Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Tissue Damage - .270 vs. 6.5x55

Fellow Campfire Hunters;
Top of the morning to you all, hopefully this finds you well and your hunts thus far this fall have been good ones.

As a bit of a background to my query, I'll quickly state that we cut our own game and used to help out friends at our place, so we've been able to look at what has to be 150-200 animals over the last 25 years.

Our eldest daughter shoots a 20" barreled 96 Swede in 6.5x55 that I'd modified for my late father originally, so its been responsible for about 20 deer more or less. Lately she's been shooting 130 TSX at 2750fps, but for Dad I used a mixture of 120gr Sierra Pro Hunters, Nosler Solid Base, 140 Hornady and Partions.

For the last few years my walking around rifle has been a parts 98 in .270 with a 22" barrel that will push a 130 GMX or TTSX to about 3000fps and a 140 TSX to 2900fps or so. I've shot one whitetail buck with the 140 TSX and a mixture of whitetail and mulie bucks with the 130 GMX/TTSX - I'd say without looking likely 8 in total.

Anyway, overall I've seen more tissue damage with the 6.5x55 hit deer than the ones hit with the .270. This is at a mixture of ranges, shot angles and shot placements - though we are lung/scapula breakers here if we are able to.

I was curious if anyone else out there at our cyber 'Fire has noticed the same thing?

Though I've already spent way too much cash building the parts 98, I'm having visions of scrounging a 1:8 twist .264 barrel for it sometime, as the Swede kicks less, seems to shoot almost as flat as the .270 and frankly seem to knock the snot out of deer sized animals a wee bit better.

Anyway folks, just some idle curiosity getting the best of me as I down a cup of coffee before heading up onto the mountain behind our house for a morning hunt for whitetail or if I'm lucky a bull elk.

Thanks in advance for any who'd like to comment and all the best to you in your remaining hunts this fall.

Dwayne

I'm thinking that most likely the difference in bullet selection is where you are witnessing the biggest difference.

Bullets mean more than headstamps, try the 130 Sierra Pro Hunter in your 270 and you'll see a lot more tissue damage than the TSX.

Shod

Shodd;
Thanks for the reply, that's very likely a true statement from what I recall of the Pro Hunters....... and why we quit using them in the Swede as well.

Perhaps I should have better articulated that I'm seeing more damage from the 6.5 with the 130 TSX vs. the .270 with a 130 TTSX/GMX.

The .270 loads start out almost 250fps faster, so it's counter intuitive to say the least - but so help me that's the overall trend we're seeing.

Thanks again and all the best to you this fall sir.

Dwayne

Agreed. The bullet/placement/impact velocity is the key. Not the slight difference in caliber.........

Dwayne,
Good morning to you! Hope all is well with you and your family.

The leaves are well into their turning down here, and the recent rains have been causing quite a few of them to come off the trees. It never fails that when this happens, my mind starts to wander through my reloading manuals and the rifles in the safe.

As we have always butchered our own deer as well, I've had the opportunity to see first hand the effects of a handful of different cartridges and bullets for each.

Like the other posters have already mentioned, I see more difference in the type or brand of bullets than I do in the various cartridges. (Unless you introduce a wide variation in bullet diameter or velocity)

That being said, I still enjoy the mental exercise of trying to pinpoint "the most bestest" cartridge for whitetails.

'Tis the season!

Dwanye,that is interesting. Would figure that the .270 would do more tissue damage as it is faster. Could be that the .270 130 gr TSX/GMX are made a little stouter.

Got a question though,by "tissue damage" do you mean bloodshot meat or turning the heart/lungs to mush?

Dwayne, could it be the difference in the twist.......faster twist in the 6.5?
Just a swag on my part...

Looked in the Nosler #7 manual and they list a 1-9" twist for a 6.5x55 and a 1-10" for the .270 Win.

Good morning to you Dwayne, I can only report results from the .270, but on our smallish Texas whitetails, either the 130 Sierra Gamekings, or the 130 Nosler Ballistic tips are devastating. I'm usually launching them over 3100 fps out of a 26" barrel Ruger #1.

The buck I shot last year with a 130 BT certainly did drop in his tracks, with much carnage in the chest, but there was almost no external blood. He would have been a problem to track, had he run off. I'll probably start using either Accubonds, or Partitions, when it goes out again, especially if chasing larger animals.

i used the 130 BT as well season before last. killed 3 bucks but none had a blood trail. lucky they didnt go far but one ran off about 30 yds into the woods and took a while to find him.

Dwayne, good morning to you sir. Thank you for the clarification. It is interesting the results your seeing and it sounds like you've found a great combination that works better than average results for the 6.5 x 55.

Less recoil yet better terminal performance I think is the holy grail most of us are seeking in our hunting loads.

I would be curious to see if you dropped the velocity on the 270 load if it might start to mimick your 6.5 X 55 load.

Shod

For the last few years I've switched from my 270 (130 gr BT's) to my 260 (120 gr and 100 gr BT's). With the 120 grainers it seems like the 260 kills every bit as well as the 270. As to tissue damage, I haven't really paid that much attention to which one makes a bigger mess, but I have thought that the 270 did. But that's just my thinking and isn't necessarily right or wrong but more of a half-A____ observation.

I don't think that the 100 grainers are as effective on deer as the 120's, but they still are effective enough and are what I use for coyotes and pigs (and usually for deer).

Unless multiple deer, of exactly the same age and size, are shot at the exact same spot on their bodies and at the exact same angle of entry, under controlled settings to ensure repeatable results, using the same model bullet in each cartridge, over a chronograph to ensure a known exact velocity in each case--- only then can a question such as ".270 vs. 6.5x55" or something equally vague be answered. Otherwise, it is guaranteed to devolve into yet another Campfire debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

No insult intended. Just trying to point out the impossibility of comparisons based upon uncontrolled experiments.

