I've been shooting 120-140 gr bullets in my .260 Rem and 6.5x284 Encore and have found several combinations that work. I am interested in loading heavier bullets, to maybe try on bigger game and, well, just to play with something. I'm looking for a deep penetrating, controlled expansion "premium". Neither Barnes, nor Swift, nor Northfork (my usual sources for heavy premiums) makes anyting bigger than 140 gr. Has anyone got comparitive testimonials on the Norma ornx vs Lapua mega? I assume the latter may be "better" (by the criteria of deep penetration) as its bonded? I assume too these perform "better" than Hornady 160s? In my experience with bigger calibers Hornady's shoot good but don't hold up with beefy game like the "true premiums". Any experiences?

Do you a fast enough barrel twist to stabalize the heavier bullets?

Peronally, I can't think of any game I'd hunt with a .260 that I'd want anymore than a 140 gr X.

Seriously, for situations you feel a 6.5mm 140 gr is inadequate, I'd recomend increasing both bullet weight and diameter.

The 160s look pretty cool and are way traditional but I'm not sure they'll dig any deeper than a premium 140. And a 140 spitzer will range better to boot.

The 1966 Barnes original 160gr fallowed by Jack Whitworth's 156gr. roger

Look at the Lapua 155 Mega, the Norma 156s, and the Woodliegh 160 semi pointed. This caliber is amazing with these bullets, but your twist will need to be at least 1:8.5 to get it started.

Thanks for the reminder about twist rate. The .260 is a Kimber and the 6.5 x 284 is a custom Encore barrel with 1:9 twist. 140 may be as much as I can stabilize.
I agree with Paul H that if I were out intentionally hunting something really big, I'd use my .338 or .375 or .416. I plan to use one of these 6.5 on a Dall Sheep hunt in the NW Territory next fall (a lot of climbing and not much shooting). Although very extremely unlikely to actually need it, they do have griz up there. I've been hassled by bears while moose hunting and salmon fishing in AK (while carrying a .375 or .416 and being damn glad I had one of these). I just though I'd bring a couple rounds of a heavy, deep penetrating 6.5 load while sheep hunting- it might help sleeping at night (like a placebo pill). Plus, playing around a little with different loads is part of the fun.....

I did some water tests at 25 yards with my 6.5 handgun and the 140 gr partition and 160 gr Sierra ProHunter both penetrated into the 6th one gallon jug of water. The partition completely lost the front lead core of the bullet. The 160 ProHunter expanded to a larger diameter and weighed more. Weight retention for the partition was 65 percent and 80 percent for the Sierra bullet. The mushroom measured .540 x .502 for the partition and .522 x .671 for the 160. Muzzle velocity for the 140 load was 2,533 fps. The 160s were case forming loads that turned out to be too hot and were probably in the 2,400 fps range.

The Sierra ProHunters are a much stouter bullet than the Sierra Game Kings, and the above information won't hold for the Game King bullets. I haven't tried the Hornady 160s but it is my understanding that the Interlocks hold together well.

I had fantastic performance with the Hornady SST 140 bullet on the deer that I shot this year. A better than 200 Lb buck, I could have put my fist in the exit wound on a steeply angled high shoulder shot. The deer never took a step after it was hit.

I believe the 140s will give all the penetration needed. You might also look at the 130 Gr Barnes TSX and 130 Gr Swift Scirocco. The Scirocco is a bonded core bullet with a BC of .571. Still, I believe you will get the most penetration with the 140s and the biggest wound channels with the round nose 155, 156 and 160 Gr bullets, with the 140s giving the most retained velocity and energy down range. The 130s will give higher muzzle velocities. Its just a matter of choosing the proper bullet for what you are hunting and the distances you are shooting, and the one or ones your gun shoots the best...Rusty.

ICUdoc,

It seems like I read where early in the 20th century, there was this hunter on safari with a 280 ross, using 140's or so and bullet failure let a leopard or some similar cat get him, it costs his life.

Nothing wrong with wanting some surety of penetration in bear country.

Hell, getting proper penetration is what helped viagra sales go straight up!

My own tests in 6.5 Rem Mag in wet newsprint had 140 grain bullets conssistently outpenetrating 160 grainers.

Both the 140 grain Rem CL and the 140 Nosler Partition at 2800ft/sec penetrated 13". The Remington bullet expanded to .66x63 caliber and retained 124 grains. The Nosler expanded to .54x48 caliber and retained 97 grains.

The 160 Hornady penetrated 10" and expanded to
.50x65 retaining 65 grains and the 160 Sierra penetrated 9" and expanded to .50x40 and retained 49 grains. The velocity of the 160's was in the 2600ft/sec range. In previous tests I have had poor results with the 160 grain Hawk bullet as well.

I would expect that you could pursuade the Rem CL to lose it's core while the partition would be dead reliable. However I am confident that the 140 CL would harvest a moose.

