So I am gearing up for an Elk hunt this fall and I am thinking of hand loading some Hammer HHT 168gr and Barnes 165gr TTSX bullets for my 300wsm to see what it shoots best. Sako 24” 1-11”. I should have sufficient velocity at 400 yards or less with either bullet to get optimal expansion with both bullets. I will try H4350 as that’s what I have on hand. If you’ve shot large game with either bullet let me know how it went. As well as any loading tips for those two bullets. Thanks
Elk Bullet - Hammer HHT, Barnes TTSX. Your Experience?
- Thread starter logan1080
- Start date
- Location
- Saskatchewan
The Barnes bullet is a proven elk killer, good bullet! I've witnessed several elk taken with it. Can't comment on the Hammer bullet. No experience.
I’ve taken/seen moose with a 150 TTSX (2575 fps out of BLR .308), 168 TTSX (2950 fps out of 300 WSM), and 175 LRX (2980 fps). I hear Elk are “tougher” than moose - based on a sample of 6 moose over the last 15 years, I would expect them to run 40-60 yards on average before dropping. For what it’s worth, I saw 2 moose taken this year with the 175 g factory .308 Terminal Ascents - neither went more than 15 yards. If this bullet was more readily available as a component option, I would consider switching to this bullet. Because it isn’t, I have no problem sticking with Barnes for my 300 WSM.
As for loading tips, check out episodes of 50 and 52 of the Hornady podcast. Take home message - don’t get to hung on seating depth - with mini-metals, stick with .050 off the lands, shot the same, moderate load for 20 shots using a powder with a good “reputation” for the weight of bullet you wish to use (I actually shoot 7 “3-shot” groups and combine the targets to create a 21-shot composite”). For years, I’ve played with seating depth and “found” pet loads only to learn and be frustrated with the fact they were not consistently accurate. As mentioned in the Hornady podcasts, spending your effort on 20% of the things you control (I.e. bullets and powder) will result result in 80% of any changes you will find - seating depth, weight sorting, uniforming primer pockets, etc. May improve precision BUT you might have to shoot a very large sample size (100+ shots) to find a statistically valid/“small improvement”. While a 20+ shot group sounds expensive, I actually found it is less expensive (if 21-shot group doesn’t meet expectations, I simply move onto the next bullet or powder, whereas, in the past I would re-test an “accuracy” loading and play with seating depths”.
As for loading tips, check out episodes of 50 and 52 of the Hornady podcast. Take home message - don’t get to hung on seating depth - with mini-metals, stick with .050 off the lands, shot the same, moderate load for 20 shots using a powder with a good “reputation” for the weight of bullet you wish to use (I actually shoot 7 “3-shot” groups and combine the targets to create a 21-shot composite”). For years, I’ve played with seating depth and “found” pet loads only to learn and be frustrated with the fact they were not consistently accurate. As mentioned in the Hornady podcasts, spending your effort on 20% of the things you control (I.e. bullets and powder) will result result in 80% of any changes you will find - seating depth, weight sorting, uniforming primer pockets, etc. May improve precision BUT you might have to shoot a very large sample size (100+ shots) to find a statistically valid/“small improvement”. While a 20+ shot group sounds expensive, I actually found it is less expensive (if 21-shot group doesn’t meet expectations, I simply move onto the next bullet or powder, whereas, in the past I would re-test an “accuracy” loading and play with seating depths”.
Last edited:
