130gn vs 150gn

Liptugger

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
41   0   0
So shooting a 270, usually always shoot 130gn, but going on a hunt and the deer are bigger and may have opportunity for elk so thought 150gn may be better.
Comparing the same ammo side by side the 150gn is slower and produces less energy and drops more. What if any are the advantages for stepping up to 150gn?
Thank you for your input.
 
I'd worry more about construction than weight tbh and shoot a bonded 130 over a cup and core 150. But in general either would be fine!

As a great all rounder theres always the 136gr Terminal Ascent or 140gr Trophy Bonded Tip.
 
So shooting a 270, usually always shoot 130gn, but going on a hunt and the deer are bigger and may have opportunity for elk so thought 150gn may be better.
Comparing the same ammo side by side the 150gn is slower and produces less energy and drops more. What if any are the advantages for stepping up to 150gn?
Thank you for your input.

130 -140-150 gr THRU THE LUNGS ! Deer or elk or moose will know no difference . RJ
 
I killed a 6x6 bull elk 3 years ago with a 130 grain Nosler Accubond. I was hunting whitetail and 7 bulls walked single file in front of me, one lung shot brought him down.
 
Well I could probably fill a boxcar with the game I’ve taken with my Husqvarna .270 that I nought new at Eaton’s in Halifax in 1963. At first I always used 130’s
( because that’s what Jack O’Connor used) and other than erratic performance from 130 gr Sierra Boattail Spitzers including blown up meat, shed jackets, they were sudden death, coyotes to moose. Quit using the Sierras, wonderfully accurate though they were and upon returning to BC where the bears can be big and cantankerous I tried Sierra 150 gr. Boattail Spitzers, then settled on 150 gr Nosler Partitions. Over time I settled on 130 gr Nosler Partition for all deer, sheep, goat and caribou. For moose, elk and black bears and any area with a good possibility of bumping into a griz my choice was usually the Nosler Partition 150 gr. These combinations never let me down through over 50 years of hunting all over BC. Having said that, my largest ever goat ( B&C listed) was taken with the Nosler 130 and both my largest moose and largest elk wit a Nosler 150.
 
For the opportunity at elk, the 150 gr would be a better choice than the 130 gr bullets. The 150 gr will provide a higher BC and SD which will produce better velocity and energy retention at longer distances, plus give more reliable penetration.

I liked the 140 gr bullets in my 270s (Win, WSM and Wby), as they gave a nice balance with velocity and energy for reliable penetration...but as always, bullet placement is the biggest determining factor. My favourite is the Nosler AccuBond. Great expansion and weight retention on recovered bullets from medium and large game (deer, mtn goat, caribou, moose, and elk).
As suggested above, good bullets make a difference.

I have just picked up some of the Federal 136gr Terminal Ascent ammo to try in my new to me LH Steyr 270 Win. Hopefully it likes this ammo!
I used the Terminal Ascent ammo in my 6.5 CM on red stag @ 296 yards (450 lb live weight), fallow deer @ 267 yards, and my wife used it on her Arapawa rams @ 120 and 122 yards with good results; all one shot kills. All bullets penetrated, so unable to recover a bullet to examine for expansion and weight retention.
 
.270s were always at their best on mountain goat as designed with a 130 grain. Certainly, it works admirably with all the bullet choices, including the 110gr mono which was my favourite.

But if I had to suggest one to a factory ammo shooter, it would be a 130. A 130gr .270 ranks near the top for the occurrence of bang flops, dead on their shadow. Probably because it’s fast enough and the bullets generally not inordinately stiff, being a bit of a traditionalist’s cartridge. My 110 TTSX aside.
 
What velocity were you loading the 110 to, Ardent? Been thinking of the same one of these days but for now its a 100gr 6.5mm TTSX likely much slower.
 
Thanks guys, lots of good input.
The I guess the main point is, why a 150 if it is slower, less energy and drops more, comparing the data on the box. These are identical rounds other than weight,
so stick with the 130 if no advantage to the 150.
The shame part is I am talking about Winchester super X ammo, my model 70 just loves the 130.

Thanks
 
Thanks guys, lots of good input.
The I guess the main point is, why a 150 if it is slower, less energy and drops more, comparing the data on the box. These are identical rounds other than weight,
so stick with the 130 if no advantage to the 150.
The shame part is I am talking about Winchester super X ammo, my model 70 just loves the 130.

Thanks

The advantage of the 150 if you want to call it that is greater penetration, more bone breaking ability with similar bullet construction. Is this detectable in the field? Not in my experience, the premium 130 has always provided perfect results for me on varied game. Perfect is perfect, dead bang flop is dead bang flop, you can’t improve on perfect. But if the 150 gives you more confidence, go for it, you won’t likely notice any difference at all. Theoretical differences or advantages mean nothing in the field under practical conditions, every shot on every animal is different.
 
150 for the added insurance. You'll get better BC and SD as said. Insurance in case the shot is less than ideal (double lung), you'll want the penetration. Pick a good bullet and place the shot where it needs to be. I'm a fan of the Partition, but an Accubond, TLR, Terminal Ascent, Trophy Bonded Tip, Norma Oryx, and TTSX should all do the trick.
 
I’ve always thought going to a heavy bullet in the 270 defeats the purpose. Typically you buy a 270 for a flat shooting cartridge. If you’re going to shoot 150s you might as well have bought a 30-06. IMHO
 
My mid 70’s Remington 700 groups far better with 140-150 grain bullets.
Like others I’m sure we started with 130 grain loads but going heavier and longer works best in that rifle.
H4831 and 140 Ballistic tips
 
Back
Top Bottom