In another thread, Mule Deer mentioned that at .250 Savage velocities, he finds the Hornady Interlock a little hard....especially for lung shots. The new barrel on my .260 loves 129 grain Hornady Interlocks pushed to 2740 fps by H4350. Sub-one inch three shot groups @ 100 yards are common. At this velocity will this bullet perform well on a behind the shoulder lung shot on deer? Or should I aim for the shoulder and sacrifice a little venison? First hunt with the new barrel and load is scheduled for this week .

If you think the standard 129 gr Interlock is too hard, there is ways the 129 SST. I have used the 129 Interlock and been satisfied.

Mark in GA

300 Savage,

I would guess the 100-grain .25 might be harder than most Interlock Spire Points, because it's loaded in .257 Weatherby factory ammo. Plus, many .250's have 1-14 twists, which don't encourage expansion at moderate velocities.

But at typical .260 (or 6.5x55 or 6.5 Creedmoor) velocities, with the typical 1-8 or 1-9 6.5mm rifling twist, the 129 performs fine.

I used the 129g Hornady in a 6.5x55 at 2,770 on a decent mule deer buck last year. Worked great, no issues.

Behind the shoulder lung shot will be fine. I can't attest to the bullets ability to punch through a shoulder, but it may work there too.

Thanks Mule Deer and everybody. I appreciate being able to access the experience of others that this site offers!
Also, I just noted the typo in my original post (.250 instead of .260) and fixed it.

Yeah, I've had great success with any time I have used the old 129 Grain Hornady SP....I fear it disappearing, with all the new plastic tipped bullets all the time...

like the excellent 154 grain RN in 7mm...

I've taken deer with it from 50 yds to 250+ yds... and each time was a bang flop performance...

I've kinda always thought the most balanced pair of deer cartridges were the 7/08 with the 139 grain SP or the 260 with the 129 grain SP...

The 129 grain interlock was temporarily suspended from production, per Hornady's website about a month ago. I looked a minute ago and it looks like it is back in production..at least the disclaimer is gone. Sure hope so! But, I guess as long as we have good bullets to replace them, we shouldn't mourn the ones that disappear. Times change, whether we want them to or not.

I've got to admit that I haven't used the 129 much, but decided to try it after shooting it in side by side tests into discarded textbooks, along with the 120 TSX at 200 yards. Ironically there was not a noticeable difference in penetration. The most recent caribou I've killed with the rifle (6.5x55) was one I hit a bit higher than I expected - it hit the spine. The spine was severed, the bullet exited, and there was no sign of bullet pieces in the bullet track. (The shot was approaching an estimated 200 yards.) Like the 139 SP in the 7mm-08, the 129 in the medium case looks like an awfully good general purpose bullet.

I've used the 129SP in my 6.5x55 and the 264 Win Mag finding it one of the best cup n core choices out there. Deer and antelope. Magnum Man

I shoot the 129 gr and 140 gr Spire Points in my 6.5-'06, and they both work for me...

jim

I've tried the Nosler 120 BT, 125 PT, 140 PT and Hornady Interlock 129 in my Ruger .260 Rem. The 129 Hornady is the most precise in my rifle. I had questions about their effectiveness vs. Nosler as I'm a pretty big Nosler fan. I've been using them on mule deer and whitetails for the last four years out of my 22" barreled Ruger and 17" MGM Encore barrel as a pistol in Minnesota. Both guns like the exact same load: Lapua .260 brass, Rem 9 1/2 primer, 44 gr. IMR 4350. This yields 2825 fps from the 22" barrel and 2600 from the 17" barrel. My farthest shot on a deer is 310 yds with the rifle, quartering away, through both lungs and the opposite shoulder. Recovered the bullet under the skin at the base of the neck, 70% retention, perfect expansion. Closest shot was about 100 yds, running, quartering away. I put the bullet through the armpit, destroyed the heart, no recovery. I've taken 3 deer with the 17" barreled pistol, all at around 125 yds, two broadside through the lungs behind the shoulder, one severely quartering toward, almost head on. No recovery on any of the bullets, lungs had a nice big hole through them on the two broadside shots, classic headlong death run by the deer, nice blood trail. Head-on/quartering toward was a bit high, hit the front of the ribcage and exited the shoulder. Destroyed the front of one lung and tore out the jugular. No massive meat damage on any deer I've shot with the 129 Hornady, which is more than I can say about the 120 gr. Nosler BT. When I heard Hornady was suspending production I put 500 129 gr. Hornady's on my bench. From the handgun the 120 gr. BT shoots just as good with a bit more velocity and a bit flatter. Once I've shot up the Hornadys I have loaded for the TC, I'll try out the Nosler 120 BT on Minnesota deer next fall and see how they perform at a lower velocity.

Long story short, if your gun shoots the 129 gr. well at .260 velocities, I would have no qualms about killing elk with them.

Selmer, that's a lot of real world experience. My gun likes them, and I've got a lot of them. And you all have set my mind at ease.....chuckle...after Mule Deer had me worrying .

My little .260 Rem mountain rifle really likes the 129 Hornady with H4831. It is like lightning has touched down on our deer when it hits them.

Wife and I have used the 129 out of a 260 on two deer. Mine was a 30 yard double lung shot on a big doe. She ran 125-130 yards. I was not impressed. The wife double lunged a medium buck at about 135 yards and she said he dropped right there. No witnesses. Go figure!

I haven't had good luck with Hornadys. Out of a 358 at 60 yards, 200 RN double lung shot, nice buck ran 125 yards. Buck at 60 yards, lung shot, 308 150 Spire Point, ran 95 yards. With Sierras, most of the deer I've shot go 40-50 yards whether 260, 7mm08 or 308. I did have similar results on a couple deer with the 139 Hornady out of a 7x57.

