If you're worried about losing five pounds of marginally edible shoulder gristle, then use a snare.
I'd say if your gun is shooting them well give them a try. They certainly will not fail to put the animal down quickly if you put the bullet in the right place.
I have not seen this excessive trauma problem with deer or elk that I've shot with 160 gr Partitions from my 280 Improved or 7 Rem Mag.
One deer I shot at about 20 yards with the 160gr Partition from the 280 Improved was in fine condition after being shot about 4" behind the shoulder. He didn't even know what happened. He actually started grazing again and then laid down and died. All in about 5 seconds.
I usually try to shoot my animals about 4" back of the shoulder while my wife always puts it directly behind the shoulder. Maybe I've got to convince her to start moving her shots back a little bit.
The Partition is doing just what it was designed to do.
I used the GS HP bullets this year and they sure don't bruise a lot of meat, and still knock big holes through and through...I was certainly pleased with them..
Your problem will not carry over to the 9.3, the problem is caused by velocity not the bullet make...keep them in the ribs behind the shoulder.
------------------
Ray Atkinson
60.0 grains(MAX) of IMR7828
Winchester Brass
CCI 200 primers
three shot groups @ 0.75" at 100 yards.
Should have some on game performance in a few weeks.
Then I started black bear and griz hunting. I'm uncomfortable with the 130 grain for any bear. While the .270 is light for griz, it works as long as your bullet is a penetrator. A guide outfitter I knew hunted on crutches and carried a .35 something-or-other for backup, while some of his hunters packed the .270. I eventually bought a .300 WM and loaded 200 gr Barnes "X" for griz and big ungulates
A secondary but important reason why I got away from the 130 grain .270 bullet was meat damage. One shoulder shot on a fork horn mule deer, my first deer, wiped out 100% of the meat on the onside shoulder - just pulped everything into a purple slime. Since going to the 150 grain bullet I've had no meat issues at all. I've shot moose, elk and bears with it, although not always by preference.
One last point is .270 versus 7mm Rem Mag. (I'm not going to the "which is better" place.) A buddy and I were at the range one day sighting my .270 and his 7mm. He didn't have a chronograph and I did, so he got to chrono his 7mm for the first time. It turned out that I was hotter than he was by 200 fps. , plus or minus. He was using "gift" handloads that the maker had never tested in his rifle. Given that we were both shooting 150 grain bullets, I think it is fair to say that I had him outgunned with my .270, much to his surprise and disgust!
Cheers!
Although it's the "classic" weight for the .270 Win., I think the 130-gr. is often a little on the light side. You'll see it written that the 130-gr. is a "varmint" weight for the .280 Rem., but for some reason it's the standard weight for the .270 Win. Doesn't make sense, if you ask me. These two rounds are just too close to being twins for there to be a difference in bullet weight applications.
So, just as the 139-gr. seems to be the standard for the .280 Rem., I see the 140-gr. as the same for the .270 Win. Additionally, I don't see why the heavier weights sometimes used in the .280 Rem. (i.e. 175-gr.) aren't available for the .270 Win.
Oh well, sorry to ramble...
RSY
I'm not applauding the CoreLokts, understand. But I would rather have them than a bullet I could not trust to expand on whitetails.
Jeff
quote:
If I wanted cheap meat I'd by beef fillets after doing the math concerning hunting.
Shhhhhhhh. Some wife might see this.