Do you recommend a lighter weight bullet when loading the Barnes Triple Shocks to achieve the best expansions ?

Way back in the days of the Barnes X bullet, when that was the bullet to have, I found that the X bullet wasn't for me . I got them and loaded them up and while they shot well , I soon found out as a lot of guys did that I had excessive copper in my barrels . Ok I can live with that .

But finally I got to shoot a deer with a X and while the shot and hit was good, it almost appeared as I had missed. Then we got blood and eventually found the deer. The shot had been good and it drilled a neat little hole through both sides of the deer. I had seen enough and since I have never had or loaded a Barnes bullet.

Fast forward to present day. The Triple Shock is the premium bullet for a lot of guys. There are far too many good stories and recovered bullets and that to shrug it off.

So for my 7mm Rem Mag I was thinking it may be time for Barnes again for some plains game use on larger animals. I have the 416 Rem Mag along to handle any heavy chores.

But I am curious about which weights to use if I give the Barnes another try?

I prefer the 160 grain bullets in the 7mm which goes along with my general medium heavy for caliber selections in most rifles. I prefer the Sierras for deer and either the Nosler Accubonds or the Partitions for heavier work. I have several 7 Mags so I can experiment some.

At some point I am pretty sure that I may have understood that when using the Barnes TSX that you not only can use a lighter bullet, but that you might should to insure the best expansion.

One good thing about the Partitions is that you get some expansion at a wide range of velocities , but I can't say on the Barnes . I am going to look - but a Barnes book is one of the few not on my shelf.

What you TSX guys do, or do you just stay with the weights you are used to loading ?

How about weighing in on this guys . Thanks for your inputs .

It depends partly on the twist rate that you have. The solid bullets are longer for any given weight and if you are shooting close the the limits of your rifling then you will need a lighter bullet to keep the bullet length the same. The newer bullets (most of them) will expand in a controlled fashion without losing much (if any) of their total weight so you are not necessarily at any disadvantage with a lighter bullet. The people at Barnes can tell you what velocities they recommend for their bullets better than I so give them a call to find the best bullet for your application.

That is a good point Paul. Because of my limited experience with Barnes I hadn't thought of it in that sense. Thanks.

I have a friend who has killed several dozen Elk and Mulies with his 7mm RemMag. He has always used 120 gr old Xs and now 120 TSXs. He starts them at 3400 and they shoot 1 moa or better.
It has never failed him, never a lost animal, ONE Elk took 2 shots.
Last Elk, a mature cow, was shot quartering away at 95 paces. In behind last rib, found in neck, she went 15 yards. Remember that a 120 mono metal is as long as a 140 cup and core.
Myself, I use 80 gr TTSX in the 25-06, 120 TSX in 7x57, 130 TSX in 300 Savage, 150/165 TSX in 300 Magnums, 250 TSX in 9.3x62, 235 in 375 H&H, 300 TSX in 400 Whelen, 350 TSX in 45-70 and 458.
They always work.

Tex,

I've often heard a similar thing. The statement said you're supposed to use a weight lower than you normally would for a TSX. For instance, if you decided to shoot a 180gr bullet in your 30-06, you'd use a 165 TSX instead.

I'm not sure how accurate that is or not, but there's no denying the TSX is a hammer. I always thought the advisement to size down was due to the TSX's being longer than other cup and core bullets of the same weight. I don't think that's actually true, either.

I'd say stick with the same weight you wanted and just load them up.

Yes, go lighter. Bet you could push a 110 TTSX to 3450 or so, and you'd never catch one in a deer.

Thanks Clay and that is probably what I am going to do .

Olarmy yes it probably works on deer . But in Africa I want those heavier bullets.

BTW I had posted this over in Reloading too and there was some other good discussion there too.

I've gone with two philosophies.

1. Load up a TTSX//TSX to whatever speed you can get, and a 10% weight reduction will allow a faster, possibly flatter trajectory. However, if a BC of a lighter weight is too low, then the increase in speed is offset by drag out at 300-400 yards, so the heavier bullet sometimes is more practical. This is the case for use with 350 TTSX in .416Rigby vs. the 300 grain TSX. The TTSX 350 grain is better for long range and upclose punch, both.

