Who likes (doesn't like) the Swift Scirocco bullet for elk? Specifically the 180 grain .308 version and the 150 grain .284 version. I have some experience with them but want to see what others thoughts, experiences and opinions are.

I find the 150gr/7mm to be on the soft side like the Hornady IB. For elk, I'll stick w/ the NP or if you are a Swift fan, go w/ their A-frame.

I popped a 4x5 eater bull three years ago (maybe 4) with the 180 Scirroco at 3000 fps at 300+ yds. Forget the exact details right now. DO recall that it killed him handily, though the bullet really retained maybe 50% of it's original weight. A bit of an angle shot as I recall with pretty good penetration.

I also tend to use NP's for about everything. The 150 NP is my universal favorite in both of my .280's and that combination HAS accounted for just about a half dozen elk over the past several years. Also use the 180 in my .300 H&H and thats a killer load as well. It ALL boils down to placement.

FN in MT

300
I can only opine on the 150 gr. 7mm scirocco performance launched out of my .280 Rem. 3 shots, three PA whitetails dropped in their tracks. Shots were broadside, angling forward from behind the shoulder, and angling back from the front to just behind the last rib. All dropped where they stood, except the forward angling shot which was running and tumbled end over end. None of the bullets were recovered. With the possible exception of hitting the main shoulder bone, I can't see any reason why I should hesitate to use them on an elk.

I load the 180gr Sciroccos in .300 RUM for my son, and in .300 WM for my cousin. Shot elk here in Colorado with them. Scirocco did fine, but didn't hit bone so no idea what would happen there. With the .300WM, cousin hit just a little high and a little far back. Elk dropped, then got up and took off running. Didn't fancy a long tracking job so swung on it with my .375 H&H loaded with Barnes X 210grainers. Instant drop. Oh well.

Archer4, What powder load are you using in your 280 with the 150 gr. Scirocco? What rifle do you have and what length is the barrel? Godsdog.

When you refer to your testing on elk sized game tell us about your experiences. How many elk have you shot with Scirocco's, the distance, retained weights, caliber, etc. This is just the kind of information I am looking for.

To listen to the responses about the Scirocco vs. Accubond vs. Interbond you would think the Scirocco is junk, but if you look at Jamison's article in June 2004 Shooting Times a different conclusion can be reached.

As far as the three go, it looks to me like the Interbond and Scirocco are so close performance wise that it would be hard to discern the difference, and other than the so-called pancaking they out perform the accubond. But in reality, as stated before, who cares if it pancakes if it still penetrates further than one that does not.

Use accubonds (nosler) much better and no pancakes!

Recent test show the Scirroco as the leader in Bonded Bullets.

Reloader

Reloader, after evaluating the information in that article it appears that of the plastic tipped bonded bullets the Hornady Interbond and the Swift Scirroco have better terminal performance than the Nosler Accubond. Who cares if a bullet pancakes if it completely passes through the animal? That just means a more devastating wound channel. The 165 grain Interbond almost penetrated as much and retained more weight, absolute and as a percentage, as the 180 grain Accubond. Hunting reports coming in (including mine) about the Interbond indicate it is a very good bullet. It probably performs better than the Accubond and is less expensive to boot.

My testing indicate that the Scirocco is a terrible performer on Elk sized game. It is a fragile bullet that sheds its weight quickly. It is the worst performer amoung the plastic tip bullets that I have seen. I would only use the Scirocco if I intended to gut shot the animal.
I would like to see the study that says the Scirocco is a better performer than the Accubond. I won't argue much with the Interbond crowd (this time at least ) because the Interbond at least maintains its weight. All of my tests indicate that the Accubond will maintain a higher percentage of its weight than the Scirocco.

You know what? I am not that impressed with the bonded bullets in general except for the Swift A-Frame.

I tried the Swift Scirocco in a number of 7mm magnums and none shot them very well. I still managed to shoot a couple of wild hogs with my 7m WBY Mag using this bullet and the damned hogs were not much impressed either. Real small exit wounds and not much internal damage.

I tried the Hornady Interbonds in several rifles and they shot groups that were so bad I am not sure I could hit a pickup at 300 yards let alone a game animal. I don't care what they do when the hit something, they shot like crap in several rifle that I tested them in. (And I LIKE Hornady bullets!)

I tested the Nosler Accubonds in 30 and 338 caliber rifles, several in fact. I was quite dissapointed in the accuracy in 10 different rifles!!! I finally found a 338 Remington Ultra Mag that shot GREAT groups with them, but the rest were dismal at best.

The only bonded bullet I am impressed with is the Swift A-Frame. This thing has a poor BC, but man when it hits something it works!! I worked up loads for a friends 375 H&H using the Swift A-Frame. I got groups so small that if I told you the numbers you would think I was lying. He went to Africa and shot a bunch of stuff with them including Cape Buffalo, great performance on every shot!!

So, I am afraid the bonded bullets are just another sales gimmic. I have shot a bunch of rifles now that shoot better groups with the old fashioned Nosler Partitions than with the new bonded stuff. (And that old fashioned Partition just works, period!!)

R F

Jackfish,

You got that right. Those pancaked bullets will make one heck of a mess of the vitals.

