Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Tell me about the Hornady Interlock SP

Those of you who have experience with this bullet how were your results. Thanks



Trystan

In my experience they tend to expand and kill things.

The 129 grain Hornady is one of the best 6.5mm bullets ever made. Even the reasonably priced Hornady American Whitetail factory ammo with this bullet in the 6.5 Creedmoor is MOA capable.

I have shot the Interlocks for many years. I have yet to find a rifle that does not shoot them well. The 129 shoots 1/2 moa in my .260 out to 550 yards and I have similar results with my .308 and 150s and 139s in my 7 Mags. The 175s also shot real well in my 7 mags, when I used them.

Good bullets but a lot of old standbys in that lineup have been discontinued. The 100gr 25cal SP has been a regular for ever. Now gone with others.

I'm switching to Sierra for C&C bullets.

Never had an issue with them, from .243 to .308. They just do the job.

I used them exclusively for several years out of my .264 Win. 1" groups were the norm. Good expansion and penetration on deer and antelope.

My .375 H&H hated the 270g though. 3" were the best groups.

The last 3 shot group from my son's Ruger American Predator with 129 soft points measured .418. I was amazed. I bought the ammo on sale from Midway for under $20 per box

The 165 grain .308 Hornady IL SP is my goto deer bullet for the past 16 seasons in 308 WIN, 30-06. On whitetail deer, I could not ask for better performance. It either drops them on the spot or I can stand in the animal's tracks and see the carcass. My closest shot has been under 10 yards. My furthest was about 175 yards. I have never recovered a bullet.

The one I have most experience with is the 180 grain .308. We had a lot of problems with them disintegrating. On small animals they still killed, just made a mess. On larger animals it usually took a number of shots to put them on the ground unless we were taking head shots. Despite those problems, we continued to use them because .. I don't know, that was my father's choice, when you're 10-15, you generally shoot what you're handed.

I'm pretty happy with the flat point and round nose interlocks for lever action use. Their handgun bullets are pretty good. I don't use hornadys for any high velocity use other than varmint shooting .. they're very good for that.

Tom

best cup and core bullet, IMHO

The last time somebody asked this question it generated about 7 to 9 pages of which almost all was praise!

Not a writer.... I bought about a case (or twenty boxes) of 180 interlocks in Hornaday's Light Magnums for the .30-06, rated at 2880 fps. I used these exclusively in a .24" custom stocked FN for the last 25 years for hunting, mostly WT and Mule Deer. Good ammo with a good bullet. I did have one that came apart on heavy bone, requiring a follow up shot. I'm down to the last partial box. Accuracy has been plenty good with the annual three shot group going around 1.25-1.33". Good enough that I have not hand loaded for this rifle. I hope the Superformance ammo does as well. I will likely go Interbond this time. It was not yet invented back when.

EDIT: Why 180s for deer? We have lots of wind and 180s seem to drift a little less. Jt
Best,

Jack

Too bad the morons at Hornady dropped many of them. I've switched and won't be back.

Tom,

I strongly suspect the Hornady .30 180's you and your dad had trouble with were before Interlock days, but dunno. I know the first Hornady bullets I handloaded were 150-grain .270's in the mid-1970's, and they were pre-Interlock. Don't recall exactly when the Interlock ring was added (which helped considerably as far as bullets staying together) but believe it was sometime in the early 1980's.

The very first cartridge I reloaded with my Dad in the early 1970's was the .30 cal. 150gr. Spire Point for his Sako L579 in 308 WCF and I used the very same bullet when I got my 30-06 a few years later.
Over the years I have used lots of bullets that came out of red boxes in everything from a 222 Rem. to 458 Lott and even with all of the choices we have today I still use lots of them.
I as well hate to see some of the classics be discontinued but I get it, the shooting world has changed a great deal since the late 1960's when I learned to shoot and hunt.
If your rifle likes them and then placed properly you won't be disappointed in the them.

StarchedCover

I agree with those who say they are tops among CnC bullets. But I'm reluctant to commit to them these days for fear that a bullet I have worked up a load for will suddenly be discontinued.

My experience has all been excellent. I used Hornady Spire Point Interlocks’s in my .30-06 exclusively for years, 165 grainers for deer and 180’s for elk, also used 130’s in a .270. They always expanded and almost all were pass throughs. I had a 165 grain come apart on a deer’s spine when hit from sharply above at about 75 yards, but not before taking out 4” of spine and making total hamburger of both lungs so I’ve no complaints about that – that dear was extremely DRT. A very big cow elk hit quartering through the chest at about 220 yards from the 180 was also DRT and just dropped straight down dead. The farthest any deer or elk ever ran was maybe 40 yards from a good chest hit and most dropped a lot sooner.

A couple of the 130 grainers hit a deer’s chest broadside at impact velocities of 3100-3200 fps and even though they expanded down almost to the base they stayed together. They were little perfectly mushroomed nubs found under the far side skin but they stayed together and pulverized the lungs.

I would not be the least bit concerned to use them for hunting any cervidae on the planet and most any other non-dangerous game as well.


They are my practice bullet of choice and my storage shelves show about 90% red boxes with a few green ones here and there. Hopefully Hornady will not totally discontinue the style but if they do the Obama shortages have learned me to stockpile a bunch of each of my favorite calibers and weights.

Count me as a Hornady Interlocked lover.

