Graham Hunter
AH elite
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2017
- Messages
- 1,529
- Reaction score
- 2,492
- Media
- 36
- Hunted
- Alaska Canada US New Zealand Scotland South Africa Zimbabwe
LOL and now we know why there are so many companies and so many bullet choices!
Recoil felt is at the launched bullet weight and velocity not after X amount has shed and only the retained core is left to penetrate. Some of this discussion has taken place on Weatherby hyper velocity being said to be too fast vs slower cartridge speeds. It is non arguable that newer designed bullets change the game for any caliber or cartridge and can be used as above described in reducing recoil by lighter bullet weight without suffering terminal bullet performance.in my humble opinion it depends on the animal. i hunt alaska frequently and my favorite caribou load is the hornady gmx premium bullet in 185 grain 338 win mag. it is light for caliber but caribou tend to “flop over” when hit decently. i had a complete pass-through with this load from 470 yards. now, I do NOT go light for caliber for dangerous game no matter the bullet construction for anything that can bite you back (grizzly).
I'm not expert but I have read a lot of others experience s.Just for everyone’s info, a CS guy at Barnes told me their bullets penetrate like a conventional cup and core 15-20% heavier. Thus a 250 grain Barnes penetrates like a 287-300 grain cup and core.
@RidgewalkerJust for everyone’s info, a CS guy at Barnes told me their bullets penetrate like a conventional cup and core 15-20% heavier. Thus a 250 grain Barnes penetrates like a 287-300 grain cup and core.
Their statement was they will penetrate similar to a cup and core bullet 15-20% heavier. They may or may not expand to the same degree. Or they may not blow apart to the same degree. “Penetration” was the specific term he used.@Ridgewalker
So a 225gn 35 cal would be equivalent to a 275gn Woodleigh.
Their statement was they will penetrate similar to a cup and core bullet 15-20% heavier. They may or may not expand to the same degree. Or they may not blow apart to the same degree. “Penetration” was the specific term he used.
It's not all about velocity but I expect the monos are finding a compromise between more velocity and less recoil to get penetration and a good result.Many years ago I went for maximum velocity.
These days I like to match the bullet and its construction to the intended target.
I’m about to load 165 grain Woodleigh power points I think they’ll called for my newly acquired Kimber 308.
Slower and much heavier bullets (within reason) is what I go for now.
It's not all about velocity but I expect the monos are finding a compromise between more velocity and less recoil to get penetration and a good result.
Traditional bullet types still work, always did.we just like trying new stuff.
What are you targeting with the .309?
@Dr RayLong distant targets and deer
I normally use my 270 for deer but have decided to try the 308.
This is something that I have wondered about myself. Having grown up in California, where the use of lead free bullets is now required, I bought a box of Barnes and loaded them for my .30-06. After about three shots I could no longer hold a group. I polled the bolt a looked down the bore. It looked like a tiny shotgun barrel. Completely smooth and shiny. The lands had sheared so much copper which completely filled the grooves that the bullets would no longer stabilize. It took a lot of copper solvent and elbow grease to restore the rifle to its former tight shooting self.Hello;
In order to avoid misunderstandings, please note that we are talking about plains game expanding bullets, NOT dangerous game solid bullets.
For the sake of discussion, allow me to arbitrarily pick a few dates to illustrate expanding bullet recent history: 1) pre-1948: soft-point bullets; 2) 1948: invention of the controlled expansion Nosler Partition bullet; 3) 1969 (?): invention of the Bitterroot Bonded bullet; 4) 1984: invention of the Swift A Frame bullet; 5) 1989: invention of the Barnes X mono-metal bullet.
Basically, old soft points expanded unreliably (too much or not enough) and velocity was the primary factor in regulating expansion, weight retention and integrity. The Nosler Partition relies on a divided jacket to trap and retain the rear core and penetrate, while the front core expands, generally violently. Bitterroot, Bear Claw, Nosler, Swift, Hornady, etc. bonded bullets rely on bonding core and jacket to retain the core during expansion. The A Frame relies on both divided jacket and bonding. The Barnes X relies on mono-metal 'solid' construction to control the expansion of a hollow point. Yes, this is over-simplified, but bear with me for a minute please.
Based on personal experience and innumerable hunters' reports, recovered Nosler Partitions have often lost 30% to 40% of their weight. Bonded bullets generally loose less (shall we say 10% to 20%?). A Frames barely loose in the 5% range. TSX & TTSX barely loose 1% or 2%. Yes, this too is over-simplified, but bear with me for another minute please.
If we accept that the "classic" bullet weights (300 gr .375; 180 gr .308; etc.) were indelibly engraved in our collective hunting mind well before even the Nosler Partition existed; and if we accept - let us just focus on the Nosler Partition - that any given Nosler Partition looses at least 30% of its weight in the first inch of penetration/expansion; then it follows that only 210 gr (70% of 300 gr) of a .375 Partition slug actually does most of the penetration; 175 gr (70% of 250 gr) of a .338 Partition slug actually does most of the penetration; or 126 gr (70% of 180 gr) of a .308 Partition slug actually does most of the penetration.
The question that is of interest to me is therefore the following: would we get exactly the same results as a Partition gets, with bullets 30% lighter that retain virtually 100% of their weight during expansion (A Frame, TTSX, etc.)?
From a trajectory perspective, heavier bullets retain their momentum (speed) longer, but this advantage is offset by the fact that longer mono-metals have higher ballistic coefficients, and lighter bullets are launched faster. Any ballistic chart will confirm that the heavier Partition do not have a meaningful, if any, trajectory edge over the lighter TTSX.
From an energy perspective, heavier bullets deliver more energy, but weight is only one factor, and speed matters a lot in the energy calculation. Again, any ballistic chart will confirm that the heavier slower Partition do not have a meaningful energy edge over the lighter TTSX.
So, should the modern (A Frame, TTSX, etc.) golden standard for an expanding .375 be 210 grain, to produce the same penetration and killing results as the 'old' Kynoch 300 gr standard did? We know that a 210 gr TTSX .375 would fly faster and flatter; recoil less; hit almost as hard in terms of pure energy; and should penetrate the same since it does not loose 30%+ of its weight in the first inch or so.
I am on record for having always, for the last 40 years, shot the heaviest Partition available in any given caliber, and I have been very happy with it because the rear core almost never failed to penetrate while the front core never failed to expand. But is this reasoning obsolete in the face of the newer technologies where a bullet does not loose half of its core and still expands? Heck, everything else being constant, a reduction of 10% in ejecta weight results in a reduction of 20% in free recoil. Added velocity will add recoil, so a 20% lighter but faster bullet will not quite yield a 40% reduction in free recoil, but I will gladly take a 20% recoil reduction on anything from .338 and up... Why not...
What say you? I need to re-order 100 rounds of .340 Wby for large American and African plains game. I know these will not be 250 gr Partition anymore (like the last 100), but should they be 225 gr TTSX, 210 gr TTSX, or - dare I say? - 185 gr TTSX (after all, 70% retained off 250 gr is only 175 gr...)?
Another example would be: will a 100 gr TTSX in a 257 Wby deliver what a 120 gr Partition does (after all, 70% retained of 120 gr is only 84 gr...)?
Please explain your view, this is so much more interesting and educational when you do... I have my own view, but I am really interested in your view and experience.
Thanks
Pascal