Duffy's Question

[safetysheriff]

It's me again, Duffy.

If you would, take the time to re-read my response under your sectional density question.   I believe I wrote a 'decent' reply.   After reading it, get back to me/us on this 'thread' with your further reaction/questions.

Best Regards,

Bill, in northeastern Ohio

[Duffy]

Bill and others, please accept my apologies. that was not directed at you.  I was just trying to start a post that would possably shed a little light on bullet selection when there aren't hard fast rules.  I KNOW that you should use a heavier bullet on tougher/larger game but with the slight limitations of a rifle cartrige in a shorter bbl handgun things have to be thought out a little more. I can drive a 150g bullet at about 2580 and the 160 is up to 2454 so far which is almost a wash as far as ballistics go. I am trying to get a accurate 2500 out of the 160g and will keep shots under 150 yards with that. Heck at this time I don't know if I'll even get to go but I want to be prepared.  What makes me giggle is the statements that someones uncle Jim Bob shot 10 elk with ten shots with his 30-30 and never lost a one, but will critique someone using a more powerful but maybe smaller (only.024) cartrige. In my mind  bullets with the same SD should penetrate approx the same. That's why a 130g .277 will do about the same as a 150g .30 cal and so on. I wasn't trying to start a pissing match but somtimes it makes me wonder why off the wall posts will get two to three pages of replys when one that could possably benefit everyone only gets one or two answers.  Besides the paper clip would have a SD of .456 and would penetrate quite well but tissue damage would be quite minimal unless it was a expanding paper clip.  Once again sorry for the gruffness. Just been a crappy week.
Ryan

[TopGun]

I agree with your asssessment--sort of!   I shot a big ground hog with a 7x30 waters using a 154gr slug, and it penciled rith through with very little violence expressed on the pig except death, after scrambling towards it's hole. I went about 15' before bleeding to death. :eek:  it was shot in the chest. I was very surprised. I decided it wass too heavily constructed for chucks. I changed to a 150 Nosler balistic tip. The next chuck dumped, upside down, inside out and exploded like a water-filled milk jug.  :-D Both chucks were inside 100yds. I took a Whitetail doe with the 154gr'er and it didn't expand much at all.  :shock:  I knew she was hit good and tracked to where she bedded and finished her at about 60yds with a head shot. IMHO-the 154gr is a very tough bullet. I have a feeling the 7mm 160 is tougher yet, but I have no experience with it. This was also at 7x30 velocities.  :-) It may be well suited for the bigger 7mm in the 15" Encore. I used to select bullets based on teh number and then do expansion tests. :grin:  I still have a few favorites, but usually, if I want expansion, I choose the SSP's or the Balistic-tips. :-)  I really believe that until one does real chrono work like PJ did with comparing the 30cals, one cannot get really get a good idea about how it will perform at long range? Using your BC/SD is a very good way to know how it should be. Real world, actual velocity, penetration, and expansion is the best. So, Have fun selecting the one that works for you. BTW--I personally feel the 154 and 160gr 7mm will work real well in the 15" 7MM-280 Rem Encore, esp for deer/Elk.   --Topgun!

[safetysheriff]

Duffy,

Some bullets, such as the Sierra 130 gr', I believe, in .308 caliber are lightly jacketed to operate well at handgun velocities, though obviously from a bottle-necked cartridge.   I was told by the technician that this bullet has a thinner jacket for use in the smoother bores that are put into the Xp-100 and the Striker, etc.   (the smoother bore is part of the higher cost of these 'handguns')  The thinner jacket, obviously, has the potential of opening up easier - at handgun velocities - as well.   My point is, pick an appropriate sectional density for your work based upon contact, I would think, with the manufacturers of the bullets.    I think Hornady makes an excellent product.   I'd look at their website or call them.    Same I would think with Sierra, Speer, or Nosler.  

For deer, antelope, etc. I'd still go with the lighter sectional densities of those bullets recommended.    For bear and larger I'd go with heavier, handgun-designed bullets.    

Incidentally, I believe the 130 gr' in the .270 is actually close to a 165 grain in the .308 diameter.    That .270 really moves the lead!

[Duffy]

Sheriff;
I totaly agree on the 270, and that's sort of what I'm getting at! Many of the fellas around here were loading the 270's up with 150g for deer when they first started out. Then they would complain about how it penetrated from end to end and ruined the front and hind quarter/both shoulders ect. Once they figured out that the smaller diam penetrated easier they dropped down to the 130's and had better luck(and more meat) I know of one hunter that shot a elk walking away from him in the right rear ham. (bad move) It broke the hip bone went across and exited the left shoulder. There were bullet fragments most of the way through so the bullet pretty much broke up.
It was a 150 grain Sierra in a .270.
The guy that reloaded for him said "I'm never using those bullets again".
 Of course nothing makes up for a bad shot taken!

So far the Noslers shoot the best and I am in the prossess of doing testing in some media to check on expantion and penetration. I will do a follow up when time allows and when I'm done.
Ryan