one of us
| If your shots will be pretty much broadside either bullet will work. If I thought I might have to make a rear raking shot I would use the A Frame. How far apart do the different loads shoot at 100 yards? |
| | |
Moderator
| I have used the Swift A-Frames for 13 years now, and have taken game from hyrax to Cape buffalo with them. They have NEVER failed me; the NorthForks have an equally enviable reputation.
Deer aren't that big, and they aren't that 'tough'. Pick whichever shoots best and don't worry about terminal performance.
George |
| | |
one of us
| Prewar70, Why do you need such heavily constructed bullet for deer? I know, cuz you can. But really, why not try a 139SST or Interbond if you need a "Bonded" bullet, just loaded some 165IBs for a co-worker for his 06, he reported very good accuracy at 200yds, and a big hole on the other side of his fence post.  No doubt the 2 you mentioned are fine bullets, but why waste your money on an easy to kill deer, these bullets are best on Elk and such, no, I haven't shot any Elk yet, but, deer don't deserve or need such a bullet as an A-Frame or Accubond, if you must spend more than 30 cents per bullet, I'd go with an Interbond. I know what everyones saying, "it's his money, let him spend it the way he wants to" Just my .02, Jay |
| | |
one of us
| Quote:
Jay,
I get great accuracy out of the 2 bullets I mentioned and in my opinion, these bullets are cheap insurance. The Interbond is basically the Hornady version of the Nosler Accubond. $19 for a box of 50 Accubonds (cheap) and $45 for 50 Swifts. The Swifts are expensive but again, I would gladly spend it for reliable performance at any range. "Deserve" isn't a great choice of words in your post either. Before I started paying attention to bullet construction for deer hunting, I had Sierras, Nosler BT, and Hornady's explode on deer when the ranges were shorter than expected. When you think about all the money we spend in hunting gear, bullets are the least of my worries. And I know your point isn't really the cost, but more of why use a Swift when a SST will do the job. It's an odds game, why not spend a few extra bucks and put the odds a little more in your favor, especially when there is no cost in accuracy. [/quote
Point taken, Jay |
| | |
one of us
| Jay,
I get great accuracy out of the 2 bullets I mentioned and in my opinion, these bullets are cheap insurance. The Interbond is basically the Hornady version of the Nosler Accubond. $19 for a box of 50 Accubonds (cheap) and $45 for 50 Swifts. The Swifts are expensive but again, I would gladly spend it for reliable performance at any range. "Deserve" isn't a great choice of words in your post either. Before I started paying attention to bullet construction for deer hunting, I had Sierras, Nosler BT, and Hornady's explode on deer when the ranges were shorter than expected. When you think about all the money we spend in hunting gear, bullets are the least of my worries. And I know your point isn't really the cost, but more of why use a Swift when a SST will do the job. It's an odds game, why not spend a few extra bucks and put the odds a little more in your favor, especially when there is no cost in accuracy. |
| | | Posts: 894 | Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota | Registered: 13 July 2004 | 
IP
|
|
One of Us
| Personally, I chose to use the 160 grain Accubonds out of my .280 when hunting red stag in argentina this past march. I took two stags, one at 300 yards, and the other at about 100. Only travelling around 2700 fps, but both were one shot kills with the bullet recovered just under the hide of the opposite shoulder (both went through the near shoulder). Mushroom was great, retained weight was 103 and 101 grains respectively. My 2 cents, save a little money and use the Accubonds over the Swift. I'm planning myself on using the 140 grainers for deer as well this year.
(but of course I'm one of those people who has always used ballistic tips in the past and have always had excellent terminal performance, so take it for what it's worth!)
Jon |
| | | Posts: 165 | Location: mississippi | Registered: 12 March 2004 |
IP
|
|
