Not too knoweledgeable on this. I very much like gold dots but the 120 grain b/c is a pedestrian .457
I must not have the divine revelation as to 6.5 ... yet.
I must not have the divine revelation as to 6.5 ... yet.
147 ELD
Thanks, just looked it up.... the eld x is over .6
Will they load mag length in a 260?
Will they load mag length in a 260?
Depends on the .260.
Creedmoor anyone? 
Remington 700 factory. Buds had em with the 1 8 twist about 3 years ago
One I'm interested in, at least in factory ammo for now, is the Federal 130gn TLR. They CLAIM a .625 BC on a 130gn bullet. Will definitely want to validate that, but that could be a great hunting alternative.
Robert White,
If seated to fit in the magazine, they probably won't be anywhere near the lands. That may not matter, though: Have seen a lot of rifles shoot anywhere from very accurately to great with bullets seated well off the lands. In fact I built my recent 6.5 PRC on a "short magnum" 700 action, and most bullets (including one of the ELD's) shoot BETTER when seated to 2.86" overall length so they'll fit in the magazine than when seated to the SAAMI 2.95" standard for the PRC.
If seated to fit in the magazine, they probably won't be anywhere near the lands. That may not matter, though: Have seen a lot of rifles shoot anywhere from very accurately to great with bullets seated well off the lands. In fact I built my recent 6.5 PRC on a "short magnum" 700 action, and most bullets (including one of the ELD's) shoot BETTER when seated to 2.86" overall length so they'll fit in the magazine than when seated to the SAAMI 2.95" standard for the PRC.
The 139 grain Lapua Scenar is a great bullet in the 260
I am keen to try the 130 grain Gamechanger
I am keen to try the 130 grain Gamechanger
Originally Posted by Mule Deer
Robert White,
If seated to fit in the magazine, they probably won't be anywhere near the lands. That may not matter, though: Have seen a lot of rifles shoot anywhere from very accurately to great with bullets seated well off the lands. In fact I built my recent 6.5 PRC on a "short magnum" 700 action, and most bullets (including one of the ELD's) shoot BETTER when seated to 2.86" overall length so they'll fit in the magazine than when seated to the SAAMI 2.95" standard for the PRC.
If seated to fit in the magazine, they probably won't be anywhere near the lands. That may not matter, though: Have seen a lot of rifles shoot anywhere from very accurately to great with bullets seated well off the lands. In fact I built my recent 6.5 PRC on a "short magnum" 700 action, and most bullets (including one of the ELD's) shoot BETTER when seated to 2.86" overall length so they'll fit in the magazine than when seated to the SAAMI 2.95" standard for the PRC.
But Wait!
You're giving up ALL of that powder capacity from seating your bullets out further!
David
Originally Posted by Castle_Rock
The 139 grain Lapua Scenar is a great bullet in the 260
I am keen to try the 130 grain Gamechanger
I am keen to try the 130 grain Gamechanger
I've popped a few whitetails with the Scenar, it does work. I have all my reloading gear packed for an anticipated move soon, so I bought some Factory ammo, just so as to have something to shoot. Three different Berger ammo loads (136gr Scenar L, 130gr Berger Hybrid, and 140gr Hybrid) and Hornday's Match load with the 130gr ELD.
I have three rifles chambered in the 260 - one being target orientated. It has a whole lot of like for the 139gr Scenar, and does nearly as well with the 140gr ELD. I'm hoping it takes a shine to these loads also. I will probably try a couple of groups with the other two rifles (Ruger 77, Forbes 20b) - both of those rifles seem to love the 120s better though....
Kaiser Norton
Originally Posted by Robert_White
Thanks, just looked it up.... the eld x is over .6
Will they load mag length in a 260?
Will they load mag length in a 260?
I have shot them in my Rem 700 action and they do fine at mag length. It is a pretty compressed load, which is irrelevant. I have killed deer and antelope with them. I now leave that bullet for my Creed and depend on the 129 Interlock for my hunting needs in two .260s. They are great out to 500 at least.
I killed a pretty big mule deer at 408 yds with my .260 using the 129 ABLR. It is a pretty soft bullet. There was a lot of damage inside.
2 shots, one pass through and one bullet on the hide that weighed about 80 gr.
Lefty
2 shots, one pass through and one bullet on the hide that weighed about 80 gr.
Lefty
Originally Posted by Jordan Smith
147 ELD
+1
John
Don't overlook the Scirocco II
When I had a 260 I loaded it with Berger 130 VLD hunting bullets to fit within mag confines. It did great over 43.5 grains H4350. Great hunting load!
Could also try the Berger 135 grain classic hunter - looks like it will fit within mag box easily and berger's data shows pretty impressive velocity with R26.
Originally Posted by Castle_Rock
The 139 grain Lapua Scenar is a great bullet in the 260
So is the 123 scenar, if you're looking for a bullet in that weight class. BC of .527.
The Berger 140 grain hunting VLD is the best shooting bullet in my .260 Rem Tikka, but I had to modify the magazine and bolt stop to be able to seat the bullet to the lands and get the accuracy I was expecting.
On game it has been making a string of one shot kills in this Tikka and a 6.5 x .284 on deer, such that I don't feel the need to seek improvement.
On game it has been making a string of one shot kills in this Tikka and a 6.5 x .284 on deer, such that I don't feel the need to seek improvement.
Originally Posted by Robert_White
Not too knoweledgeable on this. I very much like gold dots but the 120 grain b/c is a pedestrian .457
I must not have the divine revelation as to 6.5 ... yet.
I must not have the divine revelation as to 6.5 ... yet.
Surprised no one has said this already so I'll be the one to get flamed.
BC does not make hunting bullets kill better.
Not sure what you're hunting but my 6.5 Creedmoor has provided one shot kills on whitetails, coyotes, axis, and feral pigs. All were taken with the Hornady 140 SST. If it matters, the G1 is posted at .527. It matters more to me that the cold bore always strikes POA, accuracy is more than acceptable and, as they say on Forged in Fire "it will kill".
[/quote]
Surprised no one has said this already so I'll be the one to get flamed.
BC does not make hunting bullets kill better.
[/quote]
This and flame on. Just about any 6.5 mm bullet over 120 grains has a decent BC for typical hunting ranges. If you routinely shoot game at 1800+ yards yes it will make a difference. The 129 ABLR is doing well near and far in my Swede to date, eight deer. It is doing so well I haven't bothered with the 140s yet.
Surprised no one has said this already so I'll be the one to get flamed.
BC does not make hunting bullets kill better.
[/quote]
This and flame on. Just about any 6.5 mm bullet over 120 grains has a decent BC for typical hunting ranges. If you routinely shoot game at 1800+ yards yes it will make a difference. The 129 ABLR is doing well near and far in my Swede to date, eight deer. It is doing so well I haven't bothered with the 140s yet.
In my experience, BC does help to a certain extent in "killing power," in two ways:
First, you don't have to start high-BC bullets at what we generally think of as high velocity, 3000 fps or more, an old American tradition going back to the .250 Savage and .270 Winchester. Instead bullets can be started at more moderate velocities of, say 2700-2800 fps, which results in good performance even at closer ranges from cup-and-core bullets.
Second, high-BC bullets catch up to or even pass the velocity of faster, lighter conventional bullets pretty quickly, so perform well at longer ranges too, whether in expansion and penetration, or retained energy.
In other words, high BC tends to even out velocity over "normal" hunting ranges, resulting in more consistent expansion and penetration even if you never shoot at "long" range, however that's defined.
First, you don't have to start high-BC bullets at what we generally think of as high velocity, 3000 fps or more, an old American tradition going back to the .250 Savage and .270 Winchester. Instead bullets can be started at more moderate velocities of, say 2700-2800 fps, which results in good performance even at closer ranges from cup-and-core bullets.
Second, high-BC bullets catch up to or even pass the velocity of faster, lighter conventional bullets pretty quickly, so perform well at longer ranges too, whether in expansion and penetration, or retained energy.
In other words, high BC tends to even out velocity over "normal" hunting ranges, resulting in more consistent expansion and penetration even if you never shoot at "long" range, however that's defined.
