Any thoughts on this



https://www.budsgunshop.com/ca...ain_interbond?cpath=

Main use will be target and if it shoots well maybe white tails. Brass will be reloaded.


Thanks

Mike

https://www.hornady.com/ammuni...-180-gr-interbond#!/

looks like a 180 gr. bullet at 2900 fps. The Interbond is Hornady's version of the Nosler Accubond. I've heard the IB is a little softer than the AB but that really isn't going to make a difference on deer.

If they grouped in your rifle I'd happily shoot them.i

I’ve tried using many handloads with my three .300 H&H Mags, but they all shoot the Hornady Factory Interbonds 180gr better than anything else I can configure with handloads. And these Interbonds have tremendous expansion and pass-through. I highly recommend them. In reality, they’re less expensive than my handloads.

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:
Any thoughts on this
https://www.budsgunshop.com/ca...ain_interbond?cpath=

Main use will be target and if it shoots well maybe white tails. Brass will be reloaded

Dude, think it through.

You can reload the .300 Holland for less than Bud's '$2.10' per round.

Plus, with the .300H&H, the minimum bullet-weight should be 200gns, if not 220gns, in order to maximize the impactive 'ooomphf' on the game being hunting.

quote:

Plus, with the .300H&H, the minimum bullet-weight should be 200gns, if not 220gns, in order to maximize the impactive 'ooomphf' on the game being hunting.

Really?
Where did you read that requirement?
I'm pretty sure the 300H&H performs quite well with 150, 165 and 180 grain bullets without crippling it with 220 grain bullets.

Thanks for all the info

I will order 5 boxes - the ruger Number 1 is calling me to go hunting his fall

Mike

I can load about any 300 H&H almost to wby velocity, and a bit faster than the 300 Win and its ilk..The H&H holds more powder! still one of my favorite calibers and has a lot of nostalgia..Its still incredibly popular in Africa, mostly in the Rem. 721, probably because at the time of purchase they were cheaper than the Win mod 70, but Ive seen a few of them in Africa also.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
I can load about any 300 H&H almost to wby velocity, and a bit faster than the 300 Win and its ilk..The H&H holds more powder! still one of my favorite calibers and has a lot of nostalgia..Its still incredibly popular in Africa, mostly in the Rem. 721, probably because at the time of purchase they were cheaper than the Win mod 70, but Ive seen a few of them in Africa also.

Totally agree.

Dudes like Snotstorm need to bone up on the actual history and hand-loading capabilities of the .300 Holland before spouting off - especially when loaded with the heavy projectiles.

The 300 H&H is my favorite caliber. Just about any factory load from 150 on up is certainly more than enough for deer of course. In Africa I used the Federal Premium factory 180 gr (Barnes TSX) ammo. They don't offer that bullet since Remington bought Barnes. It was fine on everything from Springbok to Eland.

I shoot precious little factory ammunition, so don't have much experience. I've fired ammunition from only two boxes of Hornady and both of those exhibit defects. One box had most of the rounds fail to fire (all other ammunition fired normally in that rifle.) The other box in another caliber exhibited dangerously high pressures.

My experience is possibly a statistical anomaly, but when a brand goes two-for-two in that department I naturally have a negative disposition toward that brand.

quote:

Originally posted by Snellstrom:

quote:

Plus, with the .300H&H, the minimum bullet-weight should be 200gns, if not 220gns, in order to maximize the impactive 'ooomphf' on the game being hunting.

Really?
Where did you read that requirement?
I'm pretty sure the 300H&H performs quite well with 150, 165 and 180 grain bullets without crippling it with 220 grain bullets.

I really don’t see the need for the 200gr + bullets. I use to shoot 220gr in my rifle but have long switched over to the 180gr TTSX. Penetration is much better and I found the impact to be “Harder” than the heavier bullets.

I have had good performance with Interbonds in 250 Savage, 7mm-08, and 30-06. They should serve you well.

quote:

Originally posted by A.J. Hydell:

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
I can load about any 300 H&H almost to wby velocity, and a bit faster than the 300 Win and its ilk..The H&H holds more powder! still one of my favorite calibers and has a lot of nostalgia..Its still incredibly popular in Africa, mostly in the Rem. 721, probably because at the time of purchase they were cheaper than the Win mod 70, but Ive seen a few of them in Africa also.

Totally agree.

Dudes like Snotstorm need to bone up on the actual history and hand-loading capabilities of the .300 Holland before spouting off - especially when loaded with the heavy projectiles.

Troll the name is Snellstrom.
Your "opinion" about bullet weights are not based in facts. Try to keep up but with the improvements in projectiles over the last 20 plus years the heavies are not necessary except purely for those waxing nostalgic.
The name calling is befitting of a spoiled child, not an adult conversation.
In case you weren't paying attention before running your mouth he is shooting Whitetails.... not Cape Buffalo, I think the 180's will have the required "ooomphh"

The 300 H&H vs 300 Win mag debate is a classic example of piezometric efficiency in action

The 300 Win mag at "standard" bullet weights (150 gr to 180 gr ) is faster and more efficient than the H&H why ?

Because the Win has a shorter powder column, a slightly larger charge , sharper shoulder angle and a shorter neck ( some would argue to short )

The same reasoning behind the short mag revolution.

This advantage however is lost when bullets are heavier, the 220 gr in the H&H will outshoot the Win and when going to 250 gr even more so and this was / is what is so endearing about this cartridge.

This fact was not planned for, it came by coincidence as the case design originally was for cordite.

When the American ammo trade coupled the H&H with IMR powder the real worth of the cartridge became apparent especially with reloaders

quote:

Originally posted by Snellstrom:

quote:

Plus, with the .300H&H, the minimum bullet-weight should be 200gns, if not 220gns, in order to maximize the impactive 'ooomphf' on the game being hunting.

