Can plains game A Frames or TSX bullets be 30% lighter?

[One Day...]

I'm not sure about the 30% rule, but drop one or two weight sizes when choosing a TTSX type projectile. Launch them fast though.
I've shot 3 red deer from 70 to 150yds (all quartering) with my 110gr TTSX at 3000fps from my 708. All projectiles exited, all one shot kills. A red deer would be bigger than an impala but smaller than a kudu.
I went with the 110gr to reduce the recoil for my daughters.

Here you go. Exactly the point.

 

[One Day...]

Pffff! Caught up! Hey guys, THANK YOU! This is exactly the discussion I was hopping this would trigger.

 

[Pheroze]

CEB Raptors are recommended at 149 grain for the 308 cal mag (of whatever persuation) also, @KMG Hunting Safaris has reported great success with the 200gr 375 on buffalo. So there seems to certainly be something to the idea. It just feels weird going after a moose with 149gr, or buffalo with 200!

 

[Ryan]

He will be in a distinct minority. All PH's I have known are 300 gr or even 350 gr .375 proponents. A 210 gr .375 would have poor sectional density and the BC of a small ashtray and 250's not much better. A bullet like a TSX in 270 gr would have a reasonable chance of performing well on buffalo and offer a bit more point-blank range in hunting PG. The 300 will drive deeper. I'll stick with it.

I am sold, that on thick skinned game - of which the cape buffalo is a prime example - killing is about penetration - not foot pounds of theoretically released energy. PG is a somewhat different issue. Though again, in my experience a wildebeest is a bit tougher to drop than say a whitetail, and that a bigger deeper hole is better than a shallower one. I would go so far as to say on African game in particular, I will always choose deeper penetration over a larger wound channel. With whatever caliber I am using, I want assurance that I can take out both lungs after driving through the shoulder structure or driving from behind the last rib in a rear angled shot. I have little confidence that dumping a lot of theoretical energy is better or even equivalent to deep penetration. Wound channel - particularly the depth of the wound channel - is most important to me when considering a bullet weight and design for a specific caliber. Those choices seems to generally follow predictive expansion, and weight retention. Foot pounds of expended energy don't figure into that calculus for me except to the extent that the energy is sufficient to cause deep penetration with an appropriately constructed bullet.

And a note about the Partition. I used it for a long time because it drove deep - regardless of what happened to the front end and how quickly. Newer designs like the A-Frame and the TSX drive deep and produce a consistently large wound channel throughout their course through an animal. There are others.

He may indeed be the minority, but that is the point of this post. His observations, and the post I saw on another forum was that the lighter than accepted weight monometal bullets perform as well as their older heavier lead/copper bullets, even on thick skinned game like the buffalo.

As for plains game I can say the 168 grain TTSX penetrates and kills everything in southern Africa I've shot that everyone informed me I'd need a 180 or more grain copper/lead bullet. That would be eight animals from a springbok to two kudu and a zebra. All pass throughs but the zebra that went all the way though to the opposite side hide even after breaking a leg bone, with everything dropping within a few yards. That said I wouldn't go to 150 grain TTSX from my 30-06 for all plains game, but some would.

 

[Ryan]

Funny you would say that, because this is exactly my third caliber pondering. Should we go to the 165 gr or 150 gr TTSX (or - dare I say? - 130 gr) with the .300 Wby?
I am passing on a few boxes of Federal Premium 180 gr Partitions and 150 gr Partitions to my son with the gun, so we have time to get there, but would not a 165 gr or 150 gr TTSX handling both light and heavy duties (deer and elk / any plain game aside from Eland) be wonderful in a .300 be it Win, Wby, RUM?

I just noticed this post and forgot to mention above the 168 grain TTSX bullets were used in a 30-06 and I had faith it would do the job on an eland just fine, but never got the opportunity with my personal 30-06. I did kill an eland with a borrowed 300 WM using 180 grain copper/lead bullets recently. First shot got it to the ground, second was insurance. So add the speed of a 300 Weatherby and I have no doubt a 165 or 168 grain TTSX bullets would kill even an eland and the 150's would do just fine on most anything but maybe an eland.

 

[Red Leg]

Funny you would say that, because this is exactly my third caliber pondering. Should we go to the 165 gr or 150 gr TTSX (or - dare I say? - 130 gr) with the .300 Wby?
I am passing on a few boxes of Federal Premium 180 gr Partitions and 150 gr Partitions to my son with the gun, so we have time to get there, but would not a 165 gr or 150 gr TTSX handling both light and heavy duties (deer and elk / any plain game aside from Eland) be wonderful in a .300 be it Win, Wby, RUM?

