Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles I know a few do, but????

Don't be sayin' schitt like this, I have a feeling that can be hurt easily....

Battue you pose a good question. I ran a quick calculation using the speer .308 cal 150 gr. RN vs SP only changing only the BC of the input data .266/.389 both loaded to 2750fps scope 1.5 " above the bore, zeroed at 150 yds and found the following trajectory comparisons in inches. RN/SP:

100yds 1.0/0.8

150yds 0/0

200yds -2.6/-2.3

250 yds -7.2/-6.3

300yds -14.1/ 12.1

At 300 yds both easily exceed the 1000 ft/lb energy level which I see commonly recommended for deer.
Finally to answer your question I will probably continue to shoot SP bullets in my 308& 30-06 because in the past I have bought a bunch of bulk bullets which are commonly SP design and until I use them up well lets just say I'm cheap. On the other hand I do have about 40 of the 150 gr RN speers so I think I will load up a box for use in my 308 and given I have way to many deer rifles that I rotate thru that will probably cover deer hunting with that rifle for several years to come.

Oh and if you want to change the zero to 200yds you can have a point blank hold out to 250yds. or so with either. The poi will gain about 1" at 100yds and not exceed -4" at 250 yds for either bullet.

Correct you are, however Miles raised a good point and Larry is probably thinking about clubbing him over the head with a fish bat for scaring some of us fish away. But, I've seen that presentation in the past and watched more than a few others get hauled up on shore with a crooked eye and photographed alongside a rainbow rifle, so was far from biting.

I still may give it go with the .300Savage as a bow to old times and maybe they will run towards the truck if I don't hit shoulders.

Well you'll note that I selected a 150 gr bullet in .308 for my examples as I won't disagree him. As someone pointed out round nose bullets tend to be heavy for caliber and in larger calibers >.25are generally constructed heavier than necessary for deer which I feel accounts for the problem more than than the bullet design. I also agree that unless you have a rifle that just really shoots the RN exceptionally well or for some other reason you have a bunch of RN bullets then there is little real advantage to using them as I don't buy them boring thru trees and brush that much better, but to your original point if I was out of components and there were was a box of RN available I would be hunting them without much concern.

How many of ya ever had a Round Nose Fail ya?

how many of ya have had or seen someone complaining about a TSX or TTSX failing them....

regardless of what some midget KnowITall tells ya...

One round-nose .30 that does lots of damage, yet also penetrates well, is the 170-grain Nosler Partition made for the .30-30. The soft front core opens up easily, but the rest of the bullet holds together even when shot from, say, the .300 Savage or .308 Winchester.

Haven't used it yet, but the RN 150 Ballistic Silvertip (also made for the .30-30) should do very well too.

M.D.: Earlier was thinking about asking Re: that. Thanks.


Seafire: If the question was about failure you would have a point. If Larry mentioned failure you would have a point. Neither is the case.

Obviously you are only looking for a pissing match. I know, you only want to save the Campfire.

battue, the round nose bullets have shot very well for me in many of my rifles... If I were limited to 150 yard shots or less, I would have little problem using them in several rifles.. Over the years I have used the 220 grain .30 cal. Silvertip on more than a few deer and several antelope.. It is a great killer.. I considered loading some 220 grain Noslers up this fall for my elk hunt.. BUT I have seldom hunted country either east or west where there is not a real chance of a longer shot cropping up.. Either moving to or from a stand, what ever.. I did a quick check of a 200 grain spitzer and a 220 rn BOTH SHOT IN 3 inches high at 100.. The rn drops about a foot at 300 yards the spitzer roughly half of that.. so the rn would drop enough to miss or worse cripple a buck at that range.. While the idea of being able to guess the range, drop, and make corrections for the shot sounds good sitting at the computer, it is the animal that suffers if we error in the estimation of any of it.. Plus shooting longer distance demands greater precision to begin with.. Since most shots come in low or fading light, that only adds to the problem.. I want everything on my side if I attempting a shot at that distance.. Ethics demand it as I am sure you agree.. However, if I have a situation where I know there will be no long shots or I will turn down shots of questionable distance, then go for the rn.. I think they are a neat looking bullet and they perform very well under proper conditions.. There are a few stands I have hunted in the past, that a rn bullet worked well maybe better than a pointed one, but now I seldom hunt those stands or they have been posted..
Also always in the back of my head was something Hagel said in one of his many essays.. Both a rn and pointed bullet will enable us to shoot deer in the timber at 150 yards or so, but when a 350-400 yard shot crops up there is no contest which is better..

Dammit John!

Pepsi out the nose...

I have never used a RN on game, but they do shoot well.

I have never had a TTSX or TSX fail me either, but i do find it funny that so many "failure" threads pop up with people bitching about how the bullet they recovered from a dead animal didnt look like the pictures on the website...

Rather shoot a RN bullet backwards than forwards.

I think you're onto something here!

What's the saying about 'hindsight'? 20/20 or thereabouts?


From my perspective & experience, I don't remember ONCE where a RN would have served me better.

There have been countless times I would have been handicapped with RN bullets.

I refuse to handicap myself OR my rifle's capabilities with RN bullets.

Y'all go to 'em and take competition away from GETTING pointee bullets.

To me it's really not a case of what is the superior design. Hands down there's no argument there waaay better projectiles available. . Simply put I just prefer RN's. Never had any issues with them. Just like 'em. Just like I always shot and had no issues with round balls in my flinters and percussion guns and rifles.

Reason good enough ....... I just bought 400 154grRN Hornadys for my 7x57R cuz I like them and will do anything I need them to do except be "The Best Bullet Evah!".

I almost-not quite- used those in the 7x57 on a leopard hunt. Turns out I probably should have...

I know it doesn't take a 400 grain bullet to reliably kill caribou but last year my 400 Whelen was still unblooded. My wife used it to pick off her caribou at 250 yards with the Woodleigh 400 grain round nose. It worked really, really well. The caribou rolled over like the tundra was jerked out from under it.

We're headed out tomorrow for a few days of caribou and moose hunting. Hopefully I'll get to try those big round nose Woodleighs on both and maybe even a bear. A guy can hope.

Mart

I've read there is a quote often used on the Appalachian Trail when one hiker is put down by another for their method of making the trip re: rest stops off trail, maybe not being a purist on walking the entire traditional trail, and other idiosyncrasies that can occur on such a long journey. It goes something like this; "You hike your hike and I'll hike mine."

Perhaps with a little variation it applies here also when we disagree, and as long as it is legal; "You hunt your hunt and I'll hunt mine."

Yep and if you are GUARANTEED that all shots will be under 100, you don't need a scope either.

Open sights in those situations are akin to the RN choice, people do it because they WANT to. There ain't an advantage to either, but it seems some like to think so and will quote Field & Stream, Jack O'Connor or Daniel Boone to attempt to prove it.

Folks would be so much better if the just said 'because I want to' with out stupid attempts at validation.

I don't intend to be hateful, arrogant, nor condescending.

Well sir, you asked the question WHY more do not shoot R N bullets.

Apparently you don't like the reasons given in answer to your question.

I have not tried to convert anyone, in fact I like the idea of less competition.

I have and will continue to hunt what, where, when, & how I prefer.

You & I STILL have the privilege of choosing to hunt & how.

Whoa!!!

First off I thought your post was not any of the above. There was nothing in it that I took offense to and thought you were just writing your opinion and throwing some humor in with it. Didn't think you were trying to convert me or anyone else.

The original question was just something that passed through my mind thinking about what I will use if I use up the remaining 50 130gr TTSX screwing around. So I threw it out for conversation and knowing how things go here the possibility exists it will turn into a cat fight.

My last reply was not directed at you, AND if it was there is a good chance your name would be on the header. This one being an example. It was directed to the topic in general.

Your line was "You & I Still have the privilege of choosing to hunt & how." Mine was; "You hunt your hunt and I'll hunt mine." Seems like we agree.

Take care and have a great fall hunt.