Ballistics 243 105 amax, 25-06 117 sst

clearwater

Handloader
Feb 5, 2005
416
159
Went to some work to put data together only to find the thread locked.

Here is a ballistic comparison using Hornady's high velocity for each from their manual.
zeroed at 250 yards.

---
243 105 amax 3000 fps from Hornady Manual Sectional Density 0.254

Muzzle -1.5 Infinity 3000 2098 45.00 0.000 0.0 NaN 447
25 -0.1 2 2952 2032 44.28 0.025 0.0 1 425
50 1.0 -8 2905 1967 43.57 0.051 0.1 1 405
75 1.9 -10 2858 1904 42.87 0.077 0.3 2 386
100 2.5 -9 2811 1843 42.17 0.103 0.6 2 367
125 2.8 -9 2765 1783 41.48 0.130 0.9 3 350
150 2.9 -7 2720 1725 40.80 0.158 1.3 3 333
175 2.6 -6 2675 1668 40.13 0.185 1.8 4 317
200 2.1 -4 2631 1613 39.46 0.214 2.4 5 301
225 1.2 -2 2587 1560 38.80 0.242 3.1 5 286
250 0.0 0 2543 1508 38.15 0.272 3.8 6 272
275 -1.5 2 2500 1457 37.50 0.301 4.7 6 258
300 -3.4 4 2457 1408 36.86 0.332 5.6 7 245
325 -5.6 7 2415 1360 36.23 0.363 6.6 8 233
350 -8.2 9 2374 1313 35.60 0.394 7.7 8 221
375 -11.2 11 2332 1268 34.98 0.426 8.9 9 210
400 -14.6 14 2291 1224 34.37 0.458 10.2 10 199
425 -18.4 17 2251 1181 33.77 0.491 11.7 10 189
450 -22.7 19 2211 1140 33.17 0.525 13.2 11 179
475 -27.3 22 2171 1099 32.57 0.559 14.8 12 169
500 -32.5 25 2132 1060 31.98 0.594 16.5 13 160

25-06 117 sst 3100 fps from Hornady Manual Sectional Density 0.253

Muzzle -1.5 Infinity 3100 2496 51.81 0.000 0.0 NaN 612
25 -0.2 2 3037 2396 50.77 0.024 0.0 1 575
50 0.9 -7 2975 2300 49.73 0.049 0.2 1 541
75 1.8 -9 2914 2206 48.71 0.075 0.4 2 508
100 2.4 -9 2854 2116 47.70 0.101 0.7 3 477
125 2.7 -8 2795 2029 46.71 0.127 1.1 3 448
150 2.8 -7 2736 1945 45.73 0.155 1.7 4 421
175 2.6 -6 2678 1864 44.77 0.182 2.3 5 395
200 2.0 -4 2621 1785 43.82 0.211 3.0 6 370
225 1.2 -2 2565 1710 42.88 0.240 3.8 7 347
250 0.0 0 2510 1636 41.95 0.269 4.8 7 325
275 -1.5 2 2455 1566 41.04 0.299 5.8 8 304
300 -3.4 4 2401 1498 40.14 0.330 7.0 9 284
325 -5.7 7 2348 1432 39.25 0.362 8.3 10 266
350 -8.3 9 2296 1369 38.37 0.394 9.8 11 248
375 -11.4 12 2244 1308 37.51 0.427 11.3 12 232
400 -14.9 14 2193 1249 36.65 0.461 13.0 12 216
425 -18.9 17 2142 1192 35.80 0.496 14.8 13 202
450 -23.3 20 2092 1137 34.97 0.531 16.8 14 188
475 -28.2 23 2043 1084 34.14 0.567 19.0 15 175
500 -33.7 26 1994 1033 33.33 0.605 21.2 16 163


yds Path
in ComeUp
clicks Velocity
fps Energy
ft/lbs Momentum
lb ft/s ToF
sec Windage
in Windage
clicks Optimal
Game Wgt
 
Leaving aside the minefield that is bullet construction..