Reloader

I don't have any game results with the Scirocco, and I never will. I had bought some for Elk, but after testing them, they became rock bullets. I have posted this picture before, so I won't bore every one with all the details again:

These were fired into milk jugs of water at magnum velocities. The bullet in the center is a Accubond, and to the right of it is the Scirocco. As you can see, the scirocco turned itself inside out. I use this test for the consistency.
I take game shots with a grain of salt, because the velocity of the bullet as well as its path through the game (shoulder vs soft tissue) will all influence how the bullet performs. Every bullet will have ideal conditions where it will perform best. The best bullets will have a larger range of conditions where they will perform adquately.
The bullet on the far right (failsafe) was recovered from a huge 6x6 bull Elk at a range of over 400 yards. It not only had a perfect mushroom, it lost less than 1 grain of weight. Thats what I lke to see in a Elk bullet in all conditions.

Out of curiousity what did the accubond weigh (I assume a 200 grain starting point) and what did the scirocco weigh?

Shooting bullets at high velocity into water is a torture test and bears absolutely no relationship to how they will perform on game. At least the media Jamison used is more like what will be encountered when striking flesh.

I'd have to say I don't like how the Scirocco performs on game when they impact at high velocity, like greater than 3000 fps. I've used the 180 gr. in my .300 Weatherby on close range deer and have had them fail to exit, even when no major bone was hit. I've recovered a couple and they were opened up all the way to the very base. I mean there was virtually no shank remaining at all. When bullets loose their shank they do weird things inside the animal, like veering wildly off course and destroying meat that otherwise could have been saved. I don't think the Scirocco is well suited for super high velocity impacts. That's why I use the Barnes TSX now instead.

Jon, I have nothing but enjoyed and appreciated your comments in the past and I know we have visited this subject before, but now that the accubond is out in the 180 grain guise, how do you think the comparison would end up comparing apples to apples so to speak? I am wondering if things would be a little more like what Jamison showed in his testing.

From his testing it appears that the difference in retained weights makes up for the additional frontal area. As I have thought about this (I am no physics wizard) it appears that the interbond and scirocco did very well with penetration despite large frontal areas. On the other hand the accubond penetrated less (I know the measurements are miniscule in comparison) and less frontal diameter. The Interbond and Scirocco both had high retained weights while the accubond lost the most (by design). Maybe that extra weight helps push the bullet along even though it is wider

Perhaps you could do us a favor and test the .308" 180 grain Scirocco, Interbond and Accubond together?

How far a bullet penetrates wood only tells us the relative penetration of bullets in wood. It probably doesn't matter how far a bullet penetrates wood if it is found to consistently pass through game animals. In that case, the bullet that retains the most weight and expands to the greatest diameter is going to perform the best. It seems that these performance issues are caused almost exclusively by high velocity impacts. Makes a case for standard (.473" head/+ - 2.5" case length) and magnum (.532" head/+ - 2.5" case length) cartridges as opposed to the various "super magnums".

I am currently squarely in the Interbond's corner and will be so until I see evidence that shatters my current knowledge of it.

I really don't see the point when 30-30's and factory fodder have been killin Elk for years.All bullets these days are premium compared to the old days.

Bullet placement and we don't have to argue over bullets.

Just my opinion.....Jayco.

The 200 accubond in this test retained 73% of its weight, where the Scirocco was around 55% (I don't recall the exact weight"

Quote:

---

Shooting bullets at high velocity into water is a torture test and bears absolutely no relationship to how they will perform on game.

---

This is where we disagree. I don't believe penetrating through hair, leather, bone, meat, and tendons is less of a torture test than water. Regardless, I can make a accurate performance comparisons on the results of these tests. The scirocco results have been same on animals as confirmed by Deltahunter and many others. I see the water results on the Failsafe on the left, and fully expect it to perform on a 400 yard Elk shot like it did on the right. If anything, water may be less of a torture test than on some game shots.

Quote:

---

Anyway, I have tested the 180 Scirocco side-by-side (in wood) with the 200 AccuBond and the 200 penetrates farther every time even though the Scirocco retains a larger percentage of its weight

---

This surprises me. I have never tested the 180 Scirocco (my results were for a 7mm 150 grain). Perhaps swift got it right on the 180 grains. I would like to see some pictures if you have them.

Thanks Jon,
Those pictures explain a lot.
Good Shooting

Godsdog,
My 280 is built on a FN 98 Mauser action, with a Douglas 26" barrel. The load is a maximum charge of IMR 7828, and a federal 210m primer. My crono shows it at just under 2900fps. After reading numerous threads on Scirroco vs. Hornady vs. Nosler, etc., I had seriously thought about trying the others. However, when I think of the performance that they have given the thought passes quickly. Now, converting it into a .280 Ackley Improved it another thought to ponder.

When I look at the pictures, it seems to me the scirocco peels back more, which expains it's appearance to had a slightly bigger frontal diameter. This would tell me the Scirocco would have a slightly bigger wound channel than the accubond. Given the Scirocco also retains more weight on a bullet than the accubond, it would appear to me that the scirocco expends a good deal of energy within the animal, yet, because it retains a higher percentage of bullet weight, with an equal comparison (ie, 180 grain vs 180 grain) than the accubond, the scirocco would appeal to those shooters who want the bullet to expend considerable energy within the animal, yet still have excellent penetration capabilities. I'm all loaded up with Accubonds, so no need to come back and flame me, but the Scirocco appears to be a much better bullet than many still want to give it credit for.