2. Tests suggest that the impact velocity where the petals are retained and a mushroom remains intact is under 2700fps. (google: Rathcoombe Shooting Holes in Wounding Theory). for medium to large game that would suggest that a muzzle velocity around 2800fps would be optimum. So we currently load our 338WM with a .514BC, 225 grain TTSX at 2838fps. We don't really want any more velocity. The same is true for our 416 Rigby: the .444BC, 350 grain TTSX leaves the Rigby at 2825fps.

what does one get for limiting the bullet to 2800-2850fps? Better BC, better weight retention and a better overall wound channel. The heavier weight may mean more exits on deer-sized game, but that is a plus, too.

416, what minimum velocities do you like to see for positive expansion with the barnes bullets?

Thanks!

friar

Anything over 2000fps is fine. Some of the bullets work at lower velocities, but 2000fps is good.

when I print out trajectory tables from 0 to 600 yards I like to note where the bullet drops below 2700 fps and where it stays above 2000fps. Of course, I'm not really interested in shooting anything beyond 400 yards, and even 300-400 yards is a 5% area for practical hunting in Africa.

As long as Nosler still makes a partition, or accubond, I see no need for me to ever want to shoot a Barnes in my 7mags. The partition has been the one everybody has tried to emulate for the past 60 years.

They are both fine bullets but if you ever do the wet phonebook test, you will find a TSX or TTSX penetrates farther than the Accubond and leaves a bigger wound channel than the partition.

They are also almost always more accurate than a partition.

Killed my buck this year with an Accubond 140 in a 270 at 232 yards. Broadside shot and it worked just fine. The ammo came with the BOSS M70 and was sub MOA and there was no need to worry about it not killing a 140 pound animal.

A 110 gr TSX would have done as well and can be pushed 400 fps faster.

As I recall only Swift tried to emulate the partition whereas everyone now has a Barnes copy in their catalog.

But you're right, you don't need to switch. A 160 gr cup and core spritzer would kill anything you would take on with a 7 mag.

quote:

Originally posted by metalbeater:
They are both fine bullets but if you ever do the wet phonebook test, you will find a TSX or TTSX penetrates farther than the Accubond and leaves a bigger wound channel than the partition.

They are also almost always more accurate than a partition.

Killed my buck this year with an Accubond 140 in a 270 at 232 yards. Broadside shot and it worked just fine. The ammo came with the BOSS M70 and was sub MOA and there was no need to worry about it not killing a 140 pound animal.

A 110 gr TSX would have done as well and can be pushed 400 fps faster.

As I recall only Swift tried to emulate the partition whereas everyone now has a Barnes copy in their catalog.

But you're right, you don't need to switch. A 160 gr cup and core spritzer would kill anything you would take on with a 7 mag.

yes, AND

finding a 7mm bullet from a Partition or NorthFork or AFrame or Barnes or CEB or GSCustom that could be loaded to 2800fps accurately will answer most anyone's needs.

A wet phone book test? Seriously? I've culled probably 100 aoudad sheep here in TX with partitions and accubonds. They performed as designed. No offense, but you light weight bullet for caliber people must not hunt where the wind blows. 7mag and 160's is a match made in heaven. 2900-3000 fps with RL22, RL25, 7828ssc, Retumbo is easily safe and doable.

I don't doubt that, I did say they were both fine bullets. The debate about heavy vs light bullets in wind is ancient. Most current experts believe bullet shape and length count for more than weight. Given equal flight qualities speed is your friend, that is why the subsonic crossover is so important to long range shooters.
7MMs and 160 gr bullets were the cat's meow in the pre mono metal days.
There can be no real debate that a 140 gr LRX (Barnes) will shoot faster, flatter, be less affected by wind, more accurate and create a larger wound channel than a 160 gr partition.
Interesting that Nosler has brought out the E Tip, a mono metal bullet that acts just like a Barnes.......

An old argument? Well, I hunt deer up in the far Northern TX Panhandle. I have watched the very best snipers in the world, who train in the Texas Panhandle, under probably the finest sniper instructor in the world who happens to live up there. They shoot prarie dogs out to 1000 meters. The reason they like it up there is because the wind is always busy every day. Every single one of these guys, and they come from all over the world, shoot heavy for caliber bullets, designed to kill stuff, mainly people, in their .308's and 300's. Their lives depend on their performance. How come not a single one of them shoots light stuff?

It's called "high BC".

To which hunters add stability factors quite a bit over marginal and optimal terminals.

The true ballistic coefficient of the bullet determines its drop and wind deflection characteristics. The number printed on the box is a good starting point, but isn't perfectly accurate for a particular rifle/load combination.

