The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting American Big Game Hunting Re: 165 gr. Nosler Ballistic tip for Elk in a 300 WMGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Re: 165 gr. Nosler Ballistic tip for Elk in a 300 WM | Login/Join |
| one of us |
I have killed 8 elk and 2 moose with 180gr ballistic tips out of my 300ultramags,but the 165gr ballistic tips have much thinner jackets and are much softer.I would either go with a heavier bullet or a controlled expansion bullet in the same weight. | ||
|
one of us |
Quote: Too lazy? Not sure, but by the time he walked up on it, it was not moving but it's head was still up. I cannot answer why he didn't go ahead and shoot it again. I personally would have put another in it asap. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: I see that one of the usual suspects has appeared.What took you so long?By the way the ballistic tips that I use have lead cores and guilding metal jackets with polycarbonate tips,no tinfoil used.If your ballistic tips are constructed of tinfoil,I can certainly understand your problem.Yes the manufacturer does recommend partitions for large game.Then again Nosler did seriously strengthen up the 180gr ballistic tip just over two years ago according to Barsness.Why do you suppose that they did that?It certainly wasn't for target shooting. | |||
|
one of us |
Okay Doc, I'll bite. Given the modern bow and arrow vs. the firearm, the arrow,tipped with broadhead or field-tip, will out penetrate a bullet. I also prefer two loads for my rifles and lean towards the heavy for caliber bullet weights. | |||
|
| one of us |
YEAAA! DING DING DING DING. Don't get me wrong. I love my guns and loads, always will, but I sure like bowhunting too.  I'm a 2 load gun myself. and I USUALLY like bigger bullets per caliber. In fact, check this out. I NEVER EVEN PUT A 130 GRAIN BULLET THROUGH A 270 UNTIL THE TSX CAME OUT. I never shot a 150 bullet in a 30.06 in MY gun. I never shot a 150 grain bullet in my .308. The one exception to my own so called 'rule' was with my 7mag. I did buy a bunch of 140 btips back when you could get them in the box of 100 at a store in Iowa that was going out of business. I bought each box for $7.00. So I bought all they had which was 300 bullets. I did use this bullet on God knows how many deer in Alabama, 3 or 4 Does in Missouri. It did just fine. Most shots were under 50 yards. I caved in when the TSX came out. For me, the 270 has just been my favorite caliber for years. I figured the toughness of the TSX in 130 would be fine. It was, and is. Before I even bought the first box, I called Barnes and asked if they'd be coming out with a 150...my typical bullet wt for the 270. They said NO. Because the bullets are long for their wt. They said the 140 looks like it will be the biggest .277 bullet wt in TSX. And thus, with my experience, there's no need for a bigger .277 TSX. The 130 does JUST fine. BUT I SURE AS HECK LIKE MY 30.06/168TSX COMBO!!! I think it is my new favorite gun. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: The facts are 300ultramag-180gr ballistic tip 8 elk 2 moose no bullet failures 7mmstw-140gr ballitic tip approx 20 head of game(deer,pronghorn,bighorn) no bullet failures 257wby-100gr ballistic tip approx 10 head of game(deer,pronghorn) no bullet failure No game lost with any of the bullets listed. Those are facts. I do choose my shots and avoid certain angles(more people could learn to do this as well)but the fact is that ballistic tips have worked for me.I have never said that they penetrated as well as partitions or other premium bullets but they have done the job. As far as Chuck Nelson(another one of the usual suspects) not liking my choice of barrelmakers or gun builders,I haven't heard of many problems with kreiger,schneider,pac-nor,hart or gaillard barrels or mcmillan stocks-have you? I have also not heard complaints about prairiegun works or rocky mountain rifles.Their customers seem very happy with their rifles? As far as using Barnsness as a reference for my reply to Jorge,I only did so because Jorge seems to value his opinion so he won't dispute his information. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: You're forgetting time of flight. The lighter bullet has less air time which also is a factor in wind drift. I personally tested this on a property where I can shoot 800 yards if I choose since I've read so many times about it. I decided to see exactly what MY rifles would do. I had an oblique head/cross wind (ie, if I was shooting at 12 o'clock, the wind was from 2 o'clock). Wind was about 10 mph (according to weatherman) and it was COLD. I shot 165 Ballistic tips and 200 Accubonds from my 300 RUM. From a 2" high zero at 100 yards for both, the 200 bullet was only 2.3" to the left and the 165's were 3.1" to the left at 425 yards. Hardly enough to argue the point in my opinion. However, both having a tight group at 100 yards (both 1/2" for 4 shots), the Accubonds did remain the tightest group but only by 1". In addition, the Accubonds still 'cloverleafed' at longer range as where the 165 Btip sort of 'stacked' even though it was a cloverleaf at 100. When we got to Colorado, my brother and I tested our 4 firearms behind Adam's house. We were able to shoot 280 yards. He brought a 300 SAUM with 180 Btips over Varget, factory Remington with 24" barrel. He also brought his custom Rem. 270 (25.5" PacNor barrel) shooting 130 TSX bullets over 57.0 Re19. I brought my 300 RUM with 200 Accubonds (28" barrel: Shilen) and a Rem 270 with 140 Accubonds (24" Broughton-Richards barrel). We also had an oblique wind there too while testing. The results were as follows: 300 RUM: NO BULLET drift. 300 SAUM: 1" bullet drift 270 with 130 TSX: NO BULLET DRIFT 270 with 140 Accubond: 2" bullet drift. When in Kansas 2 years ago, a friend brought his 300 Win mag and his 243. The 300 was shooting factory 200 A frames and I loaded up some 100 Speer Grand Slams for the 243. When we shot there we had a very strong crosswind. The 300/200 bullet drifted 3" at 275 (farthest we could shoot in my father in laws backyard), and the 243 didn't even hit the target. Those bullets drifted over 9". What I would have liked to see at that time was what a tiny 70 or even 85 grain bullet would have done. | |||
