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.

Another way to look at a question such as this is: "How much confidence do you have in your bullet if it lands 4" from where you had wanted it?"

Will it work as you hope if it hits a major joint or large bone?

What will happen if it angles through that dense, browse-filled paunch instead of landing tight behind the shoulder?

Accuracy,terminal performance, and velocity. All three combined make a pretty good combo! I see retained bullet weight after impact as the key element of terminal performance. The primary reason I've used Barnes X's since the early 90's,though in the early days accuracy was sometimes a challenge! memtb

I don't worry about those things because I planned it that way.Matter of fact lots of times I aim for those large bones...

To me, that's a good argument for having shot placement and accuracy at the top of the list. Of course, not all your shots will be perfect but now we're at a dangerous precipice, looking right over the cliff at "raking shots......."

What's the old adage about the "best" bullet not being very good if it's not put in the right place?

I like taking out shoulder bones too. That's why I like Nosler AB's and partitions.

Guess I have to add a little more than my first post.

I tend to laugh every time I read a thread where somebody's asking about his handload for an upcoming hunt, and people chime in with: "Just use whichever bullet is most accurate in your rifle." And the advice is for a moose hunt! What the hell difference does it make if the rifle groups into 1/2" or 2" on an animal the size of a horse?

Plus, I've yet to run into a scoped, bolt-action rifle that doesn't shoot SOME load into 1-1/2" for three shots at 100 yards. Due to sometimes having to "field test" factory ammo, I've used plenty of loads with that sort of accuracy, and taken plenty of game with them at ranges from 300 yards out to 450, and NO bullet has ever landed in the "wrong" place because of the "lousy" accuracy. Once in a while the wind pushed one a little off, or I did, but the problem wasn't the basic accuracy of the load. While it may be common for some hunters to shoot animals well beyond 500 these days, most don't, yet they have trouble sleeping when their deer rifle won't group into 1/2".

Other hunters insist on using super-premium bullets even on pronghorns or Texas whitetails or other animals not big enough to stop any 150-grain bullet from a .308 Winchester unless shot lengthwise, and maybe not even then. They say they do this because the bullet doesn't always land in exactly the right place. I have yet to encounter a premium bullet that kills animals when it lands in the "wrong" place, and my wife and I have killed a number of BIG deer with Hornady Interlocks and Nosler Ballistic Tips and other such bullets and rarely recovered any of them. Offhand I can remember Eileen putting a 139 Interlock from a .280 through both shoulders of a big Missouri Breaks mule deer, and the bullet kicking up dust on the far side. What the hell more do we need? (Of course, that load did average around 1/2" to 3/4" at 100 yards, highly critical when shooting 250-pound mule deer at 250 yards.) I've also shot lengthwise through a good-sized pronghorn buck with a 150-grain Ballistic Tip from a .308 Winchester.

Speed is often nice, especially in open country, but as long as muzzle velocity is enough to open the bullet at any range I'm gonna shoot, whether 200 yards with a .30-30 or 600 with a 6.5 of some sort, then it isn't really critical. High ballistic coefficient and a faster twist makes up for a lot of muzzle velocity, both in wind drift and expansion.

All of which is why I said it depends on the rifle and the game!

Marketing, marketing, marketing.....

Its new and improved, not new and "crappier than ever".


I'm convinced that the technical aspect of most of this schit is so similar, gains so minimal, and "advantage" so slight that it has to be blown out of proportion to convince a fella that what he has is sooooo inferior and he will completely fail with the same product that previously was his saving grace.


That is, until the next one comes along.


Stay behind the wave, run at 90%, and reap the rewards........

(Typed from my iPhone 4. The same one some zit faced idiot camped on a sidewalk to have first. Only to be given away)

Actually, assuming the shooter can hold 3" at a hundred yards (assuming quick field shooting here), then the 'typical' difference using the RSS calculation is:
.5" rifle= 3.04 typical error
2" rifle= 3.6 typical error

Thus a ~.56" difference in accumulated errors. My take away is that I worry much more about MY shooting skills than a .5" here or there of rifle/bullet accuracy.

Very true on the shooting skills, especially if you're shooting off-hand. With a solid rest and some more distance it's a different equation though. Anyway, I don't believe that was the question........if you open it up to what's most important in general, for a lot of hunts being in good shape or having good boots would be right up there with shooting skills.

When developing a load lots of times there's a clear-cut choice between speed and accuracy. Your most accurate load may shoot bug-holes but be a couple of grains below max. Your max load may be 150 fps faster and pretty accurate but not as good as the accuracy load.

Some guys want to stretch MPBR but with the equipment we have to correct for elevation, speed is less important (to me anyway) than accuracy.

I don't hunt moose and stay away from bullets with a reputation for blowing up so in that sense I suppose terminal performance is already accounted for, but with all the good bullets to choose from it's just not that big a consideration.

Having said all that my favorite load to hunt with shoots a 350 grain bullet at about 1600 fps into 3" at 100 yards with open sights.....

1/4" group gives me more confidence than 150 FPS.

I have always wanted the most velocity first...safely of course. I have yet in over 50 years of hunting not been able to find a load for any of my rifles w/the most velocity and acceptable(1-1 1/4)inches. I like the moderate cartridges like the 250Savage, 257 Roberts, and 7x57. With these guns I want to be able to sight in 3in high w/no more than a 4in rise above bore. This helps me make a hit at the longest ranges possible. I like to take as much guess work out of longer range shots as much as possible. The most velocity helps me do this. powdr

IOW, do you say accuracy is critical, but terminal performance and speed are fine as long as they are simply adequate?

I look at what should work in the way of speed and go from there. If I get an accurate load right off the bat I'm done! It's pretty easily done with noslers,swifts and hornady's. I want to try woodleigh's but hard to deviate from bullet's that work every single time as advertised!

In whatever order you want them...if a hierarchy is important to you. Another way to look at it is, 'are you willing to sacrifice one element in order to improve another?'

-Would you switch to a less ideal bullet in order to get a 1/4 MOA improvement?

- Would you switch to a bullet giving less pressure in order to get more speed?

- Would you just load an Interlock and call it good? (For lack of space to name all the possibilities.)

For light big game (deer /antelope), Accuracy, speed (for flatter trajectory and less wind drift) then terminal performance ( fairly easy to kill).
For larger big game terminal performance, Accuracy (elk are big and usually shot with in 250 yds. in my way of hunting) , then speed.
Just how I see it....

I want it all and will keep playing with stuff til I figure out how to get it.

Just load a good bullet, and call it good.

Damn, now you pulled out all the hard to answer questions on my azz . I'd load a Hornady interlock or Nosler partition and rock on. I will always get the kind of accuracy I'm searching for, even with "blemished" bullets from SPS. Sometimes I leave the chrono at home and say fu ck it. I'll load some up and see what shoots the best. Load development is not rocket science.. I'll see how fast/slow they run the next time around. Bass ackwards to some, but I don't see too many here shooting the groups (with hunting bullets) I do either... Just how I roll the fu ck out of it . You guys know how many bg animals haven fallen to the all mighty 22lr???? And yet, we debate the merits of "speed, accuracy and terminal performance"... Use what works best for you, is my best suggestion...