New bullet designs , what have they changed for you

[Joel]

Just watched this and started laughing. My wife thinks I’m nuts. Generally. Watch the last four ish minutes.

https://youtu.be/a26qAvSq2Vw

That was a good watch! And sound advice on the Barnes bullets.

My "do all" choice for Barnes is the LRX which I've seen others test and it expands very well in pigs at 1980 fps, which is far enough out there.

Waiting for a box of the 127gr Vor-Tx ammo now to see how my handloads compare to the real thing. Hopefully they shoot well with 2700, or its time to buy some StaBall....probably cry with every single large rifle primer spent in load workup too.

 

[blakeyboy]

If you averaged all the shots taken at game, it would not be over 125 yards. Weight of
recovered bullets overall - 65% The average distance would be somewhat less without
6 fairly long successful shots at moose with the '06 [c. 350-400 yards] EE.

Such great info. We're at 163 yard average shot distance right now over 5 seasons and 15 head but had to go sniper mode across valley one year to fill freezer that put us around 211 but as we keep adding that number is coming back down and wouldn't be surprised to end up close to yours at the end of it.

So much info there to work with for the students paying attention. Cup/core to hybrid partitions/bonded, or, rapid controlled expansion to moderate controlled expansion construction, 165-180 gr at ~2800-2700 fps launch, .341-.383 bc, .248-.271 sd, 1800 fps impact range 450-470 yards. Applied to game intended. 2+ times expansion, 65% retention average closer in, so lots of internal work being done. You can add the energy into this if you want, we always did, but it's optional. You can replicate this known standard formula with many cartridges now. What makes that such a great formula is 'for game intended' you chose an appropriate sd (penetration potential, .2 rot for deer, .25 for elk), you chose an appropriate construction to work well for the velocity ranges for that bullet to work within the distances you hunted to...didn't over or under drive that bullet. So you hit ALL the numbers and construction type you needed too, balanced equally. That cartridge to drive those bullets for that game was the right one to give the velocity windows you needed for the game and distances you intended to hunt.

By todays standards it's not hard to run double the bc's and even higher sd's which take that 1800 fps threshold for the construction type to waaaaay past 450-470 yards. And or, we can reduce the amount of cartridge required to do the same job to the same distances. Example, I can run .252 sd, same construction, 123 gr to 420 yards from burning 30 grains of powder and only 16" barrel due to the high bc hanging onto the starting velocity so much better and less wind drift to boot, making the 400 yard shots much easier than with the older 06 psp type options. Just natural progress. I shoot majority deer size game with the odd elk/moose, so will use accordingly and run a little closer on the bigger stuff although I know I'll get my 20" penetration at 400 on broadside rib shots with excellent expansion and internal work. Bring the formula up to .6 plus bc and .28 plus sd bullets at same starting velocities as old 180 gr 30-06 psp and with only 40 grains of powder burned even better performance can be had making similar window for impact velocities out to 600 yards with even less wind drifts and higher penetrating bullets.

Anyway, great recollection for people to study and take away for them what is a great formula for them. You're average recovery distance likely between 10-15 yards by my looking at all those bullets, a great mix of majority of drt's and smaller percentage of 50 yard runners.

 

[Eagleye]

While I have a cross-section of "hunting" rifles chambered from 6mm up to 375 H&H,
I would not feel particularly handicapped if the only one was a 30-06.

A 165 grain bullet at close to 3000, a 180 at 2800+, or a 200 at 2700+ will reliably
take all North American game within reasonable distances [~450 yards, or a bit more]

There are some bullets that I would not use, others that have proven to always
display integrity. The latter I would choose to hunt with.

There are a couple of animals that I like to have a bit of extra insurance for, but a good
bullet, placed properly from the '06 will get the job done. EE

 

[Joel]

If "big bear" was going to be an occurrence, intentionally or not, 30-06 starts to make more sense to me. Not that bigger ain't better.

Did you find that within typical distances, the 7x57 handled moose any differently at all from the 30-06? They're another one that ends up loaded so similarly in a strong action I can't see the reason for debate around.

 

[209jones]

The numbers of brands and variations of bullets available these days is really something to behold, the monometals seem to be gaining momentum, took them a while to get them worked out to this point though. Only monometals I've used for hunting are RWS 30cal 185gr, was impressed with them, but, due to the gun, I have to use those in it. Was impressed with their DK bullet as well, it was nasty stuff on a couple of deer, super penetration and an 1-1/4 hole all the way thru both shoulders, wasn't where I'd intended, but wicked results.
I have TTSX's and Cutting Edge in the cupboard, but, they are a roundtoit for me to try out, I use Partitions for the most part, for hunting, they've done what's needed to be done for me, very well. All the hunting loads I start to develop, I start with Partitions, as I seem to be able to get them to shoot pretty easily.
For gophers, not real fussy about what I use there, used Sierra, Nosler and Hornady, and cast, with good results, have some Barnes to try one day.
For range use, been mostly Nosler over the years, and some Sierra, using some Lapua at present, working well initially at least.
I have some Berger and Norma to try out yet.

 

[Eagleye]

If "big bear" was going to be an occurrence, intentionally or not, 30-06 starts to make more sense to me. Not that bigger ain't better.

Did you find that within typical distances, the 7x57 handled moose any differently at all from the 30-06? They're another one that ends up loaded so similarly in a strong action I can't see the reason for debate around.

I shot 9 moose with the 7x57, using primarily the 160 grain partition. [one with a 150 Solid base, one with a 140 Accubond, one with a 154 Hornady IL]
No factory ammo was used, only stout handloads. [160 @ 2750]

It worked just as well as the 30-06, as far as I could tell. Only one moose was shot a second time to anchor him, the rest basically died where they were standing,
or within a few yards.

Shot a couple with the 6.5x55 as well, and it seemed to work just fine.[140 Partitions] The 8x57 accounted for 2 [200 Accubond, 180 Ballistic Tip]
IMHO, Elk are more difficult to anchor "right there" than are moose, which usually do not go far once their lungs are toast. EE

 

[Joel]

I believe you.

Moose don't really tend to light the afterburners once hurt badly, for sure. Not the way a whitetail does.

Thanks for the firsthand take. Tend to think of that family (7x57, 8x57, 30-06, 270) and lots of others as basically the same cartridge, 90% of the time. Never hunted elk though! Just their smaller cousins the red deer...cervus elaphus, not cervus canadensis. But they could probably reproduce.