Very true statement from Shodd. My friend used one of those darn pro hunters in his 8mm mauser (since we are talking modified mausers here ...). The carnage was not pretty, unless you like grapefruit sized exit wounds. I wouldn't use the pro hunter, even if they were given to me..

I don't know what you expected, Dwayne. Everybody knows the 6.5X55 is the deadliest cartridge ever invented, really no need for anything else As for the .270, well, enough has been said about the .270 on the 'fire that everyone knows it's, well, you know.....

Did you ever see what the 243 85gHP does?

Hi Dwayne,

Eileen and I have a fair amount of experience with the 6.5x55 and .270 with X-Bullets, of various sorts from the "plain old original X's" onward, as well as other bullets.

I would guess the difference you're seeing is indeed due to the rifling twist, which definitely affects bullet expansion. As I recall, the Swedish rifles have a fairly fast twist, faster than the 1-9 found in many American rifles.

But even the 1-9 in the Ruger 77 Mark II 6.5x55 I used for several years really made some impressive holes and quick kills on deer and antelope when using the 120 X-Bullet at 2950 or so. Probably the kill that surprised me the most was a pronghorn at almost 400 yards. With a pure broadside long shot, no bone other than ribs involved, he went down within a few feet. Can't remember any animal hit with that load going more than maybe 35 yards, while several shot with the .270 and the 140 TSX at 3000 fps went more than 35 yards, and one pig went close to 100 yards.

As always, however, shooting stuff isn't an exact science!

Good hunting,

elkhunternm;
Good morning to you sir, I hope this finds you folks well and thanks for your thoughts on the question.

By "tissue damage" I meant both the length and width of the wound - combined with the number of broken bones. Strangely I've found one 130 TTSX and GMX from the .270 and we've found none of the 130 TSX from our daughter's Swede.

The Swede projectiles seem to give us better penetration, while breaking as many or slightly more bones in the process. The diameter of the blood shot meat around the wounds is pretty close actually, but again that strikes me as counter intuitive taking the slower initial velocity of the 6.5 into account.

While I'm cognizant this all smacks of some mental gymnastics that could well never have a clear conclusion - it still is (to me) an interesting result and I thought I'd share it here.

Our clan did another "test" over the years loading 165 Hornady BT Spires in a .308 carbine, an '06, a pair of .308 Norma's and a .300 Win Mag at their respective optimum velocities and went out and shot as many whitetail and mulie bucks as we were allowed to with them.

In that instance, I found that while the increased initial velocity of the magnums did result in more tissue damage - even when the impact velocity would have been roughly equal - so say the .308 at 150yds and the magnums at 300yds - there wasn't as much difference as I'd expected to find.

Anyway sir, again it's all meant to be as educational or entertaining as the reader chooses to make it and nothing more than that.

Thanks again for the reply, all the best to you folks and good luck on your remaining hunts this fall.

Dwayne

John;
Thanks for the informative reply sir, I was about to send you a PM on this question as I knew you'd done a fair bit of shooting with both cartridges.

I had/have a hunch that it must be the twist, though I'll admit to being surprised at seeing any difference whatsoever.

We've seen our daughter's Swede have more of a "reaction" from deer than our other daughter's .250AI for sure and overall I'd have to say the 6.5 "rocks" a deer a bit more than my .270 load when it lands.

Again taking the initial velocities into account it surprised me is all. As you likely know about me already, I'm the poster child for "inquiring minds" when it comes to most things related to hunting.

Thanks again for taking the time to reply John, Happy Canadian Thanksgiving to you and Eileen and all the best in your remaining hunts this fall.

Dwayne

Again,interesting,all I will say is,as long as the bullets are killing deer,I would not change a thing. Learn something new everyday.

And We down here are doing just fine,Thank You for asking.

In my 6.5 Swede (M-70 trued, Bartlein 5 R)I load a charge of 48 gr of H-4350 with the 123 Nosler CC or the 120 NBT. Both 2880- 2915 and both work well on game up to a small 6 X bull elk. Mostly deer and goats.

140 Hornady SST is a sleeper also.

FWIW the only real study I've heard of on whether twist affects expansion is from Nosler where they said they checked expansion & penetration with rifled and unrifled barrels and saw no difference. Everything else I've seen is anecdotal, however, the monometals may be different. If you are breaking more bones with the swede, I would say that is why you are getting more damage. There is more collateral damage from bone fragments, etc.. and possibly loosing petals. The other thing is it looks like you are comparing untipped vs tipped bullets. I would guess, all else being equal the untipped versions would penetrate more deeply since the tips tend to aid in expansion.

Lou

I have definitely seen the effect of twist with varmint bullets, in fact Nosler Varmageddons. When they first introduced them I went on a prairie dog shoot with several rifles, including a "tanger" Ruger 77 .220 Swift with the 55-grain tipped Varmageddon loaded to 3800 fps.

Anybody who's shot a Swift much knows it tends to perform some serious lift and separation on PD's, and this one was no different. But the results still were noticeably less violent than the same bullet at 3100 fps from a Nosler/Noveske AR-15--which had a 1-8 twist. The ranges were the same, from around 50 yards out to 300+, and the .223 definitely and repeatedly did more damage than the Swift.

Totally unscientific observation: I've killed a lot of deer with the 6.5x55. I've killed a good handful with the with the 7x57, a bunch with with the '06 and a handful with the 270. The 6.5x55 has dropped deer as well as or better than any other cartridge, either from an original fast twist Swede barrel or a 9 twist. The 7x57 and '06 are good but not better than the Swede. It just drops 'em. It sets up some kind of shock that I don't understand. The 270 is the least effective cartridge I've hunted with. Yeh, I know I'll get flamed for that but that was my experience. With good placement it did not kill as effectively as the 6.5. It has a reputation for some serious mojo that is well deserved. It does not need to run at 2900 or 3000, it doesn't need explosive tipped bullets. I started out 20 years ago with PMCs and graduated to Interlocks and Gamekings when I began reloading. It's been wicked with both. No deer has gone more than 10 or 15 yards max. If I were hunting in more open country I'd have kept my 6.5-06. Or maybe not.
As for meat damage, probably less than anything else I've used.

