I have a 300wsm that shoots my handloads in 165gr. Barnes TSX, 180 gr. Accubond, 180 gr. Trophy bonded bear claw and 180 Swift A frame bullets very well. My groups are .5" to .75" at 100 yards with each. Need some input from folks on which bullet may work the best for Elk out to 400 yards which I am very comfortable in shooting given the right situation.

How does each bullet shoot at 400 yds?

I use nothing but Nosler Partitions in my .300 Win Mag but besides the Nosler in my .270 the Trophy Bonded is a penetrating son of a gun for that caliber and I am impressed with the results on Elk for a .270.Deadly!!!!

Jayco

For that range I prefer the 180's. Better BC=more retained energy, in addition to greater sectional density and more momentum. Though I have only used the Accubonds, I would think any of those bullets to be winners. Here's another thought, I have had good success with standard bullets at those ranges too. Only problem is that on shots less than 250 or so yards, the "standards" go to pieces.

I've been using Partitions for years but tried the Accubonds this year. Great bullet !!!
They expand just a little bit more than the Partitions

I am a triple xxx convert. Coming from 12 years of harvesting everything with a nosler partition. These new x bullets perform very well. Perfect elk medicine. Go get um!

All those bullets will hold up well at close range (which is why you need them). When picking a 400 yard bullet anything will work just fine so use accuracy, trajectory, wind drift or ballistic coefficient etc to make your decision.

Cobrad,

Your comment on the standard bullets is why I am exploring other premium bullets, severe bullet breakup did occur on the last Elk I shot at around 140 yards.

hvyw8t,
The 165 TSX shoot very well but they are so long and the best groups I get are 50/1000s off the lands which really stick the bullet deep in the case. I have not tried the 180 TSX but assume this would be the same.

naja302

Good point I will look into the data on each at long range.

Mohunt,

I've shot all manner of game with both the SAF and TBBC. Both bullets work great under any conditions were I have used them. Having said that the Accubond has a better BC and may be a slightly better bullet for long range. Actually with the results you posted it would seem that all these bullets would serve your purpose very well.

Regards,

Mark

To give the whole nine yard effort, for you and your rifle, try the North Fork bullets. You both will be pleasently supprised. I loaded a buddy a special Elk load for his .300 Ultra Mag and he scored at 418 yards with a classic mushroom on two hits. Both he and his guide were amazed at the textbook performance of the bullets. A twenty year Elk hunter on his own, he won a national contest and wanted something special, after using factory cartridges all those and witnessing their erratic performance at times. He is now a North Fork man for the remainder of his hunting life. Good shooting.

I'll be using the 168 TSX in my 300 WSM this year... it'll out-penetrate all the 180's listed on this thread, fly flatter and kick less... what more could one want?

quote:

Originally posted by Brad:
... what more could one want?

Less wind drift.

Like I said, Mohunt, if you're going to shoot an elk up to 400 yds, you should see how all the bullets shoot at 400 yds on a less than perfectly calm day. They all have way more accuracy than you'll ever need for a 100 yd shot, so accuracy results at 100 yds are meaningless. Test them out where it matters and it may help you make your choice.

Jon A,

Yes I do need to test out all bullets at long distances. Just need to find a place to do so.

phurley 5,

What grain bullet did you load for the guy for Elk in the NF bullet?

quote:

Less wind drift.

Good grief, that's splitting a mighty fine hair...

i would contend that most of us shouldn't be shooting at elk 400 yards away in the wind.....

You can certainly go with 165s and call it a good choice if you're loading an extra-tough bullet, like Brad's Barnes TSX.

With the more traditional, lead-core premiums I'd go with 180s, and I use 180s exclusively in my .300 Win. Mag. for all hunting that I conduct with that rifle, elk included. Currently I'm shooting Nosler Partitions, simply because they are the most accurate true premium bullet in my rifle, plus I've taken many, many big game animals (up to 2,000 lbs.) with Nosler Partitions, and they kill stuff of all sizes quickly and well.