Before I poked an elk with a high velocity 130 gr .30 cal bullet which might or might not have been designed to drive through that much animal, I would suggest a bit of experimentation would be in order - perhaps some of the bullet manufacturers have done so? Just some of the other variables would seem to be the reaction of various bullet weights to impact and penetration against different potential target structures and mass at various velocities replicating range. I can only speak to the Army's development work on the current M885 5.56 combat round, but there we ended up going heavier to get greater penetration (against body armor) and to gain down-range performance. But then again, we only fired thousands of rounds into test medium at Fort Benning over a couple of years - armored and unarmored - before drawing any conclusions. I suppose half a dozen plains game animals, another forums discussion, or a single PH's opinion could indeed be informative - just not sure how much. In a world where a drop of blood equals a trophy fee, I am happy to use what I know works.

 

[wesheltonj]

I subscribe to the use a larger hammer theory. On an Elk, I used 180g, white-tail 150g in 308. I think both grain weights are overkill for each. It’s shot placement. I have killed lots of white-tail with 100g softpoints from a 243. The deer could not tell the difference between when I shot them with a 243, 100g bullet or a 308, 150g bullet. And not sure my elk could have told the difference between 150g or 180g either.

All that said, I did not use that theory in Africa, I used a 300g instead of 350g bullets in 375, but I did have them with me just in case. The 300g Oryx were cheaper than 350g Woodleigh's and the PH and Outfitter both said to use the 300g. Everything shot went in the back of the truck and that whats counts.

 

[Ryan]

Before I poked an elk with a high velocity 130 gr .30 cal bullet which might or might not have been designed to drive through that much animal, I would suggest a bit of experimentation would be in order - perhaps some of the bullet manufacturers have done so? Just some of the other variables would seem to be the reaction of various bullet weights to impact and penetration against different potential target structures and mass at various velocities replicating range. I can only speak to the Army's development work on the current M885 5.56 combat round, but there we ended up going heavier to get greater penetration (against body armor) and to gain down-range performance. But then again, we only fired thousands of rounds into test medium at Fort Benning over a couple of years - armored and unarmored - before drawing any conclusions. I suppose half a dozen plains game animals, another forums discussion, or a single PH's opinion could indeed be informative - just not sure how much. In a world where a drop of blood equals a trophy fee, I am happy to use what I know works.

There's a lot more success out there than I mention.

Here's but one more thread from this forum.

https://www.africahunting.com/index.php?threads/36029/

Making My Way To BARNES

 

[One Day...]

Before I poked an elk with a high velocity 130 gr .30 cal bullet which might or might not have been designed to drive through that much animal, I would suggest a bit of experimentation would be in order - perhaps some of the bullet manufacturers have done so? Just some of the other variables would seem to be the reaction of various bullet weights to impact and penetration against different potential target structures and mass at various velocities replicating range. I can only speak to the Army's development work on the current M885 5.56 combat round, but there we ended up going heavier to get greater penetration (against body armor) and to gain down-range performance. But then again, we only fired thousands of rounds into test medium at Fort Benning over a couple of years - armored and unarmored - before drawing any conclusions. I suppose half a dozen plains game animals, another forums discussion, or a single PH's opinion could indeed be informative - just not sure how much. In a world where a drop of blood equals a trophy fee, I am happy to use what I know works.

@Red Leg, happy to see we share one more experience. I started adult life at the Special Military Academy of St Cyr, the French equivalent to West Point...

Interesting comparison you make, and certainly no conflictual arguing here. Who could disagree with the concept of testing the theory? Regrettably, neither you or I have the resources the US Army could throw at it, but if volunteers are sought to go test in Africa all expenses paid, count me in LOL!

More seriously, if memory serves the M88 took the 5.56 from 55 gr to 62 gr, correct? How emphatically do I agree!!! Truth be told I am part of those who always preferred "battle rifle" to "assault rifle" and field experience comforted me in the soundness of shooting 7.5x54 139 gr (the French equivalent to 7.62x51 a.k.a. .308) aimed fire, over spraying 5.56x45 (a.k.a. .223) 55 gr and praying, or even over shooting 5.56x45 62 gr aimed fire.

