Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting Of these three bullets...

Which would you choose for deer and elk and why? My average shot is around 200 yards but this area has the potential to go way beyond. Let's say I'll limit it to 500 if it came to that. The Accubond has the power but like the idea of solid copper.

145 LRX----@200---2716/2376---@500---2362/1796
150 TTSX--------------2659/2355---------------2282/1734
160 AB------------------2727/2643---------------2400/2047

Under no circumstance is any of the loads lacking. The photo is of the best group with each.

one of the copper ones...solid copper.

Gives me that extra bit, knowing it can't really come apart, and awful hard to keep in an animal, so you generally get 2 holes.

If not, then any old cup and core bullet would suffice for me.

Don't really much care which of the soild copper ones, they are to close together in performance IMHO, granted I didn't run the numbers and all.. but should be awful close... I'd choose the one I like the best and had the best accuracy.

At those velocities I wouldn't use monometel

But I'm only a copper fan on very high muzzel velocities or close distance shots on tough game

Never had an issue with mono at slow speeds. Never been an overly speed freak generally speaking.

Have only run two barnes over 3000 fps.

YMMV

I'd go LRX if you've hoping to ventilate stuff from PBR to 500 yards, and shot angles up close vary. With a velocity of 2716fps at 200 yards, you're well over 3100 at the muzzle...

2970 with the 145, but up around 11k feet

160 AB is a stellar bullet. Can't go wrong.

From the looks of things, I'd go with the 145 LRX! Great accuracy and with the typical Barnes performance(almost 100% wt. retention), you can't hardly go wrong. memtb

What cartridge is this? 7x57?

Did I miss that?

.280AI I'm suspecting. Based on the OP's moniker.

I'm NOT a fan of Mono-metals unless ranges are going to be short most likely. However, I've not used the AB on anything so can't vouch for it really either.

I'd choose one of the two heavier ones, most likely the AB.

Thats what I figured, but asked because the velocities seem slow for a 280 AI.

Are those starting velocities or remaining velocities at 200 yards?

By what's posted I read it as being at distance.

LRX without hesitation. Impact velocity determines range limitations, not muzzle velocity. As long as that bullet is impacting at 1800fps I'd pull the trigger. 1800 is my number, not Barnes' number. They say 1600 with an LRX. If a 127LRX from a 260 will put two holes in a cow elk from 725 yards and kill her within a couple steps of impact then your 145 will be overkill at 500.

I don't shoot monometals much but reloaded some 168 TTSXs in a .308 at around 2700 for a friend who shot a very nice bull with one at less than 100 yards.

He shot it in the heart and recovered the bullet, which looked almost new, minus the tip. Without commenting on "bullet failure," the bullet did not expand.

I really like the 160 Accubond. I've used it on a few deer and elk so far. It expands well has always been very accurate for me. It will crush elks front leg bones and keep on trucking. I use a couple other bullets in my 7's but overall the 160 Accubond really has been a great bullet for me over the years.

At those velocities any 140 gr to 160 gr bullet will work fine. If that is a 280 ai, those are really low velocities and I would step them up. Of those 3 bullets definitely the 160AB.

The velocities posted are at those listed distances, the way I read it. That gives it plenty of velocity for the mono-metal, but it would be the Ab hands down for me.

I'll only say I've made a few deer kills at long range with 7mm, 150-gr ttsx's started at 2950-3000 fps and while, yes, they were kills with entrance and exit, there was very little evidence of much expansion inside and at the exit point.

I'd strongly consider the Accubond if going longer is a real possibility--better B.C. obviously with more energy and you will likely get more expansion, though there is little doubt the other two placed right wouldn't work also.

As your pic's indicate, the TTSX's are generally very accurate and the 140-gr TTSX out of my 284 is also going into .5 MOA at 400 yards. I can start it at 3100 fps with R17. I've taken several BG animals so far with it and that bullet but all have been relatively close where they've worked very well.

Strangely, my 300 Wby doesn't seem to like the 168-gr TTSX much.

Lrx
I know you said 200 yard is average. My fear with a AB and your velocities would be an elk walks out 50 yards and you hit the shoulder. I could be wrong.
So I'd just play it safe with the Barnes

The Barnes don't shoot fast for me but do shoot well.

MV is 2970 145
2930 150
2960 160

IMR 4350

smokepole, The next time you load for a "friend", put powder in the case!!!! memtb

2960 fps is not too fast for the 160 ab. It will be fine at 50 yds to 500 yrds. God, you guys just overthink everything. How many elk have you killed or seen Killed? They are not bulletproof.

Dre,

Would love to hear why you think a 160 AccuBond might not work at 50 yards. I've seen a lot of 7mm 16p Accubonds shot into big game, some at considerably higher muzzle velocities than from the OP's rifle, with nary a problem. One was shot into the shoulder of a wildebeest the size of a mature bull elk, at around 50 yards by a hunting companion with his 7mm Dakota, muzzle velocity around 3200 fps. It worked fine, breaking the shoulder and ending up under the hide on the far side.

This thread is a classic instance of paralysis by analysis, something apparently encounraged by the Internet. Apparently we can't go hunting anymore without initiating a Campfire poll.

Any of the three will work fine for the OP's purpose, as will a bunch of other bullets.

True.



Can anyone define "over kill"? This should be good for 5-6 pages.....

MD,

Yes, the campfire poll is an interesting internet phenomenon. And when it finally winds down there is rarely any definitive answer. In this case, three stout bullets supposedly shooting under .5s and which one should I use????

The early NBT's were death on Deer-the stouter ones are also-but they came apart too quickly for some. Now Berger's and such are the rage.

This...

Accubond.

I have never had an accubond fail. Course, my 160 gr loads were just loafing along just below a muzzle of 2900 fps in my 280 rem.

Bud of mine ran them out of his 7 rum in the area of 3300 or 3400 muzzle vel IIRC, and filled his dodge many a time with elk/deer and not one failed accubond did he snivel.

I'm of the school of 'secondary' projectiles from an expanding bullet help kill. You know, the thing the peoples republic of California has deemed too deadly for use.... lead.

In my post, I did say I COULD BE WRONG and I thought the OP was shooting over 3000 fps.
The reason for my answer was I once shot a ferrel pig with in less than 10 yards, when it came out of some brush.
I had 30/06 with 180 core lokts and shot it in the head. the bullet never exited. thats with heavier bullet at lower velocity.
SO, since then I went to better constructed bullets. and yes I know the AB is much better.

I'll have to try that and see how it works. What are friends for??

Not Dre, but thinking dropping one into an elk 3-4 feet behind the shoulder might be a 'skosh' messy. (... which isn't to say that the others wouldn't be essentially the same.)

I'm neither an elk hunter, nor have I used the Accubond much. And I can think of no single bullet which is better suited than all others at all distances since all of them compromise something. But going 'retro' with a Partition seems about as broad in scope - and still the pinnacle of 'all-around' as one can get (and seems to be performance that Barnes' 'X' bullets have circuitously evolved toward). And the Accubond is reputed to be generally a Partition equivalent with a more modern ballistic touch. I can't imagine why not.

RBros built full custom. It does its job if I do mine.

Have used ABs on deer and elk before, but only punched paper and rocks with Barnes so just getting some opinions on them

If you're the kind of guy that only takes broadside shots behind the shoulder, you don't need to use Barnes bullets. But if you're no stranger to raking shots where the bullet may go through some meat either before or after ventilating the vitals, and you like to target shoulders on broadside shots, it's nice not to have bits of core/jacket in the meat, which is a benefit with a mono. Penetration without destroying a lot of meat is another. The LRX should be a bit more reliable at longer range and lower IV than the TTSX.

My experience with AB's hasn't been all that positive; at least they haven't always performed according to my preference. I've seen a lot of destruction and a lack of penetration, so they're not my first choice for close-range work. I'm sure they work perfectly fine for those that prefer their performance profile, though.

You have a really accurate rifle. Although day in day out easy carry .5rifles are and always will be to me rare. Still, it seems much more than adequate. Those three bullets should easily also be more than sufficient and as far as opinions on Barnes bullets on Elk, thread after thread have been discussed regarding same. Along with many pics as proof.

Best of luck on your hunt.

Addition: Have only shot one Elk myself: .300W 180gr coreloks. Others I've been around .300W 180gr Coreloks x 2, 300W 180gr NBT's, 30-06 180gr Corelokt and a .30-06 that I don't know what he was using. None of those rifles were as accurate as yours, nor were the bullets equal to anyone of your three by today's standards. You should be fine no matter which you choose.

I shot a ratty horned mature bull once with a 7x57 handloaded with 150 gr. corelokts at 2580 fps and it did a nice job of making him Dead. Anything faster or fancier would be Icing on the cake...........

I'm not talking about ass end shots,...... but otherwise if you can't shoot them anywhere you want with a bullet, why would you even take it hunting?

If you can push a 160gr as fast as a 145gr, why would you ever opt for less bullet?

160 Accubond all day, and twice on sundays.

I'd launch that 145 and then start figuring on how your gonna get the meat outa there.

You're showing us the "best" groups with the bullets used. Which is the most consistent shooting of the 3? All excellent bullets that will work on elk. Almost to the point that your question could be considered rhetorical. Personally, I'd pick the most consistent shooting one that shot well at the ranges I intended to shoot and worry about something else like how I'm going to pack the elk out or which knife to use. Make sure your rifle is dialed in too and know your dope like the back of your hand. Also, what temps did you develop your loads at? I see you are using IMR4350, you might lose some velocity when the temp drops. Know how the rifle is going to shoot when it gets down to hunting weather temps. For me, that can be anywhere from -5 to about 30 degrees. Your groups may open up a bit when it gets colder if you developed the loads in the summer time... Generally I develop my elk loads in the fall when temps get lower, especially when using IMR4350.

The 145 mono will out penetrate the 160 ab all day and 3 times on Sundays... and end up with more MV, and a good BC due to shape and length.

I'd never run cup and core when mono is available all other variables given... IE MV, Accuracy etc..