Originally Posted by Hondo64d
Originally Posted by Jordan Smith
147 ELD
+1
John
I need to try me some of those. The 140gr. ELD does pretty good in my rifle, so I haven't made the switch yet... As I understand it, the 147 with the bc of .697 vs the 140 with a bc of .646 would mean about .1 mil difference of wind drift at 1000 yards. This could mean quite a bit to a longrange target shooter or someone that is shooting past 1000 yards on a regular basis. One thing to consider is you will lose velocity by going to the 147. How much of a benefit will the heavier bullet have in most hunting situations?
Originally Posted by Mule Deer
In my experience, BC does help to a certain extent in "killing power," in two ways:
First, you don't have to start high-BC bullets at what we generally think of as high velocity, 3000 fps or more, an old American tradition going back to the .250 Savage and .270 Winchester. Instead bullets can be started at more moderate velocities of, say 2700-2800 fps, which results in good performance even at closer ranges from cup-and-core bullets.
Second, high-BC bullets catch up to or even pass the velocity of faster, lighter conventional bullets pretty quickly, so perform well at longer ranges too, whether in expansion and penetration, or retained energy.
In other words, high BC tends to even out velocity over "normal" hunting ranges, resulting in more consistent expansion and penetration even if you never shoot at "long" range, however that's defined.
First, you don't have to start high-BC bullets at what we generally think of as high velocity, 3000 fps or more, an old American tradition going back to the .250 Savage and .270 Winchester. Instead bullets can be started at more moderate velocities of, say 2700-2800 fps, which results in good performance even at closer ranges from cup-and-core bullets.
Second, high-BC bullets catch up to or even pass the velocity of faster, lighter conventional bullets pretty quickly, so perform well at longer ranges too, whether in expansion and penetration, or retained energy.
In other words, high BC tends to even out velocity over "normal" hunting ranges, resulting in more consistent expansion and penetration even if you never shoot at "long" range, however that's defined.
While not discounting what you say, I find it somewhat confusing. It seems that most shooters, match or hunting, use high BC bullets coupled with the highest possible velocity to provide them the ability to reach longer targets with less drop and drift. Most will not equate lower velocity to good performance.
I think what you're saying with the second part is basically choose slower heavier bullets over faster lighter ones because the heavy looses less downrange performance past a certain distance. True?
If I was limited to a single 6.5mm component bullet, I'd pick the 130 grain AB along with its plebeian 0.488 BC and go happily about my business.
If there is a tangible advantage to the 129 grain AB-LR and its 0.530 BC, I'd love to know what it is.
If there is a tangible advantage to the 129 grain AB-LR and its 0.530 BC, I'd love to know what it is.
Hey 26remguy, maybe a good choice and I certainly go along with the keep it simple approach. What is your experience with this bullet if I may ask?
They shoot small groups from every 6.5 Creedmoor, 260, 6.5-284, 6.5x55, and 256 Newton that I've tried them in and they kills deer DRT. They are the most accurate hunting bullet that I've shot in my V2 Creedmoor and that rifle is the most accurate box stock CF rifle that I have owned.
Plus, the 129 grain Hornady SSTs shoot to the same approximate POA and they are almost always less expensive to practice with.
Plus, the 129 grain Hornady SSTs shoot to the same approximate POA and they are almost always less expensive to practice with.
Thanks for the added info I do appreciate hearing that. I just found an unopened box of em and will try em in my 6.5PRC.
Originally Posted by Mac284338
Thanks for the added info I do appreciate hearing that. I just found an unopened box of em and will try em in my 6.5PRC.
The 130 gr AB is one of my favorites in the 260 as well, I expect you'll like them in your 6.5 PRC. The 140 gr Ballistic Tip is my other favourite 6.5 mm bullet for deer.
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
If I was limited to a single 6.5mm component bullet, I'd pick the 130 grain AB along with its plebeian 0.488 BC and go happily about my business.
If there is a tangible advantage to the 129 grain AB-LR and its 0.530 BC, I'd love to know what it is.
If there is a tangible advantage to the 129 grain AB-LR and its 0.530 BC, I'd love to know what it is.
The BIG advantage of the 129 over the 130 when I was looking for a new 6.5 bullet was that the 129 was available......grin.... It's worked perfectly but I believe the 130 would have been just as good and it was actually what I wanted to try but was out of stock so I went with the 129....no complaints.
shoots4fun,
"It seems that most shooters, match or hunting, use high BC bullets coupled with the highest possible velocity to provide them the ability to reach longer targets with less drop and drift."
You mean like the tens of thousands of hunters who've purchased 6.5 Creedmoors in the past few years? While there might be a 6.5 Creedmoor factory load that gets 3000 fps, the vast majority of them are well under, and even "hot" handloads with bullets in the 140-grain class only get 2750-2800.
While quite a few long-range shooters (which we'll define here as those who shoot at 500+ yards) do prefer higher muzzle velocities, as I have already pointed out, there are advantages to higher BC's even at moderate muzzle velocities. The 6.5 Creedmoor, for instance, performs just as well as the .270 Winchester out to 500 yards, but with noticeably less recoil and wind-drift--and usually, better out-of-the-box accuracy with very affordable rifles and factory ammo.
That said, I first realized the advantages of higher BC back when I started hunting with the .270 Winchester in the 1970's. I soon discovered, due to a lot of range practice and hunting, that 150-grain spitzers drifted less in the wind, and seemed to kill better, at longer ranges than the usually recommended 130's. Which is why my standard hunting bullet eventually became the 150 Hornady Spire Point (though later on I started using the 150 Partition for game larger than deer). The reason for all this was, of course, that even though the 150's started out 200 fps slower, they did everything better at longer ranges than the 130's, while not shooting up as much meat at closer ranges.
Which is exactly what the 6.5 Creedmoor does today. It's another step in the same direction.
"It seems that most shooters, match or hunting, use high BC bullets coupled with the highest possible velocity to provide them the ability to reach longer targets with less drop and drift."
You mean like the tens of thousands of hunters who've purchased 6.5 Creedmoors in the past few years? While there might be a 6.5 Creedmoor factory load that gets 3000 fps, the vast majority of them are well under, and even "hot" handloads with bullets in the 140-grain class only get 2750-2800.
While quite a few long-range shooters (which we'll define here as those who shoot at 500+ yards) do prefer higher muzzle velocities, as I have already pointed out, there are advantages to higher BC's even at moderate muzzle velocities. The 6.5 Creedmoor, for instance, performs just as well as the .270 Winchester out to 500 yards, but with noticeably less recoil and wind-drift--and usually, better out-of-the-box accuracy with very affordable rifles and factory ammo.
That said, I first realized the advantages of higher BC back when I started hunting with the .270 Winchester in the 1970's. I soon discovered, due to a lot of range practice and hunting, that 150-grain spitzers drifted less in the wind, and seemed to kill better, at longer ranges than the usually recommended 130's. Which is why my standard hunting bullet eventually became the 150 Hornady Spire Point (though later on I started using the 150 Partition for game larger than deer). The reason for all this was, of course, that even though the 150's started out 200 fps slower, they did everything better at longer ranges than the 130's, while not shooting up as much meat at closer ranges.
Which is exactly what the 6.5 Creedmoor does today. It's another step in the same direction.
Jeff,
I'll start by pointing out that "high BC" is relative term. When both AccuBonds and SST's were introduced 15 or so years ago, THEY were considered high-BC hunting bullets. So were Ballistic Tips when Nosler introduced them in the mid-1980's.
Among their advantages promoted even "way back then" were finer accuracy, flatter trajectory, more retained veloicity and energy, and less wind-drift.
But since you claim to use 130 AccuBonds because of their fine accuracy and the way they kill deer, I'll note that the accuracy of 129 ABLR's has been even better more than one of my 6.5 rifles, and the "killing power" so far better as well.
I'll start by pointing out that "high BC" is relative term. When both AccuBonds and SST's were introduced 15 or so years ago, THEY were considered high-BC hunting bullets. So were Ballistic Tips when Nosler introduced them in the mid-1980's.
Among their advantages promoted even "way back then" were finer accuracy, flatter trajectory, more retained veloicity and energy, and less wind-drift.
But since you claim to use 130 AccuBonds because of their fine accuracy and the way they kill deer, I'll note that the accuracy of 129 ABLR's has been even better more than one of my 6.5 rifles, and the "killing power" so far better as well.
Originally Posted by Mule Deer
Jeff,
I'll start by pointing out that "high BC" is relative term. When both AccuBonds and SST's were introduced 15 or so years ago, THEY were considered high-BC hunting bullets. So were Ballistic Tips when Nosler introduced them in the mid-1980's.
Among their advantages promoted even "way back then" were finer accuracy, flatter trajectory, more retained veloicity and energy, and less wind-drift.
But since you claim to use 130 AccuBonds because of their fine accuracy and the way they kill deer, I'll note that the accuracy of 129 ABLR's has been even better more than one of my 6.5 rifles, and the "killing power" so far better as well.
I'll start by pointing out that "high BC" is relative term. When both AccuBonds and SST's were introduced 15 or so years ago, THEY were considered high-BC hunting bullets. So were Ballistic Tips when Nosler introduced them in the mid-1980's.
Among their advantages promoted even "way back then" were finer accuracy, flatter trajectory, more retained veloicity and energy, and less wind-drift.
But since you claim to use 130 AccuBonds because of their fine accuracy and the way they kill deer, I'll note that the accuracy of 129 ABLR's has been even better more than one of my 6.5 rifles, and the "killing power" so far better as well.
John,
I like the 129/130 grain 6.5mm bullets because the have always worked well for me and they seem to offer a nice balance of velocity, accuracy, and penetration potential. Charles Newton recommended a 130 grain bullet for the 256 Newton and even though Newton did his cartridge development over 100 years ago, I think that he was a pretty sharp guy who hit the bullet weight sweet spot for medium case capacities 6.5mm bore cartridges.
Depending on the rifle and its intended purpose, I shoot 100, 120, 123, 129, 130, and 140 grain 6.5mm component bullets. I would like to shoot the 125 grain Partition, but have never found a load that would shoot groups as good as the 129 grain Hornady or 130 grain AB, so when the accuracy paths diverged, I chose to follow the 129/130 path.
I haven't tried the 129 grain ABLRs, but, based on your recommendation, I probably will, at least it will give me a reason to break out a new Remington 700 ADL Varmint that I bought last June, but haven't gotten around to take off the shelf to rework into a BDL format and bedded it in a better/stiffer stock. I don't know how the "killing power" of the 129 grain ABLRs could be any better than that which I've experienced with the 130 grain ABs, as every whitetail that I've shot with an AB hasn't moved more than a few feet from the place that they were standing when hit.
I'm not a long range hunter, as I hunt in a place where 440 yards would be an extreme shot, with most presenting themselves between 75 and 150 yards, so any properly constructed bullet fired at a reasonable velocity will do the job. My Son, his friend, and I shot 7 whitetails last November with 7 125 grain Winchester/Olin Deer Season XP factory loads. All 7 deer died quickly when shot through the lungs at ranges from 15 to (maybe) 100 yards.
These days, my primary hunting focus is on fox squirrels with 17HM2s, so no reloading and few factory load options other than hording the long discontinued Eley and Remington ammo.
EDIT: Is there a meaningful difference in downrange performance within 500 yards tied to the difference in BC between the 0.488 for the 130 grain AB and the 0.530 for the 129 grain ABLR?
Jeff,
The farthest any deer I've shot with 129 ABLR's has gone was one cross-step sideways.
One characteristic that I've seen not just in ABLR's but a number of other higher-BC bullets is they often shoot better when seated deeper. For example, in my 6.5 PRC they shoot best seated about .1 inch short of the SAAMI standard 2.95 overall length, with 5-shot groups (not 3-shot) averaging 1/2" at 100 yards. (3-shot groups are usually all touching.) Even in my 6.5x57R drilling with 1-4x scope, 5 go into an inch at 100.
They're also less expensive than the 130's!
The farthest any deer I've shot with 129 ABLR's has gone was one cross-step sideways.
One characteristic that I've seen not just in ABLR's but a number of other higher-BC bullets is they often shoot better when seated deeper. For example, in my 6.5 PRC they shoot best seated about .1 inch short of the SAAMI standard 2.95 overall length, with 5-shot groups (not 3-shot) averaging 1/2" at 100 yards. (3-shot groups are usually all touching.) Even in my 6.5x57R drilling with 1-4x scope, 5 go into an inch at 100.
They're also less expensive than the 130's!
My experience with after shooting several deer each with the 129 gr ABLR, 130 gr Accubond and 140 gr Ballistic Tip is the ABLR makes bigger exit holes but they all kill just as well as the other. The 140 gr BT does what the other do at less cost too lol. It just doesn't shoot as flat at 260 Rem speeds, that's where the 129 and 130 gr really shines. Not a big deal in the real world though.
Originally Posted by Mule Deer
shoots4fun,
"It seems that most shooters, match or hunting, use high BC bullets coupled with the highest possible velocity to provide them the ability to reach longer targets with less drop and drift."
You mean like the tens of thousands of hunters who've purchased 6.5 Creedmoors in the past few years? While there might be a 6.5 Creedmoor factory load that gets 3000 fps, the vast majority of them are well under, and even "hot" handloads with bullets in the 140-grain class only get 2750-2800.
My experience with the 6.5 Creedmoor makes me tend to believe that, with most hunting rifles sporting 24" barrels, your numbers for velocity are somewhat charitable. I can get 2,900 with 26" barrel and 140 Berger Hybrid Match. The same gun shows me 3,005 FPS with 130 VLD. For my hunting rifle in 6.5 Creedmoor those numbers are a bit lower. I choose the 140 SST over the lighter bullets for reasons other than BC. I like the terminal ballistics on the animals that it has taken.
While quite a few long-range shooters (which we'll define here as those who shoot at 500+ yards) do prefer higher muzzle velocities. But as I have already pointed out, there are advantages to higher BC's even at moderate muzzle velocities. The 6.5 Creedmoor, for instance, performs just as well as the .270 Winchester out to 500 yards, but with far less recoil and wind-drift--and usually, better out-of-the-box accuracy with very affordable rifles and factory ammo.
Blasphemy on my part here but I have never seen the need to own a 270 Win for my hunting environment and simply can't/won't try to rebuke any of your (or Jack O'Connor's) knowledge there. Also, the only "hunting" I do farther than around 250 yards is when I make an annual prairie dog pilgrimage. My favorite hunting (deer sized game) rifle of all time is a Model 7 in 7MM-08 shooting either Speer 130 BTSP or Nosler 140BT. Those two are dwarfed by some of the bullet weights available today yet these, I feel, match the gun well and have never given me cause to doubt my choices.
That said, I first realized the advantages of higher BC back when I started hunting with the .270 Winchester in the 1970's. I soon discovered, due to a lot of range practice and hunting, that 150-grain spitzers drifted less in the wind, and seemed to kill better, at longer ranges than the usually recommended 130's. Which is why my standard hunting bullet eventually became the 150 Hornady Spire Point (though later on I started using the 150 Partition for game larger than deer). The reason for all this was, of course, that even though the 150's started out 200 fps slower, they did everything better at longer ranges than the 130's, while not shooting up as much meat at closer ranges.
Again, without the benefit of actual experimentation, I would clearly choose the Hornady 150 or the 130 as well. The 150 SP Interlock has a G1 of .462 and S.D. of .279 while the 130 SP Interlock has a G1 .409 and S.D. of .242. And, looking at Hodgdon data for those bullets, I see a 140 FPS velocity difference from a 24" barrel. That isn't enough velocity, in my opinion, to make the 130 a good choice for western winds and long shots. In my limited knowledge, when two bullets are of same caliber and form the heavier will always have higher BC. Just as important to me it will have a greater sectional density. My example (and I don't shoot F-Class) is FTR shooters, for a while, seemed to have a love for the 155 grain bullets running hard and fast. Now it seems they have gone to a 200 grain class bullet at much lower speed. Maybe they found out the same thing you already knew?
Which is exactly what the 6.5 Creedmoor does today. It's another step in the same direction.
"It seems that most shooters, match or hunting, use high BC bullets coupled with the highest possible velocity to provide them the ability to reach longer targets with less drop and drift."
You mean like the tens of thousands of hunters who've purchased 6.5 Creedmoors in the past few years? While there might be a 6.5 Creedmoor factory load that gets 3000 fps, the vast majority of them are well under, and even "hot" handloads with bullets in the 140-grain class only get 2750-2800.
My experience with the 6.5 Creedmoor makes me tend to believe that, with most hunting rifles sporting 24" barrels, your numbers for velocity are somewhat charitable. I can get 2,900 with 26" barrel and 140 Berger Hybrid Match. The same gun shows me 3,005 FPS with 130 VLD. For my hunting rifle in 6.5 Creedmoor those numbers are a bit lower. I choose the 140 SST over the lighter bullets for reasons other than BC. I like the terminal ballistics on the animals that it has taken.
While quite a few long-range shooters (which we'll define here as those who shoot at 500+ yards) do prefer higher muzzle velocities. But as I have already pointed out, there are advantages to higher BC's even at moderate muzzle velocities. The 6.5 Creedmoor, for instance, performs just as well as the .270 Winchester out to 500 yards, but with far less recoil and wind-drift--and usually, better out-of-the-box accuracy with very affordable rifles and factory ammo.
Blasphemy on my part here but I have never seen the need to own a 270 Win for my hunting environment and simply can't/won't try to rebuke any of your (or Jack O'Connor's) knowledge there. Also, the only "hunting" I do farther than around 250 yards is when I make an annual prairie dog pilgrimage. My favorite hunting (deer sized game) rifle of all time is a Model 7 in 7MM-08 shooting either Speer 130 BTSP or Nosler 140BT. Those two are dwarfed by some of the bullet weights available today yet these, I feel, match the gun well and have never given me cause to doubt my choices.
That said, I first realized the advantages of higher BC back when I started hunting with the .270 Winchester in the 1970's. I soon discovered, due to a lot of range practice and hunting, that 150-grain spitzers drifted less in the wind, and seemed to kill better, at longer ranges than the usually recommended 130's. Which is why my standard hunting bullet eventually became the 150 Hornady Spire Point (though later on I started using the 150 Partition for game larger than deer). The reason for all this was, of course, that even though the 150's started out 200 fps slower, they did everything better at longer ranges than the 130's, while not shooting up as much meat at closer ranges.
Again, without the benefit of actual experimentation, I would clearly choose the Hornady 150 or the 130 as well. The 150 SP Interlock has a G1 of .462 and S.D. of .279 while the 130 SP Interlock has a G1 .409 and S.D. of .242. And, looking at Hodgdon data for those bullets, I see a 140 FPS velocity difference from a 24" barrel. That isn't enough velocity, in my opinion, to make the 130 a good choice for western winds and long shots. In my limited knowledge, when two bullets are of same caliber and form the heavier will always have higher BC. Just as important to me it will have a greater sectional density. My example (and I don't shoot F-Class) is FTR shooters, for a while, seemed to have a love for the 155 grain bullets running hard and fast. Now it seems they have gone to a 200 grain class bullet at much lower speed. Maybe they found out the same thing you already knew?
Which is exactly what the 6.5 Creedmoor does today. It's another step in the same direction.
Lastly, I hope you don't think I am badgering or trying to prove you wrong. I have long been a fan and truly miss the articles you wrote for the now defunct VHA. Oh, and your wife is no hack either!
260Remguy,
Hunters are all over the spectrum now days and switch bullets more than most people switch underwear. 😁
One day a hunter will use a Barnes in an attempt to not destroy to much meat and the very next year will use the most frangible bullet made to attempt the quickest kills ever with a perfect broadside shot.
The 130 accubond IMO is in the middle of the road. Its got some toughness to it if you end up having to take a quartering shot but it will still open up with some authority on a broadside shot IME just past 300 yds.
In the 6.5 creedmoor velocity range the 130 accubond is a good place to be IMO
Trystan
Hunters are all over the spectrum now days and switch bullets more than most people switch underwear. 😁
One day a hunter will use a Barnes in an attempt to not destroy to much meat and the very next year will use the most frangible bullet made to attempt the quickest kills ever with a perfect broadside shot.
The 130 accubond IMO is in the middle of the road. Its got some toughness to it if you end up having to take a quartering shot but it will still open up with some authority on a broadside shot IME just past 300 yds.
In the 6.5 creedmoor velocity range the 130 accubond is a good place to be IMO
Trystan
Originally Posted by Tejano
Just about any 6.5 mm bullet over 120 grains has a decent BC for typical hunting ranges. If you routinely shoot game at 1800+ yards yes it will make a difference. The 129 ABLR is doing well near and far in my Swede to date, eight deer. It is doing so well I haven't bothered with the 140s yet.
There's a lot of territory between "typical hunting ranges" and 1800+ yards where BC makes a difference.
Just sayin.
gerry,
I always love statements about "the real world" during these discussions.
In the real world, where 99% of deer are killed at 200 yards or less, a .30-30 with 150-grain factory loads will do just as well as a super-accurate 6.5.
In the real world, 99% of the big game hunters could do anything they desire with a .30-06.
In the real world, I bet you haven't been using a .260 (with whatever bullet) all your hunting life.
In the real world, the 6.5 Creedmoor now has every advantage over the .260 for the average hunter, because it's chambered in so many affordable, super-accurate rifles, and affordable, super-accurate ammunition is available in so many stores. The .260 isn't dead, by any means, but in the real world it lags behind.
In the real world, I haven't yet gotten the 140 Ballistic Tip to shoot quite as well as the 129 ABLR in my rifles chambered in the .260, 6.5 Creedmoor, 6.5x55, 6.5 PRC and 26 Nosler. But then, I generally spend more time experimenting than the average handloader, because that's part of my job.
In the real world, the major advancements involving hunting rifles have been the invention of rifling itself around 500 years ago, the development of practical smokeless rifle powders in the 1880's (smokeless handgun and shotgun powders already existed), the jacketed spitzer bullets that appeared soon after smokeless powder, a vast improvement in sights, and the laser rangefinder. The other advancements have been much smaller, but that doesn't mean they're not real, at least for some hunters and hunting.
And no, I am not one of those hunters who only shoots the latest advancements. The last two rifles I've acquired have been a custom 6.5 PRC and a "trapdoor" 1866 Springfield .50-70, and I plan to hunt with both this coming fall.
I always love statements about "the real world" during these discussions.
In the real world, where 99% of deer are killed at 200 yards or less, a .30-30 with 150-grain factory loads will do just as well as a super-accurate 6.5.
In the real world, 99% of the big game hunters could do anything they desire with a .30-06.
In the real world, I bet you haven't been using a .260 (with whatever bullet) all your hunting life.
In the real world, the 6.5 Creedmoor now has every advantage over the .260 for the average hunter, because it's chambered in so many affordable, super-accurate rifles, and affordable, super-accurate ammunition is available in so many stores. The .260 isn't dead, by any means, but in the real world it lags behind.
In the real world, I haven't yet gotten the 140 Ballistic Tip to shoot quite as well as the 129 ABLR in my rifles chambered in the .260, 6.5 Creedmoor, 6.5x55, 6.5 PRC and 26 Nosler. But then, I generally spend more time experimenting than the average handloader, because that's part of my job.
In the real world, the major advancements involving hunting rifles have been the invention of rifling itself around 500 years ago, the development of practical smokeless rifle powders in the 1880's (smokeless handgun and shotgun powders already existed), the jacketed spitzer bullets that appeared soon after smokeless powder, a vast improvement in sights, and the laser rangefinder. The other advancements have been much smaller, but that doesn't mean they're not real, at least for some hunters and hunting.
And no, I am not one of those hunters who only shoots the latest advancements. The last two rifles I've acquired have been a custom 6.5 PRC and a "trapdoor" 1866 Springfield .50-70, and I plan to hunt with both this coming fall.
shoots4fun,
No, I didn't think you were badgering me! Thanks for your feedback, and glad you like our writing.
As for 6.5 Creedmoor veloicities, I'm getting 2750 with 143 Hornady ELD-X's in a 22" RAR Predator, and 2800 in a 24" Franchi Momentum, using IMR4451 with published data.
I suspect a LOT of handloader go after all the muzzle velocity they can, even though higher-BC will make more difference at longer ranges, because that's what handloaders have done since the development of smokeless powder. One of my good friends is typical: He spends a lot of time squeezing every last fps out of all his rifles, even though a lot of the bullets he uses have pretty low BC's. Yet he "knows" the 6.5 Creedmoor can't work as an open-country hunting rifle because the muzzle velocities are "too slow."
No, I didn't think you were badgering me! Thanks for your feedback, and glad you like our writing.
As for 6.5 Creedmoor veloicities, I'm getting 2750 with 143 Hornady ELD-X's in a 22" RAR Predator, and 2800 in a 24" Franchi Momentum, using IMR4451 with published data.
I suspect a LOT of handloader go after all the muzzle velocity they can, even though higher-BC will make more difference at longer ranges, because that's what handloaders have done since the development of smokeless powder. One of my good friends is typical: He spends a lot of time squeezing every last fps out of all his rifles, even though a lot of the bullets he uses have pretty low BC's. Yet he "knows" the 6.5 Creedmoor can't work as an open-country hunting rifle because the muzzle velocities are "too slow."
Originally Posted by Mule Deer
gerry,
I always love statements about "the real world" during these discussions.
In the real world, where 99% of deer are killed at 200 yards or less, a .30-30 with 150-grain factory loads will do just as well as a super-accurate 6.5.
In the real world, 99% of the big game hunters could do anything they desire with a .30-06.
In the real world, I bet you haven't been using a .260 (with whatever bullet) all your hunting life.
In the real world, the 6.5 Creedmoor now has every advantage over the .260 for the average hunter, because it's chambered in so many affordable, super-accurate rifles, and affordable, super-accurate ammunition is available in so many stores. The .260 isn't dead, by any means, but in the real world it lags behind.
In the real world, I haven't yet gotten the 140 Ballistic Tip to shoot quite as well as the 129 ABLR in my rifles chambered in the .260, 6.5 Creedmoor, 6.5x55, 6.5 PRC and 26 Nosler. But then, I generally spend more time experimenting than the average handloader, because that's part of my job.
In the real world, the major advancements involving hunting rifles have been the invention of rifling itself around 500 years ago, the development of practical smokeless rifle powders in the 1880's (smokeless handgun and shotgun powders already existed), the jacketed spitzer bullets that appeared soon after smokeless powder, a vast improvement in sights, and the laser rangefinder. The other advancements have been much smaller, but that doesn't mean they're not real, at least for some hunters and hunting.
And no, I am not one of those hunters who only shoots the latest advancements. The last two rifles I've acquired have been a custom 6.5 PRC and a "trapdoor" 1866 Springfield .50-70, and I plan to hunt with both this coming fall.
I always love statements about "the real world" during these discussions.
In the real world, where 99% of deer are killed at 200 yards or less, a .30-30 with 150-grain factory loads will do just as well as a super-accurate 6.5.
In the real world, 99% of the big game hunters could do anything they desire with a .30-06.
In the real world, I bet you haven't been using a .260 (with whatever bullet) all your hunting life.
In the real world, the 6.5 Creedmoor now has every advantage over the .260 for the average hunter, because it's chambered in so many affordable, super-accurate rifles, and affordable, super-accurate ammunition is available in so many stores. The .260 isn't dead, by any means, but in the real world it lags behind.
In the real world, I haven't yet gotten the 140 Ballistic Tip to shoot quite as well as the 129 ABLR in my rifles chambered in the .260, 6.5 Creedmoor, 6.5x55, 6.5 PRC and 26 Nosler. But then, I generally spend more time experimenting than the average handloader, because that's part of my job.
In the real world, the major advancements involving hunting rifles have been the invention of rifling itself around 500 years ago, the development of practical smokeless rifle powders in the 1880's (smokeless handgun and shotgun powders already existed), the jacketed spitzer bullets that appeared soon after smokeless powder, a vast improvement in sights, and the laser rangefinder. The other advancements have been much smaller, but that doesn't mean they're not real, at least for some hunters and hunting.
And no, I am not one of those hunters who only shoots the latest advancements. The last two rifles I've acquired have been a custom 6.5 PRC and a "trapdoor" 1866 Springfield .50-70, and I plan to hunt with both this coming fall.
Glad you are here to set everyone straight and thanks for your assumptions on my hunting experience. You mentioned the 6.5 Creedmoor, I didn't and it doesn't factor into anything I have mentioned. I just mentioned my experience with those 3 bullets in several 6.5 cartridges. In the "real world" you are acting like a jackass because someone doesn't agree with you or has a different experience.Who cares if someone has a different experience than you? I won't be commenting on this again and you don't have to either if you don't wish to. Have a great day.
Cool we have bunched panties now
Originally Posted by Mule Deer
shoots4fun,
No, I didn't think you were badgering me! Thanks for your feedback, and glad you like our writing.
As for 6.5 Creedmoor veloicities, I'm getting 2750 with 143 Hornady ELD-X's in a 22" RAR Predator, and 2800 in a 24" Franchi Momentum, using IMR4451 with published data.
I suspect a LOT of handloader go after all the muzzle velocity they can, even though higher-BC will make more difference at longer ranges, because that's what handloaders have done since the development of smokeless powder. One of my good friends is typical: He spends a lot of time squeezing every last fps out of all his rifles, even though a lot of the bullets he uses have pretty low BC's. Yet he "knows" the 6.5 Creedmoor can't work as an open-country hunting rifle because the muzzle velocities are "too slow."
No, I didn't think you were badgering me! Thanks for your feedback, and glad you like our writing.
As for 6.5 Creedmoor veloicities, I'm getting 2750 with 143 Hornady ELD-X's in a 22" RAR Predator, and 2800 in a 24" Franchi Momentum, using IMR4451 with published data.
I suspect a LOT of handloader go after all the muzzle velocity they can, even though higher-BC will make more difference at longer ranges, because that's what handloaders have done since the development of smokeless powder. One of my good friends is typical: He spends a lot of time squeezing every last fps out of all his rifles, even though a lot of the bullets he uses have pretty low BC's. Yet he "knows" the 6.5 Creedmoor can't work as an open-country hunting rifle because the muzzle velocities are "too slow."
That's what friends are for John. To add entertainment to this bleak world we live in. Mine are better at helping me move furniture, or working on cars. Most of them shoot factory ammo and have no idea what bc means...
Most of us here are rifle loonies, like yourself. We all have different experiences here and also bring a lot to the table. I'm new to the creed, but have an appreciation for the little 6.5 caliber. My experience with the creedmoor, as of yet, has been punching paper and ringing steel at various ranges. I've only had one for about 6 months now and have right at 1000 rounds on my savage and about a hundy on my new Tikka superlite now. The furthest out I shoot steel is 440 yards, at the moment. One thing I can say is the 140gr. Hornady ELD cuts through the winds we have here in the Columbia River Gorge like nothing else I've seen. My boss shoots a 300wm and we regularly shoot steel at 440 and the creed walks all over his 178gr Berger VLD load. I got bored one day and punched a 3" hole in the center of the steel plate with the creed, then went to the 4" targets. No misses that day, wind or not. So how much BC does one really need? I guess that all depends on how far you intend to shoot.... As soon as the snow melts and I can get to my favorite spot to shoot out to 1000 yards, I'll keep using the 140 ELD, as it's been doing great so far.... The 147 may do a touch better at 1000, but I don't intend to shoot an animal at that range anyhow... 650-800? Maybe... 
.. That all depends on where I'm hunting this year.
Originally Posted by dvdegeorge
Cool we have bunched panties now
And sandy manginas....
I’m running 130 gr AB’s over Re17 in my Creed see no reason to change very accurate and all critters died proficiently
That'll sure work--and not just on deer. In 2017 one of my partners on a hunt here in Montana killed a big bull elk with a 130 AB from the 6.5 Creedmoor. Put the bullet behind the should and the bull was down within 50 yards.
Heck, for my needs a 140gr 6.5mm Partition is a good hunting bullet in any of my 6.5 Swedes, but I'm not a good enough shot to feel comfortable shooting at big game much beyond 400 yards.
One of the interesting side-effects of the "long range" phenomenon: Several years ago I killed pretty nice whitetail buck with a 6.5x55 and a 140-grain Partition.
Posted it somewhere on the Internet (maybe here) and somebody asked: "What was the range?"
I posted: "About 35 yards."
He posted: "Only 35 yards? Not much of a hunter, are you?"
Posted it somewhere on the Internet (maybe here) and somebody asked: "What was the range?"
I posted: "About 35 yards."
He posted: "Only 35 yards? Not much of a hunter, are you?"
Originally Posted by Mule Deer
One of the interesting side-effects of the "long range" phenomenon: Several years ago I killed pretty nice whitetail buck with a 6.5x55 and a 140-grain Partition.
Posted it somewhere on the Internet (maybe here) and somebody asked: "What was the range?"
I posted: "About 35 yards."
He posted: "Only 35 yards? Not much of a hunter, are you?"
Posted it somewhere on the Internet (maybe here) and somebody asked: "What was the range?"
