Your choice for deepest penetration on game - 01/10/13
.300 Win. Mag. 200 grain:
Nosler Partition
Swift A-Frame
Nosler Accubond
Trophy Bonded Bear Claw
Nosler Partition
Swift A-Frame
Nosler Accubond
Trophy Bonded Bear Claw
Bear Claw
Out of those .... Bear Claw
However, a 180 TTSX would be pretty nasty.....
However, a 180 TTSX would be pretty nasty.....
Haven't tried all of em but TBBC far surpasses NP for me.
So far the Hawk has raised my eyebrows.
Much as I've used (and will continue to use) Nosler Partitions... For the deepest penetration I'd go Barnes, or Nosler E-Tip.
The E-Tip doesn't come in 200 gr, but I bet that 180 would out-penetrate some 200's.
Then again, how much penetration do you need? I'm punching right through mule deer with little .25 cal 115 gr Ballistic Tips and right through elk with the 175 gr 7mm Nosler Partition...
The E-Tip doesn't come in 200 gr, but I bet that 180 would out-penetrate some 200's.
Then again, how much penetration do you need? I'm punching right through mule deer with little .25 cal 115 gr Ballistic Tips and right through elk with the 175 gr 7mm Nosler Partition...
I am using factory loads, so, AFAIK, the 4 choices I gave at the top are my only ones, and the TBBC is with Federal Premium which is loaded at 125 fps less than the others.
I just learned of a brand named "Buffalo Bore" that loads the Barnes Tipped TSX 200 grain, so add that one to the original four choices.
Barnes also loads a line of ammo, and has several choices in .300 Win mag, all with their TTSX bullets. Top out at 180 though.
Federal offers factory .300 Win mag ammo loaded with the 180 gr Barnes.
Federal also offers factory .300 Win mag ammo loaded with the 180 gr "trophy copper" bullet which is all copper, no lead. Not sure if that's actually the Nosler E-Tip or not though.
Those are 180's - but from what I've seen, the no-lead bullets offer terrific penetration. I suspect you'd be pleased with the penetration a solid copper 180 grainer would deliver.
Regards, Guy
Federal offers factory .300 Win mag ammo loaded with the 180 gr Barnes.
Federal also offers factory .300 Win mag ammo loaded with the 180 gr "trophy copper" bullet which is all copper, no lead. Not sure if that's actually the Nosler E-Tip or not though.
Those are 180's - but from what I've seen, the no-lead bullets offer terrific penetration. I suspect you'd be pleased with the penetration a solid copper 180 grainer would deliver.
Regards, Guy
Well, my very limited experience with the Barnes TSX is that without the momentum of a heavy-for-caliber bullet it WILL stop in the animal, if it is large enough, and especially if bone is hit.
[quote=GuyM]
Then again, how much penetration do you need? I'm punching right through mule deer with little .25 cal 115 gr Ballistic Tips and right through elk with the 175 gr 7mm Nosler Partition...
/quote]
Well,yeah! Of those mentioned I've only used the 200 Partition for elk.But one of them went from the onside just forward of the bull's haunch clear to the offside shoulder and broke it all up. I don't recall if it exited.Still that is a lot of penetration for an expanding bullet on a mature bull.
I seriously doubt any of those mentioned by the OP will be slouches.
Then again, how much penetration do you need? I'm punching right through mule deer with little .25 cal 115 gr Ballistic Tips and right through elk with the 175 gr 7mm Nosler Partition...
/quote]
Well,yeah! Of those mentioned I've only used the 200 Partition for elk.But one of them went from the onside just forward of the bull's haunch clear to the offside shoulder and broke it all up. I don't recall if it exited.Still that is a lot of penetration for an expanding bullet on a mature bull.
I seriously doubt any of those mentioned by the OP will be slouches.
I've liked what a Remington 220 grain core-lokt does to moose. In one side, out the other.
tsx
I went with the Buffalo Bore 200 grain TTSX. Supposedly loaded to 2900 fps.
That ought to do it! 
