If you aren't reloading go with the factory 180s and you'll do great. I dropped an eland dead as disco with 180 grain PMP factory ammo (probably cup and core) out of a 300 Win Mag and several animals including two kudu and a zebra with 168 grain Barnes TTSX bullets out of a 30-06. So it's safe to say the 180 A-Frame or TTSX out of a 300 WM will do the job well. If you use it on giraffe I'd go for a neck shot, which I did on mine per my PHs suggestion. It's a big target and it will drop right there.I can’t find 200gr a frames in any factory ammo are people who are using them reloading? Or is it factory ammo? And will using the 200gr bullets make a significant difference compared to a 180 a frame or tsx?
I agree with the bullet choices but you may want to consider a lighter bullet 150-180 TSX or TTSX for flatter shooting for everything up through kudu. Then bring a 200 grain Swift or TSX for giraffe...
I used the same 200gr. load in my .300 Win with excellent results back when it was in production. You run across old stock of the Remington Premier Safari occasionally on some of the various online auction sites. Up until recently Double Tap loaded the .300 Win Mag with a 180 grain Swift A-Frame but not sure if they still do. Swift loads the 180gr. A-Frame these days but haven't seen any of the 200 grain A-Frames in loaded ammo from any major manufacturer of late.John 18,
Back in the 1990s Rem marketed a cartridge called the Safari ??? in several calibers. Swift also makes a 200 gr for reloaders. I used the Rem. Ammo on several hunts as it grouped tighter then anything I was able to load.
If that post was your $0.02, I'd hate to have to read a full opinion.Tradition vs. technology...
Fact #1 - What truly made the .30 cal - first in .30-06 form, then in .300 mag form - a legendary "light caliber" in a traditional 3 rifles battery (the other two being traditionally a .375 H&H and a double .470 NE or equivalent .450 / .458) was the 200 gr cup & core soft nose bullet.
Fact #2 - Even at .30-06 velocity - never mind .300 mag velocity - the 200 gr cup & core bullets generally broke to pieces sometime during penetration. In 1948, the Nosler Partition, the first genuine premium bullet, literally started to revolutionize the hunting fields with its dual core concept. Its proper operating mode is that, by design, the front core expands violently and is consumed during the initial stage of penetration, and the rear core stays together and penetrate deeply. To this day, the Nosler Partition (NP) continues to perform very well.
For example, these two 250 gr .338 NP launched from a .340 Wby killed a very large Eland bull. The left one (shot #1) broke the massive shoulder bones, and the right one (shot #2) only hit soft tissues (follow up shot on the fleeing Eland, quite literally up its rear end).
View attachment 334293
Hunt Eland in South Africa
It took two 250 gr Nosler Partitions from a 340 Wby at approximately 200 yards:
First shot was...South Africa Hunting Eland
It took two 250 gr Nosler Partitions from a 340 Wby at approximately 200 yards:
Second shot...
The first bullet lost 40% of its weight (bones hit) and the second bullet lost 30% of its weight (flesh hit). In effect, after the first few inches of penetration, the bullets penetrated deeply with 152 gr and 172 gr.
Fact #3 - More modern bullets such as the Swift A Frame (1984) or the Barnes X (1986) then TSX then TTSX - and any equivalent bonded or mono metal design - that provide BOTH great expansion (typically twice the caliber) AND great weight retention (typically in the 95% range) essentially penetrate with almost all of their initial weight. To continue with the same .33 cal example, factually, a TTSX 185 gr .338 bullet that retains 95% weight, penetrates deeply with 175 gr, which is the same as a 250 gr NP after it sheds its front core.
Logical conclusion - Swift A Frame (SAF) or the Barnes TTSX - and any equivalent bonded or mono metal design - DO NOT NEED to weigh the same weight as traditional cup & core bullets to accomplish the same expansion and penetration on game. From this logical conclusion, there seems to be potential paths forward:
1- Continue to shoot SAF or TTSX of the same traditional weight (e.g. .300 mag 180 gr or 200 gr), and in effect the .300 mag is "up-gunned" to traditional .338 mag effect on game. There is nothing wrong with that; there is no such thing as too dead.
2- Shoot SAF or TTSX of a weight that matches the weight of the rear core of the NP, say 70% of the initial weight (e.g. 70% of .300 mag 200 gr = 140 gr and 70% of .300 mag 180 gr = 126 gr), and in effect the .300 mag retains its traditional effect on game. There is nothing wrong with that; there is no need to expand considerable bullet energy on the landscape after pass-through penetration.