This.

I can't imagine that the caliber has anything much to do with it.

And Dwayne is shooting pretty tough bullets. Faster twist facilitates greater expansion.In BG bullets the effect may not be as apparent as it is with varmint bullets but it's still there nevertheless.

Someone pointed out the differences could also be the plastic tips which is also valid since they help expansion.

When using very tough hunting bullets, faster twist is better.

Bob, I 'm sure you're right. But the 6.5 has mojo, man, mojo.

Bob;
Top of the morning to you sir, I trust this finds you and yours well on this Canuck Thanksgiving Monday.

I'll agree with you that the GMX/TTSX are a tough bullet and perhaps not the optimum projectile for this 22" barreled .270.

Beyond being curious to see what they will do in a particular rifle, my main reason behind using stout bullets is that we have overlapping seasons up here - so for instance I've got from Sept. 10 to Oct. 20 to sneak up on a bull elk with 6 points on one side - and at the same time will be packing a mulie buck, whitetail buck and black bear tag. After that there's a bit of a lull until the moose season kicks in for two weeks - so again one might want a tougher projectile than if the intended quarry was only going to weigh in at under 200lbs.

The Swede round does seem to be quite hard on projectiles too and until the monometals came along, either 140 Partitions or Hornady Interlock pushed not very fast were the champion performers.

If memory serves the 120 Pro Hunter and Solid Base would come unglued in spectacular fashion to the degree of only taking out the lung on the entry side for instance.

Anyway sir, again I'll state that I meant it only as a topic of pleasant conversation round our cyber 'Fire and nothing more. Before leaving that thought though I'd like to send my most sincere tip of the hat to all participants for keeping their decorum. Well done gentlemen.

All the best to you and your fine family Bob and good luck on your remaining hunts this fall.

Dwayne

OldRooster;
Thanks for your input here sir, I appreciate your candor and reading your experiences with the different cartridges.

As a bit of back fill for you or anyone else reading this morning, the rifle in question was a 1903 built Carl Gustav that I purchased for something under $60 from Century Arms in Montreal in 1984. We'd moved out here to BC where my folks lived at the time and my father had expressed interest in hunting with me but no longer had a rifle.

Though $60 was a lot of money for us then, my understanding wife supported the project and allowed me the time and leeway in our busy schedules to cobble this rifle together for my father.

This is him on the day I completed it - might be '85 by then I can't recall.


Back in those pre-internet days there wasn't much information on the Swede and we were both pleasantly surprised with how it performed on the local whitetail and mulie bucks we chased. I recall Dad's comment when I hit a meat mulie buck with my new .338 Win Mag and it didn't knock it off it's feet or for that matter seem to change it's leisurely gait much at all.... it wasn't a compliment to my new rifle anyway.......

In the fullness of time Dad's health no longer permitted him to hunt and he gave the little carbine back to me, requesting that I give it to one of his grandchildren someday. As it turned out it was our eldest daughter who spotted it in the safe one day and claimed it.

I believe she's taken at least 8 local mulie and whitetail bucks with it - each taking exactly one shot each.

This is her last year's buck which turned out to be one of the fattest carcasses I've ever handled in a lifetime of hunting. It went 149lb into the cooler so I'd guess at least a 3rd rack buck.


We've yet to get a range finder, but lets just say I asked her twice if she was confident in hitting this buck as it was across a fairly wide draw from us. The bullet hit a rib on entry, then traversed the lower lungs and top aorta, took out another rib and then completely smashed the big joint between the scapula and ulna before hitting the mountainside beyond.

I just shook my head as we were walking over to it and had to agree with her assessment when she said, "Man does this thing ever work!"

Thanks for reading sir, thanks again for your input and all the best to you this fall in your remaining hunts.

Dwayne

There is no doubt that twist is a mean MOFO on critters. That folks are still so afraid of twist is funny to me.

Steelhead, I've wondered about that too. I don 't know as much as a lot of you guys do about the subject but observed that the fast original twist was sure not a detriment.

BC - that's the kind of performance I'm talking about.

Dwayne: Top of the morning!

I'm a fan (not a detractor) of tough bullets in the 270 for BG hunting....and most any high velocity cartridge for that matter.

You chose the tougher bullets for about the same reason I did many years ago.....multiple hunts for various sized critters and wanting (it seems) to use one load rather than switch back and forth between different bullets for (say) elk,bear, and deer, which personally I think is silly but to each his own...

I have noticed that tough bullets benefit from more twist. The differences you are seeing, I think,aren't due to caliber (they are too close),velocity (the 270 is generally faster but not by a huge margin),or bullet weight(they are too close in weight). Maybe there are minor differences in the way the manufacturers engineer and construct those bullets for expansion from one caliber to the other but I doubt they vary that much.

The only factor left is twist and with that we are left to the same old, "same old" that the 270 is generally a 10 twist and the 6.5 is twisted faster.

I think the same forces that work to pull a very lightly constructed bullet to disintegrate in mid air from high velocity and fast twist in mid air, are at work with expanding bullets on BG animals, although the effect may not be so apparent. You'd have to shoot quite a few animals with both (which you have) to start to notice these differences. You'd also have to be paying attention, which you clearly are....

A pal of mine used to load 90 HP's in a 264 Win Mag (for fun)so we could watch them turn to a blue/white haze halfway to a 100 yard target(never make it there)...we thought it was a riot. and maybe why Berger target bullets(for example) have tougher jackets than the hunting bullets because under the stresses of fast twist to stabilize long heavy bullets,a thin jacket will pull apart in mid air.

If we see this with a bullet traveling in mid air, why would we think the same thing would not occur when a bullet impacts a game animal and starts to rupture and tear itself apart?