And that's the real key to bullet selection in any .300 magnum: Pick a good true premium bullet, the one your rifle likes best in terms of accuracy. It can be Barnes-X, Nosler Partition, Swift A-Frame, Trophy Bonded, Winchester Fail-Safe, Woodleigh, North Fork, -- whatever. Use that load for everything you'd hunt with that rifle -- deer to moose, as well as elk. Know what it does at all ranges by actually practicing at those ranges. You don't have to fuss too much about brand once accuracy has been established, simply because all of these premiums are good bullets that don't bounce off elk.

If you shoot enough animals with that load package, you'll discover a new level of confidence that you never before enjoyed, and you'll be more effective as a field marksman than you ever thought possible. Extensive experience with one rifle, one load is a very very big deal.

AD

quote:

Originally posted by Brad:
Good grief, that's splitting a mighty fine hair...

quote:

Originally posted by tasunkawitko:
i would contend that most of us shouldn't be shooting at elk 400 yards away in the wind.....

Interesting contrast. Reducing wind drift is so unimportant it's splitting hairs. Or, wind drift is so bad at that range we shouldn't even shoot that far. I see both these contrasting points of view working together here quite a bit from lots of different people--people poo-poo high BC's and reduced wind drift as an advantage...and yet the wind makes it too difficult to shoot that far. Well, yeah, when you don't pay attention to the former it sure does make the latter more difficult. Naturally.

In any case, my unwritten hint was this: If you're going to shoot an elk at 400 yds, you had better be practicing at 400 yds (at least) and not just under perfectly calm conditions. This will let one know for sure if he has any business taking a shot that long on game at all, under what conditions he should pass on a shot and which bullet he can place the most accurately out where accuracy actually matters.

That's why I didn't say use this bullet or that bullet. My advice was to get out there and shoot at that range. If he doesn't, no bullet he may choose will make up for the lack of practice.

jon - i can agree with what you have written (yeah, a real shocker, i know), but would suggest that your UNWRITTEN hint should have been written. most people would know it without being told, but there are millions of people every day who simply don't and/or wouldn't think of it. not through a lack of intelligence or even common sense, but maybe a lack of experience.

i would argue, however, that your point about higher BCs and less wind drift, while valid, is an point which ignores the fact that MANY times the difference in wind drift is quite miniscule. this is especially true when talking about one caliber/weight against another bullet of the same caliber and weight (a 180-grain, 30cal accubond versus a 180-grain, 30cal partition, for instance). yes, the difference is there, and in the hands of an experienced SHOOTER, that can make a difference between a marginal hit and a one-shot kill, but most times for most people, the improvement can be lost. this is why i agree with you 100% that it comes down to practice, practice, practice at the distances you intend to shoot. such practice will develop experience and confidence, which evolves into marksmanship and precision.

400 yards? perhaps, with much practice. much farther than that though, and the general advice really SHOULD be to try to stalk closer.

Jon, for crying out friggin loud the 168 TSX has a higher BC than most of the conventioanl 180's listed on this thread, hence the comment. But I suppose you know that (right) I personally won't take a 400 yard shot with cross wind on anything other than a coyote regardless...

quote:

Originally posted by tasunkawitko:
but would suggest that your UNWRITTEN hint should have been written.

Well, now it is.

quote:

i would argue, however, that your point about higher BCs and less wind drift, while valid, is an point which ignores the fact that MANY times the difference in wind drift is quite miniscule.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. A quick run on the A-Frame vs AccuBond shows the A-Frame (both launched at 3200) to have 30% more drift at 400 yds. Mis-doping the wind by just a couple MPH will show up.

Miniscule? Who do you think you're talking to? We spend time posting on the internet about bullets. We have no lives!

Seriously, how many people here have chosen one bullet over another because one shoots 3/4" groups at 100 and the other only shoots 1" groups? The number of people on this board who have done that probably numbers in the thousands. So, I submit to you, that while what I suggest (checking accuracy out where accuracy actually matters) might be ridiculous, it's far less ridiculous than most here already are. If you think about it, it really makes a lot more sense. A couple of inches in group size at 400 is more important than a fraction of an inch at 100. I really don't see why everybody agrees with the first scenario ("see what shoots best in your rifle--at 100 yds") but the second scenario seems off the wall to so many people. One of those cases where "everybody else in the world is nuts except for me!" I guess.

Brad, there's always a cross wind. Just a matter of how big. I never said your baby was a bad bullet. Just that somebody who might want to take that shot ought to try the different bullets at that range under those conditions beforehand. They may or may not find the TSX to be the best tool for the job.

And again, I'm not encouraging people to shoot elk from that far away. For those who don't want to (and many who do), please don't! But if you think you can, you had better practice from that far or farther under conditions as bad or worse than you'd expect to try it. That’s the most important thing. Once you do that, you can ignore all my quoting of BC's, etc. You'll find out for yourself which bullets work well out there. Just the same as people who chose the bullet that is most accurate at 100 yds--only more meaningful.

sierra matchking..Dont laugh at what you aint tried

I've used Nosler Partition spire point 180s for a lot of hunting in the .300 Win. Mag., and at the longer ranges as well.

I've also used the 180 gr. Nosler Partition Protected Point a great deal, and also for some very long shot on big game, out to past 400 yds.

Now the Protected Point Partition surely doesn't have the ballistic coefficient of the spire point, yet, I haven't found that it makes a whole lot of difference --charts, graphs, and computer programs notwithstanding. All of this stuff amounts to little more than a tidal wave in a tin cup. Big game animals are not small targets, they're BIG targets, and I'll flat guarantee you that nit-picking, petty differences in BC between two bullets of the same weight aren't going to be the difference between a hit or a miss on an elk at long range.

The differrence for the hit or miss will be the guy behind the rifle............

AD

quote:

Originally posted by charger:
sierra matchking..Dont laugh at what you aint tried

apparently, sierra has tried it, and didn't like the inconsistent results.

from www.sierrabullets.com:

quote:

The MatchKing bullets are designed for pinpoint accuracy; with no consideration given to what might happen after impact. If the bullet has arrived on target accurately, its job is done at that point. Hunting bullets must perform in a certain manner after impact. Penetrating ability, expansion characteristics, and even profile must be considered when designing a hunting bullet. Use MatchKings for matches, and game bullets for hunting.

Allen, you of course will be correct in all but the most extreme cases. However, you could also say the exact same thing about the difference between 1" and 2" groups at 100 yds--that difference in accuracy is very unlikely to amount to a hill of beans for 99.9% of hunters and would likely never make the difference between a hit and a miss for most people.

Does that mean people should be happy with 2" groups? Even though that's all they'll likely need?

That would sort of take the fun out of things, wouldn't it?

from paul at sierra bullets:

--------------------------------

There's one VERY good reason that we don't recommend the MK's for huntin' and that's simply because they're not designed with expansion in mind.This bullet is made with one thing and one thing only in mind,and that's the best possible accuracy that we can build into this bullet.The small opening in the nose is one area in which problems can occur.Sometimes,depending on the impact velocity and the angle in which it hits,this tiny HP can pinch together and cause this bullet to act more like an FMJ.If it hits squarely on heavy bone,it's possible for it to "splatter" more like a varmint bullet.

We get reports each and every year from hunters telling us they've killed 5 deer in a row without a hitch and therefore just don't understand why we don't recommed them to hunt with.It's not that we don't think they can work,but rather that they could fail.I could go on and on but the bottom line is what they're orginally desined for.Any time a bullet is used outside it's intended purpose,different results other than what was intended can happen.We know they can work..........but because of design.....we know they could fail.

quote:

Does that mean people should be happy with 2" groups? Even though that's all they'll likely need?

Absolutely! I am happy when my 338-06 shoots 2" or better, Elk are huge an eight inch group at 400 yards is perfect for elk if I could shoot that well in the field. My 358 win happily shoots four inches at 100. Its a 200 yard gun, but also perfect for elk. My 270, well its getting a new barrel so that it will shoot 1" because antelope are smaller and tend to be farther out.

as per mr. jack o'connor, here are some "rules" for long-range hunting. i believe that they can be agreed on by most of us here, even the long-range hunters!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* a long-range shot should never be taken if there is a reasonable chance of getting closer.
* a long-range shot should never be taken if the rifleman feels doubtful of his ability to make a good, solid, well-placed hit.
* a long-range shot should never be taken if the hunter cannot get into a solid position - prone with a sling, from a rest, etc.
* a long-range shot should never be taken at any dangerous animal - a brown, grizzly or polar bear, a lion, a tiger, a leopard, a cape buffalo.
* a long-range shot should never be taken at an unwounded, running animal.
* a long-range shot should never be taken if the animal shot at can get out of sight so quickly that it would be difficult to ascertain the effect of the shot.
* a long-range shot should not be taken if the range is so great that a hold on top of the shoulders will not drop a bullet into the chest cavity.

these rules may seem ultra conservative to many, and i must admit that there have been times when i did not follow them myself. however, the more i hunt and the more i see others shoot the more convinced i am that they are wise and sensible rules and if they were universally adopted the number of game animals that get away wounded to suffer and die would be greatly reduced.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the question then remains, what defines a long-range shot on a game animal?

i believe that each hunter has to make an honest evaluation of his own abilities (not the rifle's) and let his moral and ethical judgement guide his choice when the game is sighted.

Tas,

excellent to highlight Uncle Jack's good advice! Thank You!

friar

I think the 180gr Swift would be a bit "hard" for a 400yd shot. The NP is probably a good balance for a bullet asked to do everything; 100yd, not explode & still expand out @ 400yds. The NAB would be a good choice if you think your shots are going to be over 300, that's when the higher BC starts to show off. SMK, oh god, not again.
Naja, while I would except 2" groups from my .338-06, I would want to try & push that accuracy level out @ 400yds. My .338-06 is very finicky & it's an honest 1.5moa rifle. It's a 300yd gun to me, even though I have pushed that a wee bit in the past. Very terminal inside the 200yd mark on anything I've shot at, a great round.

Were not very "High Tech" out here in the middle of Idaho.We just use what works and there are many bullets that just work for Elk.We also(Like the Elk) don't pay alot of attention to numbers aka SD/BC or even energy...Just what works.

My neighbor has shot so many Elk with the 25-06 and Nosler Partitions at distances most would give him hell over on this forum but..He just does it with lots of experience and knowing when to shoot and when not to that only comes from experience in the field.

Shot placement is number one.

The bench and groups are a poor example of the field conditions one has when Mr.Bull desides to come out of the open.Huffin and puffin with no rest available...BC/SD or bullet weight won't mean a thing unless you can hit the target zone without a rest.

120 grain bullets out of a 25-06 kill Elk bigtime if you know what your doing from experience other than shooting paper.

My opinion.......Jayco

quote:

Originally posted by Jon A:
Less wind drift.
.

Jon A,

Good advice to practice at the ranges you plan to shoot during a hunt.

I'm at an apparent disadvantage because all my loading manuals and software are too old to have loading data for the 300WSM or BC data for the Triple Shock or Accubonds, but I ran the data through my RCBS program for the 165 gr Barnes XBT at 3200 fps (BC 0.505) and the Nosler 180 gr BTBT at 3100 fps (BC 0.507) with a 20 mph crosswind. It looks like the Barnes does pretty well at these .300 Weatherby Mag velocities. The Barnes should drift about 9.8 inches and the Nosler should drift about 10.3 inches at 400 yards.

So, if you have the appropriate data and/or software, could you choose a bullet of your favor and compare it to the 165 gr Barnes for us? I'm very curious as to what hunting bullet you would choose that has less wind drift than the Barnes. Thanks.

I don't think it makes any detectable difference what 180 premium bullet you use. I use Nosler partitions. I have shot elk at 50 yards and Caribou at 60 and the bullets worked fine. They work at long range if you hit the game. So why waste time fooling around with other bullets?

