011, 10:37:46 PM
Post by: elksnout on September 25, 2011, 09:55:25 AM
Federal has a product warning out on 243 ammo according to there websight. I would call Monday morning with your lot number and have a rather serious dicussion with those raskells. Apparently they used the wrong propellant in some of there 243 ammo causing very high pressure. Difficult bot lift is a sign of high pressure. If you have any left I would not shoot it. :yike: :yike: :yike:
I'd say the bolt lift was difficult to say the least. Thanks for the safety tip. I'll be calling them.
Elksnout
Post by: Bofire on September 26, 2011, 08:21:58 AM
Post by: Rooster1981 on September 26, 2011, 07:18:18 PM
QuoteI would choose the 165 over the 180 any day to get that extra 100 yards of range.
There's no difference in how far you can shoot with a 165 versus a 180.
Source?
My brain and common sense. Do you have an opinion or only questions?
Well For me I field test ammo instead of assume that my brain and common sense over rule science. At 400 yards my 165.grn drops 18-22'' A 180grn drops 22-26" so yes the drop doesnt seem that much differant but for me a variable of 8" at that range is out of my comfort range. if I were to go out to 500 yards the drop is out of sight at over 45'' I dont field test that far but I have tested at 400 yards and I believe the 165. gives me better flight with staggering penitration.
Post by: bobcat on September 26, 2011, 08:29:51 PM
Just for an example, here are the ballistics for the 165 grain Nosler Partition versus the 180 grain Nosler Partition:
Post by: Rooster1981 on September 27, 2011, 02:32:06 PM
Thats great that nosler puts out there own balistics, like I said I do my own research and I also use the data from Hornady which is the ammo I use. But It really depends on the type of powder, how much powder, how much gas escape from the chamber, and the brand of rifle you shoot all falls into the ballistics. Any one can copy and paste info from the web, I use the data I have optained and try to share it with others. JMO :tup:
Post by: bobcat on September 27, 2011, 02:40:58 PM
What one can do at 500 yards, so can the other.
Post by: O_mykiss on September 28, 2011, 07:52:00 AM
If you want a pass-through, go to a stouter bullet like the accubond or one of the mono-metal bullets, otherwise, I see nothing wrong with the bullet mushrooming and resting underneath the far side hide. It did it's job.
Rifles aren't death-rays like we want them to be and never will be.
Post by: hub on September 28, 2011, 01:45:57 PM
Post by: dscubame on September 28, 2011, 02:01:08 PM
It's actually not Nosler's data, but Federal. It really doesn't matter if you load your own, or use a different bullet. The value in the data I posted is that it's the same bullet, just one is 165 and one is 180 grains. So with everything else being equal, you can see what the difference is between the 165 and 180 grain bullets out of a 30-06. And, it's pretty obvious, the difference is very slight, and not enough to matter in the real world.
What one can do at 500 yards, so can the other.
I came to the same conclusion a few years ago so I now shoot the 165 out of my rem 700 because it shoots the 165 far better than the 180. Use to switch depending on deer or elk now it is the same for both and I am much more consistant. I would have just as willingly gone exclusively to the 180 if that is what my gun chose but it chose the 165 instead.
Post by: 338_Thumper on September 28, 2011, 03:01:02 PM
Now I have also used the 165 Nosler Ballistic Tips and get the same groups without adjusting my scope at all. I wouldn't use them on Elk though because they kinda blow up on inpact - They do spoil some meat on deer because of the blowing up part - Now for long range shooting they are great like over 250 yards because they loose some velocity and open up great without any meat spoilage.
Post by: Rooster1981 on September 28, 2011, 03:04:02 PM
Energy doesn't kill elk. Damaged lungs, heart and blood loss do. A 180 gr bullet from an '06 is going to have virtually the same velocity(energy) regardless of bullet construction at all reasonable distances. It's all about what the bullet does inside of the animal. A hole through both lungs will kill nearly as quickly as turning them both to jelly. 5000 ft/lbs of energy won't do you any good if you hit an elk in the guts.
If you want a pass-through, go to a stouter bullet like the accubond or one of the mono-metal bullets, otherwise, I see nothing wrong with the bullet mushrooming and resting underneath the far side hide. It did it's job.
Rifles aren't death-rays like we want them to be and never will be.
I agree completly, Choosing the slug is very important. When I was shooting BTSP rounds I almost always retreived the slug in the far side of the hide. I have been experimenting with SST rounds and they seem to mushroom better but I am passing through with huge exit wounds. The last elk I shot with sst rounds died within 25 yards of impact of the shot, I was very pleased.