I posted: "About 35 yards."
He posted: "Only 35 yards? Not much of a hunter, are you?"
😃 Yep, that does sound like something you would read here at the Fire!
You know, it wasn't that long ago that the BC of the 140gr 6.5 Partition was considered to be pretty respectable? My how times have changed.
Originally Posted by Mule Deer
One of the interesting side-effects of the "long range" phenomenon: Several years ago I killed pretty nice whitetail buck with a 6.5x55 and a 140-grain Partition.
Posted it somewhere on the Internet (maybe here) and somebody asked: "What was the range?"
I posted: "About 35 yards."
He posted: "Only 35 yards? Not much of a hunter, are you?"
Posted it somewhere on the Internet (maybe here) and somebody asked: "What was the range?"
I posted: "About 35 yards."
He posted: "Only 35 yards? Not much of a hunter, are you?"
OK John, confess!
That comment came from Joseph von Benedickt didn't it?
Ha! But no.
I didn't recognize the commenter's name.
I didn't recognize the commenter's name.
I am thinking it is harder to find a bad 6.5mm bullet than if you randomly selected just about anything over 120 grains and it should work fine. My short list of questionable bullets is 160 Hornaday RN this based on reports by others, 120 gr. Hertenberger this bullet was designed for Roe Bok and Capercaille so good for Turkey and Coyotes, SST verdict is still out but good for practice as a match to the AB & ABLR. Have not used anything less than 120 grains yet so no telling which are game bullets and which are varmint ones.
130 AB vs 129 ABLR depends on price and availability mostly to me. The 129 is a soft bullet but still holds together well enough for shorter ranges. But for all around use for larger game I would pick the AB as it has not let me down and may destroy less meat. It also retains more weight up to 60% as opposed to the ABLR down to 30% but difficult to say as both usually punch through so nothing to compare is left.
JB: That comment on your hunting ability was like when I told a friend that I had landed my first rainbow over 10lbs from the lower 48 and he said "did you get him on a dry fly?" Fact is It was on a #28 nymph so I broke into the 20-20 club too, a trout over 20" on a fly smaller than #20 but it was unsporting since it wansn't a floating fly.
130 AB vs 129 ABLR depends on price and availability mostly to me. The 129 is a soft bullet but still holds together well enough for shorter ranges. But for all around use for larger game I would pick the AB as it has not let me down and may destroy less meat. It also retains more weight up to 60% as opposed to the ABLR down to 30% but difficult to say as both usually punch through so nothing to compare is left.
JB: That comment on your hunting ability was like when I told a friend that I had landed my first rainbow over 10lbs from the lower 48 and he said "did you get him on a dry fly?" Fact is It was on a #28 nymph so I broke into the 20-20 club too, a trout over 20" on a fly smaller than #20 but it was unsporting since it wansn't a floating fly.
Tejano,
Ah yes, the old dry versus wet snobbery!
That's a heck of rainbow for the lower 48. Where?
Ah yes, the old dry versus wet snobbery!
That's a heck of rainbow for the lower 48. Where?
San Juan River. I did my usual blind pig truffle hunting number and just started casting in the first riffle I walked up to. It happened to be where everyone crossed over to another run. Every time someone went by I would land another trout as they were inadvertently doing the "San Juan Shuffle" for me (dislodging nymphs). The smallest of five was around 3 lbs. I was so pumped I was babbling incoherently when anyone came by, which was fine as it scared off the other anglers.
Aha! Yeah, there are some real trout in that river.
While I have never done the 20/20 thing, Eileen came pretty close to it on the Bighorn one year. She saw spotted a trout sipping along the edge-line of a shallow riffle. She cast a #20 dry fly (I can't remember exactly what it was) above the sips and the rainbow took off down stream, showing its side while it turned, obviously bigger than the typical 16-18 inch Bighorn fish. She had never hooked a trout nearly that big on a fly rod before, though had caught much larger "silvers" in Alaska on a spinning rod, and actually tried to hand the rod to me, afraid she'd lose the fish, but I refused, saying she'd get it done. It took a while, and some following of the fish downstream (we were out of the boat and wading), but she did land it.
While I have never done the 20/20 thing, Eileen came pretty close to it on the Bighorn one year. She saw spotted a trout sipping along the edge-line of a shallow riffle. She cast a #20 dry fly (I can't remember exactly what it was) above the sips and the rainbow took off down stream, showing its side while it turned, obviously bigger than the typical 16-18 inch Bighorn fish. She had never hooked a trout nearly that big on a fly rod before, though had caught much larger "silvers" in Alaska on a spinning rod, and actually tried to hand the rod to me, afraid she'd lose the fish, but I refused, saying she'd get it done. It took a while, and some following of the fish downstream (we were out of the boat and wading), but she did land it.
Originally Posted by Mule Deer
Aha! Yeah, there are some real trout in that river.
While I have never done the 20/20 thing, Eileen came pretty close to it on the Bighorn one year. She saw spotted a trout sipping along the edge-line of a shallow riffle. She cast a #20 dry fly (I can't remember exactly what it was) above the sips and the rainbow took off down stream, showing its side while it turned, obviously bigger than the typical 16-18 inch Bighorn fish. She had never hooked a trout nearly that big on a fly rod before, though had caught much larger "silvers" in Alaska on a spinning rod, and actually tried to hand the rod to me, afraid she'd lose the fish, but I refused, saying she'd get it done. It took a while, and some following of the fish downstream (we were out of the boat and wading), but she did land it.
While I have never done the 20/20 thing, Eileen came pretty close to it on the Bighorn one year. She saw spotted a trout sipping along the edge-line of a shallow riffle. She cast a #20 dry fly (I can't remember exactly what it was) above the sips and the rainbow took off down stream, showing its side while it turned, obviously bigger than the typical 16-18 inch Bighorn fish. She had never hooked a trout nearly that big on a fly rod before, though had caught much larger "silvers" in Alaska on a spinning rod, and actually tried to hand the rod to me, afraid she'd lose the fish, but I refused, saying she'd get it done. It took a while, and some following of the fish downstream (we were out of the boat and wading), but she did land it.
Mule Deer, As you most likely know we have a little place right here in Montana where 15- 20lb rainbows are not uncommon. For the sake of keeping one of Montana's best kept secrets I'm not going to mention where it is on the internet
Trystan
Yeah, I know, and in fact there have been a few places where both really big browns and rainbows could be caught over the years. But I have never done "where-to" articles, and learned a LONG time ago not to broadcast stuff like that.
The Bighorn is an exception, because it's already famous. There used to be far bigger trout in it years ago, before it became famous.
The Bighorn is an exception, because it's already famous. There used to be far bigger trout in it years ago, before it became famous.
Originally Posted by Tejano
I am thinking it is harder to find a bad 6.5mm bullet than if you randomly selected just about anything over 120 grains and it should work fine. My short list of questionable bullets is 160 Hornaday RN this based on reports by others, 120 gr. Hertenberger this bullet was designed for Roe Bok and Capercaille so good for Turkey and Coyotes, SST verdict is still out but good for practice as a match to the AB & ABLR. Have not used anything less than 120 grains yet so no telling which are game bullets and which are varmint ones.
130 AB vs 129 ABLR depends on price and availability mostly to me. The 129 is a soft bullet but still holds together well enough for shorter ranges. But for all around use for larger game I would pick the AB as it has not let me down and may destroy less meat. It also retains more weight up to 60% as opposed to the ABLR down to 30% but difficult to say as both usually punch through so nothing to compare is left.
JB: That comment on your hunting ability was like when I told a friend that I had landed my first rainbow over 10lbs from the lower 48 and he said "did you get him on a dry fly?" Fact is It was on a #28 nymph so I broke into the 20-20 club too, a trout over 20" on a fly smaller than #20 but it was unsporting since it wansn't a floating fly.
130 AB vs 129 ABLR depends on price and availability mostly to me. The 129 is a soft bullet but still holds together well enough for shorter ranges. But for all around use for larger game I would pick the AB as it has not let me down and may destroy less meat. It also retains more weight up to 60% as opposed to the ABLR down to 30% but difficult to say as both usually punch through so nothing to compare is left.
JB: That comment on your hunting ability was like when I told a friend that I had landed my first rainbow over 10lbs from the lower 48 and he said "did you get him on a dry fly?" Fact is It was on a #28 nymph so I broke into the 20-20 club too, a trout over 20" on a fly smaller than #20 but it was unsporting since it wansn't a floating fly.
In northern New England the Hornberg has been one of the best go to fly for years. Some fish it dry, some fish it wet, and some even troll with the streamer version. Traditional dry fly aficionados look down on it because it is too versatile and damned effective too!
I had a bunch of Hornbergs tied with an iridescent body that I use a lot when I have the opportunity to cast a fly.
That said, the biggest stream trout that I've caught was a brown on a black marabou jig in the pool below the dam on the Ammonoosuc River at Bath, NH. I released it so that others might have the opportunity to catch and release it.
I used to really enjoy fishing the Ammonoosuc when I lived in NE. Occasional atlantics in there as well.
Originally Posted by 340boy
Heck, for my needs a 140gr 6.5mm Partition is a good hunting bullet in any of my 6.5 Swedes, but I'm not a good enough shot to feel comfortable shooting at big game much beyond 400 yards.
Yesterday I tried a variety of loads in my T3x in 6.5 Creed. One load was 140 Partitions using RL16 that shot in ~.6” for three shots at an average of 2780fps. I can get other bullets such as 139 Scenars or 147 ELDs to shoot equally well, but there is something appealing about having a Partition when elk hunting.
I also did more bullet tests into damp media last weekend and the Partition really shined there too. Confidence inspiring.
Mule Deer, I love reading about your opinions, especially the 6.5 Creed. You are like an expert witness on the stand when talking Creed. You withhold any conjectures, you do not let any emotions enter into your stance and you back up your response with experience (yours and other experts). I know how much you like the 6.5, but from reading your stuff, you like a lot of things. Keep up the good writing (in the real world of course)! <GRIN>
Originally Posted by prm
Originally Posted by 340boy
Heck, for my needs a 140gr 6.5mm Partition is a good hunting bullet in any of my 6.5 Swedes, but I'm not a good enough shot to feel comfortable shooting at big game much beyond 400 yards.
Yesterday I tried a variety of loads in my T3x in 6.5 Creed. One load was 140 Partitions using RL16 that shot in ~.6” for three shots at an average of 2780fps. I can get other bullets such as 139 Scenars or 147 ELDs to shoot equally well, but there is something appealing about having a Partition when elk hunting.
I also did more bullet tests into damp media last weekend and the Partition really shined there too. Confidence inspiring.
That's nice shooting, prm!
Great velocity, also. I Have had good luck with RL22 and H1000 in my 6.5X55s(an M70 and a Howa 1500) but should do some experimenting with some newer powders, perhaps, as I have a hard time getting much beyond 2700fps with the 140 NP in my rifles.
Sakoluvr,
Thanks very much!
Have always tried to approach "gun writing" with at least some journalistic and scientific balance, though obviously some other stuff creeps in there (like nicely made walnut stocks).
Right now am doing research and handloading for my "new " .50-70, made over 150 years ago....
Thanks very much!
Have always tried to approach "gun writing" with at least some journalistic and scientific balance, though obviously some other stuff creeps in there (like nicely made walnut stocks).
Right now am doing research and handloading for my "new " .50-70, made over 150 years ago....
Never loaded for a Swede, but I’d have to think RL26 would be good. Velocity in the Creed with 26 is crazy good.
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
EDIT: Is there a meaningful difference in downrange performance within 500 yards tied to the difference in BC between the 0.488 for the 130 grain AB and the 0.530 for the 129 grain ABLR?
The really significant difference between those two bullets is NOT the b.c., it's the velocity window each was designed to operate in. The ABLR is designed to be effective at much lower velocity than the standard AB, hence the "LR" moniker. That is absolutely a tangible and real difference, but it doesn't really come into play when using a 260 or Creedmoor at normal hunting ranges. The ABLR is really good for low velocity cartridges at normal ranges, or higher velocity at extended range. For more traditional applications, the standard AB is at it's best.
Actually, there is a considerable difference in BC between the 130 AB and 129 ABLR.
While Nosler did get all their ABLR's Doppler-tested, they list only one BC number--which is lower than it used to be. But ballistic coeffiecient isn't only ONE number Instead, BC differs with velocity, and whether the appropriate form factor is used.
The form factor used in what everybody has quoted so far is G!, basically flat-based spitzers. But the ABLR's are not flat-based spitzers, but extremely streamlined boattails, which more closely match the G7 profile.
Bryan Litz, through both range tests and calculations, lists the BC's of the two bullets in his latest edition of BALLISTIC PERFORMANCE OF RIFLE BULLETS this way:
130 AB:
Over 3000 fps: G1 .503; G7 .238.
3000-2500 fps: G1 .469; G7 .233
2500-2000 fps: G1 .446; G7 .224
2000-1500 fps: G1 .411; G7 218
129 ABLR:
Over 3000 fps: G1 .610; G7 .289
3000-2500 fps: G1 .576; G7 .286
2500-2000 fps: G1 .556; G7 .280
2000-1500 fps: G1 .527; G7 .280
Litz's numbers are what a lot of shooters use for longer-range shooting calculations (including me) and because they reflect what actually happens more accurately than any SINGLE BC number--especially when the form factor isn't quite right for the bullet--the field results are very close. Or at least that's my experience during the several years I've used Bryan's numbers.
Please note that both the G1 and G7 numbers for the 129 ABLR are considerably higher than for the 130 AB.
While Nosler did get all their ABLR's Doppler-tested, they list only one BC number--which is lower than it used to be. But ballistic coeffiecient isn't only ONE number Instead, BC differs with velocity, and whether the appropriate form factor is used.
The form factor used in what everybody has quoted so far is G!, basically flat-based spitzers. But the ABLR's are not flat-based spitzers, but extremely streamlined boattails, which more closely match the G7 profile.
Bryan Litz, through both range tests and calculations, lists the BC's of the two bullets in his latest edition of BALLISTIC PERFORMANCE OF RIFLE BULLETS this way:
130 AB:
Over 3000 fps: G1 .503; G7 .238.
3000-2500 fps: G1 .469; G7 .233
2500-2000 fps: G1 .446; G7 .224
2000-1500 fps: G1 .411; G7 218
129 ABLR:
Over 3000 fps: G1 .610; G7 .289
3000-2500 fps: G1 .576; G7 .286
2500-2000 fps: G1 .556; G7 .280
2000-1500 fps: G1 .527; G7 .280
Litz's numbers are what a lot of shooters use for longer-range shooting calculations (including me) and because they reflect what actually happens more accurately than any SINGLE BC number--especially when the form factor isn't quite right for the bullet--the field results are very close. Or at least that's my experience during the several years I've used Bryan's numbers.
Please note that both the G1 and G7 numbers for the 129 ABLR are considerably higher than for the 130 AB.
Originally Posted by Mule Deer
Actually, there is a considerable difference in BC between the 130 AB and 129 ABLR.
While Nosler did get all their ABLR's Doppler-tested, they list only one BC number--which is lower than it used to be. But ballistic coeffiecient isn't only ONE number Instead, BC differs with velocity, and whether the appropriate form factor is used.
The form factor used in what everybody has quoted so far is G!, basically flat-based spitzers. But the ABLR's are not flat-based spitzers, but extremely streamlined boattails, which more closely match the G7 profile.
Bryan Litz, through both range tests and calculations, lists the BC's of the two bullets in his latest edition of BALLISTIC PERFORMANCE OF RIFLE BULLETS this way:
130 AB:
Over 3000 fps: G1 .503; G7 .238.
3000-2500 fps: G1 .469; G7 .233
2500-2000 fps: G1 .446; G7 .224
2000-1500 fps: G1 .411; G7 218
129 ABLR:
Over 3000 fps: G1 .610; G7 .289
3000-2500 fps: G1 .576; G7 .286
2500-2000 fps: G1 .556; G7 .280
2000-1500 fps: G1 .527; G7 .280
Litz's numbers are what a lot of shooters use for longer-range shooting calculations (including me) and because they reflect what actually happens more accurately than any SINGLE BC number--especially when the form factor isn't quite right for the bullet--the field results are very close. Or at least that's my experience during the several years I've used Bryan's numbers.
Please note that both the G1 and G7 numbers for the 129 ABLR are considerably higher than for the 130 AB.
