Quick killing v meat saving projectiles ?

Double four

Well-Known Member
Copper v lead core /bonded thoughts please chaps.
Iv just gone back to accubonds in the .300 as I was getting very mixed results with barnes ttsx, sometimes they would work fine animals would buckle in a heap then what would appear to be a good chest shot would run on as if you had missed only to collapse after some distance something I had never experienced with the bonded stuff ie accubonds in that particular rifle anyway and everything that I have used them on have literally been bang flops albeit with more meat damage particulally with smaller deer which was the only reason a changed to barnes.
Maybe its that particular calibre maybe the speed I don't know but its put me off them, for clean carcasses and minimal meat damage I found them superb + good accuracy. and it wouldn't be too much of a bother if I wasnt working on a tight boundary where if they ran only a small way into deep cover any animal of decent weight is going to be a nightmare to extract ! anyone else had less than satisfactory results from barnes ?
 
tries gmx in the .308 but it was just too slow to really open up the bullet and the acted more like a fmj that an expanding bullet, real poor results so shelved them. The lead copper offerings are just better and certainly softer and more dependable at mid velocities anyway.
 
would love to try some TTSX in the 300WM
they only go up to 180gr though. is that because you really need to push them to open?

have some CoreLokt in 180gr which apparently are a very good expander
Can't fault the Lapua Megas though in .300
I have had very good results with lowly old Hornady Interlocks in .243 and .270 though
 
Look at rifles which kill without a lot of meat damage, like the 6.5x55 SWE with a 140-gr bullet at less than 2,600 fps, or a 7x57mm 154 gr at 2500 fps, 8x57 with 196 gr at 2,600 fps. The magnums are designed to deliver the same sort of energy, at longer range. If you shoot a deer with a 130-gr at 3,100 fps at 100 yards, instead of 250 yards, expect bloodshot meat. Expect lots of the kinetic energy to be consumed mechanically in melting and fragmenting the bullet, or on a tree behind the exit wound.

The TTSX and TSX, according to Barnes, are designed to open up fully at 1,800 fps. Barnes even gives some reduced loads for both of them, with MVs under 2,500 fps and even 2,000 fps, which they use for testing expansion on ballistic gel at 25 yards or so, to simulate long range shots.
 
Look at rifles which kill without a lot of meat damage, like the 6.5x55 SWE with a 140-gr bullet at less than 2,600 fps

+1
I have 140gr SSTs leaving my 6.5x55 at 2,660fps.

As everything I shoot goes into my own freezer, I'm less worried about damage than others and this round drops everything into its own shadow with a nice big exit wound
 
If you shoot a deer with a 130-gr at 3,100 fps at 100 yards, instead of 250 yards, expect bloodshot meat. Expect lots of the kinetic energy to be consumed mechanically in melting and fragmenting the bullet, or on a tree behind the exit wound.

not always
two from 6 months ago, same trip

130gr .270 Interlock roughly 3000fps MV
shot at 35 yds
massive expansion bullet lodged under skin on opposite side
no meat damage on either shoulder

IMG_0839_zps314caf86.jpg




300WM 180gr Lapua Mega at roughly 3100fps MV
shot at 100yds
through and through 3/4" entry, 1" exit
zero meat damage or bloodied shoulders

IMG_0869_zpseefa49e0.jpg



Stag Do!
 
But how repeatable and predictable is that performance of the .270 and .300 WM at close range?

I have seen a hot 6.5x55mm 120-gr zip through a 140-lb whitetail deer's chest with no expansion, at 25 yards.
But shoot that deer at 200 yards with the same bullet and I bet it would have great performance 10 times in a row.

Likewise, if I am hunting in the woods, on foot, with my Mannlicher carbine .270 Win, it will be loaded with 150-gr RN at an MV of 2,700 fps, because I expect shots from 35 to 150 yards and I know I will get full expansion, high weight retention, and an exit wound, and probably the deer or hog knocked over on the spot.
 
But how repeatable and predictable is that performance of the .270 and .300 WM at close range?

well the last three or four deer I shot with the .270 have all been under 50yd chest shots
none were bruised or full of blood between or in the surrounding muscle
 
Nope, with the Barnes Tsx/ttsx and other monolithic bullets you need to go one or two weight bands lower. This is in part due to the fact that most monolithic copper bullets are longer than their conventional counterparts and stability issues can occur. I read a report from a Norwegian hunting mag where the writer had used 100 or 110 grain tsx in 30-06 and produced 300WM velocity and reliable expansion/weight retension on gnu sized game at 200m +. I have used 130 grain tsx in 308w to good effect.
 
Anyone use 150 fusion in 270? Any good? I am using rem acutip 130grn and drop hinds well but are a bit aggressive on roe.
 
Anyone use 150 fusion in 270? Any good? I am using rem acutip 130grn and drop hinds well but are a bit aggressive on roe.

Not in 270 fella but i been using 150 fusion in 30.06 on roe recently and its working well through it.
 
Anyone use 150 fusion in 270? Any good? I am using rem acutip 130grn and drop hinds well but are a bit aggressive on roe.

All my .270s love the Rem CoreLokt 150-gr RN and SPT.
If you hand load, try 150-gr Speer or Hornady flat base with 53.0 of H-4350 or 56.0 of H-4831.
 
Thanks, I'm not going to roll my own for the .270 as it is a blaser and invalidates the warranty, also the FC don't like it. Plus I don't want the bolt in my face. I have had some good results with standard soft nose bullets, like federal and rem core lokt, which I use in my 243, though it prefers federals. I have been in discussion with a pal on here who is going to do some load development for me and show me how to reload for the 243.
 
I usually use 180's accubonds but dropped to 168 barnes in the .300 rum, maybe just to fast ? certainly found them not as consistant as the accobonds for killing in any case.
 
Back
Top