Name your poison

[Guest]

I'm a 180 grain bullet man for Elk Hunting, I like the BC vs the 165. I shot my first Bull Elk with a 7mm Rem Mag using 154 Hornady Spire Points. Took him at 300 yds. I put the bullet thru the backside of the rib cage going length wise and it exited his neck as he was looking at me. Mentioned that to say a standard bullet worked, at least in that one experience. Since you are debating the 165 I would use the Partition backed up with the AccuBond.

Don't rule out the E-Tip if you are big on weight retention.

Don

 

[DaveA37]

I appreciate all the input and have to tell you that I too agree with the 180 or 200 partitions.

As I stated, the debate was related to the 165 gr bullets and a number of you commented on that particular size. I have no argument with the l80 or 200's and was trying to convience the other person that he should consider going heavier. Hopefully (but not likely) he will see the light and consider all the input here-in. We will see and if he does, I will pass the information back here.

His argument was that smaller caliber rifles shoot smaller grain bullets with success on elk. Then he asks, why would a smaller (165 gr) bullet NOT be suitable for elk?
in my opinion, you have resolved the debate.

Again, thanks for supporting my side. :mrgreen:

 

[Guy Miner]

I don't think a 165 Nosler Partition or AccuBond would have any trouble killing an elk - I'm just more comfortable with a heavier-for-caliber bullet when the talk turns to elk.

Guy

 

[YoteSmoker]

180 AccuBond gets my vote. Works great on deer and elk in 30-06. Should work as good or better in 300 WM. No complaints.

 

[BK]

His argument was that smaller caliber rifles shoot smaller grain bullets with success on elk. Then he asks, why would a smaller (165 gr) bullet NOT be suitable for elk?

http://www.gun-shots.net/sectional-density.shtml

 

[onesonek]

"His argument was that smaller caliber rifles shoot smaller grain bullets with success on elk. Then he asks, why would a smaller (165 gr) bullet NOT be suitable for elk?"

Depends on how light he is talking in a smaller caliber? When comparing calibers, one can not look at bullet weight alone, as weight is only relative to caliber or bore size. If you want to compare different calibers, the only way, is to use the Sectional Density numbers. Beyond that, design/construction characteristics come into play.
With design, one needs to have a relative understanding of what the terminal characteristics will be.
For example,,,lets take the .30/165 gr. in a NBT and NPT. Lets say they both average 70% weight retention. The big difference between the 2, is frontal area of the expanded bullet. In other words, Terminal Sectional Density. The NBT most often has a final frontal area larger, than that of of the NPT. The wider frontal meets more resistance, and sheds momentum faster, ending up with less penetration. I usually use the initial SD as a guide for the penetration I want, and choose the weight accordingly. I use NPT's mostly for insurance, in case should the worst case senario present itself. Such as, a moose making it to water, an elk down a deep canyon an animal runnig to property I can't go on, or the possibility of someone else trying to claim it's their's, etc., in which case, I would try and take out atleast one shoulder with a bone hit. I don't like that, due meat destruction, but sometimes it may be the only way or oppritunity. Then too is less than ideal placement due to angles. Those are the main reasons, I use Partitions. Not because they are always needed, but for insurance as stated.
My personal rule of thumb for lead cores, (partitioned, bonded, or standard c&c) and to a point, regardless of caliber, are SD's of .230-.260 for deer or lighter, .270-.300 for elk and like sized critters, .300+ for bigger or critters that might bite back. Although with smaller bores than .30 cal. I tend to run on the higher side of SD's, or heavier weights for caliber. Larger than .30 cal. I feel one can go on the lower side of SD's. I don't however, as I want momentum to acheive decent damage completely through the animal, rather than have a lighter weight comming to a stop of the far side. In the case of no exit, I most often see very little trauma in the last 6" as the bullet slows to a stop.
The monometals, due to weight retention, change the rules a bit in my mind.
So now, there's my 2 1/2 cents worth :wink:

 

[SJB358]

Well said Dave. That was a great explanation of SD in bullets. I have been using the ABs a bit more recently and water jug testing shows them to be pretty tough as well. Maybe not quite PT tough bit darned near. Scotty