Would love to know if there is a good 160 grain bullet out there but the Hornady/Sierra and hawk aren't as good as 140 grainers in my tests.

quote:

Originally posted by North61:
My own tests in 6.5 Rem Mag in wet newsprint had 140 grain bullets conssistently outpenetrating 160 grainers.

The 160 Hornady penetrated 10" and expanded to
.50x65 retaining 65 grains and the 160 Sierra penetrated 9" and expanded to .50x40 and retained 49 grains. The velocity of the 160's was in the 2600ft/sec range. In previous tests I have had poor results with the 160 grain Hawk bullet as well.

Nice testing! I'm not sure, however, what we learn from the penatration and weight retention using the wet paper. Does it relate directly to bullet perfomance on game considering the characteristic differences your showing?

I truely don't understand why the 160 gr.performances would be considered sub-standard or bad . If a 160gr. bullet can penetrate 9" into the chest cavity of say a mule deer and disipate all it's energy in doing so why is not that desireable.

Two cases using a 6.5x.284 and 160 gr. Norma and Hornady;

One small mule deer buck at about 75 yards almost had the shoulder on the far side tore off.

Another, a lot closer, had all its chest cavity orgins blended into one mass of Jello.

It just so happens with that rifle, that no conventional 140gr. would hold together long enough to reach the target. roger

Old age is a high price to pay for maturity!!! Some never pay and some pay and never reap the reward. Wisdom comes with age! Sometimes age comes alone..

Well I agree that wet paper testing is wet paper testing. However, even up here in the NWT I am lucky to take 7 animals a year. Since I have ten big game guns in 7 calibers this makes single caliber testing a bit of a long term project.

Given the reduced ranging possibilities I would use the 160's only if they penetrated deeper than a 140 and in easily available bullet choices they don't. I would bet this would remain true in different test medias as well.

I have found that there is some value in testing bullets on wet paper as core shedders are identified especially if you put a layer of hard catolugues between wet layers so it isn't so homogeneous.

The round noses will tend to expand faster and the Sierras will generally shed their core reducing potential penetration. On deer this isn't so important. On Moose it may be. Even the Hornady's tend to overexpand from a penetration point of view unless the speed is kept down a bit.

I have never heard of a 140 grainer not reaching the target unless your twist is extreme and the speed excessive. What rifle were you using?

So, again, does anyone have experience (preferably real-world, on "tissue") with the Norma Ornx or Lapua Mega (or some other 160 gr thats bonded or partitioned)? They must use them in Sweeden, if that business about 6.5s and moose are true? I suspect that the tests comparing a stoutly constructed 140 vs a conventional cup-n-core 160 may be confounded by bullet construction differences, since physics seems to favor greater SD, all else being equal or as 6.5BR suggests, "Size Does Matter".
On the other hand, I'm not sure the twist in my 6.5s will stabilize these heavier guys anyhow, but I'd still like to play a little with them......

Tissue experience, one Axis doe with the 156 Oryx in a 6.5x55mm, deader than dead at 75 yards, no movement. In my experience, the 6.5mm RWS 156 grain H-Mantle is even more potent. I use it in the 6.5x54mm Mannlicher as my primary hunting bullet, shoots thru deer (Axis and Fallow) every time, dropping them on the spot. My guide was always nervous about shoot thrus with that combination, probably for good reason.

LLS

Hi, i have a swede and to date i am in the "3`s" on dear and have shot 2 Black bears with this caliber, i have at some stage shot pretty much all of the bullets mentioned and more at LIVE game, the first thing is penetration, you get lots of this (which i like) for a deer/sheep round. On the 2 bears i have shot with this round 1 was with the 160g sierra and the other was with 140g nos part both were 1 shot stops ( i dont like the bang flop discripton, though in these cases they were) i recovered the 160 from the offside shoulder but it had broken the skin but was from a tree stand in ONT so was at full velocity, the 140 was a clean pass through but the rage was long (for me about 300) so its difficult to say, and of the few hundred deer i have shot i have never recovered a single bullet but then i dont take trick shots.
I have done lots of testing on dead live!!! stock and road kill and IMO if you are going to be shooting at the farther ranges then you can do no better than the TSX or the NOS part.
B

I´ve used the Lapua Mega (6.5x55) on five whitetails so far this year and my sons took an impala each with them in March. My experience is that they don´t do well at max speed and that they aren´t the toughest bullet around. I´m not complaining as the 6.5 Mega perform well on the game it was intended for -actually it was intended for humans...but you know what I mean

The only 6.5 I have experience with is a .264 Win Mag. I found the 140 grain Hornady SP to be accurate, but after using it on deer to elk I found it lacking in penetration.

I switched to the Barnes 140 grain XLC. All I can say is WOW! I took my .264 to Namibia along with a .338. I planned to shoot the small stuff with the .264 and the big stuff with the .338. We had scope trouble with the .338 and ended up using the .264 on almost everything.