I've never had one fail to perform perfectly. In fact, I've even used the Interlocked .308" 180-grain BTSP in my .30-06 in Africa ... 20-something head of plains game (including eland) with precisely that many shots fired.

Hey, the Interlocked works.

kd

You could very well be right. This would have been mid to late 70s maybe up to '82. Maybe a year or two more using what we had on hand. I shot Speer flat bases when I had any say in the purchase, never had any problems with them. When I got out of college and started buying my own, I "discovered" Nosler, first with solid bases, then partitions.

Sounds like it might be worth another try .. now that I have some understanding of WHY it's worth another try.

Thanks much!

Tom

i've been using interlock in the 130gr 270 win load (american whitetail) with no problems. accurate and effective. eliminates the need to reload for my 270win.

Yeah, that's a great factory deer load.

The 150 .270 Interlock also works very well, and not just on deer. But they don't offer it in the American Whitetail ammo.

Mostly going to get praise reports an the Interlock. We have only used them on deer but it's been all good. 150 gr 30-06 is just a hammer on them. 139 gr FB and BT in both 7mm-08 and 7x57 have given very good service. Only one we caught hit a doe quartering to between the left shoulder and neck. Found the bullet, a boat tail, against the femur in the right ham. That was a 7x57 factory load.

And as 260Remguy says the 129 gr 6.5 is a heck of a bullet. Sons Model 7 SS in .260 will do an inch or less at 100 with max charge of H4831SC. And it just flat kills deer. Had my quickest kill on a deer with it. Big doe at about 30 feet in front of me and I didn't want to blow up too much meat so made sure I hit her behind the shoulder about midline. Nothing but lungs. She fell dead and didn't wiggle and I don't think I even hit ribs.

For a few years, when I was semi retired, I worked the gun counter at two or three guns stores in the heart of deer and elk country.
Hornady Interlocks were the biggest seller of all the bullets we sold.
In that entire time, I never heard a single complaint about either the accuracy or the terminal ballistics of an Interlock, and that is the only bullet that I can make that statement about. Even Nosler Partitions got some criticism, deserved or not.

I have used them in 3006 for many years About 10 years ago I was using 150 gr spire point flat base and I had two from the same box basically turn to powder on two different bucks. In both cases the next bullet penetrated right thru. After that i switched to the 165 flat base (which I can no longer get only the boattail) but it has been perfect for deer.

Pretty much my go to CC bullet. For me they represent one of the better values.

[quote=Trystan]Those of you who have experience with this bullet how were your results. Thanks

Uniformly accurate excellent expansion and penetration.
I have loaded them in both flatbase and boat tails.
I do not recall any failures to perform [which I cannot say of Core-Lokts of late].

Calibers; .243, .256, .284, .308, .338, .358 and .375

The .243-100gr, .308-150, 165 and 180 gr and .338 .225 gr are the ones I have used the most.

Buddy of mine shot a nice 8 point at a little over 100 yards with a 7mm-08 "American Whitetail" load. I am pretty sure it was a 140 grain bullet. He shot the deer through the shoulders. When I was helping him load the deer up I noticed a bulge under the hide and I asked him if I could cut out the bullet so we could look at it. My request sort of amused him as he is an older guy and not a rifle/bullet nut.

Anyway the bullet had pretty well disintegrated....a pretty good sized chunk was left along with a lot of frags. Based on their reputation I figured the bullet would have held together a little better, but sometimes cup and cores do that. Based on that sample of one I can't say that they are any better, or worse, than a core-lokt or power-point.

The deer dropped in its tracks and my buddy had no complaints!

RJY66,

Let me see if I get this right: You could see the bulge of the bullet under the hide on the far side of the deer, and a "pretty good-sized chunk" was left. Yet the bullet had "pretty well disintegrated." These seem to be mutually exclusive statements.

Yes, many lead-cored bullets fragment to a certain extent. Despite the beliefs of many hunters about how much weight a bullet should retain, this PARTIAL fragmentation makes a bigger wound channel, and on average kills quicker than bullets that don't lose much weight.

I've shot a bunch of big game animals with Hornady Interlocks from .25 to .338 caliber. The average retained weight of the relatively few recovered bullets has been just about 50%, varying from around 40-60%. They were all recovered on the far side of dead animals.

180g Interlock SP has been my #1 in 30-06 for a long while.

The 130g version in 270 Win was a beaut too.

150g in the 308 Win was a fave for years until I started shooting VLD designs.

I'm yet to discover a non premium that delivers better terminal performance.

MuleDeer,

Given your experience with ILs, and with the .270 - 150gr in particular, would you use it on a sheep hunt where a long 500yd-shot might present as your only chance?

It is the most accurate bullet in my gun, so far, but I have to admit I am biased towards higher BC bullets...

Thank you!

As they say, pics are worth several words. Here are two Hornady .277 130 grain SP Interlocks recovered from a deer shot at about 90-100 yards and again at 6". Winchester Model 70 .270 24" barrel, load used RL-22 for right at 3200 fps MV - yes, I was attending the Bob Hagel School of Reloading in those days. These were both found under the skin on the far side of a previously healthy mule deer buck of about 250 lbs live weight, both shots broadside through the chest, left bullet hit about 1/2 of the way up behind the left foreleg, second bullet fired as a finisher into the top of the heart/aorta area.