This is why those of us who started using Bitterroot bullets 30-40 years ago, used faster than normal twists...the bullets were unique for the day with very heavy copper jackets and pure lead cores....we built 270's and 30 calibers with 9 twists, 7mm's with 8.5-9 twists, and 375's with 10 twists, to help expansion based on the makers recommendation because he had done the testing already and seen the results with his bullets.Even at the same impact velocities the faster twist would show in the expanding bullet...we threw a lot of the old rules regarding twist out the windows....but the bullets had to be built to withstand the extreme rotational forces and high velocity impact. Bitterroots were made to do that and I think the same applies to today's mono's.

IMHO it isn't just "speed" although that's clearly a factor as well.If I were a mono shooter I would follow the same recipe and build a 270 with a twist no slower than 9". I have a hunch that some of the "failures to expand" noted early on with Barnes X bullets was due to guys using conventional weights, pushed them to conventional speeds,in standard twist barrels. I think the bullets will handle as much velocity and twist as we can give them.

As further evidence we could look back to some articles Dave Scovill did a few years back in Rifle Magazine, noting the effect of high speed, light weight monos from a 7mm WSM on African game....the skinners commented they had never seen so much damage from a 7mm bullet.Speed no doubt was a factor but so too was the higher rpm's.


I know Old Rooster thinks it's 6.5 MoJo but I think there is something else at work.

Bob;
Thanks for the reply and for taking the time to share your thoughts and experiences.

As always you've articulated them in a most excellent and readable format - well done sir.

The more I cogitate on the subject Bob the more I'm leaning towards your conclusion.

The monos do seem to thrive on high initial velocities and fast twist rates don't seem to bother them one iota either.

A 1:9 .270 would be the way to fly for sure for me I'm thinking - the barrel on mine is an old school Parker Hale and though I can't say if I've ever measured it, I'm guessing it's at least as slow as 1:10.

Thanks again for your well worded reply sir, I always enjoy reading what you write.

All the best to you folks again and good luck on any remaining hunts as well Bob.

Dwayne

Or just rebarrel your .270 to 6.5x55....

Don't laugh. That's what I did after shooting out my FN .270 several years ago.

Not a comparison of those two but with other X-bullets. It seems that some at higher velocity end up with the petals laid back on the shank of the bullet based on wound channels and a very few recovered bullets. Once it does this it acts more like a wad cutter bullet.

I suspect that at more moderate velocities the interval when the petals are in "full flower" is longer. That the slower bullets have a slightly longer interval at maximum diameter. Purely speculative but I believe there was some high speed photography done by Barnes in clear ballistic gelatin that could support this theory.

WDM Bell also thought that bullet rotation was a factor in lethality. This is what he attributed the effectiveness of the Swift on Red Stag at longer ranges after velocity had dropped off. Some of the military testing would tend to support this as well.

There was a Cooper for sale at Cabelas a couple years ago, .22-250AI with a 1 in 8 twist. That would have been real interesting, but I just could not swing it at the time

The physics for twist having some major impact on expansion/damage are just not adding up to me though intuitively it makes sense. My understanding is very little of the energy used to push a bullet out the barrel is used up in spinning the bullet, else we would see substantially lower mv with fast twist barrels. In turn, does not seem there would be a whole lot of energy to do anything with expansion since not much is used to spin. Did some quick searching on net and came up with following from longrangehutning forum (the intent is to show how little energy there is in spin):

I'd like to point out some calculations regarding translational and rotational kinetic energy that are completely open for interpretation.

barrel/bullet:
A typical .30 caliber 155 grain bullet at a muzzle velocity of 3000 fps from a 1:13" twist barrel.

At the muzzle, this bullet will have 3095 ft-lb of translational kinetic energy.
At the muzzle, this bullet will have 7.7 ft-lb of rotational kinetic energy.

When the bullet has slowed to 1/2 it's original muzzle velocity, it will have 1/4 of it's original translational kinetic energy. This will happen somewhere around ~800 yards. At that distance, the rotational speed of the bullet will have decayed as well, but not as much as the forward velocity. The rotational velocity at this point will be about 80% of it's original value. So the numbers after the bullet has slowed to 1500 fps are:

Near 800 yards, the bullet will have 774 ft-lb of translational kinetic energy remaining.
Near 800 yards, the bullet will have 4.9 ft-lb of rotational kinetic energy remaining.

As I said, these numbers are open for interpretation. I can tell you what I think about them, but it's just speculation.

At the muzzle, the rotational KE is only 0.2% of the translational KE. This tell me that practically all of the damage done will be due to the bullet's forward motion, the spin being of little consequence to terminal performance.

At around 800 yards, the rotational KE has grown to 0.6% of the translational KE. This is 3X higher % than at the muzzle, but still an insignificant amount compared to the translational KE.

I am of the opinion that the rotational speed, and rotational KE of a bullet are of very little issue to that bullets ability to do damage on a target. I could be wrong (I've never done the test), but the numbers suggest that there is very little energy in rotation compared to forward motion.

-Bryan

__________________
Bryan Litz
Ballistician

I am not disagreeing with results of Dwayne, just looking at other possibilities. I think MD wrote in the past about Barnes having a propeller effect due to the petals. I wonder if this is not because of original twist, but because of the bullet pushing through flesh - for ex, if you push a propeller through air or wind it will start spinning. Maybe there is some characteristic of the 6.5 in this case that does a better job with this effect (i.e. moving slower/less expansion, but spinning faster) where the .270 expands wider and slows down spinning more quickly (like a skater sticking arms out to stop spin). Otherwise more splash with the faster wider bullet, but less of a longer more cleanly cut type hole you would get from a spinning/cutting effect (for lack of better description).

Lou

Mule Deer;
Good evening to you John, I hope the day was a good one for you folks.

