Bullet weights...getting lighter?

[bullet]

Ability to shoot well, making good shot placement will even allow a lesser chambering to do as well as a big chambering. The same applies to lighter bullets in a certain cartridge being able to do as well as the heavier bullet when you combine good shoot skills and being able to place a shot where you want it to go along with better constructed bullets like the Accugond, Partition, A-frame and Etips.

 

[Woodycreek]

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)...

I'm sure Gunny Hathcock would have approved of alot of the current 338 systems. He was using an M2 50cal before there was a dedicated 50cal sniper rifle. One these would have made him smile.

It sure put a big grin on my mug.

 

[cloverleaf]

Not a whole lot to add here but it is certainly an interesting topic. Just my .02 based on what I have experienced. A 100 gr. BT at 2800 fps appears significantly more deadly on deer than a 400+ gr. 12 Ga slug at a Mv of 1400 fps. Give me velocity every time, as long as it holds together and is accurate. thats not saking too much, is it? :wink: CL

 

[Greg Nolan]

Yup, bullets have changed and higher velocities with them can do things with hydrostatic shock that big slow bullets can't. But, energy drains off faster with a light bullet and at 500 yards all you have is whatever weight bullet you started with to do the job. I've been in both camps and now I choose the standard weights and go up in caliber if I want more weight. That said, in the big bruisers (416, 458) I back down on weight to keep velocity but when they get to 500 yards they are still carry plenty of inertia.
In my un-solicited but truly worthless opinion :roll:
Greg

 

[Oldtrader3]

This is fun but it all comes back to what you are trying to kill and what is appropriate for that sized game with which bullet diameter and weight. When shooting deer sized animals some weight latitude is acceptable and hydrostatic shock counts for more. With large game shock effect is lessened and does not matter. In those circumstances, larger animals need a heavier bullet to do the job.

 

[Anonymous]

Old trader hit it on the head... that was something I've been wondering and the main question of the OP.

Now that bullets hold together so much better at higher velocity, has it changed the equation on what weight is really considered appropriate for different sized game? Recent experiences have conspired to certainly change my notion of what is appropriate.

In the example I used, the caribou was shot with a tough 150gr moving mighty fast and for all I know that bullet is still whistling across the tundra. While a caribou isn't the biggest critter (big deer/small elk sized), the wound channel would have easily reached the vitals on a moose from all but the most outrageous angles, if not outright shot clean through.

So, if I could shoot clean through a critter, what advantage would a heavier bullet have? I've already hit the critter so extended range isn't a benefit and the bullet has exited the animal so more retained energy isn't a benefit either.

 

[Oldtrader3]

I would think bullet weight works mostly for structural breakdown, breaking shoulder(s) and such, plus deep penetration on off angle shots, even through bones.

 

[jmad_81]

There are some great thoughts here!

I would think that a lighter mono would break down critters just as well as bigger non bonded bullets. I know that a 130 E tip out of a 270 wsm @ 3300 weighs more than a 160 7mm AB @ 2950 into the dirt at the same distance. On paper a guy can get the lighter mono bullets to equal close to the same energy as a bullet a step or two up in weight. They retain more weight upon impact, so in theory they should out penetrate the slower bigger bullet, wouldn't they?

 

[SJB358]

Jake, I think that is the question of the day. I get what your saying about the 160 7mm vs the 130 277 bullet. I think the 7mm bullet retained about 90-100gr in my tests. Haven't shot the ET into anything but it stands to reason it should go further even though it starts out lighter. Scotty

 

[Gm weatherby man]

I'll give ya some food for thought, daughter shot her fits whitetail deer this year, bad shot some what to experience and the deer, but any way the 80 ttsx enter from back hip, through all internals and took out three ribs on far side before exiting far shoulder, and only left one pettel behind on a 80 yard shot. :shock: 8)

 

[super-7]

Jake, I think that is the question of the day. I get what your saying about the 160 7mm vs the 130 277 bullet. I think the 7mm bullet retained about 90-100gr in my tests. Haven't shot the ET into anything but it stands to reason it should go further even though it starts out lighter. Scotty

The question then becomes what leaves a more approipriate wound channel? A mono bullet retaining all of it's weight, penetration is seldom questioned, but mushroom size and wound channel may be sacrificed. A cupn'core bullet may expand rapidly, leaving a massive wound channel, but maybe without desired penetration. That leaves the bonded bullets which one would think be the best of both worlds, yet we still here storyies of Splashes(HUH?) or stories of in like a dime out like a dime. I like the AccuBond but prefer not to have close shots with it, I personally beleive it's at its best at 150+ yrds. I have seen these bullets punch thru some amazing moose bone. Hydro static shock is in modern times more refered to as hydrodynamic pulse, and is beleived to not have as much to do with a killl as once thought. A good perment wound channel and a good sized temporary wound channel are needed for a quick and effiecent kill. we are all still left asking well then what bullet will give me both? the answer is.......... none or all. .hahahah depending on the situtation. LOL I read to much!! Once again IMHO.