Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply |
One of Us |
Rat Motor, You are not even funny, just plain pathetic. Not a single contribution whatsoever from all your posts on any topic as long as you have been a member of AR. Whilst I am trying to share information, you sit and make snide remarks from the podium. At least I try to post interesting observations and experiences from everybody that we can learn from. Nobody has a monopoly on all information and nor does it mean that you have to agree with another person every time and all the time. To each his own. If you differ with the info on the above bullets under discussion, then please give us your guidance. If you cannot, then please do something constructive where you can be of assistance or inspirational. Warrior | |||
|
One of Us |
Hey Warrior There are lots of members like me here. We are here to learn. We ask questions from time to time and we lurk around. People know where they stand with us. We sometimes voice our opinions from our limited perspectives. We have a common problem and that is to try and tell who gives sound advice and who is posing as the big expert while they really know nothing. Consider it my contribution to the members here to keep tabs on the number one scammer - you. | |||
|
One of Us |
Wyattd: I was just at the range last weekend doing some penetration testing with my 9.3X62. I have never used an Accubond. However, I did test some 300 grain Swifts, 286 grain Woodleighs, both PP and RNSP's and 250 grain TSX bullets. If I was hunting Buffalo only, I would use a 286 Woodleigh Protected point and a Woodleigh solid of the same weight. I would think that the Swifts would also be superb in that role as well. However, on a plains game hunt with a 9.3, I would only use one bullet, the 250 grain TSX. In our testing at the range last week, these bullets penetrated at least as well and sometimes better than the 286 grain Woodleighs. I am planning to do some more testing as soon as I can get some more phone books to just test the TSX against the 300 grain Swifts. I'll let you know how it turns out. I think that you would be on the right track to stick to the Barnes bullets. Dave Dave DRSS Chapuis 9.3X74 Chapuis "Jungle" .375 FL Krieghoff 500/.416 NE Krieghoff 500 NE "Git as close as y can laddie an then git ten yards closer" "If the biggest, baddest animals on the planet are on the menu, and you'd rather pay a taxidermist than a mortician, consider the 500 NE as the last word in life insurance." Hornady Handbook of Cartridge Reloading (8th Edition). | |||
|
One of Us |
Hi, I hunted the Kalahari with a 9.3x62, using 250 gr Rhinos, a few years back and -even though it worked- I would have liked a flatter shooting rifle. If you are hunting the desert go with a .300WM or a .338, my pick would be a 8x68 using 200gr bullets. | |||
|
One of Us |
Actually Rat I would like to know what information that you would have to make you say the things that you do about Warrior. From what I have seen so far from his posts he has been a helpful contributor and interesting to read. And that comes from someone who actually does have some experiance, so what is it that you are seeing from your limited experiance level that sets off the red flags for you regarding Warrior? It appears from where I sit that you simply have a personal vendetta and it is actually rather annoying. (When I was a kid my father used to tell me that God hated a coward, I finally realized he has even less use for a fool.) | |||
|
One of Us |
With reference to an earlier posting of mine, as quoted above, and the controversy on the elk thread regarding the use of conventional bullets on elk, I wish to add the following account of bullet failure on big game, as so very well illustrated by these pictures that the bullet can be much more important than the calibre. I took this out of the Jan 2007 publication of African Outfitter on page 43. It depicts the experience of Carl Labuschagne a retired PH from South Africa. Carl is a close friend of Art Alphin of the A-Square Company and can be seen on page 563 of "Any Shot You want" and on page 608 of the same manual Carl is posing with a buffalo bull shot by Art with a .500 A-Square cartridge. Frangible bullets that lose a large percentage of their weight, or those that over expand, even if they are big, will not necessarily guarantee you a clean kill despite a well placed shot. Bear in mind when you look at these pictures that old style conventional bullets are even more frangible than the bonded Woodleigh Soft with thicker jackets. Warrior | |||
|
One of Us |