|
| one of us |
Well, just out of curiosity, does anyone know why Nosler never made a 200 grain 30 cal Btip?? | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: No, I'm not. That's taking reduced time of flight into account. The reduced time of flight does not make up for the significantly lower BC. Quote: The 165 Ballistic Tips have a much higher BC than the 168 TSX's so they'll do better. Quote: The wind is too hard to judge to even correct for it perfectly, much less judge it's exactly the same for an extended peroid of time such that you can consider it a constant for every shot in a controlled experiment. Quote: That's the key. That's how you should judge your results. In the end, that's all that matters--which bullet is more precise at those ranges under those conditions. Measuring actual wind drift is virtually impossible. But simply being able to hit much more easily in the wind at long range with heavier, higher BC bullets is something that's very easy to notice for me. It's just easier. I'm more accurate. If you want to witness an even larger contrast, load up some 240 SMK's. They're a noticable step up from the 200 AccuBond from about 500 on. And yes, that's even at a lower velocity. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Yep, you're right. However, I shot with the given conditions, and from what I remember, I always pulled the trigger while there was a breeze. Not stating all shots were under exact conditions. That is a no brainer. Impossible if shooting outdoors. Nevertheless, with my shots that day, I would have hit any animal in the kill zone. And any shot would have been only a few mere inches from my point of aim. Also, regarding the Btip vs. the TSX. Don't the BC's vary with velocity? If I was shooting a very very accurate hot load with the TSX, say at about 3400 and the best I could do with a tight grouping Btip was a minimum powder charge and a velocity of say 3180, do you still think the btip would 'do better' because it has a higher 'published' BC? I don't know if it would or not. I'm not a ballistician. In fact, I'm just a plain vanilla reloader that strives for tight groups and goes huntin'. I've been lucky I guess. I've only lost one animal in 14 years of rifle hunting and using my own loads. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Count me as one dissatisfied customer with Rocky Mountain rifles twice over and you might have to wait in line in the complaint department when it comes to PGW. Unless of course you don't mind dealing with common criminals. Also, I see you have inserted the old noodle back into the beach regarding ballistic tips, and oh yea, what is your game experience with both Barnes and the Fail Safe, in regard to the wound channel they create. Since we all know you speak from nothing but personal experience, I'd like to know what observations you've made. Chuck | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: If the same weight, no (at least not until really long range) because their actual BC's aren't different enough to make up for that much velocity difference over the short haul. But if comparing a lighter TSX to a heavier BT/AB (or any of the other plasic pointed bullets) as is the arguement here, yes. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Why would they change it when they can continue to fool people and sell more bullets by exaggerating? Quote: Because first of all, they don't use data for the TSX's. They say they're "close enough" to use the XBT's BC's. Uhm, they changed from a sharp secant ogive to a more rounded tangent ogive and made the meplat larger. Study ballistics and bullet design for a while until you figure out what that does to a BC. Not to mention the XBT's advertised BC's being inflated in the first place. | |||
|
one of us |
Any TSX of the same weight with have a higher BC than any Nosler B-tip. This is due to the increased length of the TSX due to it's solid construction(no having any lead). Any two bullets that are the same weight, that have the same profile, and same diameter, but different lengths........the one that is longer will have the higher B.C. Period. Provided everything else is equal. | |||
|
| one of us |
OH, OK. Well, if you read my past posts in various threads, you'd see that I do use the 200 Accub. in my 300 RUM. ...for the reasons you state.But, still, given what happened to me here in Ohio and in Colorado, BC and bullet weight didn't mean squat.  Hey...have you ever posted over at longrangehunting??? | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Common misconception and a completely false one. Tell me why? Tell me how large a component of the form factor skin drag is and why increasing it gives the bullet a better BC. | |||
|
| one of us |
The thing is the b-tip doesn't have a higher posted BC. The tsx does. The BC does increase with velocity, but the posted BC is usually attatined with a fairly low velocity. Her is a listing from Sierra showing the BC rating of 168 gr. smk's. .462 @ 2600 fps and above .447 between 2600 and 2100 fps .424 between 2100 and 1600 fps .405 @ 1600 fps and below | |||
|
| one of us |
Maybe you should call them and correct them. While your at it, tell them why your data is much more accurate than theirs. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: I have hunted with people that use them and have seen the results first hand.As I said previously I only have experience with one bore size of each.I have also used both in my own rifles for testing,but not on game. Quote: As miserable as you are,who could make you happy.You had even stated that you had made your last post on this site awhile ago.What happened? | |||
