bullet weights and diameter

[Guest]

Seems to me that any North American big game can be taken with many different bullet weights and or diameter.

I was reading my Speer Load manual, and it said the 150 grain Grand Slam will take all but brown Bear or Grizzly.

I have a 270 Winchester and was wondering about Jack O'Conner with his 270 and the 130 grain bullet. Sources say that he used the 130 to take
all of his Game. Why are people so bent on a certain bullet weight for certain critters. A bullet in the vitals does it, doesn't it? Heart and lungs can be upset with a 130 grainer. I also read that black bear are considered medium game like whitetail deer. They both have that hollow
spot behind the front leg where the heart is. And if ya nail the lung area
behind the shoulder up higher you can drop one too, maybe not as DRT
but not far from the shot, 50 yards?

My point is this... Is debate over pill diameter and weight that critical?

 

[jmad_81]

Its not the size that matters, its how you use it...but better to have a big one and not need it than need a bigger one and not have it.

 

[DrMike]

Is debate over pill diameter and weight that critical?

Yes.

 

[FOTIS]

My point is this... Is debate over pill diameter and weight that critical?

Yes because it gives us something to talk about here and something to argue around the campfire. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Richracer1]

My .02 worth is I choose a bullet for the rifle/caliber I'm loading for. For instance, my 30-06 I tried 165AB, but no go so went to 180AB & ET. My 300RUM, I went with the 200AB just cause I didn't see any sense of using 150 or 165gn bullets in that gun. Also, my 338WM - 225AB, 338RUM - 250AB & 200ET, 7RUM 150ET & 160AB.
Does my thinking make any sense????

 

[Guest]

No.

 

[SJB358]

Rich, I am with you. I kinda think the same way. I like the heavier weights available for each caliber I have. Sometimes, I use lighter, but I figure 225s at least for the 338, 160s for the 7mm's Mags, and so on. I load lighter 150gr for my wifes 308, only for recoil though. Don't really involve too much in what works and what doesn't. The old timers killed elk with 250 Savages with utmost reliability, they waited for proper shots and placed their bullets. A bad shot with a 338 is still bad, you might get away with it sometimes, but markmanship is where most modern hunter lack, not in their weapon of choice. Scotty

 

[Richracer1]

Well I try it this way, why shoot a 150 or 165gn bullet from a 300RUM??? All they will do is eat your barrel up. with quickness The large 30cal magnum rifles, IMO, are for large for caliber bullets. Also, I start with TRUE hunting bullets, not bullets made for paper punching. This is what I meant by selecting a bullet for the caliber.

 

[SJB358]

I think of it this way, why shoot a 200 grain bullet in a 338, when a 300 Mag handles 200's really well and they are usually better shaped for BC and SD. Same with all the others. I like to load and shoot everything, but I try to match it with the rifles I own. Scotty

 

[Guest]

Rich, I am with you. I kinda think the same way. I like the heavier weights available for each caliber I have. Sometimes, I use lighter, but I figure 225s at least for the 338, 160s for the 7mm's Mags, and so on. I load lighter 150gr for my wifes 308, only for recoil though. Don't really involve too much in what works and what doesn't. The old timers killed elk with 250 Savages with utmost reliability, they waited for proper shots and placed their bullets. A bad shot with a 338 is still bad, you might get away with it sometimes, but markmanship is where most modern hunter lack, not in their weapon of choice. Scotty

Now that makes sense.

 

[FOTIS]

No.

What would, and why?

 

[JD338]

There is no replacement for displacement.
The bigger the diameter, the heavier weight bullet you can use. The heavier bullet at a higher velocity will ensure you reach the vitals from a hard angle and/or through heavy bone.
The smaller lighter bullets may be able to do this, the larger heavier bullets will do this. The advantage of the magnums is to launch a heavier bullet faster and flatter for longer range.