Left bullet hit at an approx. velocity of 2950 fps, the right one hit at a full 3200. Left one is expanded to .480" measured across the lead and weighs 78 grains, right one is about .410" and weighs 59 grains, that's including whatever petrified deer is left in there. Middle bullet is an unfired bullet of the same type for comparison.

So, even at high impact velocities - I think 3200 fps is considered very high for a C&C, the cup and core did not separate, they expanded to almost twice their diameter and retained around 60% and 44% of their weight respectively. The weight that was shed did its job as shrapnel since internal damage to the lungs and heart was extensive.

Great pictures Jim! That is some serious stress you put on the one at the muzzle!

Jim In Idaho, currently I'm using Nosler PT's almost exclusively but that doesn't mean I don't think Hornadys aren't great bullets. I also have several Hornady bullets recovered from buck Mule Deer and they look just like your photos. If I knew how to post photos(rather wanted to know) I'd post them.

The 154 grain .284 Interlock launched at 2700 fps from a 7x57 has been a complete pass through on elk, mule deer and moose. I finally caught one after traveling from front to back the full length of a good size mule deer buck.

I'd post some more pics of other calibers and situations but unfortunately (or fortunately) these are the only two I've ever recovered, most of the rest are buried in Idaho real estate on the far side of whatever animal got shot.

In view of this statement, how can one complain?

I did a Campfire survey a few years ago about the best choice for a cup-and-core bullet, and the Interlock was 2 to 1 over the rest of the field.

The Remington Core-Lokt had the same kind of internal belt as the Interlock. It's been a few years but the older magazine articles reported that it was a very well regarded bullet for its deep penetration and ability to stay together. Apparently the big game guides thought highly of it in factory ammo. I don't know personally but have read they since cheapened them to remove that belt.

We've got some really nice bonded bullets and monometals these days but a bullet that sheds its weight, i.e. sends that lead out as wounding shrapnel, still kills really well as long as it stays together. Shot presentation might have to be more "choosy", or not. I saw a 15 year old kid put a factory loaded Remington 150 grain Core-Lokt from a .30-06 lengthwise through a fair size doe, range was somewhere around 125 yards +-25. Bullet entered in the right ham and was found nicely mushroomed in the chest up under the left scapula. As I recall she staggered a few feet forward and keeled over dead. That was close to 20 years ago and the folks I was hunting with used a mish-mash of old ammo so the bullet he used could have been from the 80's or early 90's.

Actually, the old Core-Lokts had heavy "sidewalls" on the jacket, not a belt, which along with a cannelure tended to hold cores inside. You may be thinking of the Peters "Inner-Belted," which had a ring of metal inside the jacket to stop expansion, which were highly though of by some hunters, including I believe Elmer Keith.

The old Core-Lokts did work pretty well. Last I checked the round-nose Core-Lokts were still built that way, but that's been several years.

Reminto started changing the Pointed Soft-Point Core-Lokts around 1990, to a thinner jacket that was easier to manufacture. Found that out from the guy who'd been the long-time writer contact for a while, after I sectioned one and wondered what the hell? He asked around and got pissed because they hadn't told him.

During the transitional period they used some Hornady Interlocks in Core-Lokt ammo. Found that out, again, while sectioning another "Core-Lokt" and finding the Interlock ring.

If I we're to go back to a cup-n-core bullet, it would be the Hornady. Or, if I go to a lower velocity (blasphemy) cartridge,it would be my "go to" bullet My "only" complaint with them would be, at high velocity,close range shots... they fully expand very quickly, losing weight (seem to average approx.35% loss) which hurts penetration some. They held together well, but didn't penetrate as I want. I like exit wounds, and didn't get that reliably. memtb

I'm an Interlock user. My favorite is the no longer made 100gr .257 that's had more one shot, DRT kills on deer than any other bullet/caliber I own. I also use them in my 338, 250gr and my 3006 in 180. That same 180 bullet out of a 300 Weatherby is probably the upper limit for this bullet. Here it is, last one on right, recovered from the ham of an impala shot at approx 80 yards on the point of the shoulder. Traversed the entire animal, shed its core, recovered weight was 79gr

I've only recovered one Hornady bullet, a 225 gr. fired from a .338-06. Bullet went through more than two feet lengthwise of bull elk. Much of the semi-mushroomed lead core was still firmly in the jacket and retained bullet weight was 181 grs. Of course, the striking velocity of around 2,400 fps may have contributed to the bullet holding together.

Have shot numerous deer with a 130gr. Interlock in my 270 with a case full of H4831. Have only recovered two. Terminal performance has been 100% effective every time. One of the bullets I recovered was from my one and only B&C whitetail shot in 91. Shot was high shoulder at about 75 yards. Deer dropped instantly. Bullet was recovered under the hide on the offside. It broke both shoulders and turned the lungs into jelly. It retained 50% of its weight. I have the utmost faith in the Interlock. For a reasonably priced bullet it doesn't get any better. Accuracy is also outstanding.

Good performing bullets. People mention Sierras as being accurate but on the whole, Hornady Interlokts have been the most consistently accurate cup and core bullets I have used from .243 to .312 calibre. I was sorry to see the 100gn .257 IL go but I have 4 1/2 boxes on my shelf that will keep my .250 Sav and one of my .257 Roberts' shooting for quite a while.

Tagged

Best groups my pre-64 .270 ever fired were with the 130gr ILs over 58gr of H4831, but nowadays it gets 160NPs because 2 out of the 3 hit with them so far just fell over dead right there. Third one, hit a bit higher, went about 50 yards. The one I hit with the IL went about 150 with a chest full of soup, but no exit or blood trail. Had I not found a puff of hair knocked from the far side of the ribs by the impact, I would not have done the search and found him.

The .308 165 grain Hornady IL SP is my goto bullet for KY whitetails. I use it in .308 WIN and 30-06. I have yet to recover one.

When I'm taking on a new deer rifle, I normally try to find a solution that comes out of a red box and go from there.

The bullet on the right is a 165 HDY BTSP that I recovered from last season's 6x6 elk. From a 308 Win at 140 yards, the bullet broke the heavy upper leg bone-knuckle, and punched into the lungs. I found it rolling around the chest cavity. All in all, that's a heck of a lot to ask of a bullet, and the first time I've center-punched that leg bone. That's about the worst possible scenario for an elk bullet.

Bullet on the left is a 150 Nosler Ballisitc Tip from a heavy, old 6x6 bull I took in 2014, shot at 40 yards from a 7mm-08. The bullet angled forward from the back of the ribs, and was under the off-side scapula. Around 32" of penetration. Bull ran about 25 yards and was dead when I got to him, likely the quickest kill I've ever seen on an elk.

Cool pictures Brad. Pretty good illustration that a bullet doesn't have to look perfect to work pretty decently.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I will second this motion.....I have had consistently excellent results with interlocks.

They are my go to cup and core bullets, when I am not shooting mono's.

Always had good luck with Hornady Interlocks, especially at moderate velocities. Used them in almost every caliber.


Left bullet is a 200 grain out of a .33 WCF, Texas heart shot at around 100 yards.
Right side bullet is the 117 grain .257 RN taken from water jugs at around 50 yards. Kills deer dead too.

I have used the 165 and 180 interlock with great results in the 30-06 for many years. The 165 is about the best whitetail bullet going, there is usually little doubt upon impact and I've yet to recover one from handful I've shot into deer. Expansion is always reliable from 20-250 yds.

The 180 is also a gem. They used to have a ring just above the cannelure (middle bullet), this has since disappeared about 7 years ago (new production on left). These kinds of changes are frustrating as they introduce doubt.The only 180 I have recovered is pictured on the right. I found it while skinning a coastal brown bear that squared about 9'. It was shot broadside at about 80 yards, a smidge further back than I anticipated. It weighs 135 grains, so 75% weight retention. Not too shabby for a cheap bullet. The 180 partitions that I have recovered from bears have usually weighed less as the front core is more prone is separate. I still like the 180 partition, just dont think the interlock gives up much when pushed at 30-06 velocities. I have also used the 180 on deer and pigs, no surprises, they work on them too.



I have some 150 interlocks I plan on using in a 760 for whitetail next. Also plan on trying the 130 grain in a 270 slowed a bit from factory velocities. Across the board they have been consistently accurate in the calibers I've tried (.22 50 gr, .257 100 gr,.277 100 gr, .284 139 and 154 gr, .308 150, 165 and 180 gr, .358 200 gr, .375 300 gr RN and BTSP). The XTP pistol bullets are also excellent imo. I guess you could say that I'm a Hornady fan. Only negative is their brass is so-so.

Im slowly moving over to TSX's but the only other "cheap" bullet in the same league is the Federal Fusion.

I'm LATE to this thread....actually thot it was an older one that I remember, very similar.

I'm the contrarian, very poor bullets that sheds their cores. (sarcasm)

Good Bullets come in different colored boxes..










ALL but 1 (one) of my Whitetail loadS are equipped with H Ils.

The other is OLDER Rem C Ls ,270 Win 130s that I bought in BULK from Midway. "THEY" are actually stouter than the H Ils.

Jerry

I/we have used:
270 Win- 130,140,150 on deer, antelope, elk, black bear, caribou, hogs
The 130's flat work, the 140gr BTSP seemed to separate more than flat base, 150's impressed me on elk and hogs.

7mm-08- 154gr on elk
338-06- 200gr flattens deer
9.3x64- 286gr no animals, but it shoots great and to the same POI as the TSX
375 H&H- 270gr on deer, flattens them

I have never tried them in my 300H&H since I have a 180gr TTSX and 165gr GMX loads that shoot so dang good.

I love interlocks, from back before X's were cool..... never did swollow the X koolaide, for good reason...

Thumbs up!

I shot a bunch of 180's out of 300WSM, it killed two deer I plainly remember, through the lungs it worked like any other bullet traveling at close to 3000 fps. Don't over think it, try it.

Wonderful bullets overall.
The only failure I experienced was the 500gn RN loaded to a mild 2500fps in the .460 Weatherby. It was great on feral game up to wild horses, but failed to penetrate a shoulder on a scrub bull for me. AS I stated elsewhere, I recovered the bullet in the membrane between the shoulder and the ribs which were not even broken, let a lone penetrated.

