Want to load a 30cal 165gr Interbond or Scirroco to about 3100fps primarily for Cow Elk at ranges from 75yrds to 400yrds, but might use on Bulls or Muley Bucks also. The Scirroco has a bit better BC and from what I have read is maybe a tad bit tougher than the Interbond. However the Interbond is $28/box and the Scirroco's are $39/box. Not much money when it comes to what you invest in a hunt, but I want to know if the Scirroco is really any better than the Interbond. BTW, I am sure that the 180 Accubond is a fine bullet, but I have decided not to use it since I want more velocity and I have read from many that the Accubond has the least weight retention and penetration of the three. So Accubond users please don't take offense and don't recomend them since I am not interested.

Deke.

My experience with Sciriccos is that I could not make them shoot better than 2moa out of one hole guns. This seems to be a problem more common than not. Thought about the Barnes TSX? I know it will acheive and surpass your expectations, HANDS DOWN. If your dead set on choosing between your original picks the Hornady gets my vote.

Have shot them both at the range, no problems with the Swifts for accuracy for me. Both in 308 Win and 300 WSM I achieved fine accuracy with both. No on game experience with the Hornady in the WSM, but the Scirocco did a great job on BIG feral hogs in Texas, as well as a couple of Mule deer does. I have shot the Interbond in .270 Winchester, and also had great terminal performance on Whitetails and somewhat smaller hogs in Georgia.

All in all, I got them both to shoot well, I like the Swift construction on paper, but must say I've had no issues with the Interbond.

Good Shooting--Don

Dump em both...buy a box of Barnes TSX...you'll never go back to lead again.

MG

Funny you should ask that question. Today I suppose I shot my final .30 cal 165 grain Sciroccio in my 300 RUM. I popped a doe at 324 yards broadside...double lung shot and she ran like hell...took me about an hour to find her. Not much damage, I suppose that is the reason she ran for a good while. I have posted on another forum that I, quite legally, by permit, cull does from a local plantation each year to help with overpopulation. The number of culls are not important in this discussion but suffice it to say, its substantial. My point being, I have a unique opportunity to see what bullets work in the real world, on real animals, under varying conditions. I can get a huge amount of real world data in one year. Records on number of culls, distances, location within the plantation, calibers, etc...are kept and used for future decisions regarding the herd.

Sciroccios: I have used the .30 cal in both 165 and 180 grain with mediocre results at best. There have been a substantial number of times where they have "icepicked" through the deer with not much damage on lethal hits. One instance stands out. I took the doe broadside at 257 yards on one side of a clover food plot. She ran across the entire 400+ yard width of the field and finally collapsed on the field edge. I was extremely lucky, as I was able to track her entire death run across the field, and did not find a single speck of blood until she collapsed. This clover was about as deep as your mowed lawn, so blood would have been apparent. Another doe shot through the shoulders at 336 yards with the 180 grain took off like a scalded dog for about a hundred yards as well. That first doe...what if she had taken off into the woods rather than across the field? She would have never been found and the point of impact was right where it was supposed to be.

Other bullets that have worked great in various calibers have been the ballistic tip...minimal failures...one that our records show. The various Hornady bullets have worked good as well. Sierras tended to come apart very easily as you might suspect. Accubonds are like a bomb on deer...fantastic results. The only bullets that never failed, not even once? Plain old Remington Core-locks, and good old partitions.

I have used the old Barnes X's and had numerous icepicks as well. Have not tried the new TSX's but they do sound good from what everyone says on this board.

Just my 2 cents worth. On elk I have had the best results with old style Bearclaws, and partitions...thats what I will stick with.

quote:

Originally posted by Deke:
The Scirroco has a bit better BC and from what I have read is maybe a tad bit tougher than the Interbond.

Actually, the BC difference is mostly a case of Hornady being a bit more conservative in their ratings--both bullets in the same weight will have actual BC's very close to each other. They're both about the highest BC bullet you can get in those weights.

Shooting the Barnes 180XLCBT 4 times through 2 Elk shoulders over the past two years is making me a bit sketptical. Muzzle velocity was 2885fps and the shots were longer @ 350-425yrds, the destruction was mediocre to the vitals, and with both Elk it required a coup de grace through the neck with a lead soft point. I will say that I killed another Elk with one 180XLCBT with a lung shot tight behind the shoulders last year, but that was at 100yrds and the destruction to the vitals was good. All of the Barnes were complete pass throughs. I don't want this discussion to turn to Barnes, and maybe I am expecting too much performance for a 400yrd shot, but that is my experience. I am hoping that more velocity with a bullet that will be more expansive, but still have excellent weight retainage will be the answer. I am hoping that the 165 Interbond will be the right bullet since the Scirrocos are more $ and their thick jacket makes me wonder about their accuracty and expansive qualities.

