My primary whitetail rifle is a custom 700 in .280 Improved. I want to give Nork Fork bullets a try but I'm not sure whether the 140 or 160 grain is the right choice. The vast majority of my deer hunting takes place in Florida and South Carolina where a mature buck's weight can range from 165 pounds to a rare 200. Shots literally range from a few yards to as far as one chooses to shoot (my personal limit is generally around 300 yards). I of course realize that it's asking a lot for a bullet to perform well at such a range of distances and velocities, but that's what I need. I've heard and read great things about Nork Fork bullets in this regard. Given the above circumstances do you think the 140 or the 160 would be the best choice? My rife tends to shoot heavy bullets well (162 HDY, 160 Partition) so I'm leaning toward the 160..any thoughts or experiences?

Wood, I shoot a std. .280 & it also favors 150-160gr bullets. I use 160grNP if I'm deer/elk hunting & 160gr Speer for deer/antelope. For a deer only load, I think the 140grNF would be perfect, even on the biggest buck.
I have been playing w/ the 160grNAB & they are very accurate & seem to hold together well in test media. I may give this a whack in the fall.

I use a 150gr nosler BT out of a 7mm mag,...(basicly the same caliber) and it hits like a train at 350yds. Your choice of either bullet is quite acceptable. My 280AI will be getting a dose of 162a-max soon,..and we shall see where that goes. It loves the 150SMK to the tune of .3" groups being nothing to be suprised by,..and .2"s when you are in the groove.

I assume you are at around a 9 twist?

To me the Northfork is a bullet emant for long range--500 plus.

To use it at 300 and under to me does not make any sense--unless of course its something that really turns your crank.

Just my thoughts

"GET TO THE HILL"

Dog

Woodhits --- I didn't think I could improve on the 160 grain Barnes XLC with my 7mm STW, until I shot Mike Bradys redesigned 7mm 160 grain North Fork bullet. I was getting 1 inch groups with the original design, with no gripes for a hunting bullet. Now I am getting pin point accuracy I have come to expect from all North Fork bullets. Try them, I will bet you will like them. I have never shot the 140 grain North Forks, my rifle will scold me unmercifully if I use anything except 160 grains through it. Good shooting.

Woodhits, I don't think you'll see an awful lot of difference between a 140 grs vs 160 grs bullet on deer. In particular with a premium bullet like the North Fork, which expands to fairly large diameters, yet sticks together well. If you were hunting elk, the choice would be obvious. As it is, it is more a matter of what you can get to shoot in your rifle.

I would personaly lean towards a 160 grs, but that is because I like to use loads that are as versatile as possible - hunt deer today, hunt big pigs tomorrow, bring the same ammo. In reality, the 140 grs would do pretty much any job you wanted of it - even if the 160grs might be better "on paper".

With a .280 AI, you should be able to get between 2900-3000 fps (or more) out of the 160 grs. That will shoot plenty flat way beyond 300 yds - if you get to know your trajectory.

Good luck - mike

I would use the 140 and drive it as fast as I could, it will work ant any range up to 500 yards or better...

I have used the Northforks a lot, they just flat do not fail, end of story.

I just got my 280Imp. back from the gunsmith and have been working on some loads. I was thinking along the same lines as you and then I had a little light bulb of an idea...why not split the difference ...I'm loading 154grainers my rifle has a 30" Pac-nor tube and spits out 154's at 3120fps

I'm with Ray on this one. I use the 200gr 30cal NF in my Warbird and it shoots great. I would recommend the 160gr pill. But try both to see what the rifle prefers.

Good Luck

True Eyes