I'm not laughing at all...... in fact I ran 5 of our daughter's 6.5x55 rounds into the magazine of my .270 this very afternoon and they fed like proverbial butter - soft butter at that.....

Man this place can be hard on the pocket book sometimes.

Thanks for the "inspiration" to keep the local economy going John, I'm sure they'll appreciate it!

All the best to you and Eileen this fall.

Dwayne

Lou 270;
Thanks for the reply and copied information from Bryan Litz, it's an interesting read to be sure.

Initially I was somewhat reluctant to post this thread - as I've said a couple times it's counter intuitive to say the least.

Anyway I'm not exactly looking to make a .270 work "better" per se as its resulted in dead bucks every time so in that respect its doing what its been asked to.

The results on game were just interesting to me and I thought I'd share them here to see if anyone else around our cyber 'Fire had seen anything like it as well.

It could be that the bullets - maybe only this batch - combined with the twist and bore of our daughter's rifle are sort of "really good fit" that result in better outcomes than I was expecting.

Again its just a fun exercise and I very much appreciate everyone's decorum in their responses.

All the best to you this fall sir and good luck on your remaining hunts.

Dwayne

I'm betting Bryan ain't sent many Barnes in soft tissue, spun hard.

I'm getting ready to send some 55 grain ttsx spun with an 8 twist 223 into several deer this season so assuming the spin theory is correct I just may witness some spectacular results.

Shod

Exactly.Bullets in flight and terminal ballistics are not the same thing.Numbers don't explain everything, a common trapping among those who have not hunted a lot with a wide range of cartridges and bullets.

If they do, maybe someone can give us a formula for why a bullet can fly apart in mid air once the jacket integrity is compromised,and it spins itself apart? The problem with energy numbers is that (like SD numbers), they never take bullet construction and materials into consideration.

No one is saying that forward velocity isn't a major contributor to expansion of bullets. We all know that it is. What is being said is that with tough bullets, the faster twist will aid expansion.And those same fast twists may cause a standard bullet to over expand and come apart completely.

Bullets are not the same;a Nosler Partition (as one example, along with a BT, AB, and just about anything else in the standard bullet lineup)is built differently, and from different materials than a Barnes X or a BBC for that matter. The Partition is built (far as I know) from a guilding metal jacket,and alloy core.The jackets are tweaked caliber to caliber but they expand easily from standard cartridges, are somewhat brittle,and shatter (fragment). Only the midsection partition keeps a NPT from behaving just like any other C&C bullet.

OTOH a Barnes is made form pure copper; so is a BBC, along with a pure lead core. Jackets on the BBC are very heavy, much heavier than any Partition of comparable weight. The materials are more malleable and will bend under stress rather than shear. With the BBC the expanding petals are supported by the heavy bonding to the lead core,so the petals do not normally shear (see Scotty Beretz thread showing a 150 gr 270 fired into water jugs).

Both bullets, due to the materials, design, and construction are harder to expand than "normal" bullets.This is why both are known for withstanding very high impact velocities. They do not behave the same as thin jacketed C&C bullets. Fast twist helps facilitate expansion of these tougher bullets.But that same faster twist will tear a standard C&C bullet apart; they are not built to take the stresses of higher speeds and faster twists.

I have not used Barnes, but I can say from personal experience that 130-270,140-7mm,and 165-308 BBC's, spun fast and started at high velocity, are about the fastest killers of BG animals I have personally seen.Ditto a 250 gr 375.

I can't recall the issue, but in Rifle Magazine(late 70's early 80's),a ballistics guy did an article on this twist thing. As part of his tests he fired (IIRC) a 154 Hornady from a 7 Rem Mag into clay blocks which "held" the wound cavities. First, he fired reduced loads that duplicated the long range velocity ( maybe 300 yards, can't recall) and showed the results of the wound cavity in the clay.

Then, he fired full velocity loads into the same clay blocks at actual distance. The bullet expansion was greater, and the size of the wound cavity was larger, in the blocks shot with the full power load at actual distance.

How come? The author felt the differences were not the velocity( which was pretty much the same for both), but the increased rpm's of the bullets fired at full velocity.The differences in the wound cavities was pretty apparent.

In subsequent issues the naysayers showed up with the graphs, formula's, and gobbldigook-hyroglyphics explaining why what the actual shooting showed, could not be true..they, however,had fired "nothing" into "nothing", depending on the "formula's"......I laughed then,30 years ago, and I'd laugh now.

Those inclined can go look up the article if they have back issues.

If you watch the slo-mo videos of bullets hitting ballistic gelatin, it's interesting how some bullets make a smooth expanding temporary wound cavity. But on other bullets, when they hit you see big rips and tears in the cavity, and sometimes a helical rip that matches the spin of the bullet. It's almost like a spinning buzzsaw entering the tissue. It makes sense that increasing the bullet spin increases distortion of the wound cavity, increases trauma, and speeds the desired end result.

Bob,

I remember the original Failsafes had to be redesigned because when they built them they used reduced velocity to simulate long range expansion and found that bullets were not expanding reliably at long range when actually fired at full muzzle velocity. Not sure how that works out since I would think the bullet would have been spinning more slowly at similar impact velocity with the reduced loads. Maybe I can find the article.

Another interesting test would be does the same 90 grain bullets spin apart at 6.5x55 velocities as may actually be spinning similar or faster than a 264 Win Mag if an 8 twist vs 9 twist (both are at ~295k RPM if started at 3300, 3700 fps respectively). Otherwise is the air friction at the increased velocity causing the bullet to come apart or is it really the spin (any bullet would fly apart at 200k+ rps once jacket ruptured i would think).

All that being said, I agree that it looks like certain bullets types benefit from twist more than others. In terms of the big game bullets, the petal type bullets with the cutting edge make the most sense. I cant see it helping much with the rounded frontal area of traditional mushroom, however more spin should keep bullets going in a more straight line in game with less yaw so maybe hitting things more square as well vs better chance of glancing off. Otherwise, no down side.