Who'd notice the difference? I sometimes think we reloaders love to pile into the minutia in a degree that will never matter in any material way in the field. :)
 
A buddy and I have loaded up the 117's for his teenage daughter's .25-06, and they've worked real well on mule deer. I think she took a whitetail with one a year or two ago as well.

FWIW, Guy
 
I have used the 117 sst only on targets, but they were as accurate as any other bullet I have tried in that
gun.

Seeing a 1 inch difference in drop at 500 yards tells me there is no real difference at that range.
At 500 yards .2 MOA cannot be noticed outside of the most extreme forms of target shooting.

Same sectional density too.

Looking at greater ranges may yield some greater differences.
How much coffee I had the morning of the shoot will have a greater influence on bullet performance.
 
The only difference is on the shooter's end.... by way of about 30% more recoil for the 115/117.... based on my experience.

Sectional Density means nothing in expanding bullets..... correction: less than nothing. Also, note the significant advantage in wind for the .105..... to the tune of about 30% more drift for the 117.

30% more recoil.... 30% more drift.....+0% terminally at 500..... Talk about a lose/lose....
 
Songdog":11tknxfc said:
The only difference is on the shooter's end.... by way of about 30% more recoil for the 115/117.... based on my experience.

Sectional Density means nothing in expanding bullets..... correction: less than nothing.

Really????? Put a SD of .150 into the knuckle, and then see what one with .100 SD more, and then one .150 more of the same construction design, and tell me that is true!!!
There's an adage that states,,,,"energy expands the bullet, but it's the penetration that kills"


Also, note the significant advantage in wind for the .105..... to the tune of about 30% more drift for the 117.

30% more recoil.... 30% more drift.....+0% terminally at 500.....

The recoil in these small bore's really is a non-issue. I would venture a bet, that 99% of the users of a .243, can handle .25-06.
More drift certainly makes it a bit tougher. But for one that know his or her rifle and load, I don't consider that a major factor.


Talk about a lose/lose....
 
onesonek":3je7km4m said:
Songdog":3je7km4m said:
The only difference is on the shooter's end.... by way of about 30% more recoil for the 115/117.... based on my experience.

Sectional Density means nothing in expanding bullets..... correction: less than nothing.

Really????? Put a SD of .150 into the knuckle, and then see what one with .100 SD more, and then one .150 more of the same construction design, and tell me that is true!!!
There's an adage that states,,,,"energy expands the bullet, but it's the penetration that kills"


Also, note the significant advantage in wind for the .105..... to the tune of about 30% more drift for the 117.

30% more recoil.... 30% more drift.....+0% terminally at 500.....

The recoil in these small bore's really is a non-issue. I would venture a bet, that 99% of the users of a .243, can handle .25-06.
More drift certainly makes it a bit tougher. But for one that know his or her rifle and load, I don't consider that a major factor.


Talk about a lose/lose....

Sectional Density was derived to predict/contrast penetration with SOLID projectiles.... it means nothing in expanding bullets. 3 different bullets of the same SD... will all have different SDs as soon as they start to expand. But, you keep perpetuating wive's tails from your couch...... I'll keep shooting.

There's another old adage: Shoot more, type less.......


30% more recoil will always be 30% more..... no matter what brush you paint It with. Why would you want more recoil/noise/powder/drift...... to gain absolutely nothing?
 
Songdog":2z473uf8 said:
onesonek":2z473uf8 said:
Songdog":2z473uf8 said:
The only difference is on the shooter's end.... by way of about 30% more recoil for the 115/117.... based on my experience.

Sectional Density means nothing in expanding bullets..... correction: less than nothing.

Really????? Put a SD of .150 into the knuckle, and then see what one with .100 SD more, and then one .150 more of the same construction design, and tell me that is true!!!
There's an adage that states,,,,"energy expands the bullet, but it's the penetration that kills"


Also, note the significant advantage in wind for the .105..... to the tune of about 30% more drift for the 117.

30% more recoil.... 30% more drift.....+0% terminally at 500.....