A monometal bullet of a lighter weight will be the same length as a heavier cup and core bullet due to density differences. If they are the same shape as well, the ballistic coefficient of each will be very similar and they will perform similarly in drop and wind deflection. Meaning a 165gr Barnes may actually be just as good at bucking the wind as a 180gr Nosler PT. They just have to have similar or the same ballistic coefficient. This is simplifying it a bit and ignoring velocity, etc, but it is close enough for arguments sake.

The long range guys shoot heavy bullets, not for the weight, but to get the BC as high as possible. This makes the margin for error on their drop and wind corrections smaller.

For a bullet of a given weight, the shape is the determining factor. A 180gr Partition spitzer will drift less than a 180gr round nose. A 180gr Accubond will drift less than a 180gr Partition spitzer. A 180gr Berger VLD will drift less than the 180gr Accubond. The longer bullet with higher BC wins.

Jeremy

That's my point...heavier, higher BC/s win every time. I'd also like to ask "how does that mono perform one game at 700 yards and marginal velocities", but that would be another pitfall of the at long range, small, TSX or TTSX.

I've guided over 100 hunters in the past 12 years. Most people have no business shooting past 250 yards anyway. These long range hunting TV show frauds have done a huge disservice to the real hunting world.

Oh boy the so called "long range hunters" really the long range wounders, are going to on your case big time. You are 100% correct about 250 yards and even then only in optimal conditions.

As for BC, weight does not automatically increase BC. the 245 gr monometal Leigh .338 bullet has the highest BC of any 338 bullets. (Not calculated but run through actual tests to 2000 yards.)

We have actually done wet phone book tests on 150-180 gr 30 cal TTSX and TSXs loaded down to 1400 fps. They expand just as well as any premium bullet. A Federal Premium 180 gr Trophy Copper (aka TSX) starting out at 2960 is still going 2124 at 500 yards ..... twice the distance anyone who actually hunts would shoot at big game.

Two years ago I killed a doe Antelope that some idiot had shot a leg off of at 400 yards with my 99R 300 Savage shooting 130 TSXs that start out at 2890 fps. A required, humane shot that I never would have taken on a healthy animal. Held over a lot (4X Kollmorgen post and CH) and broke both shoulders. A bit of luck, good ammo/rifle, no wind and many decades of shooting simple rifles with simple optics.

quote:

Originally posted by metalbeater:
Oh boy the so called "long range hunters" really the long range wounders, are going to on your case big time. You are 100% correct about 250 yards and even then only in optimal conditions.

As for BC, weight does not automatically increase BC. the 245 gr monometal Leigh .338 bullet has the highest BC of any 338 bullets. (Not calculated but run through actual tests to 2000 yards.)

We have actually done wet phone book tests on 150-180 gr 30 cal TTSX and TSXs loaded down to 1400 fps. They expand just as well as any premium bullet. A Federal Premium 180 gr Trophy Copper (aka TSX) starting out at 2960 is still going 2124 at 500 yards ..... twice the distance anyone who actually hunts would shoot at big game.

Two years ago I killed a doe Antelope that some idiot had shot a leg off of at 400 yards with my 99R 300 Savage shooting 130 TSXs that start out at 2890 fps. A required, humane shot that I never would have taken on a healthy animal. Held over a lot (4X Kollmorgen post and CH) and broke both shoulders. A bit of luck, good ammo/rifle, no wind and many decades of shooting simple rifles with simple optics.

So answer my question......why do these snipers I witnessed always use heavy for caliber bullets, i.e 175's in a .308??????

Maybe because the Army always goes for the low bidder...C&C's are cheaper than mono's.

And I'd bet those guys put a lot of bullets down range.

You're also talking a significant difference between putting a round in a person, and humanely dropping an animal.

quote:

Originally posted by olarmy:
Maybe because the Army always goes for the low bidder...C&C's are cheaper than mono's.

And I'd bet those guys put a lot of bullets down range.

OK then, Why does David Tubb use heavy for caliber bullets for LR shooting?

I have had two failures with Barnes X early on and one two years ago simular to what you describe, all deer with a .308 and one coyote with a 300 H&H. one ran up to 2 miles in one case and perhaps 500 yards in the other cases.

That said I have seen the big bore Barnes Xs used on many buffalo, Hippo, Eland, and Giraffe and in every case they performed to perfection..

All I can tell you is when they are good they are very very good, but when they are bad they are very very bad..

