Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Which is tougher 150 SST or BT?

TRex and Shag,

You're making me work now, lols!

I've been using NBTs since they first came out in 1984 up until a few yrs ago when my state went lead free. Never seen a blow up on thin skinned deer or others with both early and late versions in 7mm and 30cal. As stated before Ioaded 180 NBTs for a friends 300 Weatherby and 7mm 150s for my Ruger 7RM in 1984. Both of us killed deer that year at close range. I've also used the 7mm 140 and 160 Partitions on deer, bear and elk so I can play big boy hunter too. Along with some mono experience.

This buck was taken at less than 50yds with early version 180BTs from the 300 Weatherby as it climbed the rock slide in the background. The guy on the left and the one who took this picture got cold and built a fire. A couple bucks trotted by (being pushed by others down below). My friend killed that buck as it was quartering away, he said it reared up and fell backwards dead - bang flop. No blow up.


A buck I shot a few weeks later with early version 7mm 150 BT from a Ruger 7RM as it stood broadside at about 100yds. Again no sign of blowup:


A few recoveries from my 7-08s, the core is epoxied back in on the 140BT on the far left, all later versions:

A 139gr Hornady from one of my 7-08s recovered from a mule deer buck killed at about 450yds after it punched thru both shoulders


Still have some of the older versions of NBTs



Unlike monos, sometimes a fragment from a cup n core hits a nerve or artery and thats all it takes. And at long ranges it's helpful too.

And just for sake of conversation here's another photo of one of Darrell Holland's kills he sent me. He used a 70gr NBT out of his 6mm-06AI, the velocity is written on back of the pic. Now I don't recommend this bullet for deer sized game but it's obvious he placed it in the boiler room

Rex,

Here's how I started my post on page 3 here:

"The 140 7mm was also good to go from the beginning, according to the late Chub Eastman, who for years was the contact for writers at Nosler. I started using them in the late 1980s, and never recovered one."

I might also mention that when Nosler introduced Ballistic Tips they were designed for deer-sized game, as they already made a great bullet for game larger than deer.

They emphasized this the first few years, but so many hunters insisted on using Ballistic Tips on elk (because they were named Nosler, or because they were so accurate, or both) that they started getting complaints, especially about shoulder shots. In fact one of my fellow writers at the time was so impressed with the accuracy of 165 BTs in his .30-06 that he used them on elk.

He was not, however, very ballistically sophisticated, being more of a hunting writer. I warned him at the time that if kept using them on elk (he'd killed one raghorn bull with a rib shot) that he'd end up chasing a three-legged elk around someday. That happened the next fall, when he put one into the shoulder of a big cow, and it failed to penetrate. He eventually ran down the cow, but he could have saved a lot of trouble by using a 165 Partition. The finer accuracy of the Ballistic Tip didn't make any difference in killing elk, because he never shot beyond 400 yards anyway.

He did switch to Partitions after that, but there a LOT of hunters like him back then. Eventually Nosler grew weary of people using their deer bullets on elk, so developed the heavy-jacket Ballistic Tips. As I mentioned early in this thread, the first was the 200-grain .338, and after it proved to work fine they expanded the heavy-jacket Ballistic Tip to calibers and weights that also might be used on elk, primarily from 7mm up.

Swift ran into basically the same damn thing when they introduced the original Scirocco. They already made the A-Frame, a great bullet for game larger than deer, but many hunters (many if not most deer hunters) wanted something like the Ballistic Tip, with a plastic tip and boattail for a higher ballistic coefficient. (BC was getting to be a big deal about then, due to the appearance of laser rangefinders.)

Swift designed the original Scirocco to expand very widely, to make a bigger hole in deer and kill quicker. But many hunters saw Swift and "bonded" on the boxes, so expected Sciroccos to penetrate deeply, and used them on bigger game. The result? Eventually Swift had to redesign the Scirocco to expand less and penetrate deeper. Hence the Scirocco II.

^^^^^^

Well said!

As you increase the odds of an exit the carnage goes down. Carnage is what kills. At some point you get to where the animals almost always run and the entrance and exits are so small you dont have much blood if any tongues for tracking, whichbisnsuppose to be the purpose of an exit hole.

Wow I really appreciate all the responses, and good insight. I don’t want to hijack the OP’s thread. Although I have only been doing the western big game hunting thing for thirty years(I got a late start), I’ve tried to be a good student and learn all I can. Almost 61 now, I recognize I probably have maybe a decade and a half or so left. So though I have probably been happier with Partitions than anything over the years, I’ve been expanding my horizons a bit since 2018. My biggest point, for the OP, remains while I can’t compare to the SST as he hoped, I can report excellent performance by the BT I have used lately.

All the best from the ATL airport awaiting a connection,
Rex