This is why one opinion can be interesting but not necessarily of value because Weatherby has a long history of using that same bullet in their factory ammo and I never heard of a failure. There was even one of the old Weatherby Guide magazines that had a lady hunter brain an elephant with the same bullet, so was is a batch, a freak experience, who knows?
John

It's been one of my go to bullets in anything moving up to 3000 fps for many years. The only time I can say one definitely failed was a 139 gr 7mm from the unluckiest 7mm-08 rifle ever. It blew up on a rib for no particular reason. That same bullet has taken a pile of whitetail when shot at the same speed from a 7 mauser, so,like I said, bad luck rifle.

i use them all the time great bullets, wish they'd quite dropping fine bullets out of their line up

I ran Cast Performance Bullet Co. and in the early 90s we did a LOT of testing, not only of our bullets but also of every other bullet we could. It was very interesting and fun as well.
"Cup-and-Core" bullets are all made from 2 components, the jacket, made from materiel called "strip" and the lead core alloy.
Strip was made by Kennecott and Alcoa and could be ordered in various alloys of gilding metal (Copper/Zink alloy) and rolled onto a spool as a long strip (hummmm wonder why they call it that
The lead cores are made from alloyed metal too with lead and tin being the 2 metals used in all, and some having a small % of Antimony also.

Strip is used for certain bullets at certain thicknesses. As an example, Hornady used to use the same strip for bullets from the 130 gr 270 to the 225 grain 338. (if my memory is correct)
So you can see that all would have the same thickness of jacket at the shank, but the .277 would have a thicker jacket in comparison to it's diameter. If that strip was .022" (as an example only) you would have a total shank diameter of .044" in jacket and .233" in lead. So the jacket will comprise close to 15% of the thickness of the bullet shank. But step up to a .338 you still have only .044" of jacket and the other .294" is lead. that means the 338 bullet would have a shank thickness of jacket to lead of about 12% jacket and 88% lead. So jacket thickness should be increased to get thicker as the bullets get larger in diameter, but it can't be done for every bullet and every weight of bullet, as the cost of the tooling would be prohibitive. Every bullet would have to be made on a dedicated set of cupping dies for every diameter and every different weight to be perfect. None of us could afford the bullets if any company did that because of the cost of tooling.
So they take averages. Most generally, Hornady did well in it's averages in their old Inner-Lock line. Not all, but most I have tried were good enough and some are very good. The ones I have seen that were sub-standard to my way of thinking were in fact the 338s they make, because their jackets were too thin for the diameter of the bullets and that causes them to break up badly and not penetrate well.

The thinner the strip, the easier it is to make the jackets accurate and even. But the thicker the jacket the more force is needed to form it, and the more likely "memory" of the metal is to cause slight differences in the cups.

The ideal cup and core big game bullet has a jacket of 25% to 30% of it's diameter at the 3/4 point up it's shank, and going down to the base. From that 3/4 point, (from base to 3/4 ways up the shank) it should taper evenly in thickness to the tip with the jacket being only .004 to .007" at the tip
That's the ideal, but it doesn't exist in industry for the reasons above.

In effect a 243 bullet should have a jacket at the shank of ..031 to .040
A 257 should have .032 to .043
A 264 should have a shank jacket thickness of .033 to .044
A 277 should have a shank jacket thickness of .035 to .046
A 284 should have a shank jacket thickness of .035 to .047
A 308 Should have a shank jacket thickness of between .038 and .051

And so on and so on.....and the reason for the different thicknesses is the proposed striking velocity of the bullets. so faster round should be thicker then a slower round and so on and so on. All of which taper to a thickness of thin paper at the nose and thicken to that point 3/4 up the shank of the bullet to full thickness.
Now if you think....just imagine how many different dies and tapering swedes there would have to be in a bullet makers factory to do this and get it all the that theoretical ideal.

It is not going to happen in industry as we have it today.

I think the old Remington Core-Lokt, Winchester Power Points and many of the Hornady Inner-Lock bullets are about as good as we have seen in the past, and going up to today, for cup and core bullets. Only a custom shop can make the "ideal" bullets and the cost would be higher than most of us could pay. If a bullet is good enough to work, kill well, even if it's not ideal, no one is going to pay a super high price for something better that doesn't offer some real world advantage. If Speer and Sierra would simply double their strip thickness on their hunting bullets it would help them a lot, but bullet companies don't really want to know what we'd like. They only want to know what we'll accept and pay for. They advertise accuracy as the mecca of bullet n design and it's not for any bullet but varmint and target bullets, but the average American shooter has accepted this marketing ploy.

For me, I'll take a good hunting bullet that expands and doesn't loose more then about 45% of it's weight that holds 1.25 MOA every time over a bullet that sheds 70-85% of it's weight even if that bullet shoots one hole. I have never shot at an animal or man ever that was smaller than 1.25 MOA. I want 1/3 to 1/8 MOA for target bullets and varmint bullets but for big game I want good performance, and about anything under 1.5 MOA is just fine.

OK....rabbit trail followed --------------- no rabbit here...

This is an example of one, so take it for what it's worth...I used the Hornady 225 gr. .338 Interlock SP in a .338-06 to take my first bull elk in '91. I seldom recover a bullet from a game animal, but this bullet traveled lengthwise through a lot of elk. Core was still in the jacket and there was some mushrooming , but not the textbook kind. Bullet weighed 181 grs.

I have Interlocks and Interbonds, have not used either on animals. Am working up loads, will be shooting both.

How do those two compare?

DF

I've used both on game at '06 velocities, and found them indistinguishable.

FC

Steve,

Based on conversations with a number of bullet makers, plus some testing of core hardness, MOST manufacturers of swaged, jacketed rifle bullets use a significant amount of antimony in their core lead. In fact the average percentage is similar to that in most "chilled" shot, about 3-4%, but can vary from 2.5% to 6% depending on the specific bullet. Some companies, in fact, often tweak the percentage of antimony, due to performance reports, accuracy, etc. In fact, back before Hornady developed the Interlock jacket-ring, their Spire Points had a better reputation for penetration than some other cup-and-cores, and I later found out that their big game bullets had a higher-than-average percentage of antimony in the cores than most other brands.

From reading the replies it seems that interlock generates mainly positive feedback. On more than one occasion though, I've heard "they work well at 30-06 velocities".
My question is how do they work on elk sized game at .30 magnum velocities?
I shoot a .300 Weatherby and I'm currently using Hornady factory ammo that's loaded with the 180gr Interlock projectile at a reported 3140fps - but my brutally honest chronograph suggests that they're doing a fraction over 3000fps.
Is this too fast for the 180gr Interlock on elk sized game?

Cheers,

Russ.

Here's your thread (and only 2 years old, too!)


FWIW, here's what Hornady has to say:



FC

Hi John.
That's interesting. Antimony is found in most of the core metal fro most manufacturers, but 6% surprises me. I would have guessed it to be around 3.5%. I have been out of the bullet making business now since 2000, so some changes have probably been made in the last 17 years. I have a 1973 copy of Hornady's manual and their interlock bullets were all through it, but now I hear the lead cores are not the dame alloy as they were in the early 70s. I bought many thousands of the interlocks in the 70s, but I never tried to test their alloy back then, so I can only guess what the changes are that Hornady made from 1973 to today.

I do remember when Speer first brought out it's Grand Slam line, and the rear core was at 6.5%, but that was later changed. I suspect the whole core was then made with a high-antimony content. But what alloy I have no idea.

In eutectic lead based alloys the addition of antimony brings the hardness up but also the brittleness, so I would not think it wise to go above 6% ever in a rifle bullet. The addition of Tin can buffer that brittleness a small amount, but Tin actually is not for hardening as most men think. What Tin does it to make the alloy flow easier. In casting it acts as soap does to water. It makes the molten lead flow far easier and fill out the molds. In the process of swedging Tin adds a lubricity to the lead wire to make it form better. There is a down side however, in that tin can also cause the core to be slippery enough to make them more prone to jump their jackets on impact too.
Speer tried to solve that problem with it's "Hot-Core" line, but it's largely ineffective because their jackets are not tinned on the inside and no flux is used to cause the molten lead to bond. Cost wise, it's probably not something they can do.
I have done the same thing on custom made bullets to see if it will work and it does work wonderfully. What i did in 1994 was to take some stip and tin one side with 50-50 Bar solder and slick it off with steel wool. That left only a wash coat of solder on one side of the metal. Next I formed the cups with the tinned side being inside and poured lead cores into the jackets. The jackets were set on a piece of 1-1/4" bar stock heated to 750 degrees so the lead cores would stay molten for a few minutes and bond to the solder on the inside of the jackets. I then swedged the ogives and made the bullets ready to load. What I didn't do was to taper the jackets towards the tip and that would have been a lot better, but my experiment worked pretty well anyway. The strip I used was .028" thick so it was not too think to open up.
When fired at velocities as low as 1450 FPS from a 30-30 they still expanded well enough that I would have hunted with them and at velocities as fast as 3100 FPS form a 300 Win Mag, they shed only about 15% of the weight and held together very well. They were not ideal because of the lack of a thicker jacket with a taper of that jacket to .006" at the tip, but even knowing they were not perfect, they did a lot better than most commercial bullets I tested them against.
The down side was time... Such bullets, made right are very time consuming and could not be done with existing machinery at any price people could afford to pay.
I believe the next giant step forward in bullet will probably follow this lead or this basic idea. Cup and core bullets with thick enough jackets and thin enough noses would be very good and if they were bonded they would be super good. What the industry needs to do is to invent machines that can do it accurately and cheap. Today the hunter has a better selection of bullets than any hunter has had before in all history, but the technology has not come full circle to a point that such a bullet can be made for the price we need it to be for the average teenager to shoot barrels out of his rifles as we had in the 60s and 70s. If some company (I hope Speer and Sierra are listening) can come up with the machines to make this bullet at the cost of a standard cup and core, or maybe even cheaper, they would revolutionize the industry. It can't be done..................yet.
Flying machines, accurate semi-auto rifles and lap-top computers could not be done either...........until they were.
I have hopes that the engineers of tomorrow can and will come up with such machinery. I did write to Sierra about this very thing, but never heard back.

That process sounds like the root cause for a Bitterroot being so expensive and time consuming to make but danged they are good Bullets.

Steve,

Yep, 3.5% is probably just about the average percentage of antimony in cup-and-core bullets. Amounts varying from that are for specialized uses--but some bullet-makers aren't convinced that 100% weight retention is the ideal.

There have been a number of relatively recent attempts to produce inexpensive cup-and-core bullets that consistently hold together. About 15 years ago Federal tried with the Deep Shok bullet, by making the jacket thicker in the middle of the shank section (as Remington implied Core-Lokts were made) in order to hold the rear 2/3 of the bullet together. They worked very well, but unfortunately turned out to be more expensive to make than they anticipated, the reason they only lasted a couple of years on the market. (Core-Lokts actually just had a thicker jacket along the shank, but it wasn't tapered to lock the core in. More recent Core-Lokts are pretty much basic cup-and-cores, with thinner jackets to reduce production costs, or sometimes actually Interlocks.) The only Deep Shok I ever managed to recover from a big game animal retained over 90% of its weight--but they were gone not long afterward.