But then again a 130 gr TTSX .308 at 3,300 fps out of a .300 Win Mag is quite something else than a 62 gr .223 Green Tip at 3,025 fps, and, as you inferred, animals do not wear Kevlar.

Yes, I know that 190 gr is preferred in the .300 Win Mag MK13 and derivatives (I know, I own and shoot one regularly)...

...but we are not trying to snipe game at 800 to 1,200 yard, are we? Although I know that some DO confuse hunting and sniping in some 'hunting' videos... (A friend of mine in South Africa, connected with the video industry tells me that for every 600 yd shot shown on safari YouTube clips, there are dozen of missed or crippling shots. No kidding !?!?)

Come to think of it, if 62 gr .223 is OK to engage Kevlar hardened 200 lbs targets at 300 yards, a 130 gr .308 TSX does not look so puny any more for soft skin game, does it? And when one thinks of all the game, including buffalo and elephant, the Rhodesia Game Control Department took out on control operations with 130 gr non expanding 7.62 military ammo (M80A1) in FAL rifles, maybe that 130 gr TTSX .300 Win Mag load at 3,300 fps does not appear so out of bound anymore?

 

[One Day...]

PS1: I think we both mean M855 5.56x45 (we both made a typo).

PS2: Come to think of it, Rhodesia game control folks probably used M80 7.62x51 (or equivalent) ammo, not M80A1, so the bullet weight was likely 147 gr.

PS3: and I only refer 130 gr because 70% of a 180 gr bullet comes to 126 gr, so a 130 gr TTSX weighs the same as a 180 gr Partition after the first inch or so of penetration... This being said, the 150 gr intuitively seems more reasonable, if only based on my own experience with .270 Win.

 

[Von S.]

Most people probably dont give it much thought as to just how little time it takes for a high powered pop bullet to put the brakes on if it stops cold in a one foot distance and the destructive force which the shedding of energy has on the animal.

At one time, and not that long ago, the hunters had very few choices as to what came out of the muzzle. These days there are much better choices then before. If someone these days condems a round like the 378 Weatherby as one that just blows bullets up they are just repeating stuff they were told by someone who heard it from someone heard it from someone else who never even held one in his hands.

IF two bullet of the same exact makeup , one at 200 grains and the next at 300 grains fired out of the same gun will both penatrate the same animal completely through without blowng apart ,say within 0 to 300 yards, it's a no brainier what to choose. That extra 100 grains of the the 300 is simply along for the ride. The 200 grain bullet moving much faster will prove to have greater foot pounds of energy .

I changed around a factory 30-378 Weatherby because I could never do what the factory said it would do, and that was 1" at 100 yards which I found unsatisfactory for a hunting weapon who's ultimate purpose was to take game up to 1000 yards. To be a reliable killer at that range it must still be traveling at super Sonic speed and a lighter bullet no matter how hard it's pushed leaving the muzzle will eventually prove to take a nose dive way before the k mark .

The original barrel was removed and a new one that was a scochi bit heavier in it's place .chambered and throated for a 210 Nosler Accubond LR the weapon now had the ability to make one slightly egged hole at 200 yards and enough accuracy and energy at 1000 to legitimately kill cleanly at long range.

Unfortunately over the years my marksmanship has dwindled to the point where I don't believe I should be shooting animals at a grand, with about 700 yards is more like it. That rifle now lives in Texas with my friend's son who right regularly makes phenomenal 1000 yards and then some kills on piggies. He has the talent.

These bullets at their 3000 + fps can, will and do pretty much well do explode on impact from 200 yards and in, and even turned into dust they drop animals like they were hit by a meteor and create one extremely large and grotesque GAPING exit hole with chunks of animal and goo festooning the surrounding countryside.

But in all reality there are very few people who should really even own one and probably very few who do own one can legitimately and rationally explain why they need such a round when they will probably never shoot any game over 100 yards away in their life.

IF I only had one rifle and round to take PG in Africa and would not have to shoot over 200 yards my choice would be my 458 WM loaded with my ,350 grain expanding bullets that have no lead in them that are pushed over 2500++ ,drop everything they hit and leave one hell of a really disgusting exit wound.

Whatever anyone else chooses is up to them. Good luck

 

[bruce moulds]

memory suggests randy brooks shooting 270 gn x bullets in a 375 years ago.
this seems like a good compromize, probably outperforming conventional 300 gn bullets in both penetration and trajectory.
luckily so, because in some calibres, heavier barnes are so long they encroach on powder space to fit rounds in the mag.
the 286 gn 9.3mm bullet is a case to mention here.
recently hunting camels with the 9.3x64 introduced me to swift aframes.
using the 300 gn version, heavy for calibre, allowed adequate room for powder with a good load.
shooting this bullet at that sized game gave a good impression of killing power.
one smaller camel, about a yearling, succumbed as instantly as the bigger ones.
no runs, staggers, wobbling around, or second shots. just fell where they stood or moved.
1 notch down with barnes and full weight with swift seems a safe bet.
particularly when shots can be from all angles.
bruce.

 

[Red Leg]

He may indeed be the minority, but that is the point of this post. His observations, and the post I saw on another forum was that the lighter than accepted weight monometal bullets perform as well as their older heavier lead/copper bullets, even on thick skinned game like the buffalo.

As for plains game I can say the 168 grain TTSX penetrates and kills everything in southern Africa I've shot that everyone informed me I'd need a 180 or more grain copper/lead bullet. That would be eight animals from a springbok to two kudu and a zebra. All pass throughs but the zebra that went all the way though to the opposite side hide even after breaking a leg bone, with everything dropping within a few yards. That said I wouldn't go to 150 grain TTSX from my 30-06 for all plains game, but some would.

@Red Leg, happy to see we share one more experience. I started adult life at the Special Military Academy of St Cyr, the French equivalent to West Point...

Interesting comparison you make, and certainly no conflictual arguing here. Who could disagree with the concept of testing the theory? Regrettably, neither you or I have the resources the US Army could throw at it, but if volunteers are sought to go test in Africa all expenses paid, count me in LOL!

More seriously, if memory serves the M88 took the 5.56 from 55 gr to 62 gr, correct? How emphatically do I agree!!! Truth be told I am part of those who always preferred "battle rifle" to "assault rifle" and field experience comforted me in the soundness of shooting 7.5x54 139 gr (the French equivalent to 7.62x51 a.k.a. .308) aimed fire, over spraying 5.56x45 (a.k.a. .223) 55 gr and praying, or even over shooting 5.56x45 62 gr aimed fire.

But then again a 130 gr TTSX .308 at 3,300 fps out of a .300 Win Mag is quite something else than a 62 gr .223 Green Tip at 3,025 fps, and, as you inferred, animals do not wear Kevlar.

Yes, I know that 190 gr is preferred in the .300 Win Mag MK13 and derivatives (I know, I own and shoot one regularly)...

View attachment 251241

...but we are not trying to snipe game at 800 to 1,200 yard, are we? Although I know that some DO confuse hunting and sniping in some 'hunting' videos... (A friend of mine in South Africa, connected with the video industry tells me that for every 600 yd shot shown on safari YouTube clips, there are dozen of missed or crippling shots. No kidding !?!?)

Come to think of it, if 62 gr .223 is OK to engage Kevlar hardened 200 lbs targets at 300 yards, a 130 gr .308 TSX does not look so puny any more for soft skin game, does it? And when one thinks of all the game, including buffalo and elephant, the Rhodesia Game Control Department took out on control operations with 130 gr non expanding 7.62 military ammo (M80A1) in FAL rifles, maybe that 130 gr TTSX .300 Win Mag load at 3,300 fps does not appear so out of bound anymore?

I have no idea - theoretically, almost anything is possible - or not. As I say, I'll continue to base my bullet selection upon consensus and personal experience. Their combination is the closest thing I have to extensive testing. Therefore, I have no intention of using a 130 gr expanding bullet from a .300 on an elk. But you should feel free to make any deductive argument you wish and develop any experience base you wish with any bullet weight you wish.

 

[JMM]

I have been studying the debate of light/solid/fast vs heavy/bonded/slow for several years and have been experimenting in the field. Here in Texas, I cull whitetails and elk for ranches and donate the meat to the homeless. I have shot a lot of both and am always searching for quick kills and very little tracking. I guide hunts each year and have about a dozen hunters each year to observe. First of all, it does not take a lot to kill a whitetail deer. A .243 works great all the time. Shot placement is the key. I use a 30-06 for everything and have experimented with virtually all manufacturers and weights. Everything works, just some work better than others. I have found the 110 grain TTSX to be one of the best killers. At 3500 fps, it is a lightning bolt for deer. I would show you a picture, but no deer I have ever shot has captured one. I can tell you that the heavier 150 and 168 grain TTSX has been dismal on whitetails. It is my opinion that they are not going fast enough to reliably expand on this light, thin skinned game. One ranch I guide on does not allow Barnes bullets, period. My next favorite is the 150 grain Swift Scirocco driven at 3050 fps from my 24" Pacnor barrel. Devastating performance from all angles. For culling elk, I use the 130 grain TTSX at 3200 fps and the same Swift Scirocco with 150 grains. Great shock effect, destroyed vitals and DRT is what I like.

