Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting 338 Federal - 160 gr vs 210 gr

If the point is "shooting flatter", take a gander at the BC's of the two bullets- not for the reason you are thinking, though!

(Now before I get drawn and quartered, let me say that IN MY OPINION, BC is almost meaningless in a hunting bullet- within reason.)

But if we are worrying about how flat it shoots, then we are planning on maybe shooting this sucker longer ranges, no? I don't know the BC of the Barnes nor the 210 Noz, but for illustrative purposes in my .358, the 200-gn Hornady (BC= low .2's) is unusable past about 250 yards, due to wind drift. It just blows all over. The 225 Partition (BC = mid .4's) is flat-out deadly out to 400 yards! And in addition to that, the 225-gn bullet, which starts out 150 fps slower, is actually going FASTER than the 200-gn bullet, at said 400 yards.

So if the BC of that 160-gn .33 is very low, anyone planning on shooting it at longer ranges should at least check the drift, especially from a relatively slow-mover like a .338 Fed. It might work fine, but then again, it might not. That's a short bullet right there.

My opinion is, if longer ranges matter to a person, use a heavier bullet, not lighter, and just know your drops.

Anyway... Just a thought... and I wouldn't have spoke it out loud like this, if I hadn't just seen this point so clearly illustrated in the last few months, with my own eyes.

Some serious inconsequential off-season ballistic gack found in this thread....

Is it deer season yet?


grin...

Sorry. I am guilty as charged <g>.

No offense intended Jeff I assure you but I have just annointed you as Chair of the inconsequential off-season ballistic gack (IOBG) committee...

I am a past member of this committee...



big grin...

Fair enough <g>.

Do I get a gavel? Free beer? A French maid to clean my quarters? SOMETHING?

(maybe just a headache <g>)

Dude, I've seen your quarters (with clothing on) and no french maid in her right mind would go near them.

BMT

Who says she needs to have clothing on?

Oh- if I get to be Chairman of the Committee, I must insist on going commando under the robes. Executive privelage, plus general ventilation.

Now, let's talk about what caliber gavel is best <BSEG>...

BillN, Once they hit hair, hide and that first inch or so of flesh the SD evens out. That SD thing only works on FMJ or solids.
What is the SD of a partially expanded 270/160? How about fully expanded? Got any ideas?

I always thought about SD as being how much caboose is back there pushing the train...

If two bullets expand equally, but one has a much higher SD... isn't there more "shank" pushing the mushroom of the higher-SD bullet through the animal?

Or, imagine two semi trucks in a head-on collision. Both have the same tractor, but one has a short trailer loaded with whatever, and the other has a long trailer loaded with the same whatever. The longer one would "penetrate" deeper... wouldn't it??

An honest question... just wondering if I'm visualizing things wrong.

Where I think you are correct, 338Fed, is that lead-core bullets tend to shed bullet weight... thus rendering SD sort of irrelevant compared to a bullet that doesn't shed weight.

But all else equal, a higher-SD bullet will penetrate deeper. I hope I'm not wrong about that because MAN that makes sense to me! :-)

Barnes lists BC of the 338/160 TTSX at .342. The 257/100gr NosPart lists at .377.
Not much difference.
The beloved "Bob", (gotta hate that term--love the ctg) launches that 100gr at about the same as original posters 338Fed/160TTSX load.
Could drop, wind drift, SD and BC negate the 338 load to the same uselessness as the 257 load? Just say NO!

"Sectional density is the ratio of an object's weight to its cross-sectional area. It conveys the ability for an object to overcome resistance. When a projectile is in flight or impacting an object, it is the sectional density of that projectile which will determine how efficiently it can overcome the resistance to air or object. The greater the sectional density is for a projectile the greater its efficiency is and therefore ability to overcome the resistance of air and object.

Sectional density is stated as:

SD = M/A

* SD = Sectional Density
* M = Mass of the object, kg or lb
* A = cross-sectional area, m2 or in2"

Jeff,
You are correct sir. The SD changes as the bullet expands, due to the fact that the SD is calculated based on the area of the frontal face of the bullet. None-the-less, the heavier bullet will penetrate deeper given equal bullet construction, and expansion diameter and rate.

Conclusion: The 160 TTSX will be sufficiently wind resistant for any sane range you would use this cartridge at, and will penetrate anything you want to shoot with it just fine.

If it were me I'd use the 210's. This is a proven bullet in this caliber. The light bullet thing only makes sense to me when used in a cartridge capable of pushing them really fast. Good Luck!

JO and Jordan Smith, I agree with both of you. My first comparison was 270/160/NP against 338/160/TTSX. I think they'd both keep shank and keep on piling in.
Guess I'm just saying that makes the 338Fed at least as effective on elk as a good 270Win. Move on up to the 210 and
things get even better.
Good explanations, JO.

Personally, I would be on the 270/160 out penetrating the 338/160 by quite a margin.

I am not a total fan of the whole light TSX bullet thing, last fall a bud shot a nice bull at just under 400 yds and his 185 TSX didn't exit. Now maybe it would on the next 49 bulls that he shoots at that range, and then again maybe it wouldn't.

I like 2 holes enough that it made me think a bit and that is always a scarry thing.

I'd no doubt go 210 if it were my choice.

Dober

Penetration is equal, but the hole is bigger with the .338Fed, making it more effective (perhaps only on paper though).

Well, you guys know I'm a .358 slut, and had 338 Federal existed in non-wildcat form whenI did my re-barrel I'd probably be a .338 Fed slut instead... so I'm really not arguing whether 338 Fed is wonderful little cartridge; in my mind, it is.

To my mind, and perhaps this is what Dober is saying also though I wouldn't presume to speak for the man, the 210 Partition is a known quantity while a 160-gn copper bullet, in .33 caliber, is definitly getting into the "science project" realm.

I'm all for science projects but if it were ME, that science project would happen on a caribou hunt where I had multiple tags... or on a gimmee cow elk hunt... or on a baited black bear... something other than a coveted bull elk hunt.

The bullet is not much of a science project. The experiment (as it always is) is how well the shooter can place the bullet. If the bullet goes to the right place, the outcome is quite predictable, the animal will die.

Agreed, but let's put it this way. If you called Barnes and asked them, their standard answer is "drop down a bullet weight and drive it fast". This would be dropping down... gosh... at least two bullet weights from the "standard" for .338 which is 225 grains...

Anyhow for me I'd run either the 185 TSX or the 210 NP for elk... but on the other hand, I look forwards to reading all about how well that 160 works! It's a brave new world out there, things are changed, the old paradigms are losing meaning... and I'm here to learn so if it works, that's GREAT news, not bad news, in my book

If you do decide to use the 160 TTSX, be sure and let us know how it works.

It's definitely on the light end for elk, no question about it. But I'm excited to read the story of the hunt and the outcome of the 160 TTSX blowing clean through a big old bull