Your bullet and weight of choice in .243 and .270 win on deer please?

My wife has both a Rem 700 in 6mm and one in .243.

From the get go, she has only shot 100 gr RNFP's as that was the first ammo we bought before I was set up to load either calibre. IMR4350 is the only powder I use in them, just under max.

I asked her if she wanted me to use lighter weight or Spitzer BT bullets and she looked at me like I had said a bad word ..... She has twice won in off hand shoot outs out to 300m against a guy shooting a 6.5 Swede. Why fix what ain't broke?

I have a nice older Husqvarna .270 I rarely shoot since I utterly turned the front quarter of a deer into jelly with it. Just too much gun for the job unless you're really reaching out there. The guy I got it from used nothing but 150's in it for moose, but I found out it likes 130's and 140's just fine.
 
Varmit said:
hunting in heavy timber and brush a heavy bullet is said to 'buck the brush' better



You going to have argue with Jack O'Connor on this point.
Click to expand...

Simple physics dictates that a heavier, slower moving, slower spinning object will deflect less than a lighter, faster moving, faster spinning object... BUT, in reality they will both deflect too much to be trusted to impact "close enough" to the desired point of impact... regardless of what you shoot, you don't want the bullet to hit anything until it reaches its target... the concept of using a heavier projectile so that you can "shoot through" brush is foolish and IMO irresponsible... I don't want to effectively "roll the dice" when I am shooting at game animals... do your best to find a "clear" shot.
 
Varmit said:
hunting in heavy timber and brush a heavy bullet is said to 'buck the brush' better



You going to have argue with Jack O'Connor on this point.
Click to expand...

Actually I don't. You should put less faith in the old myths and legends.

Lots of proof exists that there are no rounds that will "buck the brush" well enough to make a real difference. You will likely miss with anything you shoot if you hit any bushes first. Worry about missing the bushes (and fast, flat shooting rounds are sometimes easier to put through small holes in the bush) more than you worry about what round you are using that you think can shoot through stuff.
 
Many years ago at Practical Rifle match, we set up a 'Jungle Lane' that ran for about 200m. You shot to the right and left of the trail as you advanced.

Targets were as close as 10m and as far as 50m, depending upon the brush and arcs of fire. At least half of them were partially screened by brush and trees. There were several Mini 14's and a few AR 15's, along with some FN C1's in the hands of BCRA members. In the bolt action class we had the usual .303's, 8mm Mausers and one lone Rem 700 in 25-'06.

Scoring was a revelation ... quite often .223 shooters were amazed that they missed with either one or even two rds if the targets were screened by brush as small as 1/4" in diameter. In other words - twigs. There were two RO's accompanying each shooter so we could see it as it happened. Very often bullets that did score were key holes, upset by the brush.
In the case of the larger battle rifles, they shot through 6"-8'' trees and hit the targets behind. Twigs in the way were simply clipped off.

This amused me no end as I had used the FN C1 for twelve years while serving and had a lot of faith in the round. That experience left me contemptuous of the 5.56mm as a battle round.

Around the same time, I had read in the "American Rifleman" magazine a letter written by an Infantry Officer serving in Viet Nam. He told of watching a firefight from a vantage point when a Viet Cong mortar crew was setting up in his vision. They were screened by what he called "light brush". He called up a rifleman who emptied a 20 rd magazine without hitting a man! They didn't even know they were under fire.

He then called up his M60 machinegunner who killed all the crew members, rapping off short bursts with his MG.

What do you want shot at you, a .223 or a 7.62mm? The same would apply in a hunting scenario.
 
Sharps '63 said:
Many years ago at Practical Rifle match, we set up a 'Jungle Lane' that ran for about 200m. You shot to the right and left of the trail as you advanced.

Targets were as close as 10m and as far as 50m, depending upon the brush and arcs of fire. At least half of them were partially screened by brush and trees. There were several Mini 14's and a few AR 15's, along with some FN C1's in the hands of BCRA members. In the bolt action class we had the usual .303's, 8mm Mausers and one lone Rem 700 in 25-'06.

Scoring was a revelation ... quite often .223 shooters were amazed that they missed with either one or even two rds if the targets were screened by brush as small as 1/4" in diameter. In other words - twigs. There were two RO's accompanying each shooter so we could see it as it happened. Very often bullets that did score were key holes, upset by the brush.
In the case of the larger battle rifles, they shot through 6"-8'' trees and hit the targets behind. Twigs in the way were simply clipped off.