|
| one of us |
Stubblejumper, you're advice is shallow and based on a lot of nothing. If you would like me to get into details of my not so wonderful experience with RMR I'd be more than happy too. I've refrained in the past, but if you'd like to call me out, I'll be more than happy to oblige. Chuck | |||
|
| one of us |
Well, whoever it was, they responded by telling me that: "I find it very bold of you to..." I felt bad.  Regardless, I knew that the Scirocco had a good shape. | |||
|
| one of us |
All I can say is that I've had better experiences with partitions than with Sierras in terms of accuracy.  | |||
|
| one of us |
Then I have a question. If you take two of any type of bullet(b-tips) for example. A 180gr. and a 200gr. The 200gr. will always have the higher BC. Is you your contention that this is ONLY because of the extra weight and not the increased length? It may be, I really don't know, but tell me why. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: I do. That is why I usually shoot big bullets per caliber. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: I don't know. I've "educated" quite a few people on what a BC is, how it's determined, why weight/sectional density is so important and why making something from pure copper doesn't make it "magic" over the years. It's hard to keep track.  I can tell you the Scirroco has a much more efficient shape than the TSX could ever dream of (even better than the Noslers'). If you measure their ogives (the Hornadies are similar as well) you'll see why. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Yup. | |||
|
| one of us |
I think I may have pissed you off over there a long time ago by posted 'published' BC's vs. your 'tested' BC's for a couple of bullets. OOPS. Even though I was in agreement with a doc friend of mine from Germany who's testing pretty much was on par with 'published' BC's for those bullets. One of them was a scirocco, I can't remember what the other was. Was this you? | |||
|
| one of us |
Dare I mention just how many whitetails I've dropped with them from my 270 alone? My brother as well? Trust me WE were IGNORANT. Our standard load was 150 Btips over max IMR4831 in our 270's. And most shots in Alabanana were bowhunting range. OOPS. However, I sure do like those TSX's. Have I mentioned that anywhere on these forums yet? | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Apparently the animals were ignorant too since they died so quickly after being shot with ballistic tips.Imagine what would have happened if the animals had known that ballistic tips aren't supposed to be able to kill them. As I said earlier,I have heard such great things about the tsx's that I am going to test them next spring. | |||
|
| one of us |
Hey, you guys aren't neighbors are you? Both from Alberta? | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Actually they don't. 168 tsx has a BC of .476. The 165 NBT's have a BC of .475. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Actually they do. Barnes lies. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: I tried to tell you your gunsmith wasn't up to much. Didn't I? Looks like we've come full circle. Now, let us know what kind of optics you prefer. LOL Chuck | |||
|
| one of us |
A quote from Lost River Ballistic Technologies who makes some of the highest BC bullets around. "Our bullets are longer simply to help them fly better. When you think of bullets, think about an airplane. Over the years, people have been working on the aerodynamics of the airplane to make them fly faster and farther. Bullets are much like an airplane; the more aerodynamic, the faster and straighter the a bullet flies. The conventional bullet manufacturing process limits the bullet's aerodynamic efficiency. The Lost River Ballistic Technologies bullets are manufactured in such a way that they are not limited in their aerodynamic ability. Therefore, their flight characteristics allow maximum distance, maximum accuracy and maximum speed. By increasing the bullets ability to cut through the air it inherently makes the bullets longer. Due to the reduced drag, our bullets are able to fly farther and maintain their speed over longer distances. This reduction in drag minimizes the effects of wind, gravity and other climatic conditions on the performance of the bullet in flight." I understand that most of this extra length is due to steamlining the front of the bullet, but I don't think you can argue that extra length can hurt Bc's. Their 180 gr. .308 bullets have a BC of .672. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Like yours usually is? Quote: I was really hoping that you were serious when you said that you were leaving this forum.That would have made me happy. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Yes. This is because for a given form factor the BC is directly proportional to the sectional density, which is directly proportional to weight for a given caliber. When you break it down further both bullets have the same force of drag acting upon them. Since acceleration = force/mass this same force of drag won't slow the heavier bullet down as quickly. In other words, the heavier bullet retains its velocity better even with the same force of drag acting upon it. BC is just a number that describes the rate of decay of velocity. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting American Big Game Hunting Re: 165 gr. Nosler Ballistic tip for Elk in a 300 WM
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
| View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| Invite $GS_USERNAME to a Private Topic |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |