They may have the heavier jacket , but it would seem to me that with the Accubond now available in 180 gr , that it would be the best bet in 300 mags if you want to use a plastic tip bullet. The cost is not all that much greater........

I load for my frends 300 win, and he says those green tip bullets just drop them where they stand )4 elk so far).
...tj3006

I have often wished that Nosler would note, or catagorize, the jacket thickness of their Ballistic Tip bullets. Take it one step farther and it would seem that Nosler could actually offer different jacket thicknesses for the same grain/caliber bullet. An example would be a thin jacket 180 gr. 30 cal. for serious long range varminting with the .300 Win Mag, and thick jacket for med./large game.

I'm sure they can drop them where they stand but I've had too many tough shots at trophy animals to trust them to anything but premium bullets from now on. Seems like my percentage is running about 8 ez shots to 2 tough shots and it just isn't worth trusting the bottom line to an average bullet.

I have very mixed feelings about the Nosler BT. I have used them in a .257 Roberts with good success. I shot one deer in the neck with one at 35 yards or so, dropped it instantly. In the ribs worked well. Never tried to shoot anyplace else with that one.

I had a very good friend who used 165gr. BT on deer one year and wounded one with his .30-06, this of course is a very limited experience and no doubt many animals have fallen to them.

I too have heard, and now seen for myself, that the bigger BT's have thick jackets. I sectioned one with a mill file and indead the lower portion of the .338 200gr is quite thick. I bought some for my .338 in 200gr. thinking I may find a bullet to switch to for deer while Elk hunting. I worked up a pretty good load and shot one into water jugs to see what it did. I recovered only the jacket bottom! And not in very far either.

The .257 cal 100gr went in and was recovered in the 5th jug. The core was in the jacket but loose.

At this point I will probably not be using them any further. For the cost, of them, and the bonded bullets I'd rather buy something else. For deer I've found that standard construction bullets work fine at normal velocities.

I'd be willing to trade the rest of my .338 200gr. BT's for something else. I think there's about half a box if somebody wants them.

Makes sense to me. Maybe that is part of the ongoing debate on them. Lesser calibers tend to be varmint typical and might "blow up" on contact at high velocity, while larger bores were always made tougher with the knowledge they were not going to be used against varmints or really high velocity, 180's may have been a 'tweener'. I would think anything above 125 grains would need the tougher construction, but what do I know?

I know guys way more experienced than I still like the BT's. In a recent corespondence with Ray Atkinson regarding their use in a 9.3x62 Mauser, and the tendency to blow up or fail, I got the following response, "No, they will work fine on hogs, deer, and even elk.....Some people have a vivid imagination...". He had just returned from Africa where he had used BT's effectively.

I just copied this post from over at the campfire.It may shed some light on peoples opinions of this bullet.

Mule Deer
Campfire Guide


Reged: 07/24/01
Posts: 2037
180 .30 Ballistic Tips Tough Bullets
#338867 - 09/03/04 06:58 AM Edit Reply Quote



I just spent some serious time with the Nosler boys and it seems that they remodeled the 180-grain .30 caliber Ballistic Tip a couple of years ago. Now it has basically the same tough, heavy jacket construction as the bigger BT's, such as the 200 .338--which explains why some of the Campfire guys have had such good luck with it even on heavier game.

The changeover came not quite two years ago, so any 180 .30's now available have the heavier jacket.

MD

So, what is this now?
The Eighth or nineth configuration the BT's have gone through now.
Ya got to give Nosler credit for trying to get it right.

In my post I mentioned some experiences with other ballistic tips, both good and bad. Not because I thought they were of the same construction but to illustrate my choice to not use them was based on a few factors!

I sectioned the .338 bullet to see for myself exactly what it was constructed like. It has the thick section and I expected it to hold together. I read that they were penetrating nearly as well as the partition with a wider wound channel. That would be a great performer! I can only compare bullets to each other as ballistic gelitin isn't practicle for me. In comparing bullets I load them to the velocities I expect to use them at, and then shoot them at about 90 yards into water filled milk jugs. This is the most practicle for me.

When comparing bullets the BT's were recovered and out of standard rounds they were comparable to many cup and core type bullets. Definately ok for deer if placed well. But when even the thick jacketed BT comes completely apart it isn't a bullet I'd trust. The .338 WM I have has a 22" bbl and I can't say for sure what velocity I'm getting but if you have a means of finding out I'm using 66.5gr of IMR4895 with a WLR primer. I don't think it's anywhere close to what some would get from an Rem Ultra Mag in .338 and I expected it to hold up. I have factory ammo slugs to compare them to as well as reloaded ammo and it does show differences in constuction. A 250gr Woodleigh weighed 238.7 gr with 68gr of RL22 pushing it. I have also recovered a few from soft sand but it's harder to do and I'm not sure it represents real tissue any worse than water.

When placed into the ribs a BT is devastating, no doubt. But I guess I'm not always willing to wait for a perfect shot so when I travel to hunt I will be using a heavier constucted bullet.

My host site is down so posting a photo of the sectioned bullet will have to wait. I don't think I even kept the jacket bottom of the .338 slug as it was pointless to me.