Interesting comparison tonight: 300 WSM and 303 British
- Thread starter Why not?
- Start date
I just got back about an hour ago from a trip to Inuvik that turned into a bit of a hassle because of engine trouble. 
No telephone and no internet for the past four days, so it has been quite interesting to read all of this since I posted it.
First of all let me remind you this was not an attempt to compare two different bullets at all. I was just interested in how the old Norma 215s would hold up under extreme situation, as this is the bullet that I have loaded for my camp gun for years, but never had to use it.
I realize that testing bullets in water is not actually representative of how they will perform in game. Certainly bone is much denser than muscle, which is far denser than lung tissue. However, was nice to to see that it penetrated as well as it did. As Gatehouse has pointed out, water is a very tough medium on bullets. I have always known the 303 with 215s was a grand load, however I thought four jugs was very impressive indeed!
When the other fellow wanted to try the 180 Accubonds, it was just that, a trial. It was, however, quite interesting to seee how the Accubond would perform.
Two observations impressed me the most.
First, I was more than a bit surprised at the velocity of the 300 WSM. After hearing all you wizzum fans talk here, I was expecting the 180 to be as fast as the 300 Win Mag. It isn't even close! (Ooops, there goes another squirrel! )
Secondly, I was very impressed to see how the Accubond performed. It shredded the first jug, ripped the second into about three pieces, tore the third, penetrated the fourth completely, and stopped in the fifth.
The bullet opened up to at least twice its diameter and had about an eighth of an inch of cylindrical shank left at the base. I wish I could have brought it home to weigh it, but the guy wanted to keep the bullet.
So, all you guys who said it wouldn't make it.........this one did, and did well.
It was a hoot, and we did get a bit wet. We really do need to hear how they work at 100 yds or so, if someone gets around to trying that.
Ted
No telephone and no internet for the past four days, so it has been quite interesting to read all of this since I posted it.
First of all let me remind you this was not an attempt to compare two different bullets at all. I was just interested in how the old Norma 215s would hold up under extreme situation, as this is the bullet that I have loaded for my camp gun for years, but never had to use it.
I realize that testing bullets in water is not actually representative of how they will perform in game. Certainly bone is much denser than muscle, which is far denser than lung tissue. However, was nice to to see that it penetrated as well as it did. As Gatehouse has pointed out, water is a very tough medium on bullets. I have always known the 303 with 215s was a grand load, however I thought four jugs was very impressive indeed!
When the other fellow wanted to try the 180 Accubonds, it was just that, a trial. It was, however, quite interesting to seee how the Accubond would perform.
Two observations impressed me the most.
First, I was more than a bit surprised at the velocity of the 300 WSM.
After hearing all you wizzum fans talk here, I was expecting the 180 to be as fast as the 300 Win Mag. It isn't even close! (Ooops, there goes another squirrel! )Secondly, I was very impressed to see how the Accubond performed.
It shredded the first jug, ripped the second into about three pieces, tore the third, penetrated the fourth completely, and stopped in the fifth. The bullet opened up to at least twice its diameter and had about an eighth of an inch of cylindrical shank left at the base. I wish I could have brought it home to weigh it, but the guy wanted to keep the bullet.
So, all you guys who said it wouldn't make it.........this one did, and did well.
It was a hoot, and we did get a bit wet.
We really do need to hear how they work at 100 yds or so, if someone gets around to trying that.Ted
Last edited:
Why not? said:Secondly, I was very impressed to see how the Accubond performed.
The bullet opened up to at least twice its diameter and had about an eighth of an inch of cylindrical shank left at the base. I wish I could have brought it home to weigh it, but the guy wanted to keep the bullet.
Does this mean you will be trying Accubonds in your Sako this fall?
Why not? said:I.
So, all you guys who said it wouldn't make it.........this one did, and did well.
It was a hoot, and we did get a bit wet.
Ted
First, I was more than a bit surprised at the velocity of the 300 WSM.
The factory offerings of the 300WSM will match the factory 300WM, most of the time. Since I've loaded for both, i've always said that a 300WM handlaod WILL beat the 300WSM, because of case capacity.
180gr bullets form the WSM are not going to exceed 3000 fps by much Anyone that wants to load the 300WM to the same pressure as the 300WSM can easily beat that by at least 100 fps...
Secondly, I was very impressed to see how the Accubond performed.
The bullet opened up to at least twice its diameter and had about an eighth of an inch of cylindrical shank left at the base. I wish I could have brought it home to weigh it, but the guy wanted to keep the bullet.
Impossible. Bonding is just an expensive gimmick.
I'm pretty impressed, too, especially since those bullets woudl have to be moving at about 2900fps or so, into a tough medium like awater jugs. I've shot some 300gr 375 H&H bullets into jugs and some of them have only made it into 3. I have shot only 140gr 7mm Accubonds in to paper, and they expanded well and penetrated well, and held together.
Last edited:
^ Yep, precisely. There's no magic to the WSM, nothing mystical about the 'short fat' concept, nor 'more efficient.' They simply have a higher pressure rating. Not that that makes them 'bad' - I rather like the WSM's, but appreciate them for what they ARE. And they ARE not quite as powerful as the WM when handloaded (and that's all I care about, I couldn't give a rats ass about factory loads)
prosper said:
Well, actusally, they are more efficient. it takes less powder in a 300WSM to achieve the same velocities as in a 30WM.
The reaosn the WM has more velocity is because the case is larger and you can cram more powder into it, not because it is equally efficient to the WSM.
Last edited:
- Location
- Ft. Mac. Alberta
The reason for the higher pressure ratingis case thickness.prosper said:
The 300WSM has a thicker case than the 300Win mag, it is not just
"loaded to higher pressure".
cat
- Location
- Ft. Mac. Alberta
I'm talkign about the caliber of case, not the brand, SJ.
I am aware than cse thickness differs from brand to brand but it differs within the SAMMI specs.
WSM case thickness is thicker than others.
Cat
I am aware than cse thickness differs from brand to brand but it differs within the SAMMI specs.
WSM case thickness is thicker than others.
Cat
Gatehouse said:.............
Impossible. Bonding is just an expensive gimmick.
I'm pretty impressed, too, especially since those bullets woudl have to be moving at about 2900fps or so, into a tough medium like awater jugs. I've shot some 300gr 375 H&H bullets into jugs and some of them have only made it into 3. I have shot only 140gr 7mm Accubonds in to paper, and they expanded well and penetrated well, and held together.
I must say, I did not expect the AB to do as well as it did, especially at almost point blank range. The bullet really did hold together well!
I really ought to try this at 100 yds and see what happens.
Ted
I think the Accubond is a better bullet than a Partition, I can hear the cries of Blasphemy already... But it is a more efficient bullet in almost every way.
It penetrates as well as a partition (in most circumstances) and it expands consistently at a broader range of velocities. The accuracy is better and the core is less likely to separate from the jacket.
It penetrates as well as a partition (in most circumstances) and it expands consistently at a broader range of velocities. The accuracy is better and the core is less likely to separate from the jacket.
too much attention is paid to weight retention these days. The 'missing' mass doesn't just disappear - it's in there making lots of secondary channels and causing a LOT more bleeding, which is certainly a good thing so long as penetration is adequate. Therefore, the Partition remains (in my mind) the ultimate bullet. Plenty enough penetration (usually enough for an entry AND exit wound) and a few grains lost inside, rearranging bits of critter anatomy
prosper said:
I can't say anything *bad* about the partiton, as they have always worked for me. I've shot alot of game with partitons.
And while it's relaly hard to measure "dead" and "deader," I'd have to say that the X bullets which often retain almost 100% of thier weight, kill pretty damn fast. Like drop intheir tracks, never take more than 5 steps fast.
Accubonds sure seem to be more accurate than the partitons, but that is no surprise.
Shooting some 140gr Accubonds in my well used (liek a couple of thousand rounds) 7RM Ruger, I was getting groups at 300 of 1.75" for 3, and 2" for 4. Bullets at 200 were almost landing on top of each other. Groups that I have shot at 100 were almost always around .5-.6"
While I have got some pretty good acuracy with partitions in this rifle, ( I must have put 300 partitons alone through this tube) they never shot as well as these, and it was never so simple working up a load.
todbartell said:a 2 or 5 grain piece of mishapen lead schrapnel wont do enough "secondary" damage to turn a situation into a measurable advantage
make mine an X
Probably the first time I agree with Todd
Secondary wound channels are PITA for those trying to fix them, not so much for the immediate effect on target.
Too bad the dont't make a good scirocco or accubond in the 6.5
None I could find anyway.
Mystic Precision
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Summerland, BC
Anyone have new gen ballistic tips to compare?
I have seen cross sectioned bullets of the accubond and BT. They look identical and same type of profile as the SWIFT. A very heavy jacket at the bottom half of the bullet. Nice to know it will hold up well at close range.
Also, nice to see that old and new tech both provide superb game getting performance.
Jerry
I have seen cross sectioned bullets of the accubond and BT. They look identical and same type of profile as the SWIFT. A very heavy jacket at the bottom half of the bullet. Nice to know it will hold up well at close range.
Also, nice to see that old and new tech both provide superb game getting performance.
Jerry
mysticplayer said:
It woudl be interesitng to test the Accubond vs BT for penetration in various mediums, especially close up stress testing, which has long been the complaint of the BT's
If I had a box of 140gr BT's I'd shoot them into dry paper next to ther AB to compare. A side by side test is the only way to see if the BT's will perform the same as the AB's.