Right now one technique that seems to hold the most promise for relatively inexpensive bullets that hold together is electro-plating the jacket around the lead core, the process used in Speer Gold Dot handgun bullets and Federal Fusion rifle bullets. However, Speer tried to make their DeepCurl rifle bullets (basically the same as Fusions) at the same price as Hot-Cors and also failed. The big trick is varying the thickness of the jacket to get exactly the taper desired. Fusions hold together but tend to expand very widely, probably due to a combination of relatively thin jackets and soft cores. And of course to make the jackets thicker, the electro-plating takes longer, one problem in cost of production.

I have run into a lot of hunters who think Hot-Cores are bonded bullets, and even one or two gun writers, but as you note they are not, which can be easily proven by putting one in a vise, nose-up, then hacksawing it down the middle. The jacket can be just as easily pried away from the core as with any swaged cup-and-core. I've had Hot-Cors completely separate jacket and core even on deer.

Great thread.

Accurate



Deadly

Alot is said in that post !

What seems to be the best loading depth from the rifling that works best for these bullets?

Thats another plus for the interlock, really no seating depth to mess with, just seat them to the cannelure and call it good.

I've found they require the same work as any other bullet as to best seating depth. Sometimes, best depth may have the cannelure well above the top of the case neck.

If seated to the cannelure, most commercial rounds will be about the SAAMI maximum overall length for that cartridge, which makes it simple if you don't want to experiment. But as lotech noted, they will often shoot noticeably more accurately after some experimentation with seating depth. In a number of the rounds I load for, the cannelure is well ahead of the case mouth in the rifle's most accurate load, even in long-time standard factory rounds.

I have been surprised that ^^^^^^ has worked for me MORE than I expected. I have been surprised how many Xs the SAAMI 'overall
cartridge length' has worked very well.... HOWEVER....

I can assure you it's NOT always the case. ONE opposite example was my 1st XTR FTWT in 270 Win. The bullets had to be seated so deep that the case mouth was AT the break point of the S O (secant ogive). *** I despised the LOOK of the cartridge but it shot well.

OTOH - more than 1 or 2 rifles PREFERRED the bullet seated OUT beyond the cannelure.

By NO means am I trying contradict M D, it's just that every rifle has ITS preferences.

Jerry

Interesting. My present .270, a new Model 70 Featherweight, likes 150 Interlocks seated with the cannelure about 1/8" in front of the case mouth.

MD - That XTR FTWT was the First one in Hammond LA. I ordered it thru a local dealer...so @ 1982 ? They had just been introduced in the Fall 1981 Win catalog.

The loaded round looked like a bird's beak sticking out from the case mouth. That's the only rifle I EVER had like that.
I LOVED the rifle but hated the look of the cartridge.

Jerry

Ive had good luck getting them to shoot in the calibers Ive tried (270, 7mm, 30, 35, and 375) by just seating them to the cannelure. Im sure seating them for a .010" jump might shrink groups a bit, just never felt the need. Makes it easy to use ammo from one rifle in another of the same chambering.

Only ones that seemed a fit "finnicky" were the 139 and 154 gr bullets in a couple 280's. IIRC switching powders eliminated the finnicky-ness 😀

I like them so much that now when I get a hunting rifle chambered I give the Smith a factory Hornaday round to set the throat for if they are available. This makes it easy to seat the bullets at the cannelure and if I ever have to resort to store bought ammo that issue is taken care of too. All the other bullets will have to find their own seating depth which is always the case so nothing lost there either. Voila Cave man simple like I like it.

Just used a 270 grain interlock out of my 375 Ruger. Grizzly bear went @ 30 yards & piled up. Both lungs were jello. Bullet exited leaving a hole about the size of a half dollar. Interlocks, I like em. Bob

The 286 9.3 is another really good one that's hard to recover.

MD

I forgot to mention. That XTR FTWT had a 'short' throat. Sorry.

Jerry

I use them in 30-30, 6.5x55, 30-06, 270 and 444. I bought 200 7mm 154 grain during the drought when I wasn't sure if I'd run out of accubonds but I haven't used them yet.
Any time I've used them on game they've worked great so I've been switching everything over.

One year my buddy and I shot a couple of black bears with our 7mm rem mags both about 80 yards.
I used a 160 accubond, he used a 154 hornady.
Both bullets travelled through heavy bone and looked almost identical when recovered. That sold me on the interlocks right there.

John said The 286 9.3 is another really good one that's hard to recover.

That's the bullet I am going to be loading soon in a few 9.3s I have killed game with it from my 9.3X74R Ruger #1 and it's done well, but so far the "tests" were deer and antelope, so for a large powerful rifle, that's not much of a test.

I will load them in my 9.3X62 also. Velocity will be the same, or maybe 100 FPS higher than what I shoot from my Ruger.