Really?
Where did you read that requirement?
I'm pretty sure the 300H&H performs quite well with 150, 165 and 180 grain bullets without crippling it with 220 grain bullets.

I agree, I like 165 grain Barnes X for deer.

Try the 180gr Interbonds from Hornady. I’ve shor a lot of game with them and they are awesome.

Maybe I'm missing something, the .300 Winchester Magnum has a useable powder capacity of 79.5 grains of water and the .300 H&H has 72.2 grains.

It's hard to load faster with 8.8% less powder capacity.

quote:

Maybe I'm missing something, the .300 Winchester Magnum has a useable powder capacity of 79.5 grains of water and the .300 H&H has 72.2 grains.It's hard to load faster with 8.8% less powder capacity.Frank

Frank
It is unacceptable to bring "facts" to an argument on AR you should know that by now!

Fjold

You are correct on the difference in case capacity and at face value one would from a ballistic efficiency point of view expect the Winnie to outrun the H&H which is does at lower bullet weight range. It stands to reason that the total potential energy of a larger charge mass would be more than the lower mass.

But that is not the whole story behind velocity difference between the two cartridges. The piezometric efficiency of the two cartridges differ accounting for this phenomenon.

It comes down to the ratio of mean barrel pressure to peak pressure

If both are loaded to maximum peak chamber pressure then all that can differ and is different is the mean barrel pressure.

It comes down to the fact that the win has a short "fat " and larger powder column vs the lesser but long "thinner" powder stack of the H&H. The position of "all burnt" between the two is different and with that comes a difference in velocity.

At lower projectile weights the mean barrel pressure of the H&H is lower than that of the Win but as bullet weight is increased the H&H's mean barrel pressure goes up more so than for the win loaded with the same bullet.

If one were to look at standard load manuals one can see that at the 150 to 180 gr bullet weight range the win mag outruns the H&H but when we jump to 200 gr the gap between the two gets smaller and at 220 gr the gap is all but eliminated with the two running neck to neck, at 250 gr the H&H outruns the Winchester.
In some cases by as much as 50 fps.

quote:

Originally posted by buckeyeshooter:

quote:

Originally posted by Snellstrom:

quote:

Plus, with the .300H&H, the minimum bullet-weight should be 200gns, if not 220gns, in order to maximize the impactive 'ooomphf' on the game being hunting.

Really?
Where did you read that requirement?
I'm pretty sure the 300H&H performs quite well with 150, 165 and 180 grain bullets without crippling it with 220 grain bullets.

I agree, I like 165 grain Barnes X for deer.

I like pie, and popcorn, ... and heavy-for-caliber loads.

They put the big game down right now.

https://www.midwayusa.com/prod...on-spitzer-box-of-20

Maybe my max loads beat most folks!
I get better results with the 300 H&H than my sons 300 Win. mags. but not by much..Both calibers suit me fine with bullets up to 180 or 190, my 300 H&H walks away a little with 200s and 220s..I only shoot 200 gr Noslers in any 300 these days..Why not, its the perfect combo for Texas Hill country whitetails at 90 lbs to a 1000 pound bull elk.

Case Capacities

.300 Weatherby - 98.0 grs.
.300 Winchester - 88.0 grs.
.300 H&H - 86.0 grs.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Fjold


If one were to look at standard load manuals one can see that at the 150 to 180 gr bullet weight range the win mag outruns the H&H but when we jump to 200 gr the gap between the two gets smaller and at 220 gr the gap is all but eliminated with the two running neck to neck, at 250 gr the H&H outruns the Winchester.
In some cases by as much as 50 fps.

Good post!.

Most of us who has shot and reloaded for the .300 H&H have known this for years. The same thing goes for the .333Jeffery versus .338Win. Using the heavy 300grain bullet the .333Jeffery will outrun the Winchester cartridge using the same bulletweight.

The issue here is what your rifle shoots best. My three ..300 H&H,s shoot the Hornady Interbonds better than any handloads I’ve been able to put together.

Using the same barrel lengths.
The same weight and design bullet.
The same pressure limits.

The case that is of greater capacity
will exceed the case of lesser capacity.

This is a fact and can not be altered.

Nope increase in powder charge does not necessarily infer increase in velocity. Intuitively we believe it should because we are energy and more energy should translate to more kinetic energy to the bullet ? No not necessarily because the thermodynamic efficiency of the cartridge gets less and less as more powder is added.

Inside the "power range" for a caliber increase in charge means increase in velocity but not linear. The increase follows what has erroneously been named the 4 to 1 Barsness's rule
As charge mass is increased velocity gain drops off until there is no gain.

Howitzer and mortar gunners know this !

Powder capacity is decremented by bullet displacement, as dictated by seating depth. Recent Nosler manuals illustrate and quantify this very well.

So determining water capacity by filling once-fired cases up to the top at trim length only helps you compare different lots/brands of brass.

Box magazine length and throating affect allowable COAL, ergo seating depth. My 700 .300 Win rifles have much greater allowable COAL than did my Ruger 77. To the tune of about 4 grains powder with heavy bullets.

Brass thickness is another variable, often overlooked. This is well-illustrated by the .300 WBY. RP brass has much less internal capacity than WBY/Norma. Enough that you'd better think about it before using old data in RP brass.

Bullet material affects both seating depth and actual capacity, as mono-metal users understand.

Finally, we measure barrel length from muzzle to bolt face. But the effective barrel length runs from muzzle to bullet. This gives short/efficient rounds the advantage of providing about 1/2" greater "barrel length".

Some ballistic mysteries aren't mysteries at all.