Warrior: I guess I agree with most of what you have said about using a premium bullet. However, you can't take the cartridge itself or the quarry out of the eqauation. For example, as Ray points out, the 9.3X62, because of its' modest velocity, is a very forgiving cartridge. Most bullets, even tradional cup and core bullets of appropriate weight for the desired game work pretty well. Similiarly, in my Whelen, plain old 250 grain Speers seem to work really well, at least on elk. In cartridges of more modest velocity, like the 9.3, Whelen, 338-06, and even the 30-06, I am not sure a "tough guy" bullet is always required. For example, do you think you really need a 180 grain Nosler to kill a deer with an 06? Probably not. A plain old Speer spitzer would probably work just as well don't you think? In these cartridges, my rule of thumb has always been to stick with a bullet that is heavy for caliber and has good sectional density. Dave Dave DRSS Chapuis 9.3X74 Chapuis "Jungle" .375 FL Krieghoff 500/.416 NE Krieghoff 500 NE "Git as close as y can laddie an then git ten yards closer" "If the biggest, baddest animals on the planet are on the menu, and you'd rather pay a taxidermist than a mortician, consider the 500 NE as the last word in life insurance." Hornady Handbook of Cartridge Reloading (8th Edition). | |||
|
One of Us |
Dave, It becomes slippery to say it works just as well. It is not about just making a kill for me, as all bullets are capable of making a kill. It depends HOW we kill and also what we see AFTERWARDS. The performance window for a conventional bullet is very narrow, and yes it does work well provided we stay within its threshold strength, meaning it does not loose a lot of weight and it does not shatter. Some "slow" calibers are indeed more forgiving than the faster ones. For biltong (or meat) hunting, I prefer a bullet that that does not shatter or fragment to avoid the meat damage. Higher impact velocities from the faster calibers are the main culprit causing frail bullets to shatter, and thereby making a mess of the meat, or alternatively result in wounding due to shallow penetration on bigger game or those angled shots that are often unvoidable. That is why premium softs and expanding monolithics are more versatile (better penetration & better mushroom forming) with much wider operating windows and still cause less meat damage, as fragmentation of the lead particles creates a mess, not to mention the lead contamination in the surrounding wound tract. So it is all about an eloquent kill for the hunter that hunts for the pot. Warrior | |||
|
One of Us |
Here is another example of a premium grade bullet and how it performed in terms of its penetration ability, momentum preservation in terms of weight retained, expansion of original diameter & intact petals and the effective wound channel without making a mess of the meat in the process. Warrior | |||
|
One of Us |
Warrior, I confess to the fact that I have been switching over to TSX bullets for my Whelen and 9.3's. Mostly, I am just doing that to flatten the trajectory a bit. However, in the impala ram example cited above, I would bet a plain old Norma Oryx bullet would have worked just as well. An impala is not very big and I would think that most any bullet of tradional design an 9.3X74R velocity would have worked just as well. However, if larger and/or dangerous game is on the menu, then I agree with you 100% that a premium, controlled expansion bullet of some type is an absolute must. My choice lately in that regard has been the Barnes TSX. Good hunting! Dave Dave DRSS Chapuis 9.3X74 Chapuis "Jungle" .375 FL Krieghoff 500/.416 NE Krieghoff 500 NE "Git as close as y can laddie an then git ten yards closer" "If the biggest, baddest animals on the planet are on the menu, and you'd rather pay a taxidermist than a mortician, consider the 500 NE as the last word in life insurance." Hornady Handbook of Cartridge Reloading (8th Edition). | |||
|
One of Us |
Dave, I agree with you 100%, because at 9,3x74 velocities the striking velocity down range is in the order of around 1,900 to 2,100 fps, which is the velocity window for conventional bullets where it does its best work. The problem creeps in when we shoot faster calibers at higher striking velocities when the bullet's threshold strength is exceeded. Today's conventional bullets are essentially the same as 100 years ago and velocities way back then were fairly modest. Captain Rubin of the Swiss Army invented jacketed bullets in 1889. At the time the 303 Br was doing 2,050 fps, the 7.9 mm Mauser was doing 2,100 fps whilst the 30-40 Krag could do 2,150 fps. During the Spanish War of 1898 and the second Anglo Boer War of 1899, the 7 x 57 mm Mauser was considered fast at 2,300 fps. Conventional bullets in these calibers worked very well on game, as their down range striking velocities were mostly below 2,100 fps. Used sensibly, conventional bullets can still be effective - for example, a 30-06 Spr with a muzzle velocity of 2,625 fps (PMP standard factory velocity) will do about 2,050 fps at 250 yards. Your 250 gr TSX bullet in the 9,3x62 will be a winner, I have no doubt about it. Happy hunting and let us know the results, would love to see the pictures. My tests with the 9,3/250 gr old style Barnes-X bullets were excellent. Warrior | |||
|
Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia