I feel Hornady has changed something with their bullet jackets as I've experienced core separation on deer,moose and black bear with bullets made in the last 20 years in several calibres.. The ones in the old dull red boxes were stellar. They have cut corners somewhere and when I inquired they were evasive on the topic.
Hornady 220 gr Round Nose bullet in the 30-06 actual hunting experience?
- Thread starter Why not?
- Start date
BigUglyMan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Scotland
The hunter was old and fat? Or the bison?
I think that you're right. If memory serves, the 286gr Interlock didn't perform particularly well in Ted and Phil's 9.3 bullet test so I would guess that something in their jacket composition has changed.
I don't want to derail the thread but I had a 9.3x62 286gr Hornady explode on a cow moose at 180 yards shot 3 X then a finisher. Surface wounds and shrapnel for the most part. For dangerous game NFL pulled the remaining rds and seated 286gr Partitions.
With what I have seen with the Hornady 250 grain 35 cal bullets, I am suspicious of any of the new "Interlock" bullets and won't even give them a try. Hornady obviously made some changes which ruined the bullet, then covered their ears and hummed whenever it was brought to their attention.
You’re definitely not the only one who has ‘enjoyed’ that experience, and that’s too bad. That bullet is sleek as well as accurate, but just does not hold together. Not just once, but three times on a moose is pretty clear evidence something is wrong.
Here’s the big question. If a 170 gr bullet from a 30-30 at 2200 fps, or a 180 at 2400 from a 303 British will penetrate clear through the chest cavity of a 1200 pound moose, why is it so hard to design a 286 gr 366 cal to do the same? I understand sectional density, but come on, I have put many moose, caribou, and bears in the freezer using 130 gr cup and cores started at well over 3000 from a 270 Winchester without bullets blowing up.
Ted
the report on the test of 9.3 was really clear ... when i contacted hornady they were not interested into hearing about it and of course they thought i was looking for extra free bullets ... look up again the test for remington and hornady ones part...
for the 9.3 they did not changed anything they went with a weak bullet ...
nowarningshot
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Try ballistic studies....or terminal ballistic studies.....Nathan Foster out of New Zealand.
Never used this bullet. Didn't stay in a holiday Inn express either.
dgradinaru
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- British Columbia
The 8mm 195gr interlocks seem to hold up pretty well at 8x57 velocities (2550fps). Been using them as my main hunting bullet for the past 10 years and haven't had a single failure. I've had good expansion and penetration on deer, bear, and moose.
mudgunner49
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I had a 160gr RNSP Interlock practically vaporize on the shoulder of a small-ish black bear (early 90's), my buddy finished him with a 180gr KKSP factory load from an '06. I shot the rest of the 4 or 5 boxes that I had on paper, racoons and a couple of coyotes...
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
As for Interlocs… took a lion, moose, many bears, and the biggest thing on our continent a bull wood bison with interlocs (.375) amongst others. They work, I wouldn’t throw them away if they’re what you have loaded come hunting season.
I’ve switched to lead free on meat, so they’ve become target bullets for me now, but not due to any failures. I don’t doubt the failures, but I would caution you’ll find just as many guys on here with significant experience who don’t like monos because they’ve failed them in some manner too. I’ve had excellent luck with both, I’ve honestly never had any bullet in my memory ever utterly fail on me.
A few haven’t done what exactly I wanted to be sure and one even spooked me on a bear, but I knew why from where I hit with them (heavy bone) or why (close range, very high velocity). All ultimately got the job done, I think only once purely on bullet performance I had to shoot a bear again and it certainly got my attention.
But it was a very close range shot that found angled bone, at very high velocity with a light bullet... So I attribute that to my error frankly, not the bullet’s. Still waiting to experience an actual bullet failure. Well over half my big game shooting has been with a .375, and I have to admit that likely plays a factor. The lighter the chambering I’ve gone to the more curiousities occurred, but certainly not in the .30-06 class that’s still ‘plenty of gun’.
I’ve switched to lead free on meat, so they’ve become target bullets for me now, but not due to any failures. I don’t doubt the failures, but I would caution you’ll find just as many guys on here with significant experience who don’t like monos because they’ve failed them in some manner too. I’ve had excellent luck with both, I’ve honestly never had any bullet in my memory ever utterly fail on me.
A few haven’t done what exactly I wanted to be sure and one even spooked me on a bear, but I knew why from where I hit with them (heavy bone) or why (close range, very high velocity). All ultimately got the job done, I think only once purely on bullet performance I had to shoot a bear again and it certainly got my attention.
But it was a very close range shot that found angled bone, at very high velocity with a light bullet... So I attribute that to my error frankly, not the bullet’s. Still waiting to experience an actual bullet failure. Well over half my big game shooting has been with a .375, and I have to admit that likely plays a factor. The lighter the chambering I’ve gone to the more curiousities occurred, but certainly not in the .30-06 class that’s still ‘plenty of gun’.
Ted, my only experience with the 220 RN's was from "back in the day," it was a popular bullet choice in these parts for bear hunting... I had many clients show up with these bullets loaded, and I was always pleased to see them... pretty much all in .30/06 or .300 WM. These were on black bears, not the heavy boned/muscled critters you are interested in, but a 400-500 pound bear quartering on is a pretty good test, the terminal results were predictable, good expansion, good penetration, good blood trails (when they actual moved after the shot)... rapidly dead animal. I would have no qualms using them on anything in NA when propelled by a .30/06.
A fact when shooting through wood, the density toughness of the wood generally holds bullets together, you don't get the dramatic blow-up/expansion that you get on soft tissue.
Clay is another where the bullets tend to stay together, depending upon moisture/softness of the clay; it has a variability to it.
So shooting through the tree isn't going to affect the bullet expansion that much, and a moose right behind it should feel 75-85%(?) of normal velocity with a bullet already 'mushroomed'.
Last edited:
- Location
- Western Manitoba
I think last sentence about on point to what OP was concerned with - Post #5 - you sound like you had very good experience with those bullets "back in the day" - how do you know that what you buy today as replacements, are same as (or going to perform the same as) what you are "used to"??
Last edited:
i have only the 3rd generation but we will soon (within few months) got a very good idea about how the actual hornady behave ... and i can hear already some comments lol
Went to the range yesterday. Two rounds clocked 2480fps out of a 22 inch barrel. Recoil was moderate.
Ted
