Sako .243 Powerhead blade ammunition through Sako S20 rifle

[si_b1979]

Has anyone got experience of shooting non toxic Sako .243 80gr Powerhead blade ammunition through a Sako S20?

I tried some Sako .243 80gr Powerhead II ammunition through the same rifle and it grouped fantastically well, however their new Powerhead blade in .243 won't group at all. I'm very surprised that they'd produce ammunition that their own rifles don't like.

Sako have now stopped supplying the Powerhead II ammunition because it doesn't meet UK muzzle energy requirements.

 

[User00040]

Sako have now stopped supplying the Powerhead II ammunition because it doesn't meet UK muzzle energy requirements.

You have a source for this claim or was it from the gunshop salesperson?

 

[si_b1979]

Gunshop told me. Not that it makes any difference because I can't use the Powerhead II legally on anything other than Muntjac and CWD in the UK anyway, which is why I wanted non-toxic ammunition..

 

[User00040]

Gunshop told me. Not that it makes any difference because I can't use the Powerhead II legally on anything other than Muntjac and CWD in the UK anyway, which is why I wanted non-toxic ammunition..

You are right about the 'on paper' statistics.

However, if you were to test 200 stalking rifles with their respective owners choice of ammunition, especially if they are reloads and not factory, I suspect at least 10% would fail to meet minimum muzzle energy requirements.

 

[FISH BOY]

While looking a few years ago for a batch of 243 non toxic, found a RFD with a stack of Sako going cheap.

Glad I did my homework, as he didn’t open about their limitations.

 

[8x57]

View attachment 293611
While looking a few years ago for a batch of 243 non toxic, found a RFD with a stack of Sako going cheap.

Glad I did my homework, as he didn’t open about their limitations.

Run those figures through a ballistic calculator - I may be wrong but by my calculations a 80 grn bullet travelling at the claimed 2920 fps produces 1515 ft/lb of energy and not the 1239 ft/lb printed on the box.
Still below the level required for larger deer species in E&W, but I just wonder if the claimed 2920 figure is also wrong.

Question - Was it the Sako .243 80gr Powerhead II ammunition that failed to meet the legal minimum standards when tested in trials to determine the suitability of a reduced weight (less than 100 grn) non lead loads in Scotland?

 

[si_b1979]

1239 ft/lb stated is energy at 100m (E100). Not sure why they present it like that. Verified this figure in the Sako ballistics app.

Yes, it was the Sako Powerhead II that failed the trials.

 

[8x57]

1239 ft/lb stated is energy at 100m (E100). Not sure why they present it like that. Verified this figure in the Sako ballistics app.

Yes, it was the Sako Powerhead II that failed the trials.

Ah got you, I was thinking muzzle energy. I forgot that many countries stipulate muzzle energy at 100 metres.

 

[HallyButt]

Yep, v confusing, same on the old lead gameheads which resulted in me returning a few boxes unnecessarily

 

[long_range_rob]

Good god! It’s been well known that .243 couldn’t kill a spider in a bath! It’s obvious to anyone who knows that any deer that people have claimed to kill with a .243 has merely died of old age upon hearing the shot.

I still use it and things fall over.

 

[8x57]

Good god! It’s been well known that .243 couldn’t kill a spider in a bath! It’s obvious to anyone who knows that any deer that people have claimed to kill with a .243 has merely died of old age upon hearing the shot.

I still use it and things fall over.

There's probably been tens of thousands of deer shot with .243win ammunition that technically didn't meet the legal requirement Rob, and the shooter didn't realise it. The problem with the ammunition in question is that it quite clearly states it on the box so you can't even claim ignorance of the fact.

 

[antsa]

1239 ft/lb stated is energy at 100m (E100). Not sure why they present it like that.

In the Nordic countries the required energy of a projectile at 100m for different species of game is specified in law .

Cheers

 

[8x57]

Not just the Nordic countries, France for one also does so.