Seems every rifle barrel has its favorites but of the two 300 mags I have had a hand in getting sighted into lead free bullets, both were sighted in on and grouping well with cup and core 180s before switching to lead frees and both rifles ended up shooting 150 and 165 lead frees tighter than they could group 180 lead frees. What cup and core bullet weight was your rifle grouping well with before? My experience with lead free bullets has made me think it is better to go light for caliber and run them fast as even the light weights have given me consistent exit wounds.
150 Nosler E Tip.Went through a moose length ways last fall.Can't ask for better than that.
A lot depends on the caliber and individual bullet, as well as construction and muzzle velocity.
A penetration test I did a few years ago with a variety of 154-160 grain 7mm bullets at moderate velocities had the Barnes TSX in first place for penetration, but not by much. The Nosler Partition and Swift A-Frame were tied for second place. After that were a variety of bonded bullets that expanded relatively widely.
That was before Nosler introduced the E-Tip and Hornady the GMX. I would guess, based on tests and use of both of those, that they'd be very similar to the TSX--though tipped monolithics bullets usually penetrate slightly less than the non-tipped versions, on average, due to wider expansion. But the difference ain't much.
In fact the difference ain't much between the monos and the Partition and A-Frame. The big difference is the monos tend to exit more often, due to less frontal area (partly due to the space between the petals), and perhaps some effect from the sharp edges of the petals. I've found a few bullets of all kinds that "partly exited," cutting a hole in the hide on the far side but hanging up on a petal or two.
I didn't have any North Forks when the test was made, but due to tests made after I did (plus a few animals from springbok to moose) shot with them from the same 7x57, I'd rate them just behind the TSX, E-Tip, GMX, etc. in penetration--but since they have a tiny lead core in the front end, they don't tend to pop through the hide as much as petal bullets.
We could also get into solids, but that's a different subject.
A penetration test I did a few years ago with a variety of 154-160 grain 7mm bullets at moderate velocities had the Barnes TSX in first place for penetration, but not by much. The Nosler Partition and Swift A-Frame were tied for second place. After that were a variety of bonded bullets that expanded relatively widely.
That was before Nosler introduced the E-Tip and Hornady the GMX. I would guess, based on tests and use of both of those, that they'd be very similar to the TSX--though tipped monolithics bullets usually penetrate slightly less than the non-tipped versions, on average, due to wider expansion. But the difference ain't much.
In fact the difference ain't much between the monos and the Partition and A-Frame. The big difference is the monos tend to exit more often, due to less frontal area (partly due to the space between the petals), and perhaps some effect from the sharp edges of the petals. I've found a few bullets of all kinds that "partly exited," cutting a hole in the hide on the far side but hanging up on a petal or two.
I didn't have any North Forks when the test was made, but due to tests made after I did (plus a few animals from springbok to moose) shot with them from the same 7x57, I'd rate them just behind the TSX, E-Tip, GMX, etc. in penetration--but since they have a tiny lead core in the front end, they don't tend to pop through the hide as much as petal bullets.
We could also get into solids, but that's a different subject.
Yet to shoot a GMX bullet.The Interbond has soured me pretty much on Hornady premium slugs.
7 STW what has been your experience with the Interbond?
For deepest penetration Fail Safe. Google search comes up with some comparisons.
All of those mentioned will penetrate more than enough. But as Mule Deer mentioned, caliber, muzzle velocity, construction, range, size of animal and its structure, and bullet placement all have a bearing on it.
However, which bullet gives the most penetration, by itself, is not the be-all and end-all of successfully harvesting game animals even though the .300 Win Mag has been a favorite of mine for several decades.
Bob
www.bigbores.ca
However, which bullet gives the most penetration, by itself, is not the be-all and end-all of successfully harvesting game animals even though the .300 Win Mag has been a favorite of mine for several decades.
Bob
www.bigbores.ca
+1 on the old Failsafe.
If you were looking at only raw penetration for maximum, I'd say the Partition would slightly trump the Swift, but a Barnes may trump the Partition and the old Winchester Failsafe load would trump the lot by a fair margin. Probably around 17" to 20" in test media for the Swift, Partition and Barnes, with around 2' plus for the old Failsafe.
But a measure of penetration alone is not the be all to end all with the 300 Win mag. Compared to some big bore handguns shooting punch bullets, the handguns will shoot through the same test media around 5' to 6' deep! You cannot begin to come close to that level of penetration with a 300 Win mag, yet it is still more than capable of cleanly taking down most anything you'd hunt.
Best
If you were looking at only raw penetration for maximum, I'd say the Partition would slightly trump the Swift, but a Barnes may trump the Partition and the old Winchester Failsafe load would trump the lot by a fair margin. Probably around 17" to 20" in test media for the Swift, Partition and Barnes, with around 2' plus for the old Failsafe.
But a measure of penetration alone is not the be all to end all with the 300 Win mag. Compared to some big bore handguns shooting punch bullets, the handguns will shoot through the same test media around 5' to 6' deep! You cannot begin to come close to that level of penetration with a 300 Win mag, yet it is still more than capable of cleanly taking down most anything you'd hunt.
Best
I've shot Interlocks, Ballistic Tips, and Gamekings clean through our large Alaska moose. I've also had Xs, FailSafes, and A-Frames stopped quite handily by them on broadside shots.
If I were ranking the four bullets originally queried, I would expect the AB to be lowest most times, the A-Frame next, and the Partition and Bear-Claw greatest. Of course that could change depending on a wide assortment of variables.
If I were ranking the four bullets originally queried, I would expect the AB to be lowest most times, the A-Frame next, and the Partition and Bear-Claw greatest. Of course that could change depending on a wide assortment of variables.
Gary,
In my tests I never found the Fail Safe to penetrate any deeper than a Barnes X of the same weight, diameter and velocity. I did use them more on game than the X-Bullet, mostly because when the FS was around, the X wasn't all that accurate.
Among a number of other animals taken with with the Fail Safe in calibers from .270 on up were a big Alaskan moose shot between the right shoulder and sternum with a 230-grain .338 at about 125 yards, and a Cape buffalo shot at 60-75 yards with a 300-grain .375. The 230 .338 was found resting against the front of the pelvis, missing one petal, and the 300 .375 left an exit hole the size of my fist, with one broken-off petal in the skin. (Broken or missing petals are irrelevant, in my experience, with FS, X or whatever petal-type bullet.)
But later Fail Safes often failed to open, resulting in a long chase or even a lost animal. This was most common among the smaller .270-.30 calibers--and has also happened among X-bullets of the same diameter.
I suspect this is why Winchester eventually replaced the FS with the XP3. This is a decent bullet but, like the Swift A-Frame, the rear core often expands so much the bullet doesn't penetrate any farther than bullets that don't retain as much weight but have less frontal area.
Expanding bullet performance is always a compromise between interior damage and penetration.
In my tests I never found the Fail Safe to penetrate any deeper than a Barnes X of the same weight, diameter and velocity. I did use them more on game than the X-Bullet, mostly because when the FS was around, the X wasn't all that accurate.
Among a number of other animals taken with with the Fail Safe in calibers from .270 on up were a big Alaskan moose shot between the right shoulder and sternum with a 230-grain .338 at about 125 yards, and a Cape buffalo shot at 60-75 yards with a 300-grain .375. The 230 .338 was found resting against the front of the pelvis, missing one petal, and the 300 .375 left an exit hole the size of my fist, with one broken-off petal in the skin. (Broken or missing petals are irrelevant, in my experience, with FS, X or whatever petal-type bullet.)
But later Fail Safes often failed to open, resulting in a long chase or even a lost animal. This was most common among the smaller .270-.30 calibers--and has also happened among X-bullets of the same diameter.
I suspect this is why Winchester eventually replaced the FS with the XP3. This is a decent bullet but, like the Swift A-Frame, the rear core often expands so much the bullet doesn't penetrate any farther than bullets that don't retain as much weight but have less frontal area.
Expanding bullet performance is always a compromise between interior damage and penetration.
John,
I follow what you're saying, but Bryce M. Towsley published an extensive test on those bullets back then and the Fail Safe consistently out-penetrated the Barnes by a test average of 5.6" when shot at the same speed. About ten years later, Richard Mann conducted a Rooster Laboratories Bullet Shootout, which included the newer TSX, and the Fail Safe penetrated the deepest of all tested. The results mirrored the earlier Towsley tests.
There were several other published tests during that decade showing the same results. That along with my personal experience with the old Fail Safe compared to the Barnes, Partition and Swift was why I ranked them in that order when measuring nothing but raw penetration. If asked how I would rank them as my personal favorite hunting bullets, the order would be different.
Best
I follow what you're saying, but Bryce M. Towsley published an extensive test on those bullets back then and the Fail Safe consistently out-penetrated the Barnes by a test average of 5.6" when shot at the same speed. About ten years later, Richard Mann conducted a Rooster Laboratories Bullet Shootout, which included the newer TSX, and the Fail Safe penetrated the deepest of all tested. The results mirrored the earlier Towsley tests.
There were several other published tests during that decade showing the same results. That along with my personal experience with the old Fail Safe compared to the Barnes, Partition and Swift was why I ranked them in that order when measuring nothing but raw penetration. If asked how I would rank them as my personal favorite hunting bullets, the order would be different.
Best
Originally Posted by postoak
I went with the Buffalo Bore 200 grain TTSX. Supposedly loaded to 2900 fps.
Nothing exceeds excess huh?
Gary,
Thanks for your info.
I believe I know why my tests differed from Bryce's and Richard's. When the Fail Safe was still being made, I did most of my tests of "tough" bullets in dry newspaper, which I found simulates hitting heavy bone better than any other reasonably cheap test media.
After Richard developed the Test Tube with Rooster Laboratories, I started using them as well. I don't know what Bryce used (do you still have that info?) but suspect it was wet newspaper or ballistic gelatin--though he also started using Test Tubes too.
Bullets tend to open more widely when shot into dry newspaper, as opposed to softer test media such as wax, gelatin or wet newspaper. When Fail Safes were forced by dry paper to open wider in my tests, they didn't penetrate deeper than X's.
In the field I've never been able to tell much difference between the penetration of Fail Safes, X's, E-Tips, etc., but there are so many variables in actual game shooting that differences would be hard to see, even if they do show up in media.
For instance, in my first tests of prototype E-Tips they didn't penetrate quite as deeply as TSX's, which I attributed to the E-Tips opening wider. But when I took the prototypes to Africa a month or two later on big cull shoot, the PH and I eventually had to go find a blue wildebeest quartering toward us, and shoot it in the big shoulder joint in order to finally recover one. By that time we were down to two rounds out of my original 20-round box of handloads, and all the others had zipped right through everything else.
Thanks for your info.
I believe I know why my tests differed from Bryce's and Richard's. When the Fail Safe was still being made, I did most of my tests of "tough" bullets in dry newspaper, which I found simulates hitting heavy bone better than any other reasonably cheap test media.
After Richard developed the Test Tube with Rooster Laboratories, I started using them as well. I don't know what Bryce used (do you still have that info?) but suspect it was wet newspaper or ballistic gelatin--though he also started using Test Tubes too.
Bullets tend to open more widely when shot into dry newspaper, as opposed to softer test media such as wax, gelatin or wet newspaper. When Fail Safes were forced by dry paper to open wider in my tests, they didn't penetrate deeper than X's.
In the field I've never been able to tell much difference between the penetration of Fail Safes, X's, E-Tips, etc., but there are so many variables in actual game shooting that differences would be hard to see, even if they do show up in media.
For instance, in my first tests of prototype E-Tips they didn't penetrate quite as deeply as TSX's, which I attributed to the E-Tips opening wider. But when I took the prototypes to Africa a month or two later on big cull shoot, the PH and I eventually had to go find a blue wildebeest quartering toward us, and shoot it in the big shoulder joint in order to finally recover one. By that time we were down to two rounds out of my original 20-round box of handloads, and all the others had zipped right through everything else.
John, he used a wet pack made up with newsprint. Most I know, in my gun circles, including myself, at some point made an attempt to use dry newsprint when on the cheap, but eventually gave up on dry in favor of some form of wet pack to better compare with results from calibrated ballistic gelatin. Even so, I'm of the strong opinion that any controlled lab testing is of little value unless the lab results can be validated through observation of data collected from actual field use on live game.
Best
Best
I have a test result article and wall mounted picture done by Gary Schiuttie (sp) back several (15)+_years ago with 180 gr. 308 dia bullets of many makes. The Barnes bullet was not listed but many mentioned here are. I believe he was also using wet news print. He tested each bullet at different velocities trying to emulate distance as well as velocity. The deepest penetration was by the Partition, the Bear Claw, and A-Frame, Fail Safe were not far behind. He also weighed each bullet for weight retention the PT was number two, the surprise for me was the Remington Cor-loc it was in 6 th place. Great performance from a cup and core bullet.
It's Gary Sciuchetti, below is a link to view the poster.
That test in relation to the OP's 300 Win Mag question but using 180 grain bullets:
Average measured penetration at an impact velocity of 2800fps:
- Fail Safe 28.3"
- X Bullet 18.2"
- Partition 18.2"
- A-Frame 18"
- TBBC 17.3"
- RN SPCL 14.3"
- PSP-CL 14.3"
Average measured penetration at an impact velocity of 3000fps:
- Fail Safe 26.5"
- X Bullet 20.2"
- Partition 17.8"
- A-Frame 15.6"
- TBBC 17.3"
- RN SPCL 12.3"
- PSP-CL 12"
Same bullets to simulate way down range
Average measured penetration at an impact velocity of 1900fps:
- Fail Safe 32.2"
- X Bullet 19.8"
- Partition 57.7" (*2 of the 3 did not open)
- A-Frame 23"
- TBBC 64" (*2 of the 3 did not open)
- RN SPCL 18.8"
- PSP-CL 16.5"
In the tests, the Barnes and Fail Safe gave best maximum overall penetration. But, I'd take this with a grain of salt because there is a measured trade-off in having a more narrow wound channel.
You can view the manuscript here:
http://stevespages.com/jpg/bestbullet.jpg
Best
That test in relation to the OP's 300 Win Mag question but using 180 grain bullets:
Average measured penetration at an impact velocity of 2800fps:
- Fail Safe 28.3"
- X Bullet 18.2"
- Partition 18.2"
- A-Frame 18"
- TBBC 17.3"
- RN SPCL 14.3"
- PSP-CL 14.3"
Average measured penetration at an impact velocity of 3000fps:
- Fail Safe 26.5"
- X Bullet 20.2"
- Partition 17.8"
- A-Frame 15.6"
- TBBC 17.3"
- RN SPCL 12.3"
- PSP-CL 12"
Same bullets to simulate way down range
Average measured penetration at an impact velocity of 1900fps:
- Fail Safe 32.2"
- X Bullet 19.8"
- Partition 57.7" (*2 of the 3 did not open)
- A-Frame 23"
- TBBC 64" (*2 of the 3 did not open)
- RN SPCL 18.8"
- PSP-CL 16.5"
In the tests, the Barnes and Fail Safe gave best maximum overall penetration. But, I'd take this with a grain of salt because there is a measured trade-off in having a more narrow wound channel.
You can view the manuscript here:
http:/
Best
Gary VA
Thank you for correcting my mistake. It been a while since have reviewed that data. I also agree with your statement regarding wound channel. I used the barnes TSX for a few season because the rifle I was shooting, shot them very well, but I was not happy with them. I have used the PT on many more, and will stay with that.
Thank you for correcting my mistake. It been a while since have reviewed that data. I also agree with your statement regarding wound channel. I used the barnes TSX for a few season because the rifle I was shooting, shot them very well, but I was not happy with them. I have used the PT on many more, and will stay with that.
Originally Posted by postoak
7 STW what has been your experience with the Interbond?
Sorry just saw this.I'd need to have a press conference just to explain how chitty the 154 IB 7mm is to me.