This amused me no end as I had used the FN C1 for twelve years while serving and had a lot of faith in the round. That experience left me contemptuous of the 5.56mm as a battle round.

Around the same time, I had read in the "American Rifleman" magazine a letter written by an Infantry Officer serving in Viet Nam. He told of watching a firefight from a vantage point when a Viet Cong mortar crew was setting up in his vision. They were screened by what he called "light brush". He called up a rifleman who emptied a 20 rd magazine without hitting a man! They didn't even know they were under fire.

He then called up his M60 machinegunner who killed all the crew members, rapping off short bursts with his MG.

What do you want shot at you, a .223 or a 7.62mm? The same would apply in a hunting scenario.
Click to expand...

Your scenario does not reflect typical hunting situations... the closer to the muzzle the obstructions is and the further from the target, the more significant the deflection. If an animal is 100 meters away but one meter behind a tree, a bullet may blow through the tree and kill the animal, but if the tree is one meter from the muzzle on an animal 100 meters away, you have zero hope of hitting it. If there is a twig against an animals kill zone, I would take the shot, if there is a twig against my muzzle, I would not take the shot.
 
My wife shoots stupid accurate in her Savage 11 using simple, plain-Jane blue box 100gn Federals. Hasn't missed a deer yet, and none went more than 25yds (she has only shot 7 with this rifle so far). She shoots sub 1" groups at 100 yds. No sense hand-loading for this rifle.

55gn V-Maxs shoot just as well and required very little load development to get them there.
 
On the deflection note

If you got a moose behind a little wall of willows that are very close. Thin enough to pretty much see the animal.
I would let fly. The deflection in 2-3ft of target wont make enough differance. IMO.
 
regulate34 said:
On the deflection note

If you got a moose behind a little wall of willows that are very close. Thin enough to pretty much see the animal.
I would let fly. The deflection in 2-3ft of target wont make enough differance. IMO.
Click to expand...

I agree with you and have shot deer and moose in the situation you have described, but I feel more confident doing it using a 180 grain 30-06 instead of a 130 grain in a 270.
 
Sharps '63 said:
Many years ago at Practical Rifle match, we set up a 'Jungle Lane' that ran for about 200m. You shot to the right and left of the trail as you advanced.

Targets were as close as 10m and as far as 50m, depending upon the brush and arcs of fire. At least half of them were partially screened by brush and trees. There were several Mini 14's and a few AR 15's, along with some FN C1's in the hands of BCRA members. In the bolt action class we had the usual .303's, 8mm Mausers and one lone Rem 700 in 25-'06.

Scoring was a revelation ... quite often .223 shooters were amazed that they missed with either one or even two rds if the targets were screened by brush as small as 1/4" in diameter. In other words - twigs. There were two RO's accompanying each shooter so we could see it as it happened. Very often bullets that did score were key holes, upset by the brush.
In the case of the larger battle rifles, they shot through 6"-8'' trees and hit the targets behind. Twigs in the way were simply clipped off.

This amused me no end as I had used the FN C1 for twelve years while serving and had a lot of faith in the round. That experience left me contemptuous of the 5.56mm as a battle round.

Around the same time, I had read in the "American Rifleman" magazine a letter written by an Infantry Officer serving in Viet Nam. He told of watching a firefight from a vantage point when a Viet Cong mortar crew was setting up in his vision. They were screened by what he called "light brush". He called up a rifleman who emptied a 20 rd magazine without hitting a man! They didn't even know they were under fire.

He then called up his M60 machinegunner who killed all the crew members, rapping off short bursts with his MG.

What do you want shot at you, a .223 or a 7.62mm? The same would apply in a hunting scenario.
Click to expand...

Good info, thanks for posting it. Jack will be smiling when he reads it. I'm sure he has internet where is he now!
 
hoytcanon said:
Your scenario does not reflect typical hunting situations... the closer to the muzzle the obstructions is and the further from the target, the more significant the deflection. If an animal is 100 meters away but one meter behind a tree, a bullet may blow through the tree and kill the animal, but if the tree is one meter from the muzzle on an animal 100 meters away, you have zero hope of hitting it. If there is a twig against an animals kill zone, I would take the shot, if there is a twig against my muzzle, I would not take the shot.
Click to expand...

What's not typical of hunting situations in either situation I described? Close targets screened by brush and more distant targets partially hidden by more growth. Warfare in the jungle or bush closely resembles hunting.