The gun I am wondering about is the 9.3X57 I am making. I will try various bullets for expansion and accuracy. What I don't want ( if I can get away from it) is a short range only gun. The Norma and RWS bullets of 225 gr and 232 gr are getting hard to get, are expensive, and some of them are going to thick jackets and bonding. That makes them outstanding for close range and heavy game, but not as good for deer or even elk at 300 yards and farther. I may be weird, but I love to hunt antelope with "close range guns" and in most hunts I can and do get close and kill them just fine. I have done it with flintlock rifles in 50 cal and 62 cal. with 4" barrled 44 mag, 6" barreled 357 mags, Iron sighted 30-30 and one time I did it with a bow and arrow.
But sometimes I am forced by time constraints to make a longer shot, and out to 400 yards is what I consider a "good all-around load".
If a bullet goes below it's expansion threshold it doesn't open up much if at all.

The 9.3X57 only starts bullets at 2050 FPS to 2100 FPS for the heavies, and about 2350 to 2400 for the light ones.

I have had bad luck with the Speer 270 grain bullets in my 9.3X74R but perhaps they will not be so bad if only impacting at 1500 FPS to 1800 FPS. Maybe the 9.3X57 is the best shell to load them in. In my 9.3X74R they are nothing but real big varmint bullets.

The one I want to hear about is the very bullet you named John, that being the Hornady 286 gr. I know what it does at impacts of 1800FPS to 2100 FPS, but I am wondering how it will do at 1300 to 1400 FPS impact speed.

If I can't get what I want from the market place I probably will just make molds and cast bullets for it. I did that for so long and did so many of them that casting is not fun for me anymore, but I do know a lot about it, and I can usually make a rifle work super well with cast bullets at any velocity below 2400 FPS. I would use paper patched and lube-groove bullets to do that load work, but I am not excited about doing all that if I don't have to.

Any intel for me with the Hornady 286 gr at lower speeds? Or any suggestions I have not thought of?

Steve,

I'd try the 250 AccuBond in the 9.3x57. According to Nosler it expands down to the same 1800 fps listed for the Partition--which itself tends to expand at lower impact velocities than the Interlocks, due to the soft front core--but you can probably get at least 2300 and possibly 2400 fps from it in the 9.3x57. That would result in about 1750-1800 fps at 400 yards, depending on muzzle velocity and atmospheric conditions. I used a computer program to come up with slightly over 1800 fps at 35 degrees F. and 4000 feet above sea level, when started at 2400.

I was doing some digging on the big heavies in 30 cal and found this thread regarding the 220 gr Hornady RN: What's your experience with the Hornady 220gr RN in 30-06? I was a little surprised by some posts by BC30cal regarding his experience with them quoted below. Wonder if there were any changes made to it since when the bullets he used were made. Perhaps a soft or brittle batch of lead cores? Maybe older stock off the shelf than what he thought?

No experience with the 220s but I suspect they were designed as a woods bullet for the 06 and 08. I have only shot the 160 6.5s at paper but they also get mixed reviews so no idea why. On the SSTs I have seen some where the interlok is almost non existent but haven't sectioned enough to see if this is the norm or an isolated case.

I believe the 190 BTSP was a heavy 30 cal looked favorably upon. I also believe it has since been discontinued. I never got a chance to try them.

BC30cal was pushing the 220 at 2615 fps. At 125 yards that equates to 2258 fps when it hit the moose. .30-06 can push it 2450 to 2500 fps, and at 125 yards, it's running 2152 fps if started at 2500 fps. The deer he shot at 75 yards would have it going 2392 fps.

As for mixed reviews, I have to laugh. Several times, I've looked up threads on bullets for terminal performance and several posters will swear up and down with opposite experiences. Makes things about as clear as mud and it doesn't help that bullet manufacturers make changes over the years without telling anyone about it. Of course, some bad experiences can be easily diagnosed. Read one thread where a guy was perplexed a Hot Cor bullet was too destructive when he shot a deer at less than 100 yards with his 300 RUM ... This one with the Hornady 220 puzzles me though.

Thanks John. I think that's a good idea. I know the Partitions expand down to about 1450 in most other calibers, and I expect the heat of bonding the Accubonds may make the front nice and soft, so it may to as well or better. I also had considered loading up too, with my 9.3X57 as the action is a K98 ans is quite strong. No reason the 9.3X57 can't be loaded to the same pressure as the 9.3X62 in the same action with the same bolt face.
I'll try them.
Thanks

This exactly and it has almost gotten to the point where I don't trust even trust my personal experience. The rep on the 160 6.5 came from Phil Shumaker and John Barsness so I trust them. But still I am tempted to prove it to myself as I already loaded up a bunch of them and it defies appearances for such a long bullet to not be reliable. Also round noses typically perform more consistently.

I also wonder if during the swaging procees if the first couple of bullets after the equipment was lubed come out badly? Who knows?

BC's suck but they're accurate, and kill really well....

Used them from 25-to 338 cal...all were very accurate and never a failure
Especially like the 117 in 257 roberts

Funny thing is som would call that a bullet failure...sounds to me like a sucuss

I'm new to this website and I'm glad I found it. Good stuff here.

For years I loaded the 100 grain round nose in my 243. They don't make that bullet any longer, but I do have several boxes left as I no longer load as much like I used to. Another really good performer is the 117 grain .25 caliber bullet. I loaded that in both the 25.06 and 257 Roberts. If I ever go back to loading again for my Roberts it would likely be the Interlock RN that would be the choice.

I have had plenty of success with Hornady interlocks, 130 and 150 grain. 277 and the 150, 170 and 180 grain bullets in 30 caliber all have given adequate penetration. One thing I have noticed is that these bullets seem to make for good blood trails if you need one.