The recoil in these small bore's really is a non-issue. I would venture a bet, that 99% of the users of a .243, can handle .25-06.
More drift certainly makes it a bit tougher. But for one that know his or her rifle and load, I don't consider that a major factor.


Talk about a lose/lose....

Sectional Density was derived to predict/contrast penetration with SOLID projectiles.... it means nothing in expanding bullets.

Where did you come up with that reference? Even if it were true, terminal SD still is a factor in expanding bullet's.


3 different bullets of the same SD... will all have different SDs as soon as they start to expand.
Very true, terminal SD is dependant on final frontal dia., and retained weight. But that wasn't tour initial point!

But, you keep perpetuating wive's tails from your couch......

More assumption's,,,,,, it's hardly a wive's tail.

I'll keep shooting.

You're forgeting I have some 20 yrs. more experience than you. In both shooting,,,,,and hunting!


There's another old adage: Shoot more, type less.......
:lol:
My avg. is one more post per yr, than you,,,but then again, I don't consider that a big deal either!


30% more recoil will always be 30% more..... no matter what brush you paint It with. Why would you want more recoil/noise/powder/drift...... to gain absolutely nothing?

Larger frontal area when all else is equal will have the advantage. With your philosophy, the .243 is adequate for every thing! Otherwise, why is it we have so many caliber's to choose from?
 
Songdog":3ev1hltf said:
onesonek":3ev1hltf said:
Songdog":3ev1hltf said:
The only difference is on the shooter's end.... by way of about 30% more recoil for the 115/117.... based on my experience.

Sectional Density means nothing in expanding bullets..... correction: less than nothing.

Really????? Put a SD of .150 into the knuckle, and then see what one with .100 SD more, and then one .150 more of the same construction design, and tell me that is true!!!
There's an adage that states,,,,"energy expands the bullet, but it's the penetration that kills"


Also, note the significant advantage in wind for the .105..... to the tune of about 30% more drift for the 117.

30% more recoil.... 30% more drift.....+0% terminally at 500.....

The recoil in these small bore's really is a non-issue. I would venture a bet, that 99% of the users of a .243, can handle .25-06.
More drift certainly makes it a bit tougher. But for one that know his or her rifle and load, I don't consider that a major factor.


Talk about a lose/lose....

Sectional Density was derived to predict/contrast penetration with SOLID projectiles.... it means nothing in expanding bullets. 3 different bullets of the same SD... will all have different SDs as soon as they start to expand. But, you keep perpetuating wive's tails from your couch...... I'll keep shooting.

There's another old adage: Shoot more, type less.......


30% more recoil will always be 30% more..... no matter what brush you paint It with. Why would you want more recoil/noise/powder/drift...... to gain absolutely nothing?

...kinda, maybe...

...while the example above has 30% more recoil, doing the math (X/Y, Y/X) the .243 only has 25% less recoil. Your faith in the 105AMax is admirable, my faith in .heavier constructed 120gr. .25's is nothing but pure curmudgeonous. I put about as much "faith" in "personalities" as I do in politicians, since the both tend to have agendas. I tend to go w/ hands-on results, & when it comes around to "More Shooting", I'd venture to guess you have some catching up to do...
 
"my faith in .heavier constructed 120gr. .25's is nothing but pure curmudgeonous".

I'm not so sure that "curmudgeonous" is not pragmatism,,at least that way seems possible to me.



"since the both tend to have agendas."

You're right Gene,,, and I will admit, that mine is to let the newcomer know, that high BC's ain't everything. There are so many other variable's to consider.
 
My intent is to capsize wive's tells and expose those who talk out of their azz.

Obama and Pellosi have 20 more years of political experience than me...... does that make them right? 20 more years of experience doesn't give you anything on me..... except more useless experience.