I've tried justifying the mental gymnastics in my mind of doing a fast twist .270 barrel on one of my existing guns but they all shoot well so at least have to have a semi-rational reason to spend money:)

Lou

Lou presently my factory tubes are twisted 10"....cause that's what they came with....but when I order new, I get a 9". Does not cost extra and since I still have 130 BBC's that's how I roll. I'm sure it isn't going to hurt anything.

That's interesting about the Failsafe. Sort of the opposite from what I saw. But just goes to show that these hard/fast rules get tricky and hard to apply across the board when we have so many bullets constructed so differently.

Your point about keeping the bullet nose forward after impact was something Steigers always mentioned as a side benefit to higher twist rate,as "nose forward" is how the expanding bullets were designed to perform.

texncal: People seem to hate that buzzsaw analogy.... but I get what you are saying and agree.One thing for sure from the slo-mo videos....those bullets do NOT stop spinning after impact.

The kinetic energy theory ignores the effect of centrifugal force on the bullet.

Those that havent seen it probly wouldnt believe what the stubby little 6.5 Creed 1/8 does to critters.

Great little cart.

Dang this forum. I have a nice commercial Mauser action, stock, dies, brass, bullets and all it needs is a barrel to scratch the 6.5X55 itch. It'd be cheaper just to give it all away but I'm thinking this'll happen soon.

Like lots of things in life, too many folks get hung on the WHY.

You don't need to know WHY the sun sets in the west, you just need to know that it does.

I don't know or care about the WHYS of fast twist/buzz saw etc. What matters is that I do know what a Barnes spun hard does to stuff.

My wife and I are just back from Deer and Elk hunting. Wife had either sex deer and either sex elk tags. I had nothing tag wise so I was the step and fetch it. Wife shot a 5X5 Bull Saturday and a 5X5 Buck Sunday Morning. Both were shot with her 270 Win. loaded with 140 grain Hornady SST's driven with 59.7 grains of RL-22 with WLR primers Winchester cases. Both animals were shot in front of the shoulders and both dropped in their tracks. Meat damage was minimal. The elk shot took some of the lower vertebra process as it went through. Deer shot was lower and broke the sternum and sucking out a goodly portion of the lungs. I can't comment on the 6.5 X 55 as I have never owned/used one.

Higher RPM & softer Barnes bullet is my guess.
After trying to figure out this Barnes bullet stuff...faster lighter etc. And having a lot of phone conversations with Barnes, I finally got them to admit they do make some of their bullets harder and some softer. My guess is the 6.5 bullets are softer and open faster creating a better wound channel.

I also remember reading some military reports on twists and wounds. The conclusion of those studies were a higher rpm caused a higher distructive wound....BUT the bullets also didn't track as straight as a slower rpm.

I know that one of the reasons I switched to monometals in my 270's was to get away from the destruction that I have witnessed by C&C bullets.

I don't find lead fragments/smears in the venison while processing anymore.

Can't comment on the twist thing, but it makes sense to me.

I have felt that GMx's are softer as they expand into nicer mushrooms, with softer edges, while the TSX's have sharper, jagged edges after expansion.

CRS;
Good afternoon sir, I trust the weekend has been treating you well.

While I'm somewhat reluctant to post photos of "samples of one" - I happen to now be in possession of exactly one recovered 130gr. TTSX and one recovered 130gr GMX.



So they both started out from my 22" barreled .270 at about 3000fps, but the impact velocities would have been different in that the GMX landed at less than 100yds and the TTSX at over 250 I'd guess. Both weigh just a bit under 129gr now - virtually identical weights as close as I can measure.

Anyway again though they are only one of each they do most certainly show the tendency that you've mentioned.

We don't miss the lead smears in venison either - though the cats seem to be getting less blood shot burger so they aren't big fans of the monometals at our house.

Hopefully that's of some interest to you or someone out there tonight sir. All the best to you this fall and good luck on your remaining hunts.

Dwayne

Plus, when bullet expands this wide..





And retain this sorta weight (225 BBC from a 338 Win Mag)



They have got to really tear up innards. I have shot a piles of jugs and NEVER seen the carnage left behind..

Seems like as others have mentioned a million times, its more about the bullets than the cartridge.

Wished I had some on game footage for this bullet, but it is up to bat in a few weeks.. More to follow.

Long ago in college I read Don Zutz Handloading for Hunters.
He talked about this very subject, and how twist was responsible for a Swede doing more radial damage than a 270 on deer.

The Good Old Swede by Robert Sherwood, 1970 Handloaders digest 5th edition. He test various twist Swedes for penetration and expansion.

10th Edition 1984 - Just one good bullet by Robert Masters, discusses the Swede/6.5-06, 264 WM and 6.5 RM and 125 Partition, deadly combo on deer thru elk.

Suffice to say, every deer I hit with a 6.5x55 dropped in its tracks. 120 corelokt and 130 NAB. It works

I'll throw this out just for grins. I shot over 20 caribou over a 3 year span with a Ru 77V 25-06 at ranges of 70 -500 yards, using hand-load 140 grain Speers. All but the first were one shot bang flops- and he just didn't know he was dead with that quartering shot. The second broadside thru the ribs did knock him flat.
Tissue damage wasn't all that bad, but the blood shot between muscle groups (trimable) was pretty extensive.

The next few caribou shot after that was with a '98 30-06 using 180 gr factory plain-jane - probably Corelokts - don't remember. Range on the first was about 200 yards, broadside, high thru the lungs. He just stood there for a good 20 seconds until he fell over. I knew where I had hit him, so just waited. My hunting partner said I had a rather surprised look on my face - which didn't stop him from whacking the other bull right after.

That and other caribou shot with the same '06 all showed less tissue damage/blood-shot between tissues and less bang-flop than that .25, which I foolishly sold.

