Bullet weights...getting lighter?

[Anonymous]

Historically I've been a heavy for caliber fan- 180 and up in the .30s, 250s in the .338 and 300s in the .375. Up until now I would have left no room for argument on that position and with few exceptions I've not been dissapointed in those choices.

But lately I'm experimenting with lighter bullets- particularly the newer bonded bullets like the Accubonds and the monolithics the Etips, TSXs etc. and I'm wondering if bullet weight isn't quite as critical as it once was to get good penetration and bullet performance.

Earlier this season I took a friend for his first caribou and he shot him with a .300 Ultra loaded with 150gr Scirroco IIs... that cartridge flings bullets about as fast (3500fps) as any big game rifle on the planet and I frankly expected a total bullet failure and horrendous meat damage.

To my surprise that tough little bullet not only held together, the meat damage wasn't what I expected either (admittedly I expected hand grenade type exit wounds) but it was really no worse than what I get with 180s in my .300WSM. The 150s in that rifle shoot fast, flat and (at least in this case) dropped the critter like a lightning bolt.

So I guess the question is has anyone made the move to lighter for caliber projectiles taking advantage of our vastly improved bullet technology? I understand weights in the monolithic bullets are lower due to the density of copper/gilding metal but what about a more conventional "bonded" bullet at speeds above 3000fps?

Might have to try shooting something with 150 ABs in my .300WSM...

 

[DrMike]

Tough bullets permit higher velocities. What we are witnessing is an emphasis on energy. Higher mass at lower velocities produce the same energy as lighter bullets at higher velocities. There will likely be a continuing argument as to whether one set of circumstances or another produce quicker and cleaner kills. The truth is, that a bullet through the vitals will kill, and the newer designs permit confidence that even at higher velocities the bullet will penetrate and kill. It goes against everything some of us old-timers thought, but it does work.

 

[SJB358]

This is a great topic. I'm not as old as some, but growing up in the eastern deer woods inwas taught to run heavy for calibers at a modest clip. It kinda stuck with mr for alot of my shooting from then on. I still kind of run heavy for caliber. I love the 250's in the Whelen, 250's in the 338 and then 200's in the 30 calibers and 160-175's in the 7mm's. Oh and 140's in the 6.5's. Not sure why, but I seem to do really well with those bullets between 2600-3100 in the accuracy department. They hold energy well and just shoot nicely for me. I have wanted to go light in a few cartridges like the 338. I have some 180gr BTs loaded that I would like to shoot. Figure if they shot well, I would give the 180gr AB a try. I can't see them not performing and penetrating well. Same for the 300WSM when I get one. I would like to give some 165's a try. Just for kicks. I think it would do well but I just haven't brought myself around to lightening up just yet. I will, but it takes awhile to teach older dogs sometimes. Scotty

 

[jmad_81]

This topic keeps me up at night! Many hours have been spent looking over ballistic charts comparing bullet weights and fps.

For me, I use mid weight bonded bullets as fast as i can accurately push them. I find that this gives me a flat trajectory along with enough energy to get the job done. Bonded bullets retain enough weight to act like a heavier cup and core bullet when it comes time to poke through something. It is really interesting to see how a high bc bonded AB compares to a heavy traditional bullet at 400 plus yards. I don't think a guy sees much of an advantage one way or the other under 400 yards. Maybe 5 inches in drop at the most but that is not a problem if you know the range and your rifle.

 

[FOTIS]

In the old days that could have been supported. Today you can bust a bull elk through both shoulders with a 277 110 gr TSX doing 3500 fps with no issues.

 

[jmad_81]

In the old days that could have been supported. Today you can bust a bull elk through both shoulders with a 277 110 gr TSX doing 3500 fps with no issues.

I would be lying if I told you I have never thought about a .277 85gr et out of a 270 wsm at 3700-3800 for a layzer deer rifle. :twisted:

 

[FOTIS]

YUP! :twisted:

 

[SJB358]

In the old days that could have been supported. Today you can bust a bull elk through both shoulders with a 277 110 gr TSX doing 3500 fps with no issues.

I would be lying if I told you I have never thought about a .277 85gr et out of a 270 wsm at 3700-3800 for a layzer deer rifle. :twisted:

I was just looking at data today and see Nosler says about 3400-3500 with the 120gr BT and the 270WSM. That might be a dynamite load for a deer! Scotty

 

[BK]

In the past, I would never have thought about going lighter than 100 grain bullets in my .25-06, but I ended up settling (for this year at least) for an 80 Barnes TTSX for my .257 Weatherby. I do still have some 250s for my Whelen, so I guess I'm all over the map.