JD338

 

[Desert Fox]

Another Elmer Keith and Jack O'Connor debate? :wink:

 

[Lou270]

Another Elmer Keith and Jack O'Connor debate? :wink:

Interestingly, O'Connor and Keith were not all that different on caliber capability. What O'Connor & Keith really differed on was caliber recommendations. Let's take one of Keith's most hated, the .270 Winchester on Elk. In one of Elmer's early books he said the .270 killed Elk like lightning with broadside shots, but was no good for raking shots because you can't count on high velocity bullets to penetrate the rump of large game. Elmer even said that you couldn't count on anything except the big sharps to penetrate to the vitals on raking shots, but had a better chance of breaking the animal down for a follow up with large, heavy bullets. O'Connor said the .270 (and ilk) was fine for broadside shots on Elk, but didn't think anything (at the time) except solids were good for raking shots on Elk because you can't count on penetration to the vitals. Sounds, the same doesn't it? From recommendation stanpoint, Elmer's take on this was use a big caliber because it gave you the best chance on raking shots whether you reach the vitals or not, O'Connor's take was nothing is good for raking shots on Elk so just wait for a better angle.

Lou

 

[Guest]

Another Elmer Keith and Jack O'Connor debate? :wink:

Interestingly, O'Connor and Keith were not all that different on caliber capability. What O'Connor & Keith really differed on was caliber recommendations. Let's take one of Keith's most hated, the .270 Winchester on Elk. In one of Elmer's early books he said the .270 killed Elk like lightning with broadside shots, but was no good for raking shots because you can't count on high velocity bullets to penetrate the rump of large game. Elmer even said that you couldn't count on anything except the big sharps to penetrate to the vitals on raking shots, but had a better chance of breaking the animal down for a follow up with large, heavy bullets. O'Connor said the .270 (and ilk) was fine for broadside shots on Elk, but didn't think anything (at the time) except solids were good for raking shots on Elk because you can't count on penetration to the vitals. Sounds, the same doesn't it? From recommendation stanpoint, Elmer's take on this was use a big caliber because it gave you the best chance on raking shots whether you reach the vitals or not, O'Connor's take was nothing is good for raking shots on Elk so just wait for a better angle.

Lou

wait for better angle, yes. I wouldn't want to waste meat to down an animal.

So Kieth would want to trash a good roast, along with whatever else along the bullets travel would destroy... it's like a 600 yard shot with his 44 mag??! Non sense. My fathers cousin shot a Ram up it's butt and came out its eye. I was just a kid and not into hunting yet, so I didn't ask him what meat was tossed as a result.

 

[Guest]

There is no replacement for displacement.
The bigger the diameter, the heavier weight bullet you can use.


The heavier bullet at a "higher velocity" will ensure you reach the vitals from a hard angle and/or through heavy bone.



The smaller lighter bullets may be able to do this, the larger heavier bullets will do this. The advantage of the magnums is to launch a heavier bullet faster and flatter for longer range.

JD338

JD.... your statement above kinda contradicts your signature.

As I go through my load books I see heavier bullet lack the velocity of lighter bullets with the apprpriate powder, such as non temp. sensitive powders. And ballistically mags are marginal in performance according
to my load books. I suspect that a well constructed bullet will hold up
to bone to reach the vitals such as the almighty Partition, or AccuBond?

I was really impressed with the trophy bonded bear claw. But as I see it's offered in 150 grain, a heavier bullet, which supports your theory.

I guess I would want to get through a shoulder at an angle to reach vitals
for the kill on a deer but a bear?..., so Kieths theory is justified and yours for deer or elk. Elk and larger critters have more meat up front then deer.

 

[Guy Miner]

Longranger - good topic - and one near and dear to all us rifle/load nuts out here... :grin:

"My point is this... Is debate over pill diameter and weight that critical?"

At least for deer, in normal hunting ranges (whatever those are) I don't think it's very critical at all. The loose-knit group of guys I've hunted deer with for years use a wide variety of rifles on the mulies, at a variety of ranges. I can't say that the bigger, badder cartridges have killed any faster or more dramatically than the smaller cartridges... The little 95 grain bullet from my son's 6mm Rem drops deer just as effectively as the 405 gr bullet I used from a .45/70, or the 200 gr bullet from a .350 Rem mag or whatever we fling at the bucks.

Shot placement trumps all.

That said, I think some benefits are offered by various bullets and cartridges, depending on the task intended. Some are better on big tough game. Some are better up close, some do better at longer ranges. Some cartridges offer far longer barrel life. Some are much easier to shoot.

I think it all gets down to what you want to do, and your personal preferences. I've stated before, that looking back on it, I could have done almost all of my hunting with the good old .30-06 I was introduced to as a kid in the 1960's.