Between my son and I, we took 2 kudu, 8 warthog, 1 wildebeest, 2 gemsbok and 1 mountain zebra with it. It seemed to work as well on this size game as my .338 had on previous hunts. I was shocked. My PH commonly recommended 30 caliber as the minimum gun for clients. After witnessing the consistant perforance and penetration of the Barnes XLC's, he has changed his tune.

I like the 140NF soft in my 264 Win Mag.

But if you want to go heavier try the Woodleigh 160gn.

I'm confused! Were "NW Territory", "6.5mm" and "Grizzly" being used together in a paragraph.

Where, the testing was posted above, you will find that a 140 grain bullet at high velocity will penetrate more than a 160 at high velocity....

However, you slow a 160 down to 2400 fps or under MV... then they should outpenetrate the high speed premium 140s...

The 160s were designed for older slower MV cartridges...

Of the two 160 RNs on the US market, from Hornady and Sierra.. the 160 Hornady will hold up better to higher velocity in my experiences... but the Sierra will penetrate deeper at the velocities under 2400 fps, compared to the Hornady...

I load both, but depending on the Application...decided which one I use...

My favorite load in ALL of my 6.5 mms, is 30 grains of RL 7... with the 160 RNs......

This includes, Swedish Mauser, 260, and 6.5 x 57

I have ALWAYS loaded/carried five [5] loaded rounds of 264 Win Mag with the Hornady 160 RN on hunts. Never know when something big or nasty might need killing and these things [Hornady 160s] are up to the task.At 2900 fps they shoot about 2-3" lower than the Sierra 140 Gamekings at 200 but the accuracy is every bit as good. As K Bell said many years ago---I like the long STRAIGHT sides of the 6.5 bullet as they go in straight and don`t veer off on the way to the vitals. Heck! He oughta know!!He killed elephants for a long time before switching to the 7x57!

Aloha, Mark

Woodleigh make a 160 gr pill looks long and I reckon it would be a great penetrator !!

quote:

Originally posted by AK Hunter:
The only 6.5 I have experience with is a .264 Win Mag. I found the 140 grain Hornady SP to be accurate, but after using it on deer to elk I found it lacking in penetration.

I switched to the Barnes 140 grain XLC. All I can say is WOW! I took my .264 to Namibia along with a .338. I planned to shoot the small stuff with the .264 and the big stuff with the .338. We had scope trouble with the .338 and ended up using the .264 on almost everything.

Between my son and I, we took 2 kudu, 8 warthog, 1 wildebeest, 2 gemsbok and 1 mountain zebra with it. It seemed to work as well on this size game as my .338 had on previous hunts. I was shocked. My PH commonly recommended 30 caliber as the minimum gun for clients. After witnessing the consistant perforance and penetration of the Barnes XLC's, he has changed his tune.

A fellow I spoke with In Reno was elated with the performance of 6.5-284win140xlc in Africa. Said it drilled his Kudu amazingly well,beyond any expectation.

I have several rifles in 6.55 x55.

If you are shooting game that you think requires more than a 140 grain bullet, I would seriously suggest suggest going up a calibre , or two.

The Swede is a fabulous, and relatively unknown calibre. However, it does have limitiations. All calibres, apart the Rigby & Co do.

If you are going after big ( what exactly do you intend shooting ?), I would think that just upping the calibre would be the easiest , and safest solution.

I will guarantee that the 130gr TSX will out penetrate ALL the the 155-160gr bullets, its longer than the 160gr Hornady and will usually retain 98-100% of its weight plus you can keep the velocity up with the 130 for a flatter shooting load.

I use it in my 6.5X55 but it has a proper 1in8" twist rate, and i should be getting 2,800 to 2,850fps something you wont get even close to with a 160grainer.............

I've seen a few swedish moose shot with both the 156gr Oryx and the 156gr Lapua Mega. Both did well when placed in the vitals. A couple of hunters use 140gr partitions but the feeling is that exits are less likely with them.

The general feelins is that the Oryx is better than the new Mega which got changed some 3-4 years ago or so and is not so convincingly bonded. The Oryx definately is bonded.

Swift produced a 156gr A frame in 6.5mm that Norma used in a 6.5x55 TXP load. It was dropped after a short while reputedly due to lack of expansion. If you could find some of those they would without a doubt be TOUGH. Of the bullets available in the US I would have thought that the 140gr Aframe would be tough enough for anything one would ordinarily shoot with a 6.5.

Last monday i shot a roe deer with 6,5X55 156grain Lapua Mega. Performance excellent! It went right thru the deer and it dropped on the spot. Other good bullets is Normas 156gr Oryx and Vulcan. I´m now using the 156grain Vulcan. Even though I haven´t shoot anything with in yet, this load is the most accurate load I have ever used. I don´t know the twistrate in my rifle, but it is a winchester 70 XTR Featherweight.

Does anyone have any experience with the Woodleigh on game? I have never seen these or heard of anyone who uses them. They sound interesting.

Wes

I don´t know the twistrate in my rifle, but it is a winchester 70 XTR Featherweight.[/QUOTE]

IIRC, it is an 8 twist.