Home Forums Reloading Big Game Rifles Speed, Accuracy, Terminal Performance???

In what order do you place the three traits when developing a load? (Keep in mind the forum this is in.)

IOW, do you say ___________ is critical, but ____________and __________ are fine as long as they are simply adequate?

Accuracy always first. Terminal performance next. Speed last but is tied to terminal performance.

Depends on the rifle and the big game!

Speed is a subset of terminal performance so difficult to separate. Bullet construction does drive my speed desires though. Specifically I want monos going as fast as possible. Accuracy is first though. However, at the ranges I tend to shoot, there is no meaningful difference between a .5" shooter and a 1.5" shooter. Once you actually calculate total error when shooting from field positions (root sum square equation) that extra inch is trivial. I'm talking about quick offhand shots, kneeling or maybe quickly leaning against a tree out to 300ish yards. So, since all my loads shoot better than that, all <1", the reality is I go by terminal performance appropriate to what I'm hunting..

Accuracy. Everything else gets a free ride.

Terminal performance first. never had a rifle that wasn't accurate enough for my hunting. Speed and terminal performance are somewhat related though.

Terminal.

Keeping in mind the forum, hunting with rifles, almost ANY type of rifle, is about 100 years and 200 yards better than what most of what my big game has been shot with.

Given that 'big' is rather relative, feel free to quantify based on specific species if you like.

With moose, for example, one of my usual target species, one would be rather obtuse to think that even 2 MOA would cause a miss that could be blamed on the load. Even so, I still like the confidence I get from smaller-shooting loads/rifles. That said, I tend to steer toward "will perform" rather than "can/probably will" type bullets.

I loaded some 120 TSX and TTSX for my 7mm-08 a few years ago in preparation for a caribou hunt. The single 'T' loads shot tempting well, considerably better 'on paper' than the NBT and double 'T' loads. I hit the mark however, on my daily quota of 5 caribou, with all three bullet types. I really couldn't tell any difference in my ability to place shots in the field, but the best 'paper' load was terminally the lesser of the three.

As a hunter terminal performance of the bullet is most important. With that in mind I will choose a bullet that I believe will give me the desired performance for the game I'm hunting. Once I've done that I'll try different powders and find the most accurate load for that bullet in my rifle.

Safety first.

Well yeah...always a given.

That aside,start with the bullet.Terminal performance is #1...build the rifle out from there around it.

Choose the cartridge that gives the desired velocity.Cartridges are just powder containers.

As to accuracy build the rifle so that it "works" and accuracy will be there.

You can have it all.Start with the bullet.

Coming from you, that means something, and I don't know if it can be said better. Granted, we live in the golden age of great bullets, but I sometimes cringe when I hear the praise of a ".5685 grouping 'accumax' bullet" over a "1.0125 grouping 'pentrobond'" - high-performing, proven hunting bullet.

We have "lost animal" threads, yet no one ever seems to question what a bullet might do when striking a big bone (and that can be a bit scary to know firsthand.)

Klik: Getting the bullet "there" is the accuracy component,a combination of rifle/shooter/bullet.This is easiest to "read". We see it on paper, gongs, inanimate targets.

Getting a handle on terminal performance is harder.

But if the bullet doesn't do its job when it arrives,you got nothing. JMHO of course.

There are many good bullets out there today.

Hardly a bullet available that won't kill if placed properly. The latter is not true.

But how often do we assume the absolute accuracy of a load combo will trump the 'if' component?

Of the three factors listed in the original query, two of them are quite predictable, speed being somewhat temperature relative, terminal performance generally well known; while accurate delivery is dependent on so many things besides the finite potential of the equipment…

Is it worth sacrificing a very good bullet for one of lesser potential in order to gain 1/2" in accuracy? Or, is it worth giving up 200 fps for the same?

Everything is relative -

Your last question depends on range, type of game, hunter ability, etc. No one answer...

Personally, when developing a load (the OP's question) I always go for accuracy if it comes down to accuracy vs. speed.

I believe shot placement is more critical than terminal performance, because there are very few bullets on the market these days that won't work if the shot is placed well.

So I go for accuracy, and then speed, and don't fret too much about terminal performance.

terminal performance
accuracy
speed

accuracy will have to be dismal to be not good enough for big vital zones on big animals.

speed matters less as long as terminal performance is there, unless shooting at longer ranges.

Watch hunting shows on TV.

I'm primarily a hunter, so my order of importance is terminal performance, accuracy then speed. IMHO, bullet selection is an important consideration for terminal performance. Accuracy is related bullet selection and powder performance and speed incorporates all three variables. A bullet that is designed to open up and penetrate at slower speeds (even over longer distances) can overcome the need for velocity. Accuracy, is important but hunters usually know their limitations and choose their shots accordingly. And yes, SAFETY is important.