 

[Oldtrader3]

I confess! I do use lighter bullets sometimes now that there are so many strongly designed premium bullets. However, sometimes it makes me feel cheap and tawdry to do it! I was raised in Maine where everybody thought it took a 180 to 300 grain bullet to kill a 200 pound whitetail, like Scotty suggested.

These thoughts still nag me and wake me up in a cold sweat, in the middle of the night, expecially right after I have just smoked a muledeer, one shot, DRT at 300 yards with a 165 gr .300 Magnum at 3200 fps!

What should I do about my guilt, DrMike? :mrgreen:

 

[Guy Miner]

The modern "premium" bullets have changed the way the game is played. When a .25 cal 100 gr Barnes TSX out-penetrates a 180 or 200 gr .30 cal conventional bullet - it sort of wakes a guy up with a big thump upside the head.

As a long-range match shooting kind of guy, I'm still partial to the long, heavy, high BC bullets - but readily admit that at normal hunting ranges they offer little or no advantage. Unless we're shooting in a high wind condition.

Guy

 

[Anonymous]

Man...I'm glad I'm not the only one out there feeling guilty. The number of folks I've heard that think only a 250gr .338 is suitable for a moose would amaze you.

Makes a guy re-think that MkV in .257Wea or .270Wea surgically blasting TSXs at warp 9.

I gotta admit I've toyed with the idea more than once and dismissed it as foolish...

 

[DrMike]

It is a great time to be a handloader. The components available are something that couldn't have been imagined just a few years ago. Charlie, take two aspirin, go to bed, sleep well, and then go smoke an elk with your light load. It'll do you good. The way that 130 grain E-Tip has performed on both moose and elk out of my 270 WSM makes it difficult to dismiss the argument that small and fast is just as deadly as heavy and slow. I still like the way my .356 loaded with 250 grain bullets kills game, but they are no more dead than with that 130 grain E-Tip.

 

[Oldtrader3]

I have to agree, it would be interesting to thump a moose with the 200 gr E-Tip in my .340 Weatherby at 3300 fps!

 

[SJB358]

I have to agree, it would be interesting to thump a moose with the 200 gr E-Tip in my .340 Weatherby at 3300 fps!

That is the other bullet I would like to try. That and the 200gr AB seem to be aquiring a great track record. Heck, the 210 PT has about the strongest track record I've seen of any 338 bullet. Has to be something to it. Scotty

 

[HeathSexton]

I admit it, I have been secretly looking at pictures and reading articles on 110 and 130gr Barnes bullets for my /06's. I do feel dirty after looking and I always go and open up a box of 180's, often times I will pour a few in my hand and just stare at them.


Growing up hunting the thickets here in East TN when you went with papaw you used 220's in the thick stuff and if it opened up to anything even near 100yds you could lighten up with the 180's.

 

[BeeTee]

Higher BC and velocity give the hunter an advantage for taking most big game species, in terms of PBR. The momentum advantage of heavier bullets is useful when hunting the larger species at close range (like brown bear and moose), but I'd pick a fast and high BC bullet for any other use. Not many people are good at accurate range estimation past 200-300 yards, but a flatter shooting rifle compensates nicely.

My son and 3 of his friends each killed an antelope this past weekend. They all shot a 300WSM. Two of the four antelope were killed with 165 NABs with 3100-fps at the muzzle. They reported massive tissue destruction on exit, described as cantelope size exit wounds.

I've bagged two antelope some years ago with a 7RM shooting 140 NBTs loaded to 3200-fps at the muzzle -one at 80 yards and the other at 250. Exit wounds were silver dollar size on each.

 

[Songdog]

Somewhere in the happy hunting grounds.... Jack and Elmer are laughing at us all...

 

[BeeTee]

Somewhere in the happy hunting grounds.... Jack and Elmer are laughing at us all...

For some reason I think Carlos Hathcock would have approved of the 338 Snipe Tac (BC, velocity, trajectory)...

 

[SJB358]

Somewhere in the happy hunting grounds.... Jack and Elmer are laughing at us all...

For some reason I think Carlos Hathcock would have approved of the 338 Snipe Tac (BC, velocity, trajectory)...

You aren't kidding! Any of those big 338's are some serious medicine in skilled paws.... Scotty