In Africa, I cull hunt only and the meat is used by villages or it is sold commercially. I also drill water wells there, but that is a different story. Again, I am looking for the most effective bullet I can find. Last year I shot 51 wildes and 10 oryx. I experimented with 180 grain Scirocco, 180 A-frame, 200 grain Partition, 200 grain Norma Oryx, 180 grain Sierra Pro Hunter, 180 grain Speer HotCor, 240 grain Woodeigh Weldcore, and 168 grain Barnes TTSX. 5 shots for each then switch. Best ones were used over again. The best performer was the 180 grain Scirocco. Next was the 180 a-frame, followed by the partition and oryx. The ProHunter and HotCor, killed great and I would use them any time on wildes. The Woodleigh was a novelty and killed every wilde I shot at, but it did nothing special. The TTSX was the worst performer of the group with the longest tracking jobs. All of the bullets worked fine with the exception of the Barnes.

I shot 25 zebras at one area and used A-frames and Remington Ultra Bonded Corelokt. The a-frames punched thru every zebra and killed effectively. The 180 grain Remington would expand magnificently and penetrate all the way to the opposite skin and sometimes exit. But the internal damage was massive and the zebras all died quicker and with less tracking than the A-frame.

I shot 50 impala with my .223 loaded with 55 grain soft points. Slip it in behind the shoulder, and it destroys the internals without messing up any meat.

Point of all this is that I am a fan of light, fast Barnes TTSX for plains game applications. I am not a fan of them at normal speeds against less than kudu/eland species. As a guide, I see way too many hunters using too much bullet for deer hunting. I am always nervous when the hunter shows up with his latest long range build and boxes of handloaded cannon fodder with tough, heavy bullets. Those are the ones I end up on long tracking jobs or lost deer. The guy that shows up with a green box of Corelokts or blue box Federal is going home with a deer and usually without a tracking job.

 

[Red Leg]

I have been studying the debate of light/solid/fast vs heavy/bonded/slow for several years and have been experimenting in the field. Here in Texas, I cull whitetails and elk for ranches and donate the meat to the homeless. I have shot a lot of both and am always searching for quick kills and very little tracking. I guide hunts each year and have about a dozen hunters each year to observe. First of all, it does not take a lot to kill a whitetail deer. A .243 works great all the time. Shot placement is the key. I use a 30-06 for everything and have experimented with virtually all manufacturers and weights. Everything works, just some work better than others. I have found the 110 grain TTSX to be one of the best killers. At 3500 fps, it is a lightning bolt for deer. I would show you a picture, but no deer I have ever shot has captured one. I can tell you that the heavier 150 and 168 grain TTSX has been dismal on whitetails. It is my opinion that they are not going fast enough to reliably expand on this light, thin skinned game. One ranch I guide on does not allow Barnes bullets, period. My next favorite is the 150 grain Swift Scirocco driven at 3050 fps from my 24" Pacnor barrel. Devastating performance from all angles. For culling elk, I use the 130 grain TTSX at 3200 fps and the same Swift Scirocco with 150 grains. Great shock effect, destroyed vitals and DRT is what I like.

In Africa, I cull hunt only and the meat is used by villages or it is sold commercially. I also drill water wells there, but that is a different story. Again, I am looking for the most effective bullet I can find. Last year I shot 51 wildes and 10 oryx. I experimented with 180 grain Scirocco, 180 A-frame, 200 grain Partition, 200 grain Norma Oryx, 180 grain Sierra Pro Hunter, 180 grain Speer HotCor, 240 grain Woodeigh Weldcore, and 168 grain Barnes TTSX. 5 shots for each then switch. Best ones were used over again. The best performer was the 180 grain Scirocco. Next was the 180 a-frame, followed by the partition and oryx. The ProHunter and HotCor, killed great and I would use them any time on wildes. The Woodleigh was a novelty and killed every wilde I shot at, but it did nothing special. The TTSX was the worst performer of the group with the longest tracking jobs. All of the bullets worked fine with the exception of the Barnes.