Our jungle lane targets could just as easily been animal silhouettes as opposed to IPSC sils. The toughest shot presented was one with a tree on either side of the 'A' zone. The nostalgia battle rifles could clip the trees and still score a hit. Not so the pea shooters. A factor to consider is the bullet type. The ammo in both the scenarios I described was usually military ball FMJ. That stuff penetrates without fragmenting.

If you want bogus brush deflection data, think back to those gun magazine articles that set up baffle boxes with wooden dowels they shot through. What did that prove other than that a large diameter heavy bullet had a better chanced of making it all the way through the box? Accuracy in either case was nil.
 
I posted once about an experiment I did using a cardboard (refrigerator) box set at varying distances behind varying thicknesses and sizes of brush. Results already posted if someone wants to find them. Truth be told, hoytcannon's data was borne out. Keyholes, fragments, Complete misses. And that's with "brush-buster" heavy bullets.
 
I was going to suggest that someone set up an experiment such as yours if they were really interested.

Did you try any FMJ bullets in any calibre? I'm sure they would react differently as they are not as frangible as hunting bullets.
 
nomad 68 said:
Just starting load development in these calibers.All I have bought so far are 100 gr partitions in .243 and 130 partitions in .270. Just looking to to hear feedback on others.Thanks
Click to expand...

Your choice of bullet weights in both calibers is very good indeed. The only suggestion I might make is to eventually bet some Barnes TSX or TTSX for your trials. The 85 grain TSX in .243 Win is excellent and I have recovered 130 grain TSX from deer in .270 WSM that were textbook for expansion and weight retention. Lead free is not a bad thing either.
 
woodlotowner said:
Your choice of bullet weights in both calibers is very good indeed. The only suggestion I might make is to eventually bet some Barnes TSX or TTSX for your trials. The 85 grain TSX in .243 Win is excellent and I have recovered 130 grain TSX from deer in .270 WSM that were textbook for expansion and weight retention. Lead free is not a bad thing either.
Click to expand...
I have tried the early barnes x bullets before with less than favourable results and excess copper fouling. Are the current bullets much of an improvement over the originals?
 
A quick note, for deer out to 350 yards, the 85 Sierra GK HPBT is a stupid accurate load with IMR 4350 in .243 (and at extended ranges). Although I can't verify, other forums sing this bullets praise over the 100 Sierra GK for deer. I have only shot coyotes and groundhogs with it but it has always shown devastating terminal performance (e.g. softball size exit on broadside coyote at 200 yds).

If you want to save $ (vs. Barnes, Partitions, ABs et. al.), the 100 gr Sierra ProHunter has received a solid reputation as a deer bullet - I shoot it in my 6mm Rem and again it is stupid accurate. It's not at all fancy, but I don't care as it is accurate and has a solid reputation on deer (again out to 350 yds or so).

For deer using a .270 , I moved from the Partition 130 gr to an Accubond 140 gr. I've shot deer with both and unless you're reaching out beyond 400 yds I don't see any practical difference. They were both as accurate out to 450 yds on targets for my M700 - - - and of the deer shot, they ran but not far (maximum range was 220 yds using the AB).
 
nomad 68 said:
I have tried the early barnes x bullets before with less than favourable results and excess copper fouling. Are the current bullets much of an improvement over the originals?
Click to expand...

The original Barnes X bullets were recognized by the company to be problematic in terms of pressures and copper fouling because of their uniform design. The TSX and TTSX have several bands cut out around the diameter of the bullet (grooves) which took care of these problems very well indeed. I don't plink with them, because they are expensive, but they're all I use for hunting in all my guns.
 
nomad 68 said:
Any experiences with sierra gameking in theses calibers? Speer Grand slam?
Click to expand...


The Sierra Prohunter is a better bullet than the Sierra Gameking. The Gameking breaks up quickly and shouldn't be used on game above 2900 fps. and even then nothing larger than deer in my opinion.

Winchester powerpoints do fine in 270 and i wouldn't hesitate to use them on moose.
 
blauber said:
100 Sierra GK for deer. I have only shot coyotes and groundhogs with it but it has always shown devastating terminal performance (e.g. softball size exit on broadside coyote at 200 yds)....
Click to expand...

Not really the performance you'd be hoping for in a big game bullet...
 
I am shooting the 90gr Accubond in my 243win, and I intend to shoot the 130gr Accubond in my 270wsm. Either is more than adequate for deer sized game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom