Do low recoil cartridges with high sectional density projectiles kill above there pay grade? 😁

I don't know. Let's ask the Swedes.

Or the 160gr 7mm-08 / 7x57 users. Or the 140gr 260 / 6.5CM users.

Or the .270 150gr users

I have been having amazing results with 77 grainers in the 22/250

No.

Might be why there are so many new 6.5's on the market, someone finally figured that out.

Hope to have info on this combo this coming elk season. Daughter #1 will be using 150g ABLR.

I've always been a fan of high sectional density.. seems to work, fast or slow...

.358 Winchester hits hard, little recoil

CB shorts rule the swamps...the rest is silly.

I've used the 150 partition in the 270 for years and it was 100% reliable every time. I gave my 270 tikka to the son in law a year ago so unfortunately I don't have a 270 to test though I'm certain it will be a great combo with the 150 ABLR.

With the 150 partition my two favorite loads were 61 gr of RL26 and 58.5 gr of H4831SC. Both loads were temp stable and accurate though I would lean more toward H4831SC for accuracy and RL26 if you want velocity.

This year I'm useing a 6.5 swede and it's going to be either a 130 accubond or 142 ABLR I haven't decided just yet. Maybe use both on different game

Best wishes to you and your daughter hunting this year sir


Trystan

Yep. Got my 6.5x55 and a 2500 fps knitting needle ready for this year

The 25-35 win. with 117 gr bullet is one that kills better on game than it's paper ballistics would have you believe.

Yeah I think with a modern single shot action a 100 grain bullet in the 25-35 should be able to do 2700 easily

That will put some meat on the table in a hurry 😁

Better change your avatar back to a quilt

Of course they do. The number one thing you can do to ensure a non-dangerous game animal goes down quickly and is easy to find if it runs at all is produce a large exit wound with an expanded projectile. The way you ensure your expanded projectile exits is sectional density - really expanded sectional density, but since expansion ratios are at least close to constant the un-expanded sectional density and weight retention is a good proxy.

This is why .270 is so weak in terms of terminal performance on large game.

A bullet that doesn't exit on anything but a straight on shot is a bullet failure.

Dumbassery on parade right there.

fascinating!

Interesting! I've heard they bounce off? A high sectional density bullet will always bounce further than a low sectional density bullet given they are bullets of equal construction and of equal velocity.

I am assuming he was being facetious

If hunting, low recoil and high SD generally correspond to lower velocity and less bullet expansion. I’ll trade weight and SD for velocity (with a good game bullet) for typical hunting ranges, any day. There’s generally a balance. High SD bullets at moderate velocities have always killed stuff, but they’ve never been as emphatic as stuff going faster, regardless of SD. Just observations on #s and use. A 200gr .35 doesn’t have a very good SD ratio, but they penetrate out of proportion, in most cases I’ve seen.

Then you assume wrong. The .270 has a poor track record on larger animals - atrocious with the 130s, and merely bad with the 140s and 150s. There is a 160gr Partition that offers adequate terminal performance, but it's got a very poor BC. There are also bullets like the 180gr Weldcore that offer both a reasonable BC and excellent terminal performance, but which are not usable in a 1:10" factory rifle.

Winchester screwed the goat when they picked the twist rate initially, and the cartridge has been saddled with their mistake ever since. The .264WM with the 160 Weldcore for elk and the 130gr Accubond for smaller stuff trounces it. Even the Creedmoor is better.

No, he's legitimately that much of a stupidasss.

Um. Dead animal = bullet that did not fail. By definition.

De fungerar mycket bra!

John

I thought he was being facetious as well! I believe his last post corrected that assumption. Las, if we'd just pay closer attention to JG's words of wisdom we would struggle less and understand more. 😁

Lotta dead large game animals disagree with you.

+29

It’s not a bounce as much as it is a skip. Almost like a ricochet. I think it’s the animal’s hair that does it. Something about the texture.



P

😁😁😁

1. really depends on shot placement.
2. its not that they kill above their pay grade - more that the bigger boomers are somewhat over-rated.

I've several 6.5X55, and 6.5X57 shots where the dang bullet just skipped right through. Made a mess going through however. From 120's to the old Barnes original bullet 165's.

Well that's the stupidest thing I've seen all week

Nearly every wounded animal ends up a dead animal EVENTUALLY. That doesn't mean an adequately deep and wide wound was delivered to ensure a humane and timely kill with the animal near the location it was shot and a sizable blood trail to follow if it moves..

A bullet success is a bullet that a) expands and b) has the capability to penetrate the thickness of the animal and exit, including breaking skeletal bones if need be, on a side or quartering shot.

It's entirely possible to have an animal drop quickly from a total bullet failure IF you get lucky. Is you plan to count on luck?

Well my intent was not to describe a wounded animal which eventually died. And people reading without an agenda knew that.

When you have a projectile that penetrates very shallow, wounded animals with little or no blood trail are exactly what you get. Intent has nothing to do with it. That's why, for large game, sectional density is king.

+30

After reading his latest two efforts I'm going to give a "plus" to my own post......can I do that?

+31

Yes,you can.

Sectional density (by itself) isn’t worth spit, therefore it can’t be ‘king’ of anything. Sectional density can only ever matter if every other characteristic of the bullet is properly matched for the game...... otherwise (to use your own agenda) shoot FMJs and tell us how awesome that high SD is for dead animals. I get it: you’re an SD true believer. However, good bullet construction can overcome low SD. High SD can’t overcome bad bullet construction.

+1

Low sectional density can't overcome bad bullet construction either!

High sectional density bullets on average if of equal construction and velocity penetrate further than low sectional density bullets. Fortunately there are many great bullets of excellent construction to choose from today. A low sectional density bullet can be made to penetrate just as far and even cause much greater tissue, heart and lung damage, bust bones etc however it does come at a cost of much heavier recoil.


IME there are two things that are required to kill game and they are terminal damage and shot placement. Shot placement must be correct to inflict enouph terminal damage in the right area to take game so I would consider shot placement to be the most important of the two.


A high sectional density low recoil round that will sufficiently penetrate to reach vital areas whether it be heart and lungs or a CNS shot will kill game 100% of the time "IF" the shot is placed correctly including a full metal jacket performing a CNS shot

A low sectional density high recoil round cannot overcome a badly placed shot


I am simply offering the counter argument as to whether shot placement is the most important element or is terminal performance most important and do these lower recoil rounds provide an ample supply of terminal performance with some of todays finely constructed bullets?


Trystan

Ah yes, there's always one blithering idiot in a thread and in this one it's you. If you had the reading ability God gives most children, you'd have noticed that I say in order for a big game bullet's performance to be considered successful, it must expand AND penetrate through the animal. So you even mentioning FMJ is a sure sign of your idiocy.

And sectional density is still king

Llama Bob was the test medium for this study, obviously...........

In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence. The study made observations that people with substantial, measurable deficits in their knowledge or expertise lack the ability to recognize those deficits and, therefore, despite potentially making error after error, tend to think they are performing competently when they are not: "In short, those who are incompetent, for lack of a better term, should have some insight into their incompetence—an assertion that has come to be known as the Dunning–Kruger effec

And yet the physics is still on my side. The nice thing about facts is they remain true despite the blather of idiots like you

Both of y’all are stepping all over yourselves trying to figure out how to try to ignore what’s actually and only being stated. FMJ was only mentioned because cameltoe bob wants to insist it’s all that matters, while insisting he didn’t. Next we have some logical fallacy of bad bullet construction overcoming anything....which was never mentioned. TSXs have been raping sectional density worshippers for years, due to good bullet design. There are tons of light/short/low sd bullets that penetrate more than enough, expand more than enough, and kill more than enough.....due to good design, materials, and staying in their velocity parameters. Maybe y’all think someone here believes a round ball is the way to go, or that it can’t ever penetrate enough to begin with. Mostly, you just seem to want to figure out a way to argue the obvious by living in the extremes that no one else cares to.

Nice try. It's clear you still can't read. I specifically stated expansion was part of successful bullet performance.

And I see we've got a butthurt copper bullet child on our hands

Wasn't referring to you hh4whiskey. LB is a known stooge on this and most any other subject he participates in. It's apparent to everyone except him, which is why he fits the mold perfectly.

Oh, I had you on that. I was directing that to trystan’s imaginary subject of bad bullets vs low SD.

..... and FWIW, 1/100th of the bullets I hunt with might be ‘copper bullets’, if that. I also have yet to catch any bonded 90-110gr .277s between 2700 and 3k, or 125gr 308s, either. I guess if I was always nose or ass shooting critters, I might. I also wonder how much my WFNGC 180gr 35s expand, since I’ve never caught one.

go nuts

review material

+32

O.P. question:

"Do low recoil cartridges with high sectional density projectiles kill above their pay grade?"


Answer:

Let's ask 1000+ dead elephants and W.D.M Bell what they think of the 7x57 with 175 grain bullets, or the 6.5x54 with 160 grainers.
.
.

lighter projectiles at higher vel. tend to recoil less, science says so\ and my shoulder backs science up on that.

run the math on any cartridge you like.



is it any different for a high SD- low recoil badly placed shot?

I’m not sure the OP was asking about brain shots with FMJs/solids, for culling elephants....but he coulda been. IIRC , Bell used what reliably went ‘bang’ at the time, and that he could get ammo for.

Read this:

https://www.chuckhawks.com/bell_elephants.htm

WDM Bell proved beyond doubt that with adequate penetration and shot placement on the CNS,
the size of the bore mattered very little. However, he did find .256 bore 160gr FMJ prone to bending,
which did not happen with 7mm Mauser FMJ,.. but still his Mannlicher carbine was his favorite DG rig,
if not for the faulty necks of the Austrian ammunition, he would have continued using it over the 7x57.

What he also found was that the larger bore .318 WR was less prone to wandering off course,
and better for reaching the brain when having to traverse the neck.



He purposely chose military turn-bolt rifles for their proven ruggedness and reliability.
The most reliable rifle/cartridge combo he used was the Lee .303cal

On his first ivory safari he also had a .450 SxS, but proved too delicate and finicky.
or just an expensive pain in the ass.

I have, but still not sure what it has to do with 99% of hunting. If this IS about that 1%, the we can also read this:
Bell was a cheapskate. LOL

The cheapskate claim is typically made up by those who haven't studied Bell very much, if at all,
and often just repeat the nonsense of other clueless types.

Anyone who knows the list of rifles Bell owned over time would know he was not shy on spending

Double rifles, Mannlichers from Frazer and Gibbs, a dozen or more bespoke Mausers from Rigby,
As well as bespoke Springfields, Winchesters,..etc.

I wonder if anyone who calls him a cheapskate has ever purchased two Magnum mausers in .416
in the same year, along with the purchase of corresponding ammunition in the thousands of rounds count.

Most on the internet or with cell phones know what LOL means, too.

When I start shooting elephants out my back door with a gaggle of porters and trackers on hand, and am worried about my homeowners insurance going up, I may have to start looking for some old 7mm solids to shoot brain pans with. Until then, I’ll use better stuff for the tasks generally at hand, as should we all.

Old Bell probably would’ve loved my dad shooting bison bulls in the earhole with a 22LR. Nobody else though it was the way to go. LOL

Funny enough Bell never told anyone what to use, but plenty folks who have never shot an elephant
or cape buffalo tend to make recommendations,..lol. .. the will even go further and recommend a SxS..

Bell had his system down, exactly like he wanted it and how it worked for him, with what he had at the time. Nobody is begrudging him that or debating it. We’re far more likely to plug 1100 hogs or white tails these days, at least around here. I’m betting he’d have another ‘system’ for that.

I personally could give a ratsazzz what Bell did, what he used, his sytsem, etc. 99% of hunters on the planet will never get a shot at an elephant or cape buffalo.

No betting or guessing required if people bother to read Bells books.

his 'other system' was a George Gibbs .256 bore Mannlicher dedicated to all his other meat/skin game getting
outside of DG.

irrelevant some say? , well no, since it falls right smack bang in the category of high SD- low recoil of the O.P.

Where at times Bell may not have shot a single elephant for a month or more, his .256 Gibbs meat getter got
a constant workout/had a full time job.

Oh, I’m still betting he’d do things different today, no matter what he said 100 years ago. It’s fun to discuss, but we might as well argue over musket balls. They’ve got as much to do with big game hunting these days as what bell did with FMJs back when.

Most of Bells hunting was not with FMJs, he killed far more non-DG game for skins and meat with softs
than he did DG with FMJs.

iTs a shame you know so little about him , but do a lot of betting/guessing about him.

Could be. Seems he was also defensive about soft points ever sullying his rigby barrels. I’d say there’s still just a few more things available today, than he ever knew about, and a lot less reason for us to worry about applying his limitations to what we aren’t ever likely to do in this day and age.

well considering his .275 bore became his primary DG busting/elephant braining rifle.

No idea where this has gone, just know for me the High Sectional Density 6.5's have worked very well for me. Some higher velocity (3K fps) or lower. Bottom line is shot placement. I do believe however that the 6.5's and some others do work better than the paper specs show. A bad hunter will still be a bad hunter, no matter what cartridge is used.

Starman thinks he's impressing us.

Trying to impress?..no ..but we do have a mind reading attempt fail on your part.

however I may encourage some to read WDM Bell for themselves, rather listen to incessant guesswork drivel.

some of the crap I've had read over the years on various forums concerning Bell show many have not read Bell,
and just parroted utter BS or half-ass way out of context inaccurate snippets.

Some of dumbest things I've heard;
- he was a Scrooge, - he was a poacher, - he was recoil shy, - he only shot elephants in open country.

Late to the party, +32.

33

+34

I beg to differ! A ttx with a sectional density of .320 traveling at 2800 fps will penetrate much further than a TTX with a sectional density of .225 traveling at 2800 fps both bullets weighing 180 grains.

In fact, the ttx is an excellent example of expressing the usefulness of high sectional density


Trystan

Theoretically and in a vacuum, only.

SD is a measure of potential, only. Potential being realized is always dependent on other factors, not the potential itself. That’s the Achilles of trying to declare one aspect of what a bullet does, as more important than others. Whichever one expands less in the medium it hit, and sheds energy slower will penetrate the most.....no matter what the SD started out at. I have plenty of lower SD bullets that’ll out penetrate higher SD bullets on game.....purely because of construction and retained energy/velocity. Nobody is saying SD isn’t cool and can’t indicate certain things.....just like BC, weight, expansion, velocity, etc don’t work alone, either. Ifs and buts, candy and nuts.....the ONLY time SD is anywhere near a given as ‘better’, is IF ALL OTHER factors are equal. They rarely ever are.

Sectional Density is a Myth that reliably soothes Window Licking Retards. Congratulations?!?

SD is a mathematical arrangement,which correlates that EVERY projectile of like diameter/mass,shares IDENTICAL SD "values",though their relative performance/integrity runs the literal gamut and then some. Hint.

Pardon my having gunned more boolits,than all of you gals combined...a few of which may have even been Mono's. Hint. Laughing!

Not too many thangs are gonna outdig a .224" 62X or a .257" 100 Blue Meanie and pardon my being afforded the luxuries,of not being forced to guess. No slighting how much I enjoy you Do NOTHING Kchunts trying to out-Plagiarize one another,with all of your "hard charging" reading. I've simply BT/DT,have all the T-shirts and then some. Hint.

.254 SD at 200yds and small change. Broke both shoulders,exited and prolly still going...given the tenacity of the 6BR chambering and a 105 A-Max. Rather nice blend of mettle,Precision and performance. Hint.




You Fhuqktards are a riot,ONLY because you are doing your best.

Bless your hearts for trying.

Hint.

LAUGHING!.....................

I’ll take the penetration, but a bullet that expands and wrecks stuff.

Man, hunting season can’t happen fast enough. Stuffs getting crazy around here.

HH4 and Stick nailed it though. SD is cool but it’s a bunch of theoretical horseshit until you’ve killed a truckload of animals with both.

I've had excellent luck on game with the 150 gr. Sierra Game King and excellent accuracy with the 150 gr. Nosler Partition. I haven't used the ABLR in the .270 but have been trying for some time to get usable accuracy from the 7MM 150 gr. ABLR in three different 7x57s and a .280 Remington. So far three and four inch groups is what I'm getting. I used the 270 Game King on an antelope back in 2009 and the bullet hit at the short ribs and exited between the neck and the shoulder. Meat damage was not a problem on that light animal. It's worked quite well on deer and elk as well although I'll be using the Nosler Partition the next time I take the .270 for elk.
Paul B.

[beretzs]

Man, hunting season can’t happen fast enough. Stuffs getting crazy around here.

[/quote]

Amen Brother!!! And as soon as rifle season opens I'm going to shoot an elk from one end to the other instead of halfway thru....😁😁😁


Trystan

Look like the Dwarf from the North is back. Nothing to offer

What were the "odds" that The Whining CLUELESS Fhuqks went right to Whining and know better than to TRY and "talk" boolits. Congratulations?!?

Pardon Facts and Physics,upsetting your Imaginations and Pretend,so very reliably. hint.

Bless your heart for trying though.

Hint.

Laughing!..............................

Same water supply?

The 147 eld, 180 eld, 225 eld are all high sectional density bullets. Please feel free to extoll there virtues "AGAIN" because high sectional density and BC tend to coincide though it don't not mean schit?????....You have reliably circled the wagons and the pilgrims are in deep trouble! Keep on charging hard and don't let up you've got em cornered....Lol 😂😁😂

I’m not as hard corps as Stick and have only hammered a few deer with the 147 ELD from the Creed but that 225 would carry some darned mail in a 300.

I've shot more 147s at targets with my 6.5 swede than anything else but when it comes time to hunt I've only used the 130 accubond. The 130 accubond has worked so damn well I haven't been able to get myself to change. I agree the 225 would carry some mail though I've only ever used the 208 due to 10 twist barrels



Trystan

Trystain,

Please feel free to cite where I mentioned those projectiles in this discussion and mused their SD "values" as "virtues" anywhere/any time. It will be FUNNIER than fhuqk,if you try,mainly because it ain't ever happened. Hint. Congratulations?!?

"There" is obviously too "big" of a word for you. What do you "do" for a "living",given your rather AMAZING Stupidity? Hint.

In "fairness" however,I've shot every projectile cited and in more than one chambering,though luckily for you Imagination and Pretend are free,so you can "afford" to "contribute" ...you "lucky" kchunt. 'Course,I've shot more than a "few" others too. Hint.

As of this moment,I don't know of a Moose greater than 65.5" that was 147'd ala Kreedmire'd this Season. Suplizingly,only (1) All Time Book Sheep too,but more than a few Grizzlies thus far,all one and done. Ain't as many gents squirtin' .284" 180 ELD's,if only because there ain't too many S/A's equipped to handle same. Cain't know anyone who's gunning a Turdy caliber,exceptin' myself(I've more than a few) and the 225 ELD ain't much to get giddy about. 1-10" in '06 or greater capacity,stabilizes same just fine. Now you can say you've read about it. Hint. Laughing!

Your perpetual Dumbfhuqktitude never disappoints,in it's Magnificent Grandeur and it's always a hoot to be "regaled" by a Brokedick Retarded Fhuqk trying to "talk" about wares welllllll beyond her "means","abilities" and "comprehension".

Pardon my shooting it all and then some. Hint.

Bless your heart for TRYING though.

Hint.

LAUGHING!..........................

LOL....


Let’s go pure simpleton on this:

two bullets of the same weight/caliber will have the exact same SD, and two bullets of the same weight/caliber can have vastly different SDs once they hit something, regardless of shape, simply because of the simpleton math behind SD. The one with the most aerodynamic shape at the same weight/caliber will have a much higher BC AND the same SD.....therefore, worshipping SD is going full retard, when a mere change in bullet shape can kick its ass by it’s own math. Worshipping BC unless one needs a round nosed bullet, makes far more sense......and bears out if you go shoot stuff regularly......