I have no doubt the 145 can be pushed faster than the 160, the fact is that he is not pushing it faster.

At the muzzle velocities listed, 160 all day.

After personally using a 160AB on nearly 30 head of African plains game, this bullet gets my vote. It is an outstanding performer. My 160's were 3050fps @ the muzzle FWIW, and game was taken from 70-200 yards.

Flip a coin.

Anecdotal only since i don't use Barnes bullets but a friend who posts here does (maybe he will chime in).

He's killed a few hundred head of African game and one time over he shot the 145 LRX against a 300 Win Mag loaded with 200 gr Partitions. Says the 145 LRX from a 7RM penetrated just as far,did as much damage and killed about as well as the 200 gr Partition.

Kind of surprised me too but that was the report.....


Point being that construction trumps weight, and that tired old bromide called "SD", which means essentially "nothing".

I think I know who you mean, Bob

An expanded bullet has a sectional density too.

That's really what it comes down to. That, and knowing the conditions you're most likely going to encounter. There isn't one of these bullets that may not leave you feeling that you might have chosen better once in awhile. (IOW, there isn't a bullet that is 100% one-hundred percent of the time.) But any of them will put the onus squarely on it's user. And if you end up with a big green, gooey stinking mess on your hands, or a protracted follow-up of some sort, more than likely you'll either be kicking yourself for taking a shot when you shouldn't have, or you will be wishing you placed the previous shot better to start with.

Yeah.....but it might be in a constant state of disrepair.

160 Accubond

Load data from Barnes says 55.0 is max, I'm at 55.5 with great accuracy. At 56.0 accuracy dropped off. Barrel just doesn't shoot Barnes bullets fast I guess...

Harmonics. If you feel like fooling with it add a pressure point in the forearm. Gradually increase pressure and watch the results. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it hurts. I think it's one of the easiest ways to fool with harmonics without hanging a weight on the muzzle.

At 600 yards (600 even according to the RX1200 TBR) into a dirt/gravel hillside average diameter doubled to about .57" (all between .54 and .61) and retained weight was between 125-130 for 3 of the bullets and 143.7 for one. Bit of a windy afternoon at 84xx feet but was good practice. Did see a deer at 615 I took a look at, far enough to know I don't want to shoot at one that far with a 6x scope.

Smart man. That wouldn't be my scope of choice for that distance either..

Taco280AI: Use the wonderful Nosler 140 grain Partitions, and don't look back!
I have killed all manner of game with this bullet out of my 25" barreled custom 280 Remington - VERY accurate, VERY lethal and VERY reliable - end of conversation.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Hi Taco,

I'm assuming that you're talking .284 caliber.

I'd go with AccuBond.

I used 160 grain Partitions in my 7MM Rem Mag for elk. Partitions used to be the gold standard elk bullet. In my opinion, they still are. They will kill the largest elk that has ever lived as long as it destroys oxygenating blood pumping equipment.

I did a lot of listening on my last elk trip. They guides in camp weren't fond of all-copper bullets. They called 'em pencil hole makers. I have no idea how accurate their assessments were.

I'm a lead dude.

Since you've mentioned deer and elk, I'm assuming you want one bullet for both, which is a wise idea. However, if you're not killing elk, I'd go with Sierra GameKings for mule deer. They work as advertised at a lot less $$$.

Best of luck to you, Taco.

I could easily go along with VarmintGuy's recommendation. A well constructed bullet that won't fall to pieces (Patsy Cline) were it to hit bone on its way to decommissioning the right parts for sustaining life oughta cause you to reconsider elk hunting. They are HUGE animals to move. Once a herd bull is dead, there's some (a whole lot) serious work to be done.

That's some nice shooting.

Elk don't have targets stapled to their sides and don't care what you hit them with. They're not bullet proof, but if the first one does not anchor them, they can sure act like it. Practical shooting skill is more important than all the measurements we do. ( But it sure is fun to do them.) I've made one shot kills on elk with "cheap" bullets and I've had them take every round my rifle had using "premium" bullets. My closest kill was 12 yards, my farthest 250.

According to Idaho F&G, game meat can sour if the animal is not gutted within 30 minutes of the kill. I interpret this to mean I am not going to shoot beyond what I can quickly anchor and retrieve. That bull in our spotting scope looks close, but there are usually an awful lot of tangles in between you and where you last saw the animal.

There is no info about the freebore of the loads in the pictures,so it's hard to judge much. My rifles will shoot cloverleafs at 100 all day from the bench if I jam the bullet in the lands, but it's no fun sticking a bullet in the throat and dumping powder all in your action while standing at the corner of No and Where. Where there are elk there are bears and cats. I load .010" off the lands and every round gets cycled through the action before it goes in my hunting gear.

As to which of those loads is best? The one you can consistently put in a paper plate at 200 yards from every shooting position.

And shows that a lot of the minutia differentiating bullet weights and caliber "differences" over which we all often argue is often quite meaningless. Fun though.

Spoilsport! You post like you know what you are talking about and you make so much sense it risks deflating the sci fi speculation.