 

[onesonek]

Scotty,,,I haven't used the AB's on game as of yet. But I suspect even with their wider frontal area, their higher retention capabilities compared to the PT, I would think they they will penetrate about or as well, as the PT. They may suffer a bit more weight loss on a major bone hit, but I suspect it would be minimal. In that scenario, I would think it to open up more than the ideal or typical placement, with a slightly larger frontal area ensuing, which would reduce momentum/penetration slightly. Honestly, I think the AB has what it takes to be a great bullet! Just that with the style/methods and ranges I hunt, I haven't found the need or desire to change from the NPT, as of yet anyhow. Maybe down the road as my legs get older and more weary of longer stalks or distant walk downs, the slightly longer range capabilities of the AB would be more enticing

 

[Elkman]

Dave
Great writeup. You hit the nail of the head.! Placement is "always" the key, however when things go wrong, penetration, mass and energy are what puts them to the ground. Even with a well placed shot some animals will go "that extra mile" and a hole out of the back side is very helpfull. I don't have many recovered bullets because the PT's at 3050 typically go out the other side.
Last year on my bull elk, he stepped forward at the same time my brain told my rifle to sent the bullet on its way. At over 400 yards the hit was way back. If he had not been crossing an old glacier I would have had a very long (at best) difficult trail to follow, as it was the PT went clear through and out the other side. As he crossed the glacier, cow calling stopped him for a follow up shot, again at over 400 and he laid down in sight a few yards from the timber line. After he was down, I back trailed to check out the results, trailing was not easy, even in the opening. But after the second shot more than adequate blood was available for trailing.

 

[onesonek]

While 400 yds isn't a range I would call extreme, that is why I personally don't hunt "long range" or seldom take shots beyond PBR unless conditions are near perfect. Perfect ain't very often either! As you stated, all it takes is the animal to take a step at the wrong time, a sudden gust or lull in the wind, up and down drafts, etc. A bullets flight time at 400 yds. isn't all that long, but things can change in 1/2 that time. As far as I see it, Murphy's Law is something that should be considered the norm, rather than an inconveinent possibility. That's me however, and I won't disregard the, "each to their own" aspect.
I love to play at long range on paper, and with the PD's and such. But with big game, I want to have some assurance, that regardless of what the animal does or how the condition change, that I have a 99% + probability of hitting 2-3" or less of POA.
Hence is why a max 6" PBR is generally how I sight in, (smaller with deer sized), and seldom shoot beyond that.
I more or less grew up being told, "hunt more, shoot less", in other words, hunt your way in closer, make the first shot the only one needed. And that's how I continue to hunt. Although, I realize and have experienced, some animals are more tenacious of life, needing more than one well placed round. I attribute that more to the animal being spooked or alerted, to the point where adrenaline has kicked in. Seems like nothing short of a CNS hit, or double shoulder break down, brings them down quickly.
I seen my cousin's husband (my very first elk hunt), once shoot an alerted Elk bull. At 80 yds with 30-06 180 gr. First shot was a heart hit, followed up with 2 solid lungs hits. The elk was dead on it's feet, yet covered 400 + yds over some hellish terrain. I rather doubt, a larger caliber magnum would have been any different.

 

[Oldtrader3]

Onesonek, you use the same SD ratios that I have been using for 50 years for bullet selection. I think that they are still relevant, even with bullets which contain no lead but maybe to a slightly lesser extent. You still need the momentum to push the bullet deep enough to finish the job.

 

[onesonek]

Yes Oldtrader, I too believe they are still relavent also. Just the premium designs made a good bullet weight for caliber better.

It was said at least once I know of,,,,"energy expands the bullet, but penetration kills". As momentum is the product of mass in motion, I can see using a slightly lighter weight with the mono's, as the have nearly 100% weight retention. But I believe, one really can't have too much momentum or penetration, with some, maybe more than necessary, but way better that way then not to have enough or barely enough. With some designs, one may not see the cavernous wound channels, at the onset or in the first few inches of penetration, as some lighter weight and or lighter constructed designs. But bullets of more mass/weight (equaling greater momentum), will create more displacement through its entire path within the animal.
The main concern I have with the mono's, is consistency or reliability. It's got to be one hell a task making them, when I think of the consistency the copper one lot to another, the annealing of the nose if that is in their process, and then you have a bullet shank that is not as forgiving. But I believe, they have come a long way since the Barnes X.

If we look at history for a lesson, bullets were generally larger in dia. and heavier in weight, moving at rather modest speed having modest energy levels, if not down right slow and mild by todays standards. With momentum being their attribute, they killed tons of game.
With the advent of the smaller bores, time and needed experimentation, came the need for more energy to expand those new fangled pointy copper clad bullets, for results/displacement that was natural to the bigger bores. Speed was needed for this. Over time, it seems power/energy resulting from increased speed was or is the goal. Speed definately helps with longer ranges, but the animals don't need any more energy to kill than a 150 years ago.
Penetration is still the main factor in my mind, and that takes momentum. How much, could be argued, but I will stay with the heavier weight for caliber. It may be a bit old school, but it works.
The new premiums in my mind, (still considering the NPT new btw, as I feel it's design is timeless), only make for better or more reliable bullets. The principles of their function has not changed, as the animals have not changed.
You and I Oldtrader, along with some others think alike or are on the same page. Others may not agree, and that's their prerogative, I have no problem with that. But when it come to hunting weapons, with the exception of the sling and boomerang, past and present,,, I ask what is their common denominator? Whether it be the Spear, the Atlatl dart, the Arrow, the Firearm, the answer is penetration! How much is needed?,, is debatable. But I still believe more is better, using a properly designed bullet, or application thereof. On the other hand, I believe one can have excessive energy.

 

[Oldtrader3]

Dave, I have always appreciated having two holes (one on each side) to leave a better blood trail with. As others have said, you do not recover many spent bullets with Partitions but for me, that is a desirable trait of good penetration. I have always used a bullet that goes through the animal (Partitions mostly) and for that reason, have never recovered many bullets from game. When I first started hunting, I lost an elk and a nice 4-point deer to bullets that did not expand properly. Those events changed my thinking about bullet performance dramatically.

The school of thought which supports having all of the energy expended within the animal, is valid also. I just like having two holes leaking a blood trail whenever possible. Kinetic energy does not kill big game, tissue damage does.
Charlie

 

[BeeTee]

I'm in a debate with another local reloader on which bullet YOU would select for your elk load in .300 Win Mag. and using a 165 grain bullet.

I've killed elk with a 308, 30-06, 300 H&H, 300 Wby and a 7 Rem mag. Bullet selection is usually some ways down on the list of what results in a successful elk hunt. Any of Nosler's 165gr 30-cal hunting bullets will easily get the job done - if you have confidence in your rifle and shooting ability, have a little luck and can put the rest of the hunt together. If forced to choose just one, I'd choose the 165gr AccuBond due to its ballistic coefficient and accuracy potential. The last elk I've taken was with the 7mm Mag and 140gr BT at long range - behind the shoulder. It was an instant kill.

 

[efw]

"Elk- Today's Brown Bear"

When did these things evolve steel skeletal systems and carbon fiber skin?

My buddy's dad has been killin' elk year after year w/out issue using a 165 gr Interlock SPBT through his '06-chambered BAR longer than I've been alive. My uncle shoots 'em w/ 160 gr NBTs through his 7 RM. Both those guys skip ballistic gack faster than I'd walk by a Remington 700 ADL chambered in .270 (read: PRETTY FREAKIN' FAST) but they bring home the venison and never have issues w/ their "incorrect bullet selections".

Any of those 165s would do fine... even the Sierra, assuming you're talkin' the BTHP model.

Let the rifle choose, pick your shot as you would ought with any cartridge/bullet combination, go forth and kill your elk!