It sure has been fun playing with all the different bullets and cartridges though, and I've learned a lot over the years.

Regards, Guy

 

[DrMike]

A 22-250 will certainly kill a grizzly bear, but I prefer a bullet with a larger frontal area and more mass. A 243 will kill an elk, but I believe it wise to use a cartridge that uses a bullet with more frontal area and mass. Not every shot presented in the field ideal; I prefer sufficient mass to reach the vitals and quickly dispatch game. The quarry deserves more respect than for us to use the minimum cartridge we think we can get away with. I am concerned that the shooting sports fraternity will ultimately receive a black eye from the tendency to use the least bullet possible for the sake of bragging.

 

[Guy Miner]

Dr. Mike - I understand.

My comments were about deer hunting, at "normal" ranges - which around here is out to about 300 yards.

When we start talking about specialized stuff like grizzly, or extended ranges, or varmint hunting or .... then a strong case can be made for more specialized guns, cartridges and bullets.

I've never hunted grizzly, but if I had to pick a rifle from my safe right now for a grizzly hunt, it would be the biggest, most powerful rifle I own and I'd want it loaded with heavy Nosler Partitions. Am thinking my .375 with 300 grainers should work, although it is only a single shot rifle. Or last year my .45/70 would have done it, at least at modest ranges. Yet every year grizz and Alaskan brown bear are taken with modest-recoiling .30 cal rifles. At least one noted Alaskan bear guide recommends the .30-06 and good bullets.

Elk are debatable. Some guys seem to think the elk are armor plated and a huge cannon is necessary, Others just use their standard deer rifle and do just fine. Elk are big and tough, but I don't see much need for a cannon on them.

Long range hunting? I want something that shoots a very high BC bullet, at good velocity, with wonderful accuracy. I want all the retained downrange velocity I can get, minimal wind drift and a relatively flat trajectory.

Varmints? Give me a low-recoil cartridge I can shoot all day. Something inexpensive to shoot and highly accurate too. Mine happens to be a .204 Ruger, but I'd be happy with a .223 or a .22-250 or one of the good 6mm varmint rounds too.

Yeah, I like different cartridges and bullets for different chores. Sometimes though I get real amused by the big arguments guys get in about if the 7mm is really better than the .270 or worse than the .30 cal or if the 165 gr bullet provides an advantage over the 180 or the 150 or blah, blah, blah... For most of what we do as hunters, it really doesn't matter nearly as much as being able to shoot the danged rifle well... :grin:

I'd a lot rather spend a thousand dollars on ammo and get good with that rifle than spend a thousand dollars on yet another rifle in the safe...

Regards, Guy

 

[Guest]

A 22-250 will certainly kill a grizzly bear, but I prefer a bullet with a larger frontal area and more mass. A 243 will kill an elk, but I believe it wise to use a cartridge that uses a bullet with more frontal area and mass. Not every shot presented in the field ideal; I prefer sufficient mass to reach the vitals and quickly dispatch game. The quarry deserves more respect than for us to use the minimum cartridge we think we can get away with. I am concerned that the shooting sports fraternity will ultimately receive a black eye from the tendency to use the least bullet possible for the sake of bragging.

I like these responses..... and learning alot... thanks abunch.

I talked with a guy who went hunting with a friend of his who shot a black bear with a .243 speer 105 grain round nose bullet and couldn't believe the damage it did. I would suppose it was a perfect shot.

So a RN has that "frontal" area but not nessesary the mass. But a test I did with a Sierra .243 100 grain SP left a nice wound channel on wet telephone books but petered out relatively fast. SO this bullet didn't have the frontal or mass, nor energy you're speaking of. And again a perfect shot would be needed here also.

I tested 5 different bullets at 150 yards on wet telephone books. Winchester PP, Hornady IL, Speer HC, Sierra SP, Nosler PT. NOSLER
held the highest weight retention, Winchester had the best frontal area of
lead next to Hornady, Sierra as I stated before hand had the best controlled expansion but lost it's tenasity, the weight retentions were all
60 percent, The NOSLER was 85% if my memory serves me right. I was impressed the most with Nosler and Speer, Speer more so than Nosler coz
of the bigger mushroom. The hot cor process is original and still done today. I guess I should try some .277 to see the outcome of this too.

You all think 6.5mm or better for big game beyond deer?