I have never had this problem with Noslers partitions and my limited use of Accubonds, and all bonded core bullets has been perfect. GS customs monolithics have never failed me nor have I seen one to them fail

The newer Barnes X bullets may be very good bullets, and lots of knowedgeble folks swear by them.

JG RAider,
They use heavy for caliber bullets for long range shooting because big long heavy bullets hold velocity better at long range while lighter faster bullets shed velocity quickly. Also wind is a factor in most long range shooting and long heavy bullets are less wind suseptable..Its a proven fact.

I am not a reloaded but shoot TSX in factory ammo in .300 WM and .270. Mine have smacked down everything very well. I have had a couple small exit holes but everything died pretty quick from whitetail to elk to kudu to zebra and others.

I never said they didn't work. I question their worth in the ultralight for caliber application such as 120's and a 7mag, especially at long range.

Real hunters don't shoot big game at long range. As the best Elk hunter I ever knew (killed 100s with a 30-30) once said " you a'int huntin Elk boy, till you can smell em !"

According to a study done a few years ago by WY/MT/ID Game and Fish depts published in RMEF magazine, the average Elk kill was 125 yards.

My last was killed @ 18 paces with a flinter. I could sure smell him .... that was hunting.

These stupid TV shows glorify shooting big game at long range as if it were an accomplishment. They never show you all the wounded ones the Wolves and Bears eat alive.

I've never met a big game animal I can't get within 300 yards of. Of course you have to get out of the truck and maybe crawl through sage and cactus but a 500 yard stalk and a clean 200 yard kill beats the hell out of a gutshot animal at 700 yards.

quote:

Originally posted by farbedo:
The true ballistic coefficient of the bullet determines its drop and wind deflection characteristics. The number printed on the box is a good starting point, but isn't perfectly accurate for a particular rifle/load combination.

A monometal bullet of a lighter weight will be the same length as a heavier cup and core bullet due to density differences. If they are the same shape as well, the ballistic coefficient of each will be very similar and they will perform similarly in drop and wind deflection. Meaning a 165gr Barnes may actually be just as good at bucking the wind as a 180gr Nosler PT. They just have to have similar or the same ballistic coefficient. This is simplifying it a bit and ignoring velocity, etc, but it is close enough for arguments sake.

The long range guys shoot heavy bullets, not for the weight, but to get the BC as high as possible. This makes the margin for error on their drop and wind corrections smaller.

For a bullet of a given weight, the shape is the determining factor. A 180gr Partition spitzer will drift less than a 180gr round nose. A 180gr Accubond will drift less than a 180gr Partition spitzer. A 180gr Berger VLD will drift less than the 180gr Accubond. The longer bullet with higher BC wins.

Jeremy

You are forgetting that mass (weight) is an integral part of BC so a lighter bullet with the same form factor will not have the same BC

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:

So answer my question......why do these snipers I witnessed always use heavy for caliber bullets, i.e 175's in a .308??????

High BC, les wind drift, more retained velocity at long to name a few reasons

I don't know many real hunters, that tell others what "real hunting" is or isn't.



I can tell you that hunting where I hunt, I occasionally encounter animals that you can't get within 3-400 yards of. Other times, I've taken game as close as 7 feet. I much prefer to get within 50 yards of my target, but sometimes that simply isn't possible.

Never hunted in AK so I'll defer to your experience. My own experience has placed me 500 yards or more from Antelope, Deer and Elk. There is almost always a way to get closer or pattern the animal and set up an ambush. If everything fails, I'll pass up the shot because there are very, very few shooters in real world hunting situations who can keep his/her shots in 10" @ 500 yards. I can do better off a bench, with wind flags and a heavy rifle you could never carry afield. With any of my 300 magnum hunting rifles, shooting in simulated field conditions 5 or 6" from the POA @ 300 is the best I can count on first shot every time. Outside of varmints the only animals I have shot past 300 were an Antelope doe another "bench rest in the pickup truck hunter" shot the leg off at well over 600 yards.
Put her down with a 99R 300 Savage, 4x scope and 130 TSX @ 400 yards. No wind or mirage and a bit of luck as I have shot that rifle out to 500 on gongs. The second was an Antelope buck at first light who lasered at 325. M70 BOSS 270 WCF that is a tack driver with 110 TTSXs, off a bipod, no wind, no mirage standing broadside grazing, with a Zeiss 4.5-14 with the rapid Z 800 reticle. It too had been shot @ gongs out to 500 so I knew at what X setting the reticle was "on". He and his girls were initially spotted @ 1000+ yards. By using terrain, camo and the rising sun behind us the stalk to a responsible range was made.

Insofar as "real hunters" go, I know a lot of outfitters and guides who tell clients what is okay and what is not. So many good Eastern and Midwestern hunters who may have killed dozens of Whitetails "back home" are seduced by these stupid long range hunting shows and show up out West with a 30-378 that they are scared of topped with some silly 8-25x56 scope. If they can't shoot it well on the outfitters range (most cannot), it is gently suggested that they switch to the "camp rifle", usually a 308, 30-06 or 270 with a simple scope. Most are relieved and get their Elk. One even gave a brand new 340 Weatherby with a big Swaro variable on it as a "tip" to the guide who put him within 75 yards of a 6X7 bull which he killed with one shot from the ancient camp 721 30-06 and a 180 factory softpoint.
The close you can get to big game in safety, the better your chance of success. Ask any expert bowhunter.

I understand what you are saying. And I respect that you are willing to not only establish rules for yourself about how far you will or won't shoot, and then stick to them. I simply disagree with your statement that some people are not hunters simply because they are capable, and willing to shoot further than your self imposed limitations.



Now, yes, there are a lot of people who willingly take shots grossly outside of their ability to connect. But these people are not hunters, even if they're inside of a range where they can make humane hits. They're often people who are just barely skilled enough to be afield, looking to kill something.


As for what a guide says, I could really not care any less. I've met guides who claim they guide "hunts" on canned ranches, guides that sell animals, and you show up, go on a walk about, and shoot the animal you've paid for. And I've met guides who plant you in a stand, watching a field or two with a feeder, and you wait for an animal accustomed to timed delivery of food, show up.

A guides job is to put the client in a position to get a chance at an animal. So, while there are guides who's word I listen to, like AR's own Ray Atkinson, or Phil Shoemaker (spelling?) Simply being a guide, does not give someone instant credibility on the topic.

The other part, is that while people like to talk about range of shots, you can't always tell what was going on, simply from the range the shot was finally taken from.

Of the last 10 animals I've killed, two were at distances of less than 50 feet. One was within 7 feet. Two others, were more than 350+ yards. However, before the shot, I stalked to within 75 feet of both animals, I simply couldn't get a shot because of cover in the area. When they exited the cover, they just so happened to be at (365 yards for the moose, and a touch over 400 for the caribou). But I chafe, at the concept that I'm not a hunter, because I practice, and equip myself with a weapon capable of delivering a humane kill, at a range past what someone else is comfortable with.

In my 7 mm RM I now use 150 grain ttsx after using factory loads then ballistic tip Noslers, accubonds and partitions. They have done well on elk and shoot well in that rifle. I haven't recovered a bullet yet and have broken some large bones along the way.

I don't go way lighter for some of the reasons discussed but I feel like they do perform like a heavier bullet. I thought about going to 200 grain in a 300 Wby to maximixe its potential but with the 180 ttsx that seems unnecessary.

I think the 150s are hard to beat in your 7 for tougher game if you like the way they shoot.

AK, sorry you have had such bad experience with guides and outfitters.

IMO, it's rather like picking a doctor. You need to do research on qualification, licensing and references. By following those rules I have yet to have a bad experience.

Maybe your Moose are different than ours, but they are about three I.Q. points past a Bison in terms of being difficult to get close to. Sometimes just durned nasty, especially a cow with a calf. As for Caribou, I've never hunted them but a friend who has several times in Eastern Canada didn't find them anywhere as difficult as still hunting Whitetail in upstate NY. He said the guide knew the migration route, put the hunters out in front (traveling by snowmachine) in ambush setups. The Caribou came by and they shot them. Think 275 was the longest shot.
As I hunt Antelope on one of the prime migration routes, I know exactly what he is talking about.
I might shoot at a 20" buck @400 yards if conditions were 100% perfect, but for our typical 14-15" bucks 300 is a long shot. Killed a decent satellite buck in 09' with a 45 caliber Whitworth MZ with iron sights at 90 paces. It took a lot of glassing, a lot of using camo and cover to approach but when the smoke cleared a 475 gr lead slug behind the shoulder tipped him over. Second best gun kill in my memory.

No gun kill approaches a good bow kill, but this one came close.

BTW, thanks for your service to our country !
(I wore the blue suit from 64-70')

You missed what I was saying.


Its not that I've had bad experiences with guides or outfitters. I've not.


My point, was that your argument of "I know a lot of outfitters and guides who tell clients what is okay and what is not." is flawed. a guide or outfitter says, has no weight, outside of his clients. And simply being a guide, does not bestow upon one, credibility or authority.



As I said, you may like bow hunting, and find getting to within feet of an animal to be a thrill. But it doesn't mean that someone who's capable of shooting further than you, and enjoys doing so, is not also a hunter.

quote:

Do you recommend a lighter weight bullet when loading the Barnes Triple Shocks to achieve the best expansions?

Yes.

I have hunted with both 300 gr and 270 gr TSX bullets in my .375 RUM. Both have worked very well, both in killing ability and accuracy. The lighter bullet is a little faster, flatter trajectory, and slightly more muzzle energy. I have killed 18 African animals with these bullets and have only recovered 3.

I have also shot both 168 gr and 180 gr TSX bullets in my .300 Weatherby, and have hunted with both 168 gr TSX and TTSX bullets. All have good accuracy, penetration, and killing ability. I have killed 10 North American and African animals with these bullets, and have also only recovered 3.

All of my recovered TSX/TTSX bullets have picture book mushrooms, but two of them each lost one petal. The average retained weight of these 6 bullets is 96%.

For many years, my favorite elk bullet was the .30 caliber 180 gr Nosler Partition with a muzzle velocity of 3000 fps. Many times I found these bullets just under the hide on the off side of the animal. I usually didn't spend a lot of time recovering bullets, but I did recover 6. They all did what Partitions do -- they opened up to the partition and shed the lead from the front half. They averaged 61% retained weight.

Like others have posted, the all copper bullets are longer than the same weight of copper/lead bullets. 168 gr TSX and TTSX bullets are longer than 180 gr Partitions. Because of the maximum COAL, the extra length takes up powder space in the case.

I have never killed an animal at a distance much over 350 yds, so ballistic coefficient isn't as important to me as it would be to a 1000 yd shooter.

110 TTSX in a 270 are pretty damn close to 120's in a 7 mag.

I will have to try both the 150 grns and the 160's - but I lean to the heavier side so I am thinking the 160s would be my first choice if they work well in the magazine and shoot well too.

While the same might apply for the 416 , and be able to go to a lighter bullet , I still have quite a few boxes of the Partitions for the 416 , so with 400 grains on tap I might just stay with those . On the other hand I see good reports even with the 350 Barnes on game up to buffalo .

While each rifle is different, what is y'alls general experience with these new Barnes TSXs and coppering up your barrels, versus say what I posted first about having quite excessive copper fouling with the old X bullet ?

quote:

Originally posted by 16Bore:
110 TTSX in a 270 are pretty darn close to 120's in a 7 mag.

Yes, and Barnes lists loads over 3400fps should one look. That makes the 270 a light carrying magnum.

The true calibre difference is only 27 versus 27.7, or in metrics 6.8 versus 7.0. In huntability and terminals this is too close to differentiate, just extra bark in the 7mm for the same basic bite. The true difference comes at the heavy end, but even the 270 has some decent bullets at 150, 160 and 180 grains, which pretty much match the sectional densities of the 7mm bullets. Where the 7mm finally pulls ahead is in having a higher BC bullet at the sectional densities of its 160-175 grain bullets. The difference isn't enough, IMO, to justify a 270 owner going out and buying a 7mm RM.

The same is true of the 280. It will virtually duplicate the larger capacity 7mmRM in the light weight bullets and only takes an insignficant back seat with the heavier weight bullets.

Finally, when it comes to bullet choice, this thread is about light vs. heavy. So here is how I would go about things.

I would look at the farthest range that I would comfortably be hunting and shooting. For me, that is 400 yards. Practically speaking only 2-5% of my shots are in the 300-400 range. Once 400 yards is settled on, I look at the highest BC and deepest penetrating bullet that I could put on target at 400 yards that would also hold together and be stable at 50-100 yards. (PS: some wonderful bullets in a calibre are only marginally stable up close and are also beyond their designed impact speeds up close.) Those higher penetrating, higher BC bullets then need accuracy testing in the particular rifle. PS: even though I like high BCs, at 400 yards and less, I don't need .600 or .700 BC, I only need great allaround terminals.