 

[DrMike]

Now, Eric, I've been preaching for years (well, days anyway), that elk have evolved into a new critter. Anything smaller than a 33 calibre will bounce off of elk. Should one be shot with a 30 calibre bullet, they give a raspberry and merrily trot off into the forest. :shock:

 

[Oldtrader3]

The problem with elk hunting back when I started in the early 1960's was not the caliber used nor the hardiness of the elk, it was the crummy bullet construction that was being sold by Remchester and other companies. The first elk (a cow) that I shot was with a Winchester 175 grain Power Point bullet in a 7mm Rem Mag. This was right after the 7mm Rem Mag was starting to be available in stores and I had just bought a new one, a Husqvarna Crown Grade. It was my first new bolt action rifle after using lever actions for several years. I killed much game with that rifle when I started loading Partitions in it.

This elk took a 175 gr Power Point in the right shoulder, broadside, flinched slightly and started trotting rapidly through the trees. I did not miss, I never have missed any big game that I shot at and this elk was only about 80 yards away and clear from obstructions. We looked for a couple hours but I never saw this elk again and there was no blood trail. The armchair quarterbacks have been giving me advice about this occurance for nearly 50 years of telling me that it did not happen with a Power Point. They say: I missed, I flinched, I closed my eyes, the bullet hit a twig, et cetera but I was there! The original 175 bullets for the 7mm Mag were famous for falling apart on elk. I have also lost game or ended up chasing it for hours because of bullet failure with Silvertips and Bronze Point bullets as well and they were mostly all used on deer which are pretty easy to kill if the bullet does its job at all.

This was a common occurance back then and is why the Nosler Partition Company got started. I also nearly lost an elk bull to a .30-06, 180 gr Failsafe because the stupid bullet did not expand. This happens with the older design of bullets and this is why I use Partitions almost all of the time for the same reason that John designed them for in the first place. Us old guys remember how bad factory ammo bullet construction was 50 years ago. Not a rant, just fact, because even with the poorly made bullets then, a .338 Mag, 250 gr bullet would kill an elk!

 

[onesonek]

Now, Eric, I've been preaching for years (well, days anyway), that elk have evolved into a new critter. Anything smaller than a 33 calibre will bounce off of elk. Should one be shot with a 30 calibre bullet, they give a raspberry and merrily trot off into the forest. :shock:

Actually Doc, the only sure elk medicine, is either the 470 or 465gr. .458's on the right. The other 2 light weights are just for prairie dogs and ditch tigers.

But we might as well throw away the .30/180's, as evidently they are too much for elk. Certainly don't want the elk overly dead.

 

[DrMike]

Actually Doc, the only sure elk medicine, is either the 470 or 465gr. .458's on the right. The other 2 light weights are just for prairie dogs and ditch tigers.

Pity the prairie dogs. You're going to horse around and get me to casting bullets next. They do look like a fine chunk of elk medicine.

 

[onesonek]

"Elk- Today's Brown Bear"

When did these things evolve steel skeletal systems and carbon fiber skin?

My buddy's dad has been killin' elk year after year w/out issue using a 165 gr Interlock SPBT through his '06-chambered BAR longer than I've been alive. My uncle shoots 'em w/ 160 gr NBTs through his 7 RM. Both those guys skip ballistic gack faster than I'd walk by a Remington 700 ADL chambered in .270 (read: PRETTY FREAKIN' FAST) but they bring home the venison and never have issues w/ their "incorrect bullet selections".

Any of those 165s would do fine... even the Sierra, assuming you're talkin' the BTHP model.

Let the rifle choose, pick your shot as you would ought with any cartridge/bullet combination, go forth and kill your elk!

I don't know or see where anybody claimed elk are armor plated. Also nobody said 165 gr. .30 cal., even with a conventional C&C wouldn't kill an elk, or was an incorrect choice.

But I'm trying to figure out your logic of the apples to oranges comparision in the first paragragh.
With the .30/165gr. being 12.7% lighter than the .284/160 gr., and the .30/180 gr. being 4.2% lighter than the .284/160 gr.,,,your point is?
Apparently, you feel the 30/180 gr. is far too much for elk, yet the heavier for caliber .284/160 gr. totally acceptable??
Must be that new school logic :?