Pros & cons - A few factors are worth considering:
1- Sectional density and ballistic coefficient: longer and heavier bullets typically have higher sectional density and ballistic coefficient. Does it matter? Yes. How much? This is hard to quantify, because lighter bullets fly faster and this has a tremendous effect too on both trajectory and penetration. In effect higher velocity mitigates significantly lower sectional density and lower ballistic coefficient.
2- Recoil: everything else remaining equal, a 10% reduction in ejecta weight (bullet & gases) produces a 20% reduction in recoil. This is mitigated somewhat by the fact that a 10% increase in velocity produces a 20% increase in recoil, but when everything is combined, a .300 mag shooting a 200 gr bullet recoils 70% more than the same rifle shooting a 130 gr bullet. This is VERY significant, because a critical factor in accurate shooting is the ability to control recoil, especially from uncertain field shooting positions.
What do I choose?
I have used in Africa with great effect on over 40 plains game a .33 mag, a .30 mag and a .25 mag. In my case: .340 Wby, .300 Wby and .257 Wby. But yours can be .338 Win, .300 Win and .25-06; or .33, .30 and .26 Nosler; or .338, .300 RUM and .25 WSM; etc. I like the increased maximum point blank range (MPBR) that the Weatherby/RUM/Nosler/etc. cartridges give over the short Win mag family, but one can live perfectly without it.
Predictably, the .340 Wby 250 gr NP flattened everything I shot it at. But it is needlessly powerful, noisy and hard recoiling for most plains game. What was less predictable was that the .257 Wby gave me 17 one-shot, dead right there (DRT) kills for 17 cartridges fired, shooting 100 gr TTSX bullets at anything from Impala to Roan. And I did not recover any bullet. Complete pass-through penetration on everything, including Warthog, Roan, etc. Impressive!
My plains game rifle is now a full bespoke custom rifle built on an "upgrade #3" double square bridge "Mauser" action (CZ 550) with 26" barrel in .300 Wby. It shoots two loads:
Truth be told, I will be purposefully testing the 130 gr TTSX on tough quartering angles on large plains game (Wildebeest, Hartebeest, Zebra, etc.) this coming September in Africa, and I fully expect that after this test I will only carry the 130 gr TTSX load with it. After all, the math say that they are the equivalent to the 180 gr NP (70% weight retention of 180 gr = 126 gr), and there was never anything wrong with the 180 NP in a .300 mag...
- 130 gr TTSX at 3,650 fps for everything up to 600 lbs.
- 165 gr TTSX at 3,330 fps for everything over 600 lbs.
Just my $0.02. I hope that the post was interesting and thought provoking
Thanks for the information. I’ve moved towards lighter 150 and 250 grain TTSX bullets in my 300 and 375, mainly for less recoil and flatter shooting and my Sako rifles shoot much better with them, but I always thought I was giving something up, your write up made me think.Tradition vs. technology...
Fact #1 - What truly made the .30 cal - first in .30-06 form, then in .300 mag form - a legendary "light caliber" in a traditional 3 rifles battery (the other two being traditionally a .375 H&H and a double .470 NE or equivalent .450 / .458) was the 200 gr cup & core soft nose bullet.
Fact #2 - Even at .30-06 velocity - never mind .300 mag velocity - the 200 gr cup & core bullets generally broke to pieces sometime during penetration. In 1948, the Nosler Partition, the first genuine premium bullet, literally started to revolutionize the hunting fields with its dual core concept. Its proper operating mode is that, by design, the front core expands violently and is consumed during the initial stage of penetration, and the rear core stays together and penetrate deeply. To this day, the Nosler Partition (NP) continues to perform very well.
For example, these two 250 gr .338 NP launched from a .340 Wby killed a very large Eland bull. The left one (shot #1) broke the massive shoulder bones, and the right one (shot #2) only hit soft tissues (follow up shot on the fleeing Eland, quite literally up its rear end).
View attachment 334293
Hunt Eland in South Africa
It took two 250 gr Nosler Partitions from a 340 Wby at approximately 200 yards:
First shot was...South Africa Hunting Eland
It took two 250 gr Nosler Partitions from a 340 Wby at approximately 200 yards:
Second shot...
The first bullet lost 40% of its weight (bones hit) and the second bullet lost 30% of its weight (flesh hit). In effect, after the first few inches of penetration, the bullets penetrated deeply with 152 gr and 172 gr.
Fact #3 - More modern bullets such as the Swift A Frame (1984) or the Barnes X (1986) then TSX then TTSX - and any equivalent bonded or mono metal design - that provide BOTH great expansion (typically twice the caliber) AND great weight retention (typically in the 95% range) essentially penetrate with almost all of their initial weight. To continue with the same .33 cal example, factually, a TTSX 185 gr .338 bullet that retains 95% weight, penetrates deeply with 175 gr, which is the same as a 250 gr NP after it sheds its front core.
Logical conclusion - Swift A Frame (SAF) or the Barnes TTSX - and any equivalent bonded or mono metal design - DO NOT NEED to weigh the same weight as traditional cup & core bullets to accomplish the same expansion and penetration on game. From this logical conclusion, there seems to be potential paths forward:
1- Continue to shoot SAF or TTSX of the same traditional weight (e.g. .300 mag 180 gr or 200 gr), and in effect the .300 mag is "up-gunned" to traditional .338 mag effect on game. There is nothing wrong with that; there is no such thing as too dead.
2- Shoot SAF or TTSX of a weight that matches the weight of the rear core of the NP, say 70% of the initial weight (e.g. 70% of .300 mag 200 gr = 140 gr and 70% of .300 mag 180 gr = 126 gr), and in effect the .300 mag retains its traditional effect on game. There is nothing wrong with that; there is no need to expand considerable bullet energy on the landscape after pass-through penetration.
Pros & cons - A few factors are worth considering:
1- Sectional density and ballistic coefficient: longer and heavier bullets typically have higher sectional density and ballistic coefficient. Does it matter? Yes. How much? This is hard to quantify, because lighter bullets fly faster and this has a tremendous effect too on both trajectory and penetration. In effect higher velocity mitigates significantly lower sectional density and lower ballistic coefficient.
2- Recoil: everything else remaining equal, a 10% reduction in ejecta weight (bullet & gases) produces a 20% reduction in recoil. This is mitigated somewhat by the fact that a 10% increase in velocity produces a 20% increase in recoil, but when everything is combined, a .300 mag shooting a 200 gr bullet recoils 70% more than the same rifle shooting a 130 gr bullet. This is VERY significant, because a critical factor in accurate shooting is the ability to control recoil, especially from uncertain field shooting positions.
What do I choose?
I have used in Africa with great effect on over 40 plains game a .33 mag, a .30 mag and a .25 mag. In my case: .340 Wby, .300 Wby and .257 Wby. But yours can be .338 Win, .300 Win and .25-06; or .33, .30 and .26 Nosler; or .338, .300 RUM and .25 WSM; etc. I like the increased maximum point blank range (MPBR) that the Weatherby/RUM/Nosler/etc. cartridges give over the short Win mag family, but one can live perfectly without it.
Predictably, the .340 Wby 250 gr NP flattened everything I shot it at. But it is needlessly powerful, noisy and hard recoiling for most plains game. What was less predictable was that the .257 Wby gave me 17 one-shot, dead right there (DRT) kills for 17 cartridges fired, shooting 100 gr TTSX bullets at anything from Impala to Roan. And I did not recover any bullet. Complete pass-through penetration on everything, including Warthog, Roan, etc. Impressive!
My plains game rifle is now a full bespoke custom rifle built on an "upgrade #3" double square bridge "Mauser" action (CZ 550) with 26" barrel in .300 Wby. It shoots two loads:
Truth be told, I will be purposefully testing the 130 gr TTSX on tough quartering angles on large plains game (Wildebeest, Hartebeest, Zebra, etc.) this coming September in Africa, and I fully expect that after this test I will only carry the 130 gr TTSX load with it. After all, the math say that they are the equivalent to the 180 gr NP (70% weight retention of 180 gr = 126 gr), and there was never anything wrong with the 180 NP in a .300 mag...
- 130 gr TTSX at 3,650 fps for everything up to 600 lbs.
- 165 gr TTSX at 3,330 fps for everything over 600 lbs.
Just my $0.02. I hope that the post was interesting and thought provoking
Tradition vs. technology...
Fact #1 - What truly made the .30 cal - first in .30-06 form, then in .300 mag form - a legendary "light caliber" in a traditional 3 rifles battery (the other two being traditionally a .375 H&H and a double .470 NE or equivalent .450 / .458) was the 200 gr cup & core soft nose bullet.
Fact #2 - Even at .30-06 velocity - never mind .300 mag velocity - the 200 gr cup & core bullets generally broke to pieces sometime during penetration. In 1948, the Nosler Partition, the first genuine premium bullet, literally started to revolutionize the hunting fields with its dual core concept. Its proper operating mode is that, by design, the front core expands violently and is consumed during the initial stage of penetration, and the rear core stays together and penetrate deeply. To this day, the Nosler Partition (NP) continues to perform very well.
For example, these two 250 gr .338 NP launched from a .340 Wby killed a very large Eland bull. The left one (shot #1) broke the massive shoulder bones, and the right one (shot #2) only hit soft tissues (follow up shot on the fleeing Eland, quite literally up its rear end).
