Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting .300 win mag elk bullet

I have started working with a new to me Tikka in .300 win mag. This will be primarily an elk rifle.
After some initial testing with various bullets it has averaged less then an inch for three shot groups with:
180gr. nosler partitions/handloads
180 gr. Barnes TSX / handloads
220 gr Sierra RN/handloads
180 gr Noselr Partition / Federal Factory loads

These were all shells loaded for other guns and they all grouped under an inch and all grouped to same relative point of aim.
I am gonna start assembly loads for it and am kinda undecided what I would like to use. Magazine restricts to an absolute max. length of 3.34" so it becomes an issue with heavier bullets.
All things considered equal what would you use for an elk bullet

P.S. Most shots 300 yds. or less

Nice to buy a new rifle that likes pretty much all the loads you try in it. It's sure hard to beat a Tikka for out of the box accuracy.

Personally, I'm a big fan of the Nosler Partition in both the 180 & 200 grain in a .300 Win Mag. Don't think you could go wrong with either weight for Elk. If I knew I was gonna be in prime Grizz country, I'd then go with the 200 grain Partition.

180 gr NP/handloads.

Although I killed an elk with a 180 NPT and it worked well, if I was going back, my .300 WM load would be with a 200 gr. NPT or a 168 gr. TTSX.

DF

I've killed a lot of elk with a 300 WSM which is so close to the WM that the difference is nearly negligible. For years I had great luck with Speer 180gr Hotcores but their quality control has apparently gone to pot. The last 2 boxes I've used haven't grouped worth a darn.
PT's are great. 180's are more than enough weight for elk. 200's are fine, too, but they'll arc a bit more on longer shots. They won't kill any deader than 180's.
I wouldn't waste time with the Sierra 220gr bullets. They're simply more than you need. A flatter shooting, lighter bullet will do just as well if not better.

180 TSX gets my vote. Last two elk I shot agree.

Of the listed loads I would go with a 180 Partition in handload flavor.

Ever think of trying the 168 TTSX instead of the 180? You lose some powder space in the 180 TTSX especially with the mag restrictions on the Tikka. The 168 would be a laser out to 300yds started off around 3150 fps.

180 protected point.

3.34", man I can see why tikka's are so popular.

180 Partition.



P

+1 for the 180 grain Nosler Partition, 200 grain also works. If you don't handload the Federal Partition load is good.

I would use a 168 TTSX over a 180 TSX.

Either would work.

DF

I would use a 180 gr NP,but that's just me.

Either way,if he puts the bullet in the right place it 's a moot point.

I use 180 grain Nosler Partition Protected Points in my 300 Win Mag. They are accurate and work really well in my rifle. I reload and use H4831sc with Winchester large rifle magnum primers. I'm a bit lazy and use these hand loads for hunting deer, hogs and elk.

I'd certainly consider the TTSX, especially if magazine length is an issue. Most of the time Barnes bullets perform better when seated pretty far off of the lands. Plus they are one hell of a performer on game. memtb

The 220s were on hand that my buddy had loaded for some close quarters bear hunting years ago. I tried just to see how they shot.
I like the Noslers personally and have never been a barnes fan as the only ones I have ever shot anything with were the old xbullet style , but the ones I tried today (TSX) shoot into .6" at 100. so that really got me thinking. The nosler I have shot shot well also though.

If you can keep any bullet group under 4" at 300 yds, that's easily good enough for elk. Nitpicking between a 1 MOA bullet and a .6 MOA from the bench isn't worth the effort. The trick is to do it in the field.

Accuracy I am not worried about , I am more curious about terminal performance. I just was wondering people's reasons for choosing one bullet over another. I am sure both the Nosler Partition and the Barnes TSX will both be a very potent elk killer.
I just wanted to hear others opinions on why the would choose one over the other.

Why not the 165 rather than the 168?

Barnes FAQ's says the 165 was designed specifically for the 300WM with a tangent ogive to make it easier to fit in the mag box.



Is the 168-grain .30-caliber TSX the same as the 165-grain TSX? Is it really a match-grade hunting bullet?
These bullets have different ogive geometries. The 165-grain TSX incorporates a shorter tangent ogive in the nose profile. It’s designed for cartridges with short magazines such as the .300 WSM and .300 Win Mag. The 168-grain TSX BT has a secant ogive which lengthens the nose profile and has shown superb accuracy downrange. It offers the best of both worlds because it’s also a premium hunting bullet offering exceptional terminal performance. It is best suited for cartridges such as the .308 Winchester, .30-06 and .300 Weatherby.

http://www.barnesbullets.com/faq/

+1

My Damara .300 WM has a 3.6" mag, chambered with longer throat, so I have COAL options. I would pick the 168 TTSX over the 165 TSX because the TTSX, reportedly, opens a bit faster than the non-tipped version. If I had a .300 WM with a 3.4" box mag and the 165 TSX fit better, I'd go there.

Good friends shoot the 168 TTSX in their .30-378 and .300 RUM, both swear by that bullet.

So, for elk it would be a toss up between 180/200 NPT and 165/168 Barnes. I'd probably go with the load the gun liked and my thinking at the time. Good shot placement with any of those would fill a freezer with good elk meat.

IMO,

DF