I shot 25 zebras at one area and used A-frames and Remington Ultra Bonded Corelokt. The a-frames punched thru every zebra and killed effectively. The 180 grain Remington would expand magnificently and penetrate all the way to the opposite skin and sometimes exit. But the internal damage was massive and the zebras all died quicker and with less tracking than the A-frame.

I shot 50 impala with my .223 loaded with 55 grain soft points. Slip it in behind the shoulder, and it destroys the internals without messing up any meat.

Point of all this is that I am a fan of light, fast Barnes TTSX for plains game applications. I am not a fan of them at normal speeds against less than kudu/eland species. As a guide, I see way too many hunters using too much bullet for deer hunting. I am always nervous when the hunter shows up with his latest long range build and boxes of handloaded cannon fodder with tough, heavy bullets. Those are the ones I end up on long tracking jobs or lost deer. The guy that shows up with a green box of Corelokts or blue box Federal is going home with a deer and usually without a tracking job.

Good post and good information.

My problem with the 130 from a .30 cal is not a cull hunt. I have also done a lot of that - mainly deer here and in Europe - and I always had the luxury of waiting for nearly perfect presentation. I am also uninterested in using game animals as targets at extreme range (not something you suggested by the way). From my experience, an elk or mule deer trophy hunt in the Rockies is likely to produce a single shot opportunity over 10-days of hard hunting. The presentation will likely be anything but perfect and it will be inside of 500 meters - preferably 400 - or I won't take it and most other hunters should not either. I want enough bullet to drive to and through both lungs regardless of the angle of presentation. Shots at trophy game in Africa tend to offer some of the same demands, less the issue of range. I am also all about an exit wound. As I noted previously, I want as long a destructive wound channel as possible and could care less about dumped foot pounds of energy. With both lungs and an exit wound, no one should ever lose that game animal (all hail the .338).

Finally, I think deep destructive wounding is the best option for the less experienced hunter - particularly in Africa. I think such a bullet offers the best opportunity to cover the slightly misplaced hit or the angle that was different than first thought (a very common occurrence). I have had wonderful success with the 180+ gr TSX and A-Frame there.

No criticism intended - just another - and probably geriatric - point of view. But it is also one based upon a bit of experience. So for North America and Europe, my .30 cal bullet weights begin at 150 and for Africa 180.

 

[Von S.]

Be it BB or Bowling Ball it simply doesn't matter to me what anyone uses for anything.

If a fella can hit something with a weapon powerful enough to make clean kills at 1000 yards one can only imagine what he should be able to hit at 100?

A fella like " one day " has put science to work and has come up with some pretty good info for all to ponder and by him never loosing a wounded animal ever I am inclined to listen to what he has to say.

Of course, out there somewhere is probably still firing extra large lead jaw breakers out of a 2 bore saying that anyone who uses anything different is wet behind the ears.

Ain't life a mystery.....

 

[Ryan]

I have been studying the debate of light/solid/fast vs heavy/bonded/slow for several years and have been experimenting in the field. Here in Texas, I cull whitetails and elk for ranches and donate the meat to the homeless. I have shot a lot of both and am always searching for quick kills and very little tracking. I guide hunts each year and have about a dozen hunters each year to observe. First of all, it does not take a lot to kill a whitetail deer. A .243 works great all the time. Shot placement is the key. I use a 30-06 for everything and have experimented with virtually all manufacturers and weights. Everything works, just some work better than others. I have found the 110 grain TTSX to be one of the best killers. At 3500 fps, it is a lightning bolt for deer. I would show you a picture, but no deer I have ever shot has captured one. I can tell you that the heavier 150 and 168 grain TTSX has been dismal on whitetails. It is my opinion that they are not going fast enough to reliably expand on this light, thin skinned game. One ranch I guide on does not allow Barnes bullets, period. My next favorite is the 150 grain Swift Scirocco driven at 3050 fps from my 24" Pacnor barrel. Devastating performance from all angles. For culling elk, I use the 130 grain TTSX at 3200 fps and the same Swift Scirocco with 150 grains. Great shock effect, destroyed vitals and DRT is what I like.