So yeah, I'm a bit surprised that the .270 seemingly shows less tissue damage/blood shot than the Swede. My Rem 725SA .260 with 140 grain factory Corelocts at 2750 advertised shows about the same kind/amount of damage as the 150 factory Corelokts from a '98 '06 (different from above '98) at similar placement and ranges- mostly beyond 300 yds, over the last 4 years. Pretty much all bang-flops, either gun, which is kinda surprising, but welcome. 3 for the .260, 5 for the '98, 2 others for a Ru77 '06.

I've no idea of twist rates. The Ruger ("Stub") has a 17 inch barrel that I'm guessing gives .308 velocities... original manufacture, bobbed. The Rem wears a take-off ightweight 22 inch 700TI stainless barrel, the '98 has a heavy 27 inch bbl. All shoot PDG!

140 gr in 25-06?

3,000 fps/130gr 270 10" ROT = 216,000 RPM

3k mv/120 6.5x55 8 ROT = 270,000 RPM

Interesting we see 270 in a 6.5 equation

I believe faster RPM induced bullet upset, all else equal matters, AND it could be overall 6.5 bullets have thinner jackets made for slower impact/launch speeds.

Now MONO changes that above, and it seems faster RPM's just slice more per distance traveled. No doubt physics tells us the KE from spin is minute.

The 6.5 stands on it's own merits, regardless of why, it is proven in the field. Low recoil is always a bonus

TTSX's are not often recovered, so here is a 7mm 120 TTSX that finished a young boar. The pig had been shot first in front of one shoulder and downed. It lay kicking longer than I liked so I hit it with a finisher. This one went into the spine, between the shoulder blades, and was later recovered. The range was close, maybe 10 yards, and mv was about 3050 fps. 7mm-08 Montana.

65BR;
Good afternoon to you sir, I hope this finds you well on this last Sunday in October.

I've just now got off the phone to a recently retired gunsmith who's opinion and knowledge I've learned to trust a whole lot. As usual after talking or corresponding with him I'm a bit smarter now....

So one of the things he told me about the question at hand is that the military barrels were faster than 1:8 - more like 1:7.5" - AND they had very deep rifling as compared to most commercial barrels.

He felt that perhaps that's why the military barreled rifles are so hard on cup and core bullets - that the deep rifling weakens the bullet jacket somewhat or that was his hunch.

As mentioned previously in this thread, our daughter's rifle was indeed tough on some 120gr bullets we tried way back when it was my late father's rifle.

He agreed that fast twists and mono bullets seem to be a match made for each other from all reports in his district (Kootenays, BC) too.

Anyway, as well he's given me some ideas as to where and what to look for in a 6.5 barrel so we'll see now what comes of it.

Hopefully that was of interest to you or someone out there this afternoon sir. All the best to you and good luck on your remaining hunts this fall.

Dwayne

I would guess that this has more to do with different shooters using the rifles at hand. I would guess (again) that your daughter aims more for the shoulder while you are more in the rib cage looking for the vitals.

Just my rather ignorant opinion.

Dwayne, correct - owned 3 '96 in past deep 7.5 ROT.

It's why I used a 4 groove Bartlein on my last two 260s

Deep grooves indeed affect jacket integrity. Not sure how much that affects expansion/retention, but 7.5 cranks out 288,000 RPM VS 270k with an 8, and that might matter more. Tests might clarify.

No doubt a sharp petaled Quick spun mono does admirably on game

Hopefully that was of interest to you or someone out there this afternoon sir.

Dwayne [/quote]

Dwayne, this thread has indeed been very interesting to me. Matters such as these I do find truly fascinating.

I have been considering a 6.5 sweede for quite some time now and I do think I'll end up with one at some point.

Lately however I have jumped on the 270 bandwagon and it did get me thinking I may be able to duplicate the results you are getting if I build a 270 with perhaps a 8 or 9 twist with a barrel of appropriate grove depth.

While it may perform well I do fear that perhaps the 6.5 bore diameter may be just about perfectly suited to further facilitate the results you have been seeing with the 6.5.

I to suspect that the barns bullet in the 6.5 may be softer than the Barnes in the 270.

Whatever the case it fascinates me.

Thanks for posting

Shod

After killing more deer than I can honestly remember, with tons of different cartridges/calibers, I don't think Sherlock Holmes could tell the difference in tissue damage between a critter hit with a 270 or a 6.5 Swede, given the same bullet and similar impact velocity. If anything, the Swede would drive further due to better SD........

I don't have a real extensive amount of experience with either the .270 or the 6.5x55mm......maybe a dozen kills with each one.

In my limited experience however, I'd be hard pressed to say one did more "damage" than the other. On the other hand there does seem to be a real difference in penetration. The 6.5 seems to have a real edge in leaving a hole in-hole out type of performance.

In my opinion this is because I've typically used a 140 grain bullet in the 6.5x55 while most often the .270 is loaded with a 130 grain bullet. This has two effects.

First, the 140 grain 6.5mm bullets are much more heavy-for-caliber than the lighter .270 bullets which almost always results in better penetration. Secondly, the 6.5x55 sends its bullets at 2600-2800 fps which is the "perfect" velosity range for cup-and-core bullets while the .270 (at closer range) arrives at something over 3000 fps.....just a bit too much for "normal" bullets.

A switch to a heavier 150 grain bullet in the .270 would solve this problem....not because the bullets are tougher or "better" but because the velosity would drop into the "sweet spot" for normal design bullets. I don't use (or trust) solids (monometal) bullets so I really can't say what, if any effect that might have.

Once I went to 150 grain bullets for the .270 penetration was so much improved. The secret, to me, is choosing a bullet that arives at the target in the 2600-2800 fps "sweet spot".

Most interesting thread, Gents.

The 6.5 has some great looking stats and like the curves on a hottie, it keeps capturing my interest.

