Can't decide. 165 or 180 accubonds for cow elk

powder burner

powder burner

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Location
Alberta, Canada
Got drawn for cow elk. Will be hunting in area with coulees and might get a gamut of ranges to shoot at them.

Barrel is 22 inches and its a 30-06.

What is your opinion? I reload too. Got both shooting accurate groups. I'm leaning towards 165, but 180s are good elk medicine from what I hear. Never shot a elk myself yet.
 
I don't imagine you'd notice much of a difference in performance from one to the other. My last elk died from a 150 TSX. It's still going out there somewhere... ;)
 
I use 180's in the 30-06, for everything bigger than deer. I can't see any advantage in the 165's of similar construction except for a little bit of speed. It is far more important to ensure a bullet penetrates adequately and does enough deep internal damage even when encountering heavy shoulder bones as compared to an inch or two less drop for the 165's at long range, where wind, wiggle, and mirage have more real effect on hitting what you're aiming at anyway. For what it's worth I have taken about 20 elk, and been present when about 70 have been taken. In my experience heavier, stronger bullets trump light and fragile every time. The exception is monometal ( copper) bullets like the above mentioned tsx, they can be a bit lighter, and even if driven very fast still perform very well.
 
I would compare it to hunting moose although I don't use a 30-06 for moose if I did I would surely use the 180 since as others have said there is no advantage to the 165 except for a little flatter trajectory.
 
I have used 165 gr. Nosler partition's and now Accu Bonds in the 30-06 for moose since the 70's without issue. Which ever one you personally feel best with will put your Elk on the ground.
 
Longwalker said:
I use 180's in the 30-06, for everything bigger than deer. I can't see any advantage in the 165's of similar construction except for a little bit of speed. It is far more important to ensure a bullet penetrates adequately and does enough deep internal damage even when encountering heavy shoulder bones as compared to an inch or two less drop for the 165's at long range, where wind, wiggle, and mirage have more real effect on hitting what you're aiming at anyway. For what it's worth I have taken about 20 elk, and been present when about 70 have been taken. In my experience heavier, stronger bullets trump light and fragile every time. The exception is monometal ( copper) bullets like the above mentioned tsx, they can be a bit lighter, and even if driven very fast still perform very well.
Click to expand...

Funny you mention the tsx. I have a 150 gr tsx loaded with50gr of IMr 4064. I'm also getting good groups with it. Not sure on its speed or with either of my previous loads with accubonds. But was thinking that 150 barnes should smack pretty hard.

180 accubond is being pushed with IMr 4350, 55gr
165 accubond is being pushed by imr 4350, 57gr
And 150 tsx is being pushed with 50gr IMr 4064.

Any idea what a tikka 22" barrel would be getting for muzzle velocity on these?
 
My guess, and that's all it is, is about 2700 fps with your 180 grain load. But individual rifles vary too much and I could be off 100 fps in either direction with that estimate. Someone with quick load could do a better estimate. But you'd have to shoot over a chronograph to know for sure.
 
I've got 30-06 that struggle for 2700 fps with and settle for 2600 in the winter. Another pushes 180s at 2850 with h4350. A guess is just that, a guess. If you have nothing else to go on use the manual speed.

2950 fps is usually pretty easy with 150s, and 2800 with 165s.. Same thing though, it's a guess.
 
Suka said:
I would suggest 165's for a 30-06; just because of comparing the two downrange on a balistics chart. IMO a 165 is the perfect round(downrange energy/bullet drop) for a 30-06, a 180gr same for a 300wm. Opinions will vary. ;)
Click to expand...

Well, I agree opinions will vary. Lets assume a maximum range of a quarter mile; now, can you make use of the difference in trajectory between the 180 and the 165 at that range? Perhaps you could if the difference in trajectory was 6", but the difference in drop at a quarter mile, between a 180 at 2700 and a 165 at 2800, is about an inch and a half, if we compare similar bullet designs for each weight. At a quarter mile you can't even see an inch and a half! The history of .30/06 performance suggests that 165s have the terminal performance necessary to take game up to a half ton in weight, across typical big game hunting ranges, which fall well short of a quarter mile in most areas of the country. That said, over 5 or 6 generations, there is a reason why 180 has become recognized as the standard bullet weight for the .30/06 in North America. If Africa the .30/06-220 is held in high regard.
 