In Africa, I cull hunt only and the meat is used by villages or it is sold commercially. I also drill water wells there, but that is a different story. Again, I am looking for the most effective bullet I can find. Last year I shot 51 wildes and 10 oryx. I experimented with 180 grain Scirocco, 180 A-frame, 200 grain Partition, 200 grain Norma Oryx, 180 grain Sierra Pro Hunter, 180 grain Speer HotCor, 240 grain Woodeigh Weldcore, and 168 grain Barnes TTSX. 5 shots for each then switch. Best ones were used over again. The best performer was the 180 grain Scirocco. Next was the 180 a-frame, followed by the partition and oryx. The ProHunter and HotCor, killed great and I would use them any time on wildes. The Woodleigh was a novelty and killed every wilde I shot at, but it did nothing special. The TTSX was the worst performer of the group with the longest tracking jobs. All of the bullets worked fine with the exception of the Barnes.

I shot 25 zebras at one area and used A-frames and Remington Ultra Bonded Corelokt. The a-frames punched thru every zebra and killed effectively. The 180 grain Remington would expand magnificently and penetrate all the way to the opposite skin and sometimes exit. But the internal damage was massive and the zebras all died quicker and with less tracking than the A-frame.

I shot 50 impala with my .223 loaded with 55 grain soft points. Slip it in behind the shoulder, and it destroys the internals without messing up any meat.

Point of all this is that I am a fan of light, fast Barnes TTSX for plains game applications. I am not a fan of them at normal speeds against less than kudu/eland species. As a guide, I see way too many hunters using too much bullet for deer hunting. I am always nervous when the hunter shows up with his latest long range build and boxes of handloaded cannon fodder with tough, heavy bullets. Those are the ones I end up on long tracking jobs or lost deer. The guy that shows up with a green box of Corelokts or blue box Federal is going home with a deer and usually without a tracking job.

Interesting
168's out of a 30-06 have served me well for my African animals and three caribou in Alaska and was what I planned on using for moose. That said, the only animal in that list that was as light framed as a southern whitetail is my springbok, and it was close enough I'd say it had close to muzzle velocity, it dropped on the spot. I have been thinking of going to 150's in my Ruger #1 for lighter game, just haven't done much load testing yet. Time to get working on that. Thanks for the info.

 

[Von S.]

50 odd years ago wen i moved to Africa I was given two rifles as gifts by my gunsmith mentors who told me that those were the only two that anyone would ever need there.

One was a brand spanking new Springfield 03-A3 in it's original military configuration along with an ammo box of 30-06 AP rounds and another A-3 that had been converted to 458 WM and a can of FMJs.

When I asked about the AP rounds they said that all I needed to do was hit everything right and they would go down. They were right. And truthfully my longest shot back then was probably less than 200 yards.

 

[One Day...]

Most people probably dont give it much thought as to just how little time it takes for a high powered pop bullet to put the brakes on if it stops cold in a one foot distance and the destructive force which the shedding of energy has on the animal.

At one time, and not that long ago, the hunters had very few choices as to what came out of the muzzle. These days there are much better choices then before. If someone these days condems a round like the 378 Weatherby as one that just blows bullets up they are just repeating stuff they were told by someone who heard it from someone heard it from someone else who never even held one in his hands.

IF two bullet of the same exact makeup , one at 200 grains and the next at 300 grains fired out of the same gun will both penatrate the same animal completely through without blowng apart ,say within 0 to 300 yards, it's a no brainier what to choose. That extra 100 grains of the the 300 is simply along for the ride. The 200 grain bullet moving much faster will prove to have greater foot pounds of energy .

I changed around a factory 30-378 Weatherby because I could never do what the factory said it would do, and that was 1" at 100 yards which I found unsatisfactory for a hunting weapon who's ultimate purpose was to take game up to 1000 yards. To be a reliable killer at that range it must still be traveling at super Sonic speed and a lighter bullet no matter how hard it's pushed leaving the muzzle will eventually prove to take a nose dive way before the k mark .

The original barrel was removed and a new one that was a scochi bit heavier in it's place .chambered and throated for a 210 Nosler Accubond LR the weapon now had the ability to make one slightly egged hole at 200 yards and enough accuracy and energy at 1000 to legitimately kill cleanly at long range.

Unfortunately over the years my marksmanship has dwindled to the point where I don't believe I should be shooting animals at a grand, with about 700 yards is more like it. That rifle now lives in Texas with my friend's son who right regularly makes phenomenal 1000 yards and then some kills on piggies. He has the talent.

These bullets at their 3000 + fps can, will and do pretty much well do explode on impact from 200 yards and in, and even turned into dust they drop animals like they were hit by a meteor and create one extremely large and grotesque GAPING exit hole with chunks of animal and goo festooning the surrounding countryside.

