Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting The 300 Wby Mag for elk- is there anything better?

The formula for SD would be applicable for expanding bullets if you had a way of accurately measuring the frontal area of the expanded bullet.
However, several variable would still exist.
It's common knowledge that a 300gr 375 solid will penetrate deeper than a 500 gr solid out of a 458. So your comment on frontal area vs is weight is spot on.

While you may see some kind of contradiction there, I do not. For elk-sized game I prefer NF over AB in the smaller diameter/lighter weight bullets. When choosing a bullet for the .338WM I reasoned that a 225g bullet would be adequate even if it lost a lot of weight. Still, I went with a bonded core rather than a cup-and-core for hunting. Two elk have fallen to my .338WM/225g AB combo and all bullets have exited.

As I have stated multiple times in this thread I value terminal performance over a high B.C. value. The .225g AB don’t seem to be lacking in terminal performance.

It is pretty clear bwalker also values terminal performance over high B.C. values as, in his words, he refuses to use ‘target’ bullets for hunting. We just disagree as to what the optimum balance is for our individual purposes.

For the tenth time you don't have to give up terminal performance to still have decent BC.. there are plenty of bullets with a decent BC perform as well or better than a North Fork. All of em cost less to boot.

Agreed in part, you don't have to give up terminal performance to have a 'decent' B.C. We just disagree on what constitutes a 'decent'.

There are plenty of bullets available that I don't trust to the extent I trust the NF, AF, TB and MRX/TTSX bullets, particularly when high velocity impacts and/or heavy bone are a possibility. That includes Accubonds.

I don't agree with your list, but that's fine. Why not use a TTSX over a North Fork then?

Apparently you haven't been reading Fotis's posts....


David

I have not. LINK?

Weren't you planning on shooting an elk with Accubonds in your 280 last fall. IIRC that was your excuse for sticking a 280 in your 338 - the bullets have the same tips and thus look similar.

Yep

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/10690544/Storybook_hunt#Post10690544

Not a North Fork...

When a guy has a history of stoking his guns with the wrong ammo, it's no wonder he can't grasp some of these concepts.

Frequently I do. I trust them more than an AB as well, but not quite as much as a NF.

I take the AB every single day of the week..
North Fork certainly won't do anything a TTSX except lighten your wallet faster.

If you want to ignore the fundamental mathematical modelling techniques prevalent in todays modern day world study of physics
which are valuable to any worthy test/study and just believe what you read in gun writers book, go right ahead.

Seems you are over sensitive to being logically quizzed on the soundness of your theories...maybe you can work on that personal issue.



LOL...How about you first learn to read properly?, cause nowhere did I say your bullet testing was a waste,
What I did say ,was, some corresponding mathematical modelling relating to your mechanical tests would give it much more credibility,
especially should it closely resemble your actual physical results...its not a bad concept...a whole variety of industries from aviation, medical,
to building construction use that method to review & test their designs...so I cannot see why it wouldn't be equally valuable & relevant to bullets.

I've never said I won't use AB on elk nor is it any secret that I have used them in the past. To date I've taken one elk with a .30-06/150g AB and two with a .338WM/225g AB. The .30-06 was a new rifle to me and the 150g load was developed for antelope. I had been practicing with the .30-06 for a couple months, had taken it antelope hunting a month earlier and was pretty confident with it out to 600 yards. As a result the .30-06 became my primary rifle for my elk hunt that year and the 150g load was used because it was the only hunting load I had developed for the rifle at that time. The .30-06 launches the 150g AB at 2991fps but because I wasn't anticipating any shots under 200 yards, expected impact velocities were under 2700fps. I wasn't too concerned about the AB holding together at that velocity.

This photo has been posted before, but here it is again, my cow taken in 2010 with the .30-06/150g AB, 282 yards. Shot in the neck on the facing side, no blood around the entry wound and no exit but the cow dropped instantly because I hit the CNS. The lack of an exit surprised me and didn't engender any confidence in that load.


Last year I intended to try a 140g AB in my .280 Rem but they are launched 300fps slower than 140g bullets from my 7mm RM - 2901fps for the 140g AB vs 3214fps for the 140g NF and 3358fps for the 140g TTSX. (I don't have any AB loads for the 7mm RM or .300WM, which get NF and Barnes exclusively for hunting loads.) In the end I tool a 6x4 bull at 411 ayrds (my second longest shot ever) with my buddy's 7mm RM and a 160g 'brick' Speer calls a 'Grand Slam'. The bull went 4 steps and down so obviously the 'brick' failed.

Starman,

OK, now I get it.

I'll suggest just that to the people at various North American and European companies who've been designing and making expanding hunting bullets for decades, and who all employ professionals from various engineering disciplines who no doubt could provide such mathematical modeling. Several of those companies and people helped me start my research in how expanding bullets work, and I've participated in various ways in their tests over the years. I am sure they'd welcome your help in "corresponding mathematical modelling," which would lend considerably more credence to their products.

Coyote Hunter,

So you shoot three critters and suddenly you know all about Accubonds?

There are modelling programs out there that cover the "numbers" for differences in bullet contruction,design and materials,
and they also show the susceptible stress & fatigue zones and how they effect the bullet deforming during the penetration
process of your chosen test media/medias.



Todays modern bullet fatigue modelling programs also allow you to create a test media with multiple/varied composition.
what you need are the assigned individual values of mud, hide,muscle, bone, etc, .to insert into the program.

(btw:-) bone is not like a brick, bone is rather high in moisture content and rather elastic , compared to a brick....put those two
different media values into a modelling program and it will clearly highlight the difference.

Why don't you post a link to a few.