Deke.

Deke, it's no secret here how I feel about the TSX. But to 400 yards why not just go with the plain jane proven 165 Interloct boat tail bullet from Hornady? It is soft for violent expansion but you're not going to have a problem with mushrooms beyond the interloct ring.

I do not have experience with the 165 Interbond on game. I do have experience with the 168 TSX and the 165 and 180 30 cal Sciroccos and have nothing bad to say at all. But I'm not a "lung shot" guy unless I'm bowhunting. I break their framework with high shoulder shots and IME, even a Btip has done a tremendous job when not blazing from the bbl., and distances are beyond 250. (well, for me, I've killed more game with a btip and have never had a problem).

Talking with Swift just this past week, they have the "Scirocco II," the advanced version of the original. Claims are better accuracy, better penetration, better wt. retention. They stated that they get hundreds of emails daily with people complaining about bullet performance, but these folks are not using the bullet for its intended purpose, LONG RANGE, ie, beyond 300+ yards (according to them).

I never had a problem getting a scirocco to print well. And, as far as concentricity goes, it beats the Hornady.

Having had favorable results with the Scirocco, I'd opt for that bullet. However, past tests I've seen with the Hornady 165 Interbond showed that it outperformed several standard 180 grain bullets from the same rifle.

I know you don't want this to turn to a Barnes topic but I must tell you, the 168 TSX would be my first choice.

I used the 165 IB in my 300 WM to take a large bull elk two years ago. I shot it at 33 yards. Impact velocity was 3250 fps. The bull was above me and the shot entered at the base of the neck. It exited the top of the neck with a 2" hole (bullet turned 90 degrees inside the animal). The bull dropped on the shot with a broken neck. I did not hit the arteries in the neck so I finished the bull with a shot through both lungs/heart from ten feet. This bullet penetrated all the way through as well with a 2.5" exit hole. It worked well for me. Complete pentration at that range/velocity in a magnum is pretty good performance. I will point out that I did not hit any large bones (ribs and a few vertabret), and wouldn't reccomend it for shoulder shots.

I've also shot deer with this bullet. Shots through the lungs didn't expand the bullet as fast as I'd like. I got an exit wound but it was a little smaller than I prefer. They worked, but I've seen other bullets drop animals quicker. I also shot a deer in the shoulder this past year (30 yards) and the bullet did not exit. I found it in the far shoulder. Overall I think the IB has a good combination of toughness and rapid expansion. It's not ideal for every situation but is a good compromise.

These bullets group well in my rifle around, 1" at 100. The SST shoots slightly better than the IB in my rifle.

I agree with Madgoat - nix the IBs. I would look at some others that your rifle may like such as Speer Grand Slams and the TSX.

I would think that the TSX would have the same terminal performance as the XLC since I understand them to be the same for the front 1/2 of the bullet. The XLC's are acceptable for accuracy (note that both shots into and out of the shoulder were within 2" of each other and those shots were at 375 and 425 yards), and they give better velocity than the TSX. However, I could be wrong, and I could be expecting too much from the same bullet for shots @ 75yrds or 400yrds+. As I understand it, the 168 profile of the Barnes is thicker/tougher for the front 1/2 and at longer ranges the 180 catches up in velocity. The 165 has the same profile on the front 1/2 as the 180, but again, the 180 catches up. I don't know that the 165 or 168 offer any advantages at longer ranges and up close they are all fast enough as evidenced by the quick enough kill I made last year @ 100yrds through the lungs.

Deke.

Deke,

I think both bullets would be a tie at 400 yards as far as performance. I believe both the Hornady and the Swift 30 Cal bullets were designed to expand at 30-06 velocities, I would have to agree with the Barnes folks in that they may break apart on an elk at 100 yards at your velocity (2900 f.p.s or so at 100yds). Trophy bonded bear claws (Speer) are a similar bullet construction and may suffer the same fate, although they tend to hold up better than the Swift or Hornadys. I would also lump Nosler's Accubond in the same category as the Swift or Hornady.

John