But in all reality there are very few people who should really even own one and probably very few who do own one can legitimately and rationally explain why they need such a round when they will probably never shoot any game over 100 yards away in their life.

IF I only had one rifle and round to take PG in Africa and would not have to shoot over 200 yards my choice would be my 458 WM loaded with my ,350 grain expanding bullets that have no lead in them that are pushed over 2500++ ,drop everything they hit and leave one hell of a really disgusting exit wound.

Whatever anyone else chooses is up to them. Good luck

There is a lot of good stuff in this post Von S., as usual, would I add. "They are just repeating stuff they were told by someone who heard it from someone heard it from someone else who never even held one in his hands" resonates particularly with me, because we see this too often, here or anywhere in life...

I am with you too regarding self-limiting the shooting range while hunting. First I do shoot 1,000 meters (1,110 yd) steel with that .300 Win Mag Mk13 pictured in my previous post; I received the proper military training for it way back when (although in those days we were not shooting the .300); and I know how difficult it is to reliably hit an 18" plate at those distances. The chances of wounding and crippling are - to me - very, very high. Second, what is the point? This is hardly "hunting"... Not for me it is not, count me out. When I want to "shoot" I go steel, there is no crippling and seasons and tags are unlimited LOL

Interestingly, a .458 with .350 gr seems to follow the same concept as a .338 with 185 gr or a .300 with 150gr ;-) I never tried in my Lott to shoot .350 gr, but you put the bug in me. I will try

 

[One Day...]

And the verdict is...

Again, THANK YOU ALL, for sharing you knowledge, experience, humor and passion.

...But you should feel free to make any deductive argument you wish and develop any experience base you wish with any bullet weight you wish.

Well, I would say yes, but within limits, because everything can be pushed to the absurd. I was really curious to see if others have learned things I have not because up to now I have always shot the heaviest for caliber Partition available. This served me well, but I try to stay open-minded and willing to change when something demonstrably better emerges from progressing technology. Hence this post.

As I said in the opening post, I have my idea on the subject, and it may be fair by now to share my intuitive take on all this. I say intuitive, because as precisely emphasized by @Red Leg, I have not experimented and do not have objective data, therefore, indeed, I can only use deductive reasoning, which is not necessarily a bad method, but needs to be validated experimentally.

So, here is where I am:

Applying blindly a "30% rule" as it has come to be discussed in this thread does not seem reasonable to me. I believe that 1) there is a notion of minimum weight, and 2) there is a notion of identifying clearly the baseline from which to reduce weight.

As an illustration, I would say that 70% of a 300 gr .375 soft that was entered in the hunting legend around 1910, would result in a 210 gr mono-metal Barnes (they does not make one lighter than 235 gr) or Peregrine (they do make a 200 gr). I would shoot an Eland without a second thought with a 200 gr .375 mono-metal, and I would probably shoot a buff under the right conditions with a .375 235 gr TSX, and certainly with a .250 gr TTSX.

Conversely, the typical African weight for the .300 was 200 gr for a long time. It has already been reduced to 180 gr with the first generation of controlled expansion bullets. Shaving it by another 30% would result in shooting 126 gr. I intuitively do not believe that 126 gr is enough for elk or large plains game. As noted somewhere in the last few posts, I believe that the .270 Win helps us validate this skepticism. I understand that those who tried its 130 gr slugs on elk found them often lacking, while the 150 gr slugs were found adequate (in most cases). So, I will not use 130 gr .300 for hunting trophy large game (culling cows is a bit different). I think that I will come down from 180 gr to, for sure 165 gr, and maybe 150 gr TTSX.

Similarly, I will come down from 250 gr Partition in .340 Wby to 210 gr TTSX for sure, by-passing the .225 gr altogether, and possibly, I have not made my mind fully yet, to 185 gr TTSX. After all, many, many folks have taken all large plains game with 180 gr. 300 Partition, so why not .185 gr TTSX? Eland may be the exception, justifying a 225 gr .340, or a .375/.416...

As to the .257 Wby, I will bypass the 120 gr Partition for a 100 gr TTSX, because I intend to only use it on small plains / mountain game, with the .340 along for big plains game. Should one try to push its limit, which I will not do, logic would be to use the 120 gr 100% retention A Frame, which would presumably raise the little .257's effectiveness to that of a 70% retention 160 gr .270 Partition.

So, yep, coming down one or two notches on the weight scale with mono-metal, but staying shy off the 30% weight reduction until further experimental learning emerges...

Thank you all for helping me come to my decision.
Pascal