Jesus Christ, what is SD??? That was 80’s I believe.... the last thought on killin... 😂

Not to mention bullet construction, which affects penetration.

Pure simpleton meet Full retard...

Bullets that are constructed longer generally penetrate further than bullets that are constructed shorter given they are bullets of equal construction yet unequally constructed in length........lol

Those who can’t do ........”teach”

constructed longer, constructed shorter, equally constructed, unequally constructed? Wow.

Again, ifs and buts, candy and nuts..... and SD by itself is nonsense. SD NOT by itself, is next to meaningless compared to everything else, combined.....construction, velocity, BC, material, target, etc.

Another good one for those challenged by common sense.

Ummm, the sectional density changes drastically once the bullet makes impact...... measure that.... hahahahaha

Kinda hard to do with a high sectional density bullet given they penetrate every time! I'm sure hh4whiskey has measured lots of his bullets 😁

I’m sure you’ve measured less.

Then again, since everything else is equal, they measure the same, anyway. LOL

I almost spit my coffee out when I read that 😁

Everything is equal when they both put what we are shooting at in the freezer


Trystan

S.D. is just one factor affecting penetration.

Other factors include expansion rate, amount of deformation, total frontal area, rate of weight loss and retained weight - all of which are dependent on bullet construction, impact velocity and physical characteristics of the material being impacted.

Who give a [bleep]?

Shoot them through the lungs, end of story.

Sheesh.



P

Considering I shot professionally for fifteen years and the one thing I did not want was a projectile exiting the kangaroos head and hitting stock I would suggest you are wrong, and the fifty plus thousand kangaroos I shot would disagree with you also.

In point of fact I have a bunch of 120 grain TTSX for use in my 7x64 on deer and I don't really care if they don't go through the animals, so long as they kill them and allow me to use the meat.


That said, were I to hunt those big bears you have there I would be inclined to go with a M2 and a half dozen belts of link and hope for as much penetration as I could get.

That is as pointless as asking foxes about 17 projectiles not exiting so as to not tear up the skin.

Horses for courses fellow.

The truth is that everyone is concerned about S.D., whether we think about it consciously or not. We learn about S.D at a very early age, even if we don't have a name for it or numerical values to compare. Kids know they can throw a marble farther than they can a grape or the Ace of Spades.

It wouldn't bother me to shoot antelope with a 55g .22 (S.D. .157), but I wouldn't consider it with a 55g .58 caliber (S.D. .023, assuming one existed). A bullet with that S.D. and weight would have to be going VERY fast to get past fur.

That said, using S.D. to compare the capabilities of bullets of similar size and shape but radically different construction is problematic at best. Over the years I've had lots of bullets pass through game and recovered others. We've been using TTSX since they came out, for antelope to elk, but we have never recovered a single one - regardless of weight, caliber, impact velocity or angle (broadside to lengthwise).

The reason you don't recover TSXs is that they barely expand (and at many velocities DON'T expand). What really matters for penetration is expanded SD, so they penetrate just fine.

What they don't do so good at is width of wound channel. I've seen more well-shot game lost with TSXs than any other premium bullet.

The advantage of a high unexpanded SD is that you can have your cake and eat it too if the jacket thickness and weight retention are suitable - a wide wound channel AND a deep wound channel. That's the strength of bonded/soft core high SD bullets like the heavier Weldcores. Their wound tracks are ideal. You can't get that with a low SD bullet - you can have one or the other but not both.

I compare that to the performance I get from a good old round nose bullet, like the hornady round noses....

Many tougher round noses work great in terms of terminal performance at a reasonable velocity, but the drag's a bitch

Have you recovered said TTSX that expanded and didn't expand?

He probably hasn't. In most instances when I see statements like his, when I ask follow up questions I hear things like, "The exit wound looked like a pencil poke". What that usually means is that they are so used to seeing baseball sized exits from cup and core bullets that come apart inside an animal, that when they see an exit from a bullet that actually holds together, they believe it "didn't expand".
Also, how can he claim that animals that were lost were "well-shot". If you didn't recover them, they were not "well-shot". I have yet to have a "well-shot" (i.e. both lungs, heart, or CNS) animals go more than 150 yards from impact to crash. The only ones that went over 50 yards for me were already amped up or were going downhill. I have had animals go farther, but I am not going to blow smoke up your butt and tell you that they were "well-shot". Did they die? Yep. Were they "well-shot"? Nope.

The reason we haven’t recovered TSX’s is we’ve never used them on game, based on unacceptable and inconsistent results using the original X bullets on game.

The TTSX and LRX are not the same. The tip boosts B.C., helping retained velocity, and the damage we’ve seen done isn’t the kind done by unexpanded bullets.