Boomer said:
Well, I agree opinions will vary. Lets assume a maximum range of a quarter mile; now, can you make use of the difference in trajectory between the 180 and the 165 at that range? Perhaps you could if the difference in trajectory was 6", but the difference in drop at a quarter mile, between a 180 at 2700 and a 165 at 2800, is about an inch and a half, if we compare similar bullet designs for each weight. At a quarter mile you can't even see an inch and a half! The history of .30/06 performance suggests that 165s have the terminal performance necessary to take game up to a half ton in weight, across typical big game hunting ranges, which fall well short of a quarter mile in most areas of the country. That said, over 5 or 6 generations, there is a reason why 180 has become recognized as the standard bullet weight for the .30/06 in North America. If Africa the .30/06-220 is held in high regard.
Click to expand...

I would suggest that part of the reason for the traditional preference of heavy weights is due to the lack and cost associated with premium bullets. I am fan of 180 grain bullets in my .30-06 in particular the Winchester Power Point, both factory and handloaded mostly due to cost and performance. Most of us hunters are practical folks and often very slow to embrace change, so with the recent developments regarding bonding and monometal bullets its understandable that the standard hasn't changed much from 80 years ago. Can the minute difference in POI at average hunting ranges be exploited by most of us? Probably not. Can the difference between 165's and 180's be the difference between MOA and minute of barn from the inside groups I think we both know the answer is depends on the rifle.

To the OP if it were up to me I would load up whichever shot best and not loose any sleep except for due to excitement.
 
I have shot plenty of Moose and Elk with the 30-06.
Mostly with Partitions, either 165 or 180 grain.

Both killed with authority. I drive the 165's to 2900 in a 24" barrel, and 180's to 2800 and pennies.
If I was forced to make a decision to pick one bullet, I would probably opt for the 180.

I have found the odd 30-06 that disliked the 165 grain weight, whereas almost every '06 I have owned
has shot various 180's well.

I also have used the 200 Partition on a couple of bigger animals, [Bison, Grizzly] and at 2700 or so, it is a pretty impressive performer.

Regards, Dave.
 
i found 150gr Accubonds are pretty bloody good on Sambar hinds out of a .308, I really wouldn't hesitate putting one into a bull elk at 250m either.

WL
 
Thanks for the replies. Wasn't aware of the difference in drop between the two bullet weights. 1.5 - 2.0 inches really doesn't mean much farther out.

Always been in the school of thought that the heavier bullet will eventually catch and pass the lighter bullet.

Does anyone have an idea of the foot lbs of energy of the 165 compared to 180 at lets say 100-500 yards? I think that would really put it into perspective. If it's a significant amount for the 180 with 1.5-2.0 inches in trajectory then I will give the 180s a go on elk. If the difference is minimal for foot lbs of energy, may as well go with the 165.

Almost gave up on 150gr bullets in this gun until I was told to use 50gr of IMr 4064.
 
powder burner said:
Thanks for the replies. Wasn't aware of the difference in drop between the two bullet weights. 1.5 - 2.0 inches really doesn't mean much farther out.

Always been in the school of thought that the heavier bullet will eventually catch and pass the lighter bullet.

Does anyone have an idea of the foot lbs of energy of the 165 compared to 180 at lets say 100-500 yards? I think that would really put it into perspective. If it's a significant amount for the 180 with 1.5-2.0 inches in trajectory then I will give the 180s a go on elk. If the difference is minimal for foot lbs of energy, may as well go with the 165.

Almost gave up on 150gr bullets in this gun until I was told to use 50gr of IMr 4064.
Click to expand...

You are correct in that when comparing two bullets of a similar design but differing weight, despite the heavier bullet's lower muzzle velocity, it sheds velocity grudgingly, so will usually outperform the lighter bullet at long range. This is indicated by the respective ballistic coefficient of each bullet, the higher the BC, the better it retains velocity. Down range performance can be found from ballistic programs like JBM.

On the other hand, kinetic energy (bullet weight in grs/7000/64.3 X the velocity squared) is a poor indicator of killing power. Considering that a factory 55 gr .22-250 load and the original 405 gr .45/70 factory load produce almost exactly the same energy, provides a clue to the problem. Attempting to determine which bullet kills better is a complex study, particularly when it comes to light that two different animals of the same size and species, can respond very differently to bullet wounds despite similar placement and shot angles. Considerations includes bullet design and construction, impact velocity, bullet placement, and the density, physiology, and degree of anxiety of the target in question.

If you were to choose a 165 gr TSX, you will be shooting a bullet that is approximately the same length as a 180 gr lead core bullet, but at the velocity of a 165. Or you could just use a 180 gr Partition. The difference in terminal performance will be lost on the elk.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom