Rather than discuss best deer calibre...

NigelM

Well-Known Member
The "discussion" over which chambering is best as an all round UK deer rifle has rumbled on for years - there is another thread up at the moment on the subject.

In my mind the chambering is totally irrelevant as the shape of the brass has nothing to do with what comes out of the barrel. Wouldn't it be more relevant to discuss the ideal weight and construction of bullet and the best speed to drive it at?

Reach some sort of consensus on that and the outcome is likely to encompass a very wide range of calibre's and chamberings.

My starter for 10 would be a 140 grain soft nose bullet driven at about 2900 fps. Perfect for anything in the UK inside 250 yds shot through the chest. You would spec differently if the distances were longer or if you were predominantly neck shooting, but for your average amateur stalker I think this is about right.

Discuss...
 

Vipa

Well-Known Member
Hmmm... yes and no... cross sectional density is as, if not more important than weight and that is calibre driven.

So, we need to be talking about cross sectional density, projectile weight and muzzle velocity

So, we need to be talking about calibre
 

stubear

Well-Known Member
Thats kinda where I've been going with my recent posts about reloading for my .308. Which bullet weight, which powder and so on...

From what I have read and my own personal preference I'd say 150gr thrown at 2700fps. Whats putting me off going up to 165gr is the velocity comes down to around 2500-2600 out of a .308 so far open hill stalking that might become a bit loopy.

The only reason I have upped the grain weight and reduced the speed slightly to the OP is that from what I've seen lighter, faster bullets tend to do more meat damage whereas heavy and slow(er) tend to do less.

JMHO and YMMV.
 

takbok

Well-Known Member
Sectional density is a waste of time as this changes at the moment the bullet starts deforming.

More important is bullet construction.

If you're concerned about trajectory, velocity and ballistic coefficient is what determines this.
 
Last edited:

Vipa

Well-Known Member
Thats kinda where I've been going with my recent posts about reloading for my .308. Which bullet weight, which powder and so on...

From what I have read and my own personal preference I'd say 150gr thrown at 2700fps. Whats putting me off going up to 165gr is the velocity comes down to around 2500-2600 out of a .308 so far open hill stalking that might become a bit loopy.

The only reason I have upped the grain weight and reduced the speed slightly to the OP is that from what I've seen lighter, faster bullets tend to do more meat damage whereas heavy and slow(er) tend to do less.

JMHO and YMMV.
Loopy?!?!?!?!? out to 300 yards, loopy doesn't come into it...
 

Biathlonjimmy

Well-Known Member
Hmmm... yes and no... cross sectional density is as, if not more important than weight and that is calibre driven.

So, we need to be talking about cross sectional density, projectile weight and muzzle velocity

So, we need to be talking about calibre
You're quite right. a 140gr .600 Cal would be rubbish at 2900. A 140gr .240 Cal at 2900 could be excellent.

Calibre does need discussing but chambering does not.
 

Vipa

Well-Known Member
Sectional density determines, to a large degree, how much the bullet will deform and therefore the efficiency of the terminal ballistics. It also has a direct correlation to a bullet's BC. I would say that the terminal ballistics performance is more than relevant when trying to determine what projectile is best than merely weight and speed.

EG.. a 140gn .308 and a 140gn 6.5mm bullet travelling at 2700fps will have significantly different terminal ballistics performance, so arguing about weight & speed is pointless unless you also argue about sectional density.
 

Vipa

Well-Known Member
In that case - 150gr or 165gr? Coz I cant decide! :D
I am a BIG fan of heavy for calibre projectiles... Heavy and slow (ish) = less meat damage and is slightly less affected by wind at stalking ranges. OK, you might have to re-evaluate your PBR and hold an inch or 2 more at extreme range but other than that, you won't notice much difference..

I run 156gn in my 6.5x55
 

NigelM

Well-Known Member
Just trying to keep it simple, I think you would probably be challenged to find anything as light as a 140 grain bullet in anything bigger than .308, so the .600 would be ruled out of the calibre options on those grounds if 140 was a good weight.

Love the idea of a 140 in .243, it would be exceptionally slippery. Alas, they are unobtainium.

With the limited range of calibre's you can get a 140 grain bullet for I'm not sure you do need to worry about SD as your only options are from .264 to .308 and all would have sufficient SD for the biggest Reds shot through the shoulder anyway.
 

tackb

Well-Known Member
good idea , start with the projectile and velocity then the rifle then the chambering

I've settled on 100-200grains at 2500-3500 fps in a rifle , seems to work ok
 

Apthorpe

Well-Known Member
Can you try a factory box of 165? A bit of practice may well answer for you.
My tuppenceworth (actually prob worth less than 2p) would be to look up the trajectory for 165 and if it's dropping more than a foot at the maximum range you can imagine firing, then rethink. Raising the crosshairs a few inches isn't really a hardship.
Seems to me that a lot of the discussion and thinking on 'airborne ballistics' comes from varmint and target shooting. Unless you intend to shoot the ticks off a stag.....
 

TOMMO.B

Well-Known Member
Anything over 100 grain or above. for larger deer. proper shot placement. real life distances knowing your rifle and ammo. as its stalking a deer not long distance sniping:(
i use a .243 and have still to see this horrid meat damage that is banded around. a one inch hole is hardly a big loss.
 

NigelM

Well-Known Member
Well this is all sounding rather more constructive than the usual 6.5*55 evangelists battling it out with the 7mm08 massive and the .275 die hards. The .243 whiz kids will be along shortly to put pay to this little love in I'm sure.
 

Top