Once a bullet starts to expand.... the SD is out the window, as it is constantly changing due to increase in frontal area, and decrease in bullet mass. There is no way to predict what an expanding bullet will do.... nor what it's SD will be from inch to inch as it passes through a critter. A solid will have roughly the same SD through it's entire trip..... so that's why it was created and originally used. A 90 grain Barnes (SD .218) will out penetrate the 115 Partition (SD .249) every time (even though the SD and energy are lower). how is that possible? I ain't speculating there..... nor on the use of SD as a reference tool....

25% less..... and 30% more are the same thing here..... just depends on if you're looking for less or more....

My faith in the Amax..... comes from field experience..... more than I can say for the naysayers...... as they've never actual shot one. High BC ain't everything....... it's just better than a Nosler Soup Can. If the bullet works for the job..... I'll take as much BC as I can get.

A higher BC lets you control more of the "variables" than a low BC. Onesonek (and those in the controlled expansion peanut gallery) want's to influence the "variables" AFTER impact. I want to influence them BEFORE impact..... as a "newcomer"..... you decide which you'd rather do. I prefer placing a good bullet in an excellent place..... I recon some put an excellent bullet in a questionable place (then expect the bullet to make up the difference).

.243 is more than adequate for anything I'd (or anyone else would) ever point a sub-7mm rifle at (deer, bears, pronghorn, caribou, coyotes, liberals, whatever). That's the point here, we're not discussing dangerous game rifles..... we're discussing one small pill vs. another..... I ain't sending it to jack a rhino.
 
Here's the numbers (and I'll dumb them down a little):

Both shoot small pills (that's a fact).....

Both can put out about 1k at 600 yards (even though I hate "energy numbers" too).....

They will both kill the schitt out of any deer/pronghorn on the planet for about as far as you can see one.......

The .25-06 has 25% more recoil......

The .25-06 needs 25% more powder.....

The .25-06 has 25% more wind drift at 500 yards..... and it increases from there

The .243 gives up about 15% in mass....

The .243 (105 Amax) gives up (via massive amounts of speculation and no actual field experience) "Bullet Construction".....

I'll take the 25% less drift, and reduction in recoil/powder/noise..... and give up the speculative bullet construction (because I KNOW it's bogus). You can take the warm and fuzzy SD numbers and your Partition.
 
You've all made your points. Everyone now has enough info to make their own choice. Thanks for the data and discussion.
 
CatskillCrawler":3f1xsfdx said:
You've all made your points. Everyone now has enough info to make their own choice. Thanks for the data and discussion.

Well said CatskillCrawler.
Case closed.

JD338
 
Here is a workup using a .257 Berger with .523 BC that is higher than the Amax. Explosive at close range like an Amax. Velocity 3075.

Muzzle -1.5 Infinity 3075 2414 50.52 0.000 0.0 NaN 577
25 -0.2 3 3028 2342 49.75 0.025 0.0 1 551
50 0.9 -7 2982 2271 48.99 0.050 0.1 1 526
75 1.7 -9 2937 2202 48.24 0.075 0.3 2 502
100 2.3 -9 2891 2135 47.50 0.101 0.5 2 480
125 2.6 -8 2847 2069 46.77 0.127 0.9 3 458
150 2.7 -7 2802 2005 46.04 0.153 1.2 3 437
175 2.4 -5 2759 1943 45.32 0.180 1.7 4 416
200 1.9 -4 2715 1882 44.61 0.208 2.2 4 397
225 1.1 -2 2672 1823 43.90 0.236 2.8 5 379
250 0.0 0 2630 1766 43.20 0.264 3.5 5 361
275 -1.4 2 2588 1710 42.51 0.293 4.3 6 344
300 -3.2 4 2546 1655 41.83 0.322 5.1 7 327
325 -5.3 6 2505 1602 41.15 0.352 6.1 7 312
350 -7.7 8 2464 1550 40.48 0.382 7.1 8 297
375 -10.5 11 2424 1500 39.82 0.413 8.2 8 282
400 -13.6 13 2384 1451 39.16 0.444 9.4 9 269
425 -17.2 15 2344 1403 38.51 0.475 10.7 10 256
450 -21.1 18 2305 1357 37.87 0.508 12.1 10 243
475 -25.5 20 2266 1312 37.23 0.541 13.6 11 231
500 -30.2 23 2228 1268 36.60 0.574 15.2 12 219

Looks like we are back to counting dancers on the head of a pin.
Cubic inches versus efficiency.
 
