Big game bullets

[Gatehouse]

About 30 yrs ago I shot a running animal in the heart broadside,....except it was running and the second the bullet struck it's leg was "back", meaning the bullet struck the front leg, shattering it, and having absolutely NO penetration into the chest. My bullet placement was PERFECT.
I eventually got the animal, but the lesson was learned, and it will never happen again in my lifetime.

Your shot placement was poor for the bullet you were using.

Likely woudl have been perfect for a .270 and a 140gr TSX bullet, though

 

[Eagleye]

This subject seems to get circulated every few weeks [or months] and inexperience always shows through. For one thing, animals do NOT read energy charts, and to categorically state that one needs "X" amount of energy to kill a moose, elk, deer, or whatever is absolutely inane. A well constructed bullet and proper placement trumps all other factors, period!! No conscienscious hunter should be taking shots that he is not absolutely certain are going to enter the vitals and put a stop to life processes quickly.
As far as bullets are concerned, we have at our disposal today a large number of very good bullets, that will do the job with minimal fuss. These include the Barnes TTSX or TSX, the Nosler Partition, the Accubond, etc, etc. There are always the individuals that resist using a premium bullet [for whatever reason] and that is fine. But if the choice is made to use a common, garden variety cup & core bullet, then shot placement becomes even more critical. My take on the matter is: The addition cost of a premium bullet is so little of the "big" picture that it is inconsequential. Therefore, I have chosen to hunt with premium bullets, right from deer on up to Bison & Grizz. My choice, not imposing that on anyone else. After all, confidence can be reinforced by making sound choices.
After 50+ moose, and 35+ Elk, I feel somewhat qualified to make some observations and state my case. Regards, Eagleye.

 

[Gibbs505]

I voted no idea because shot placement is everything when it come to shooting an animial ..........

 

[Dogleg]

I voted no because you named the same velocity for all of them. Since I seem to recall from your posts that you like the .338 and .308 why not ask whether we think a .338 180 grainer @ 3150 fps is the same as a .308 165 grainer @ 2750 fps.
You'll get a different answer, at least from me.

 

[blargon]

I voted no because you named the same velocity for all of them. Since I seem to recall from your posts that you like the .338 and .308 why not ask whether we think a .338 180 grainer @ 3150 fps is the same as a .308 165 grainer @ 2750 fps.
You'll get a different answer, at least from me.

the 180 runs at 2800 from my .338 Federal.

 

[Dogleg]

In that case, 15 grains difference in weight, of the same bullet construction, at the same velocity, fired from the same case, at what amounts to powderburn ranges, isn't going to amount to a hill of beans.

 

[cbabes]

Actually, they're all Accubonds.

.338 180gr, .308 165gr, .264 130gr. I look at them and can't see why any of them would not work. The 180gr is bigger diameter, but the 130gr being longer, may penetrate further.

2 out of every 3 threads on here is about what cal to get for deer/bear/moose. Really, it doesn't matter...

Well I have a good old .270 and most people know what the famous Jack O'Connor says about them. Accuracy is most important and with a .270 or .308 you can be very accurate.

 

[WinchesterStevens]

At risk of hijacking this thread, can someone give me an idea on some of the best choices for out of the box ammo. .270 caliber for deer, range not likely to exceed 250 yards.

 

[LongBomber]

Just about any accubond with that speed and its a dead animal. Now if you had a 180gr tsx, 185gr VLD and a 180gr accubond that could get interesting... and be rehashed for the umpteenth time.

 

[rem338win]

Actually, they're all Accubonds.

.338 180gr, .308 165gr, .264 130gr. I look at them and can't see why any of them would not work. The 180gr is bigger diameter, but the 130gr being longer, may penetrate further.

2 out of every 3 threads on here is about what cal to get for deer/bear/moose. Really, it doesn't matter...

Ahhhh. My mobile wasn't showing and image icon

I agree. There is something to be said about momentum, but expanded diameter also restricts penetration. Out of the three, I would put the 165 grainer into a 30-06 and push it to 2900fps. But I'd use any in a pinch.

 

[SuperCub]

At risk of hijacking this thread, can someone give me an idea on some of the best choices for out of the box ammo. .270 caliber for deer, range not likely to exceed 250 yards.

I'd use whatever shoots well in your rifle. I'm using 150s in mine this fall.


.

 

[shortaction]

About 30 yrs ago I shot a running animal in the heart broadside,....except it was running and the second the bullet struck it's leg was "back", meaning the bullet struck the front leg, shattering it, and having absolutely NO penetration into the chest. My bullet placement was PERFECT.
I eventually got the animal, but the lesson was learned, and it will never happen again in my lifetime.

Rant off.

Incidentally, it was an antelope with a .243 shooting an 87gr hornady at warp 9.

Don't know what Hornady made for 87gr bullets 30years ago, but none of their 87gr bullets made today are for big game hunting! Here is their description for the 87gr bullets!

Streamlined design for ultra flat trajectories.
Match grade jacket design provides maximum accuracy at all ranges.
Explosive expansion, even at low velocities.

Try that same shot with a regular old 100gr Core-lokt or Power Point and the result would have been different.