I've been trying to decide whether I should select the 260 or 300 gr Partition for 375 H&H for elk, and any other NA stuff I might eventually get into. I haven't shot either bullet yet to be able to tell you which one shoots best...

Ultimately, this rifle will go to Africa, but that is a LONG way down the road. I was figuring that maybe I should just go with the 300 so everything is already done when I finally get to go, but elk is the main course for now. Well, elk and deer and antelope and praire dogs and gophers and...well, you get the picture!

Thanks for your insight!

You answered your own question: which one shoots the best in your rifle? recoil is an issue. sois trajectory

I use the 300 partition, and it has always worked for me, if I do my part. It's a helluva caliber, so just use what works best for you. The 375 will do the rest.

DGK

Well

Pick the one you can get for the best price, easiest to find and shoots the best in your rifle. I doubt very strongly that Mr Elk or any of his relatives will have anything to complain about unless you do you job

Good luck and shoot well

Cheers
Johan

Thick timber use the 300s, open country use 260s, given that your rifle shoots them equally well.

The 260gr is all ofthe bullet you will need for elk, in close or out far. I would only step up to the 300gr for the big bears.

Both will work on elk and such game....but I like the 300 gr. Nosler the best, then I can take an elk going straight away and it will come out his front end...

My all time favorite elk load is the 300 gr. Woodleigh RN...It just floors elk, moose, Eland and about everything I have shot with it including Cape Buffalo..For very open country the 250 gr. GS Custom or the 270 gr. Failsafe and North Fork monolithics are excellent bullets for elk.

This one's a no-brainer IMO - the 300 gr partition. Now, if you'd said deer, I might have picked the 260 grainer.

Here's some facts (all per Nosler #4 manual) to digest:

If you compare the 260 gr (@2800 fps & B.C. of 0.314) vs the 300 gr (@2600 fps & B.C. of 0.398) and use a 200 yd zero, then there's less than 1" of trajectory difference out to 300 yds and only 20 ft-lbs difference in energy.

And just so you don't think I'm another arm-chair hunter, the 300 grainer is all I use in my 375 Taylor (375-338.) At 2600 fps, it really hammers all my Alaskan quarry. I have sectioned this bullet (have images if folks are interested) and it is hell for stout - e.g. very thick front jacket. Much heavier in construction than the 250 gr .338 bullet which I also use. Here's my philosophy: "Better to have too much bullet and not need it than to have too little bullet and need it."

To keep it simple in my .375, I decided to just use a 300gr Partition...

You get a bit more velocity with the lighter bullet, but frankly, if I expect to be shooting past about 250, I'll take my .300

I would use a 270 North Fork, plenty of penetration, shoots a little flatter than the 300 grain.

The North Forks are awsome bullets, I have never used a better bullet...

Okay, my two cents worth:

Either will kill an elk sufficiently dead, sufficiently quickly, and sufficiently far away.

First consideration: Which shoots best in my gun?

Second consideration: All things being equal, the 260 will generate a bit less recoil. That's a good thing.

Third consideration: If I'm going to use the same gun on even bigger stuff, perhaps on another continent, should I use the 300 to keep it simple? Maybe so, good point.

Forth consideration: The new 260 Accubond is probably a better choice for elk, anyway.

Pick any of the three. If it shoots well in your gun, it's fine.

I like the 260 because it just shoots amazingly well in my rifle. Last week I shot a 3-shot group, actually a 3-shot hole 2" high at 100 yards--barely over a 1/2" group. BTW: I use 68 grains of RL-15 powder.

My opinion is , neither . I would use the 260 gr Accubond , if your gun will shoot it ........

Why the 260 Accubond? Well, it's advantages are probably only minimal, and maybe mostly theoretical, but I would regard them as these:

1. On average, probably a bit more accurate than the Partition -- but that will certainly vary with individual guns and loads.

2. More aerodynamic, resulting in better trajectory and retained energy -- but that's a matter of fractions of an inch at 200 yards and only a few foot pounds.

3. A few bucks a box cheaper than Partitions.

4. --and this will bring on a shower of contraversy -- The Partition, great bullet that it is, has a front end that expands very rapidly (a good thing in most instances) and a back end that acts pretty much like a solid after the front end has dissapated. This creates a wound channel that is fairly large in the first few inches and much smaller in the last several inches of penetration. The Accubond acts just the opposite, creating a large wound channel as it goes. In MOST -- but by no means all -- shots you will take on an elk the Accubond will be doing its best work in the most vital organs, and statistically should result in quicker kills than the Partition. PLEASE don't interpret these comments as dissing the great Partition. I mention this only to point out that the consistently good results people experience with the Partition usually spring from its quick expansion performance, not its latent penetration; although the residual penetration is often very important.

5. If you don't like #4, just forget it and take 1, 2, and 3 as my answer. For all of you who will take great offense at #4, you will find it more satisfying to yell at your wife than to call me unspeakable names in posted responses.

Trapdoor - you hit one issue right on the button: You don't have the time or resourses to test a lot of bullets. Trust me, you probably won't be going thru a full 20 rounds each time you go to the range!

Next issue is are you hunting or sniping? If you are hunting (dist ~ 200 yds) then all that big talk about having the high B.C. of an Accubond or NF don't mean doodly squat (taken from one of my favorite Clint Eastwood movies - Outlaw Josie Wales.) The 3/8th bore should not be too finicky on bullets.

Here an anecdotal story I will relate to you. A good hunting buddy drew a party elk tag in Wyoming last year. He shoots a .338 Win and so do I. He asked me to load something up for him - which I normally don't do for anyone. He asked me for a recommendation. I told him I used 250 gr partitions. He wend out looking for some and could only find the 210's. I loaded some up conservative loads for him. He took a small 5x5 at under 100 yds in quartering shot thru the front shoulder. His partner asked what the hell he shot the bull with as it blew up a lot of meat (o.k. at what point in the animal's death did the bullet fail?) The point is the difference between the 260 and the 300 is the 260 (just like the 210 in .338 cal) has a thinner front jacket and will opening very easily and the front core will fragment. The 300 gr is tougher (like the 250 in .338 cal) and will hold together better as close range and high velocity. If you plan on long range sniping, then those thinner jackets bullets will work well. I like to be close enuff to smell 'em. That's hunting.

My elk hunting is more open prairies, rolling hills and irrigated hay fields, so the ranges tend to be long.

I shot several elk with 300 Sierra boat tails over the years. Then went to the 300 partitions as those were going to get used in RSA. I found the partitions killed as well or maybe a tad better than the Sierras. Average shots were in the 250-300 yd range too.

I'd just load the 300's and be done with it. Elk are BIG, half minute of angle accuracy isn't required. Penetration though MAY be required, so go with the partitions.

FN in MT

Stonecreek,
Since you asked!!

There is a difference in the front jacket taper and thickness in the calibers that I have cut in half and the partition is in the same spot on the old style bullets..In the new Noslers they moved the partition forward to enhance penitration, why I have no clue, but again the partition is in the same place...In the new big bore bullets the front jacket is quite thick and moved forward, making the 400 gr. 416 one of the most penitrating bullets I have ever seen in my lifetime.

I prefer the partition because it works well enough on broadside shots and leaves a very good blood trail, and I can take a going away shot without hesitation, I cannot do that with the Accubond or other softer bullets...where I hunt in Idaho, a going away shot is what you can expect, they live in the black timber and have gotten too smart to come out on the sage until dark.....So don't lose a lot of sleep on No. 4 as I'm a desenter

Ray: Having a bit of a hard time following your explanation on construction of the Partitions.

The question is whether there is a difference in the jacket thickness of the front "half" between bullets of the same caliber but of different weights. That is, is there something thicker, heavier, or otherwise "harder" about the nose of the 300 grain .375 than the 260 grain .375? Or a difference in the 250 grain .338 and the 210 grain .338 INSOFAR AS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NOSE PORTION, ONLY? Not talking about the placement of the partition, or the relative mass of the two "halves", but rather the expansion characteristics of different weight bullets WITHIN the same caliber.

My understanding is that the noses of Partitions within the same caliber are very similar and thus act similar to one-another. Admittedly, I don't spend much time any more sawing bullets in half, so my understanding is an assumption based on second-hand information.