BC of the .257/115 Berger is actually .466..... I used .470 in my ballistics program, and it was very accurate out to 1000 yards.

Terminally, I never saw the 115 do anything explosive, but I only shot about 50-60 critters with them. Took me 60 grains of powder to get to 3100..... takes 42 go get to 3100 with a 105 Amax.
 
Clearwater, if that's the 115 gr .257" Berger VLD, it's been re-calculated at a .466 G1 BC, which is still good, but not as high as originally thought.

I used that bullet for several years from my .25-06 at nearly 3200 fps and took three mule deer with it at 175, 230 and 400 yards. Hold on hair for all of them, and excellent results on target. Instant drops on all three, but one big buck did need another shot to finish him as I'd shot from above and spined him, but hadn't killed him.

All that said, the 115 Berger VLD from a fast-stepping .257" rifle is pretty impressive. I need to see if they'll stabilize and shoot well from my son's .257 Weatherby.

Regards, Guy
 
Songdog":2qcf474v said:
My intent is to capsize wive's tells and expose those who talk out of their azz.

20 more years of experience doesn't give you anything on me..... except more useless experience.

Once a bullet starts to expand.... the SD is out the window, as it is constantly changing due to increase in frontal area, and decrease in bullet mass. There is no way to predict what an expanding bullet will do.... nor what it's SD will be from inch to inch as it passes through a critter.

My faith in the Amax..... comes from field experience..... more than I can say for the naysayers...... High BC ain't everything....... it's just better than a Nosler soup can.
Onesonek (and those in the controlled expansion peanut gallery)

Songdog -
I am highlighting some of your "quips" from an earlier post. There are virtues to a high BC bullet, we all recoginze that. What isn't appreciated by the majority of those on this forum is someone who doesn't care to listen to what others say and make comments such as those quoted above to make their point. You obviously have a bit to learn in the;" winning friends and influencing enemies" category.

Some of the forum members hunt in thick woods where a long shot is going to be 75 yards; do they use a high BC bullet or does a stout heavy Partition/ bonded bullet that gives them the best chance on a deer that they will see between trees for a couple seconds? There may be brush the bullet has to pass through before it gets to the animal. Does your Amax still make the most sense?

One of the wonderful things for hunters and shooters over the last 30 plus years I have been reloading is the evolution of bullet design. This has happened through a better understanding of applied ballistics and terminal results on game animals. Some of us may even remember when an idea like the Hornady interlock design to slow down expansion was innovative!

I have more faith in a high BC bullet for shooting targets (paper) and varmints than a bonded/Partition lower BC bullet. If we are talking about terminal results on a big game animal, my choice will always be one that gives me two holes whenever possible.

If your intention is just to come on here and "stir the pot"...go troll somewhere else.
 
257 Ackley":214401su said:
Some of the forum members hunt in thick woods where a long shot is going to be 75 yards; do they use a high BC bullet or does a stout heavy Partition/ bonded bullet that gives them the best chance on a deer that they will see between trees for a couple seconds? There may be brush the bullet has to pass through before it gets to the animal. Does your Amax still make the most sense?

If your intention is just to come on here and "stir the pot"...go troll somewhere else.

If you are shooting "through brush"..... you shouldn't be shooting.

If you are snap shooting at deer "between the trees for a couple seconds"... you shouldn't be shooting.

If you cannot, with absolute certainty, place a bullet through the clockwork..... you shouldn't be shooting.

Sorry man..... but that's how I see it. And, I find it incredibly ironic.... that in order to protect the "newbie", and promote that great "just in case" attitude.... we've now gone to advocating shooting at stuff through brush, snap shooting at deer, and generally depending on a bullet to make up the difference.... all in order to discredit a bullet that has already earned accolades afield. Awesome!
 
Back
Top