View attachment 334293
Hunt Eland in South Africa
It took two 250 gr Nosler Partitions from a 340 Wby at approximately 200 yards:
First shot was...South Africa Hunting Eland
It took two 250 gr Nosler Partitions from a 340 Wby at approximately 200 yards:
Second shot...
The first bullet lost 40% of its weight (bones hit) and the second bullet lost 30% of its weight (flesh hit). In effect, after the first few inches of penetration, the bullets penetrated deeply with 152 gr and 172 gr.
Fact #3 - More modern bullets such as the Swift A Frame (1984) or the Barnes X (1986) then TSX then TTSX - and any equivalent bonded or mono metal design - that provide BOTH great expansion (typically twice the caliber) AND great weight retention (typically in the 95% range) essentially penetrate with almost all of their initial weight. To continue with the same .33 cal example, factually, a TTSX 185 gr .338 bullet that retains 95% weight, penetrates deeply with 175 gr, which is the same as a 250 gr NP after it sheds its front core.
Logical conclusion - Swift A Frame (SAF) or the Barnes TTSX - and any equivalent bonded or mono metal design - DO NOT NEED to weigh the same weight as traditional cup & core bullets to accomplish the same expansion and penetration on game. From this logical conclusion, there seems to be potential paths forward:
1- Continue to shoot SAF or TTSX of the same traditional weight (e.g. .300 mag 180 gr or 200 gr), and in effect the .300 mag is "up-gunned" to traditional .338 mag effect on game. There is nothing wrong with that; there is no such thing as too dead.
2- Shoot SAF or TTSX of a weight that matches the weight of the rear core of the NP, say 70% of the initial weight (e.g. 70% of .300 mag 200 gr = 140 gr and 70% of .300 mag 180 gr = 126 gr), and in effect the .300 mag retains its traditional effect on game. There is nothing wrong with that; there is no need to expand considerable bullet energy on the landscape after pass-through penetration.
Pros & cons - A few factors are worth considering:
1- Sectional density and ballistic coefficient: longer and heavier bullets typically have higher sectional density and ballistic coefficient. Does it matter? Yes. How much? This is hard to quantify, because lighter bullets fly faster and this has a tremendous effect too on both trajectory and penetration. In effect higher velocity mitigates significantly lower sectional density and lower ballistic coefficient.
2- Recoil: everything else remaining equal, a 10% reduction in ejecta weight (bullet & gases) produces a 20% reduction in recoil. This is mitigated somewhat by the fact that a 10% increase in velocity produces a 20% increase in recoil, but when everything is combined, a .300 mag shooting a 200 gr bullet recoils 70% more than the same rifle shooting a 130 gr bullet. This is VERY significant, because a critical factor in accurate shooting is the ability to control recoil, especially from uncertain field shooting positions.
What do I choose?
I have used in Africa with great effect on over 40 plains game a .33 mag, a .30 mag and a .25 mag. In my case: .340 Wby, .300 Wby and .257 Wby. But yours can be .338 Win, .300 Win and .25-06; or .33, .30 and .26 Nosler; or .338, .300 RUM and .25 WSM; etc. I like the increased maximum point blank range (MPBR) that the Weatherby/RUM/Nosler/etc. cartridges give over the short Win mag family, but one can live perfectly without it.
Predictably, the .340 Wby 250 gr NP flattened everything I shot it at. But it is needlessly powerful, noisy and hard recoiling for most plains game. What was less predictable was that the .257 Wby gave me 17 one-shot, dead right there (DRT) kills for 17 cartridges fired, shooting 100 gr TTSX bullets at anything from Impala to Roan. And I did not recover any bullet. Complete pass-through penetration on everything, including Warthog, Roan, etc. Impressive!
My plains game rifle is now a full bespoke custom rifle built on an "upgrade #3" double square bridge "Mauser" action (CZ 550) with 26" barrel in .300 Wby. It shoots two loads:
Truth be told, I will be purposefully testing the 130 gr TTSX on tough quartering angles on large plains game (Wildebeest, Hartebeest, Zebra, etc.) this coming September in Africa, and I fully expect that after this test I will only carry the 130 gr TTSX load with it. After all, the math say that they are the equivalent to the 180 gr NP (70% weight retention of 180 gr = 126 gr), and there was never anything wrong with the 180 NP in a .300 mag...
- 130 gr TTSX at 3,650 fps for everything up to 600 lbs.
- 165 gr TTSX at 3,330 fps for everything over 600 lbs.
Just my $0.02. I hope that the post was interesting and thought provoking
I like your way of thinking!If considering giraffe, use the toughest 200 grain bullet your rifle will handle. Swift A-frames should be a good universal choice.
Personally I only carry a 375 H&H to Africa. Why?...just in case I see something big I want to take. JMO&E
Best of luck what ever you decide to take!