Will a 180 grain premium bullet reach the vitals if you try a Texas heart shot?

boreal,

Unfortunately, some manufacturers are a little more "optimistic" in their BC ratings than others. This can mean misleading results when comparing. The 165 XBT is a pretty aerodynamic bullet, but in reality it'll still have a lower BC than a 165 Ballistic Tip, much less a 180 BT. To compare it with Noslers I'd give it about a .470 BC (still fairly generous).

Using this at 3200 compared with a 200 Accubond at 2900 (should be reasonably attainable in a WSM) the XBT drifts a little more than 2" more at 400 in a 20 MPH wind (20.27 vs 18.08). That's not bad as the XBT is fairly aerodynamic. Keep in mind, the TSX will have a lower BC and won't fair as well. As long as Barnes doesn't acknowledge it and most don't shoot beyond 100 yds, most will never know.

I used to shoot light X bullets a lot. I really liked them. Then I started doing more shooting at longer ranges where BC and wind drift makes a noticable difference. Gradually I started gravitating to heavier and heavier bullets (still with aerodynamic shapes). They're simply easier to hit with.

As for what I personally use, lately it has been the 200 AB at 3175 which has 15.94" (more than 4" better) under the same test. I'll be testing some new 240's fairly soon, which, if they do as well as I think they will should do even better.

Yup, I'm afraid that I'm stuck with the BCs that the manufacturers supply.
Yowsa! 200 gr at 3175! What cartridge? You should be able to push the 165 gr Barnes at 250-300 fps more? What BC did you use for the 200 AB?
I only use X-bullets in my 6mm Rem and 7mm STW. I use them for laser-like performance to 300 yards, and toughness at short range, not for long-range ballistics. All my other rifles using jacketed bullets are set up for bullets like the Noslers, Hornadys, etc. I generally like heavy-for-caliber bullets, but the x-bullets are the exception.
Within 300-400 yards, I feel that the slower, higher BC bullet has not yet shined and does not make a big difference. 1000 yard shooting is a different story.
Thanks for the reply.

It's a 300 RUM. I like heavy for caliber bullets too--a 240 at 2975 is where it's at!

I agree out to 300 yds. A lighter faster bullet (assuming it holds together) can be advantageous in many ways and the lower BC hasn't hurt it noticably by then. Even at 400 the difference isn't huge yet...but the farther you go, the more the heavy high BC bullet distances itself from the lighter faster bullet.

The light X bullets sure do penetrate like heavier bullets, but they don't fly like them. There's no free lunch.

quote:

Originally posted by Jon A:
It's a 300 RUM. I like heavy for caliber bullets too--a 240 at 2975 is where it's at!

Using my RCBS software, I compared a 240 grain Sierra hpbtmk at 2970 fps, a 200 grain Sierra hpbtmk at 3170 fps, and a 165 grain Barnes xbt at 3370 fps. At 400 yards with a 20 mph crosswind, I come up with drifts of 7.4 in for the 240, 8.8 in for the 200, and 9.2 in for the 165. My program tells me there is a 2-inch difference between the 240 hpbtmk and the 165 xbt. Not much difference, but it is there. When zeroed for 200 yards, the 240 drops 17.5 in below line of sight, the 200 drops 16 in, and the 165 drops 14.4 in. I prefer to use the factory BCs, by the way (sorry). But I used the Sierras, which is the only 240 BC that I have at hand, but should give the 240 and 200 grainers greatest possible advantage?
My real reason for posting again is that I'm surprised that you have not trumpeted the greatest reason to use a heavy and high BC, like the 240 in your RUM. I calculated the retained energies of the three bullets at 400 yards to be 2648 ft-lbs for the 165 grain, 2776 ft-lbs for the 200 grain, and 3223 ft-lbs for the 240 grain. That's nearly 600 ft-lbs advantage over the 165 grain. 3223 ft-lbs at 400 yards is quite a whallop! Very impressive cartridge.