My Sako Finnbear in 6.5X55 loved them, my Steyr in 6.5X57 not as much as the 130g Accubond. Going to try the 129g Interlock in a new CZ550FS in 6.5X55.

Before last season I built a little handy 6.5CM (same velocity as a 260 or close enough not to matter) and I have been shooting Hornady 129's. I shot 3 deer with it last year and 2 this year (so far). Ranges as short as maybe 25 yds and the long shot was 330yds. All but one of the bullets exited, the one that didn't exit went through both shoulders and the jacket was under the skin and the core exited, DRT of course. All seemed to do good but not excessive damage.

Over all I am pretty happy with 129's, they are very accurate and seem like good deer medicine and best of all best of all they are the cheapest bullet I played with.

I have killed a bunch of TN whitetail(30-40 I reckon) with the 129 Hornady IL over RL 19. It is accurate, effective, and inexpensive- I did lose one after what I thought was a good hit and tons of blood-always figured aliens got it! Rifle is a .260 Ruger boat paddle.

I left out that I've shot a few deer with the 130 g. AB - okay performance, but nothing exceeding the Hornady terminal results at .260 Rem velocities - might be different if you get over 3000 fps

Tag

Good information Selmer. Tagging this thread.

Ran them in my 6.5-08 and Swedes before the 260 was commercialized.
They work well on paper and game.

Fwiw 2 big bullet tests reports were posted here long ago.
Results showed penetration expansion and retention were very similar with the 129 and 125 PT. Says a lot

That said a 130AB is my go to.

Only a sample of one - but I shot a mature Roosevelt cow elk with the 129 IL this year out of my .260.

At about 100 yards it hit the shoulder, doing extensive damage and trashed the lungs. The elk basically died right there.

That's probably more critter than the bullet was designed for, but I sure can't complain.

I'll continue to use it on deer, etc, but will bump up to the 140 IL for elk chores in the future.

I'm pretty content to run the Hornaday IL's in all my rigs these days.

Redundant, but yes the 129 is a killer in the .260 . We've used it in my son's Model 7 Stainless 20" barrel since about 1999. Max load of 49.9gr H4831 gives very good accuracy and very dead deer. We've had probably a dozen or so adult whitetail does and bucks down anywhere from DRT to one that managed to travel 100 yds+ on a well behind the shoulder lung shot. Only bullet that stayed behind busted the near shoulder of a 150lb buck at 30 or 40 yards and ended up somewhere in the neck amongst bone shards, shredded meat and blood clots. Never found it. This is the only one that gave any hint of having done anything but forming a mushroom and carrying on.

Tag

That's interesting. I had to quit using the 100gn Nosler Ballistic Tip in my .250 (Ruger Ultralight with 20" brl) as it was punching through with limited expansion. I once shot through a pig and hit the one standing behind taking the two with one shot. I've gone to the 100gn Interlock and have had no dramas since at 2770 fps.

I haven't used the 129gn Hornadys in my 6.5x55 on game yet but I would expect them to be satisfactory based on interlock performance in a bunch of other cartridges.

Bump

That explains why it is such a damn good bullet in the .257 Roberts. Interestingly, I used to load the 100gn Ballistic Tip in my 20" barrelled Ruger Ultralight and that was a very hard bullet at 2770 fps. I once shot two pigs with the one shot as the Ballistic Tip zipped through the first pig and hit one behind. I switched to the 100gn Hornady IL and got much better kills, even on foxes. My .250 has a 1:10 twist though. Maybe this helps the Hornadys expand better.

I've used the 129gr bullet in the 6.5x257AI. Never clocked it. It just nails deer, so...

As the original poster here, I find this resurrected thread interesting. I did load the 129 grain interlock, again to a little over 2700 fps, and the first two deer killed with it showed a little quicker opening than I like. The second, a smallish mule deer buck (probably about 120 lbs dressed), was shot right behind the foreleg, low, and it didn't hit a rib going in that I could tell upon dressing it. It absolutely exploded the lower portion of the heart, and the deer dropped quickly. It made it about 30 feet to the edge of a finger coulee and I found it right at the bottom. There was no exit wound, and it looked like the bullet had expanded rapidly and perhaps blown up. With that experience, I tried the interbond in the same weight, same velocity. The only deer I shot with this bullet was a large bodied 2 point mule deer buck. He was close to a deep coulee so I shot him right in the shoulder in hope of him NOT making it to the edge and the bottom.. Bullet exited, quarter size exit hole, and he dropped DRT. I don't yet know how this bullet will work with a lung shot; it may be too tough or it may be just right. Both shots described were at less than 100 yards.

I realize I have only limited experience with either the 129 interbond or the 129 interlock. But as I can only chew through one deer per year it takes a while to get the first hand field experience for me. Reading back through the thread, I realized that this site is a great thing..question asked, quick answer from Mule Deer with good info, and then the shared experiences of many others. Probably why I'm still here and logging in regularly!

Interesting I have not seen the amount of variation you are getting with the 129 but have only used it on three deer so far. The Interbond in .270 & .284 @140 grains has been excellent. A good balance of expansion and usually complete penetration. But the 6.5 x 129 grain Interlock has been so good so far I see no reason to switch.

Tegano, my sample number is too small to make blanket observations about either bullet. But the 129 interbonds shoot well in my rifle, and I think I will keep using them for deer hunting and the interlocks for playing and general purpose (use it as a coyote gun as well, might use them instead of the 95 grain vmaxes I've been using). That said, if I have interlocks in the rifle during deer season I wouldn't be scared to try them again.