Sometime in the 70's a buddy got a firebreathing 6.5 Remington Mag and he shot the factory 120 Corelokts. Later I chronographed them and they were doing less than 3000fps. He shot a bunch of deer and they went down in a hurry...or so it seemed, to the rest of the camp's experience. He had a permanent case of buck fever and seldom practiced, so a lot of them were not shot ideally. It registered and I concluded the perfect deer rifle for Michigan had to be the Model 100 re-barreled to the 263 Express. Down the road I bought a 260 Remington for my young daughter, her first rifle, and loaded 120 NBTs. She shot a bunch of deer over the years with it and they were shot well as she is meticulous to the point of driving her father crazy. We had to track enough of them far enough in the buckbrush that I had it re-barreled to a 7-08. Another concern at the time was the possible mix-up of ammo with her younger brother's 7-08.

Now I am not discounting the faster twist posit in any way--just some history fwiw. The twist thing makes as much sense as anything and I have little experience with monos.

Earlier this week I loaded up some 140 NBTs for the 280. I had one round that would not chamber. It had a different ogive but was too was a 140. So, I reluctantly spiffed the bullet shelf and consequently measured 3 different ogives for the 140 NBTs on hand. I tossed the straggler "vintage" ones. They do change the product...

It would be tough to do a comparative longitudinal study on bullet effectiveness...:)

Shodd;
Good morning to you sir, I trust this wet last day of October finds you doing well.

I'd again like to say a sincere thank you to all of the participants in this 'Fire discussion for being cordial to one another - yourself included in that group sir.

As I read the responses, a couple of points have come up that I'm going to attempt to articulate a response for or at very least provide some background for my theories.

We were cutting up a good friends mulie buck in our garage two evenings ago - both of us having shot/skinned/cut and wrapped more than 2 dozen deer sized animals over the decades shot with various .270's shooting all sorts of bullets - that there wasn't a whole pile of damage on the ribs of his meat buck.

Oh, I must hasten to add he shot it with my .270 and the 130TTSX bullet. It took exactly one - the buck was at least 250yds away, the shot landed a wee bit back on the ribs, breaking a rib on entry, traversing the liver and exiting between ribs. The buck made it perhaps 75yds after being hit, was visibly rocked when hit and made the distance going downhill.

One of the thoughts that struck me when we were cutting up that buck was that when we'd both started down the path hunting - decades ago for both of us now - we didn't really take note of "how" things like different bullet/cartridge combinations worked. As young/beginning hunters we were happy to have made meat and as we dropped the animal off at a meat processors we typically didn't even see any of the skeletal damage beyond what was visible when gutting it.

When we'd both shot more than say a good handful of game and it became less desirable to experience the adventure of having one run down into a steep canyon or hurtle off of a cliff after being hit - well then we started to pay more attention to the details.

About that time we began to process our own game - in the garage at my house mostly - and things like tissue and skeletal damage became much more apparent for obvious reasons. That damage is always a topic of conversation if there's more than one of us cutting the animal - well honestly sometimes I do talk to myself while I cut meat..... but that's another issue entirely.

Anyway it was those meat cutting conversations and observations that had been fermenting within me for years now that spurred the thread. Nothing scientific to be sure and certain, merely the observations of a BC redneck - I guess a few of us really - who have been blessed enough to share each others' company and good hunting fortune over the span of nearly 3 decades now.

If you or someone else out there is able to benefit from what we've observed as we've cut and wrapped "winters meat" for our respective families that's wonderful.

At the same time if other hunters have had differing results and observations then that's fine too and I'm positive we'd have a lot to talk about - especially so if it was a cool BC evening where we were in my garage, a slab of meat lying on a hardwood cutting board in front of each of us and a decent knife in our hands.

Thanks again to you and all the respondents to the thread. May you all have the opportunity to at least stand over one fresh gut pile this fall and feel the satisfaction knowing "winters meat" has been made.

Good luck to you all in your remaining hunts this fall.

Dwayne

Just for my two cents...
I've used everything from plain Jane Core Loct slugs to A-Max etc. It seems to me that if you're using the same slug in each cartridge, the 6.5x55 should do less tissue dammage. That is considering the only difference would be the velocity. A 129gr in a Swede shouldn't do as much damage as a 130gr in a .270. Now that's just me guessing as I've never shot game with a 6.5x55 Swede, just a .270....that however is fixin' to change in a few days.......Now who wants to forge my bolt and cut the barrel back to 21"???

I've read your thread with interest. I don't think there's enough evidence to conclude anything, but I'm inquisitive enough that when I wear out my 270 barrel I'll look for a 1-8 or 1-9 barrel!

The era of low drag 277 bullets is coming anyway.

I mostly use 150g SSTs or 130g Partitions in my 270 Win. If I want more or less wound trauma, I am well served.

PS I get exits with the 150 SST on most deer and pigs and I've never had one of those famed blow-ups yet. They are a softer bullet than the NBT or the Interlock though.

It's because the 6.5x55 is cool and the 270 well, it's gaaaay.

BobinNH;
Good afternoon to you sir, I hope this finds you and yours doing well this first weekend of November.

I'd intended to send this bit of information to you via PM, but somehow wasn't able to make a connection so will do it here and hope you catch it.

This afternoon I finally got around to measuring the twist on the Parker Hale .270 barrel on the rifle in question and as close as I can measure it the twist is slightly more than 1:11" - closer to 1:11�" as close as I can measure.

Anyway as well some time back you were kind enough to give me some of your .270 recipes as that rifle was having a tough time breaking much past 3000fps with a 130gr.

My gut feeling now is that the slower than normal initial velocities coupled with the slower than usual twist made for a much less than typical or optimal result - especially considering the tough bullets.

Anyway sir it won't change anyone's world I'm certain, but I thought you or someone out there this afternoon might find the information interesting.

All the best to you this fall Bob and good luck on your remaining hunts too.

Dwayne

D, my friend.

Thats a big bodied Canadian Forked horn buck! Interesting thread.