We have a 50% (or slightly better) rate of straight-down DRT results with MRX, TTSX and LRX bullets (all tipped X bullets). Two of those were mule deer where a frontal shot exited the rear. We’ve lost a grand total of ZERO animals with the TTSX, antelope, mule deer or elk. Those that don’t go straight down don’t go far. I did have an antelope run about 50 feet before collapsing and one cow elk swapped ends and took about 4 steps uphill. I wish all the C&C and other bullets we use had as good a record.



As far as I’m concerned, the Barnes TTSX, LRX, and bonded bullets (AccuBond, Scirocco II and A-Frame) we use are good enough. No problem with penetration or effectivity. S.D. may not be as high with the Barnes as with some of the Weldcore or other options available but dead is dead is dead. In other words, we DO get what we want with “low SD” bullets.

LB,what is the minimum SD that should be used for big game?

One thing I do like about the TTSX is that for weight it is long...so I don't feel so bad about putting the 120 gr through my Brno 21 which is set for long projectiles.

I would question why you're trying to achieve the minimum - "just how crappy a terminal performance can we get away with here?"

Weight retention also plays into it - weight that doesn't stick with the bullet doesn't count.

For stopping rifles for any sort of bear, I'd like to see SD=0.3 (mathematically illiterate grains/D/D/7000 method) and 90%+ weight retention across the full range of intended impact velocities. So in ..308 a 200gr Weldcore, Northfork, etc.

I would say the minimum for elk is SD=0.27 and typical weight retention of 70%+ across the full range of intended impact velocities. So in .308, a 180gr Partition, Hawk, Accubond etc.

For mule deer I'd say SD=0.22/70% retention. So in .308 a 150gr partition.

For whitetail, antelope etc. any big game bullet is probably fine.

Dumbass response again.

+35 I think is where we're at.........

And yet physics remains on my side while you blather on

I've killed 46 mule deer bucks in my life without ever consulting your stupid asss. Post some pics of your kills, not what you read somewhere.

Make that +36

Weight that “doesn't stick with the bullet” counts until it doesn’t stick. Hence bullet construction plays a huge part in determining the effect a bullt has.



So a 300g .458” bullet, S.D. .204, is woefully inadequate as a bear stopper? Are you nuts?



I killed a 6x6 bull elk with a 350g/.458” North Fork at 211 lasered yards. S.D. was .238. Another with a 150g BT/.308”, S.D. .225. Neither took a step. Think they would have walked away if they knew how low the S.D. values were?



So a small mule deer rates a higher S.D. than a large whitetail?

BTW, the formula for S.D. is NOT “grains/D/D/7000”. Are you “mathematically illiterate”?

How many animals did you kill to come up with those numbers?

I do believe in the smaller calibers that SD can make a difference. On the other end I shot about a dozen deer with a 9.3X62 with a Norma 232g bullet. Not a high SD bullet by any means. It does how ever hammer a deer, and does not tear up any meat.

S.D matters with every bullet, but taken alone it is a very poor indicator of terminal performance. To be meaningful in any way you need to specify a bunch of things, like construction, , impact velocity and rate, degree and manner of deformation. With those fixed or typical parameters and caliber known, S.D. becomes a more reliable predictor. But given all those knowns, you could use bullet weight just as well.

BTW, your 232g/9.3mm bullet has a S.D. of around .247. Don't try stopping any bears with it.

^^^^

As you point out: so many other factors have to be ‘right’ for SD to be worth considering, that what others have tried to say (if everything else is ‘right’, there’s no need to worry much about SD), becomes the reality.

If all things line up for a bullet to be good for the intended game use, (construction, expansion, weight, energy, velocity, BC, etc) the SD will (by default) be good. Any value SD has, is a product of other bullet attributes. Otherwise, SD is irrelevant.

Ummmm......dat was mean! 😂😂😂

Sectional density cant be used as a foundation based off of a number and so LB's theory is basically built on a foundation that was proven to be full of cracks years ago but only because bullet construction differs and therefore cannot be determined.

My guess is you knew he'd readily spew numbers....lol

Mathematically however the principles are solid IF everything were equal. If a person understands this along with bullet construction maybe, just maybe it would be possible to make the theory work for oneself to a reasonable degree


Trystan

The clowns are out in force in this thread led by their chief ignorants Coyote_Hunter and JGRaider. You guys are really good at being wrong

I'm going to update my advice. For SMART hunters, I recommend high-SD high weight retention bullets when dealing with large and particularly dangerous game. For the chief clowns, I recommend messing with big bears with the low-SD frangible crap you prefer. Get on it

I would take Coyote Hunter's and JGRaiders word over yours LB any day of the week.

Don't worry. I wasn't anticipating any intelligence out of you.

Nor I from you.

The nice thing about physics is it does care what clowns like you think

It’s purely incidental to other qualities/requirements being met first.

The smart guys realize that ANY good hunting bullet, matched for game-specific performance, has an adequate SD for the intended use, regardless of if they even care.

SD is purely an attempted, notional penetration quotient and IGNORES the rest of the physics variables.

You can have never even heard of SD and pick the best bear, elephant, deer, or whatever bullet.

You can worship SD over all else, and pick the worst.

There’s your sign.

Nice thing about clowns like me,we actually killed animals with a variety bullets and made up our own minds as to what works for us.

So you wouldn't want 12 or 20ga slugs to deal with something dangerous like.....bear? Those are low SD (like 0.12), low expanding projectiles. I'm guessing no one in bear country ever carries a Rem 870 pump for that scenario....

I enjoy you CLUELESS Fhuqking Retards,trying to Out-Retard one another...by simply doing your best. Hint. Congratulations?!?

A Scattergun is easily amongst THE last platform I'd want,in Bear Country and zero of those lamentations are SD oriented. Though in fairness,I've only seen (9) Bears thus far today.

Bless your hearts for trying.

Hint.

LAUGHING!...................

Above is LB's go-to statement for all his posts. You know what I say, SD is mid-evil pumpkin heaving crap, hows that. SD has no bearing in bullet performance, it is only a characteristic of measurement, like 1-foot=12-inches, that's it. It has no definitive application to anything with regard to physics/ballistics. Physics would be the material engineering of the components in testing and assessing the toughness of a material or in this case the bullet for the maximum amount of stress it can take before fracturing. The durability of a bullet goes to its elasticity and plastcity within a design range, this in turn reveals design strength and toughness at a given impact velocity and its expansion characteristics. Obviously firms like Hornady (their ELD) and others do painstaking research to develop projectiles that combine a given weight retention, expansion, and penetration at numerous tested impact velocities. I can assure you they never think about SD when they are developing these projectiles. They are basing their research on only materials engineering and how these materials interact under extreme stress through mediums. The physics involved would be combining these variables and refining them to a gnats ass. SD is only a number rendered by a bullets dimensions, hence its weight and diameter. These days with advanced technologies and the use of fusing advanced materials, SD is meaningless when it comes to penetration. For shooting solids it doesn't much matter whether pushing a .308, 147gr FMJ or .416, 400gr FMJ both will penetrate like all get-out, thus proving its about the materials not projectiles SD.

Only saw (12) this evening in an hour and a half,so (21) total for the day.

Hint...................

Good grief.........

BTW Mr. expert its not a .270 its a .277, just upping your SD fractionally so you can get a bit more penetration. What a crock.

For better or worse most of the weir operators here in Kodiak and lot of the technicians (all that I know) use 12 gauge pump shotguns. And I knew a couple of people who worked for the state that killed more than one bear with a 12 gauge. Maybe not the best choice but they get used a lot.

The SD on an unfired Brenneke slug is 0.130, if it expands to 80-cal and loses 10% of its weight it goes down to 0.100. Meanwhile, the SD on a 180-grain bullet retaining 70% of its weight and expanding to .50-cal is only 0.07. Hmm.

A little bit of the subject but something to think about. There is a salmon weir on a river that we fish on that is about a 2 hour 4 wheeler drive from the highway. There is a cabin by the weir for the people who count the fish to live in. This summer there were 2 girls in their 20's who would ride their 4 wheeler around wearing cut offs with bikini tops, and extra tuff boots. The girl in the back had a Remington 870 slung over her shoulder.

It was fun to see them.

It is a FASCINATING inside look at Retardation,for a Clueless Drooling DUMB Fhuqk,to "cite" what Minimum Wage folks are forced to slum as issued wares. Hint. Congratulations?!?

Flipside...burn up the phone and talk to every Brown Bear Guide you can,about entertaining a future Hunt and state plainly,that you will be using a Smoothbore,because of Bikini's,Xtra Tuff's,Minimum Wage and your 17 IQ Points conjoined in unison as "experience". Feel free to add your gullability to Myths and Wive's Tale,for even more "dramatic" pinache' and to "close" the deal. Hint. LAUGHING!

The ONLY reason this schit is sooooooooo fhuqking HILARIOUS,is due the fact you AMAZINGLY Stupid Fhuqks are doing your best!!!

Bless your hearts for trying though!

Yesterday evening.



Hint.

LAUGHING!...................

Not saying I agree with Llama Bob but I'm curious which bullet manufacturer personnel you spoke with to get this information? The reason I ask is because when I made a phone call to hornady and visited with Steve he told me that there higher sectional density offerings works better for penetration both in the field and in medium.

Trystain,

"There" is a direction. Hint. Congratulations?!?

Baby Man is looking there,because there are Bears there. Now there. Hint.

Here is there. Only (1) in this frame and it's over there. Hint.



Bless your heart for doing your best and being so prudent on the phone lines. LAUGHING!

You poor poor(literally) Retarded STUPID fhuqk.

Hint.

Laughing!.....................

Thanks Stick....thats a complement coming from you! Heres a little secret....Bears smell fear! If you is afraid you might get ait but if you isn't they don't mess with you. Don't need a sectional density bullet to dispatch a bear as the brainpan is an easy shot. Nice to see you breaking in the toddler correctly as there are far to many grandma's basement video game playin pussieees running round

Let's throw some gasoline on this little "fire". There is a parallel thread over on "Ask the Gunwriters", started with the op's query regarding meplats on cast bullets. Then MemT posted Rathcoombe's tests...unfortunately, there is a lot of text with very few cartoons, music video and color pictures. Thusly, it may not be of much value in making choices of caliber or projectiles.
Yes, I have been informed, sarcasm does not play well on the fire.

Trystain,

Baby Man is but 10 months old and saw more Bears in the flesh yesterday(21),than you have in the ENTIRETY of your "life". Hint. Congratulations?!?

I prolly should upload some videos,if only to further corroborate what a Drooling CLUELESS Fhuqk you are. Not that you don't do a MAGNIFICENT job of same,obliviously. Hint.



I enjoy you doing your best,and in a nutshell...folks who "know" and "do" as "much" as you,should be asking questions,rather than giving "answers". But PLEASE "tell" me more and stay the course. Hint. LAUGHING!

Do tell about "all" of your Bruin "brainpan" "experience" and the different recipes you've "used" upon same. I mean besides fhuqking ZERO. Hint.

Bless your heart for trying and lying,but what other "moves" do you "have"?!?

Hint.

LAUGHING!.....................

Not being able to keep up with you is a complement...hint Have you yet to figure out that a tikker action will NOT freeze up in a sleetstorm whereas your beloved Fieldcraft will. I did notice you bought a 223 tikker twisted 8????? Don't say I fhucqing told you so and when the weather turns you'll do well to pay attention though in all fairness you already have....hint 😁😂😂😂😁

May wanna frame that one.

Next time you're on the phone with Steve ask him why his 6mm-80 gr GMX (SD @ .193) retains approx 100% of its weight and will easily out penetrate his 6mm-103 gr ELDX (SD @ .249), which retains about 50% or so of its weight. The ELDX has a SD that is 29% greater than the GMX. I'm guessing its probably because the material engineering makeup is different and deigned to give a different performance characteristic, what do you think? SD is a constant, however I can change bullet performance by changing the variables in material makeup and bullet construction to render the constant meaningless when it comes to penetration.

Trystain,

I'm unfamiliar with the rifle you cite. Can you dangle a picture of "your's"? Hint. Congratulations?!?

Here in Kansas,October is forgiving,especially a few minutes ago. Hint.



In fairness,I've never shot a 223 and am not certain about twist. Perhaps you should Google even more,as you "flaunt" your Imagination and Pretend?!? Hint.

Bless your heart for lying and crying though.

Hint.

LAUGHING!...............




bob'1,

He ain't too ascared of much and has the right attitude.(grin)

Hangin' and bangin' is cool.



And bloody digits are welcomed.



This Kansas light gets harsh and I've seen me roll High-Key B&W,to mix thangs up. He's High-SD'ing here,give or fhuqking take.(grin)



He don't rock the boat.(grin)



GOOD times........................

All you gotta do to get a bear picture is drive through the state Park. Hint.

Way to support the little tyke’s head! Did you go to the ER yet for neck trauma?

that's about as ridiculous [in the other extreme] as those who worship SD.

how can SD of a projectile in target be considered meaningless to penetration?



Once an expanding design projectile enters target, SD will variably alter according to changes in weight and frontal area.

I already asked Steve and he said a 150 gmx will out penetrate a 139 gmx on a regular basis. In fact Steve said any gmx compared to another gmx the higher sectional density one outpenetrates the lower sectional density offering almost every single time when tested on game and when tested in medium. ! Same goes for comparing elds! Same goes for comparing SST's. Maybe you should call Steve again and ask him if higher sectional density gmx's at equal velocities outpenetrate lower sectional density gmx's! If you are mixed all up yes sectional density becomes meaningless! The fact that it can be easily sorted means it is not meaningless. Whichever make bullet you decide to use if you find penetration to be insufficient but you like the makeup of that bullet simply step up one size and penetration will increase without fail almost every single time. Of course if you mix and match and switch and fucqk around you might be lost to begin with and sectional density probably isn't a conversation one should even be having let alone picking an appropriate bullet for the task at hand

Good point--one I attempted before on this subject. Comparing apples to apples is useful, comparing apples to oranges is not............

Alwaysindoors,

Just which "State Park" are you trying to cite? You Drooling DUMB fhuqks are a Hoot! Hint. Congratulations?!?

Baby Man keeping tabs on Bears. Hint. Laughing!




You be SURE to quantify all the other things,which sooooooo reliably stump you,from your Couchbound Kchunt and "plethora" of "experience". Hint.

Bless your heart for trying though!

Hint.

LAUGHING!..................

some grow up smart , some grow up tough, ...make sure Baby Man grows up both tough and smart....

Pics of bears do not mean jack chit.

Alwaysindoors,

Pardon Reality,yet again colliding with your FANTASY. Hint. Congratulations?!?

In no particular order...for you to get a picture of a Bear,you'd first need a camera,then actually see your first Bear,then align your Drooling Retardation to capture the "moment". No "surprise" at all,upon your contention,of those "odds" being beyond your reality. Hint. LAUGHING!

Only (1) in this frame. Hint.



Keep "extolling" your versions of "knowledge","experience" and "results". Hint.

Bless your heart for crying.

Hint.

LAUGHING!.................