While Nosler did get all their ABLR's Doppler-tested, they list only one BC number--which is lower than it used to be. But ballistic coeffiecient isn't only ONE number Instead, BC differs with velocity, and whether the appropriate form factor is used.
The form factor used in what everybody has quoted so far is G!, basically flat-based spitzers. But the ABLR's are not flat-based spitzers, but extremely streamlined boattails, which more closely match the G7 profile.
Bryan Litz, through both range tests and calculations, lists the BC's of the two bullets in his latest edition of BALLISTIC PERFORMANCE OF RIFLE BULLETS this way:
130 AB:
Over 3000 fps: G1 .503; G7 .238.
3000-2500 fps: G1 .469; G7 .233
2500-2000 fps: G1 .446; G7 .224
2000-1500 fps: G1 .411; G7 218
129 ABLR:
Over 3000 fps: G1 .610; G7 .289
3000-2500 fps: G1 .576; G7 .286
2500-2000 fps: G1 .556; G7 .280
2000-1500 fps: G1 .527; G7 .280
Litz's numbers are what a lot of shooters use for longer-range shooting calculations (including me) and because they reflect what actually happens more accurately than any SINGLE BC number--especially when the form factor isn't quite right for the bullet--the field results are very close. Or at least that's my experience during the several years I've used Bryan's numbers.
Please note that both the G1 and G7 numbers for the 129 ABLR are considerably higher than for the 130 AB.
At what ranges do the higher G1 and G7 numbers become meaningful?
Depends on what you mean by "meaningful." Most deer hunters judge cartridges by "flat trajectory," which is most noticeable out to around 250-300 yards. At 300, there'll be about an inch difference, no big deal.
But wind-drift increases at about twice any increase in range. In other words, if a bullet drifts 3 inches at 200 in a 10-mph crosswind, it will drift about a foot at 400 in the same conditions. Higher BC makes a much bigger difference in wind-drift than trajectory, and since wind isn't nearly as predictable as gravity, higher BC reduces drift error, whether caused by wind judging, or variations in wind. If you never shoot beyond 200 yards or so, there isn't much difference. But at 300-400 yards, BC becomes meaningful in reducing wind-drift errors--exactly how much depending on how hard the wind is blowing, but even more importantly, how consistently it's blowing.
But wind-drift increases at about twice any increase in range. In other words, if a bullet drifts 3 inches at 200 in a 10-mph crosswind, it will drift about a foot at 400 in the same conditions. Higher BC makes a much bigger difference in wind-drift than trajectory, and since wind isn't nearly as predictable as gravity, higher BC reduces drift error, whether caused by wind judging, or variations in wind. If you never shoot beyond 200 yards or so, there isn't much difference. But at 300-400 yards, BC becomes meaningful in reducing wind-drift errors--exactly how much depending on how hard the wind is blowing, but even more importantly, how consistently it's blowing.
Originally Posted by Mule Deer
Actually, there is a considerable difference in BC between the 130 AB and 129 ABLR.
While Nosler did get all their ABLR's Doppler-tested, they list only one BC number--which is lower than it used to be. But ballistic coeffiecient isn't only ONE number Instead, BC differs with velocity, and whether the appropriate form factor is used.
The form factor used in what everybody has quoted so far is G!, basically flat-based spitzers. But the ABLR's are not flat-based spitzers, but extremely streamlined boattails, which more closely match the G7 profile.
Bryan Litz, through both range tests and calculations, lists the BC's of the two bullets in his latest edition of BALLISTIC PERFORMANCE OF RIFLE BULLETS this way:
130 AB:
Over 3000 fps: G1 .503; G7 .238.
3000-2500 fps: G1 .469; G7 .233
2500-2000 fps: G1 .446; G7 .224
2000-1500 fps: G1 .411; G7 218
129 ABLR:
Over 3000 fps: G1 .610; G7 .289
3000-2500 fps: G1 .576; G7 .286
2500-2000 fps: G1 .556; G7 .280
2000-1500 fps: G1 .527; G7 .280
Litz's numbers are what a lot of shooters use for longer-range shooting calculations (including me) and because they reflect what actually happens more accurately than any SINGLE BC number--especially when the form factor isn't quite right for the bullet--the field results are very close. Or at least that's my experience during the several years I've used Bryan's numbers.
Please note that both the G1 and G7 numbers for the 129 ABLR are considerably higher than for the 130 AB.
While Nosler did get all their ABLR's Doppler-tested, they list only one BC number--which is lower than it used to be. But ballistic coeffiecient isn't only ONE number Instead, BC differs with velocity, and whether the appropriate form factor is used.
The form factor used in what everybody has quoted so far is G!, basically flat-based spitzers. But the ABLR's are not flat-based spitzers, but extremely streamlined boattails, which more closely match the G7 profile.
Bryan Litz, through both range tests and calculations, lists the BC's of the two bullets in his latest edition of BALLISTIC PERFORMANCE OF RIFLE BULLETS this way:
130 AB:
Over 3000 fps: G1 .503; G7 .238.
3000-2500 fps: G1 .469; G7 .233
2500-2000 fps: G1 .446; G7 .224
2000-1500 fps: G1 .411; G7 218
129 ABLR:
Over 3000 fps: G1 .610; G7 .289
3000-2500 fps: G1 .576; G7 .286
2500-2000 fps: G1 .556; G7 .280
2000-1500 fps: G1 .527; G7 .280
Litz's numbers are what a lot of shooters use for longer-range shooting calculations (including me) and because they reflect what actually happens more accurately than any SINGLE BC number--especially when the form factor isn't quite right for the bullet--the field results are very close. Or at least that's my experience during the several years I've used Bryan's numbers.
Please note that both the G1 and G7 numbers for the 129 ABLR are considerably higher than for the 130 AB.
Tag....good info.
Originally Posted by Mule Deer
Depends on what you mean by "meaningful." Most deer hunters judge cartridges by "flat trajectory," which is most noticeable out to around 250-300 yards. At 300, there'll be about an inch difference, no big deal.
But wind-drift increases at about twice any increase in range. In other words, if a bullet drifts 3 inches at 200 in a 10-mph crosswind, it will drift about a foot at 400 in the same conditions. Higher BC makes a much bigger difference in wind-drift than trajectory, and since wind isn't nearly as predictable as gravity, higher BC reduces drift error, whether caused by wind judging, or variations in wind. If you never shoot beyond 200 yards or so, there isn't much difference. But at 300-400 yards, BC becomes meaningful in reducing wind-drift errors--exactly how much depending on how hard the wind is blowing, but even more importantly, how consistently it's blowing.
But wind-drift increases at about twice any increase in range. In other words, if a bullet drifts 3 inches at 200 in a 10-mph crosswind, it will drift about a foot at 400 in the same conditions. Higher BC makes a much bigger difference in wind-drift than trajectory, and since wind isn't nearly as predictable as gravity, higher BC reduces drift error, whether caused by wind judging, or variations in wind. If you never shoot beyond 200 yards or so, there isn't much difference. But at 300-400 yards, BC becomes meaningful in reducing wind-drift errors--exactly how much depending on how hard the wind is blowing, but even more importantly, how consistently it's blowing.
Good info. I guess that when I retire to the mountains of Colorado I'll need to learn and practice a new set of skills.
Of course, high-BC bullets also retain more velocity. In this instance, if both bullets are started at 2800 fps, in standard conditions the 129 ABLR will be going just about 100 fps faster at 300 yards than the 130 AB, and around 150 fps faster at 500.
Of course, many hunters will argue about whether this makes any "real world" difference. But I've notice that many handloaders will go to an awful lot of trouble (and perhaps get into trouble) to gain 100 fps of muzzle velocity. Higher-BC hunting bullets gain as much or more at the other end of their journey, where they perform their job, without raising muzzle velocity or pressure.
Of course, many hunters will argue about whether this makes any "real world" difference. But I've notice that many handloaders will go to an awful lot of trouble (and perhaps get into trouble) to gain 100 fps of muzzle velocity. Higher-BC hunting bullets gain as much or more at the other end of their journey, where they perform their job, without raising muzzle velocity or pressure.
Originally Posted by Mule Deer
Actually, there is a considerable difference in BC between the 130 AB and 129 ABLR.
I didn't say there wasn't, I said it wasn't the main difference between those bullets. Most of the posters in this thread seem to be thinking they are the same type of bullet with different b.c., but the b.c. difference is practically insignificant in comparison to how differently those two bullets perform. The ABLR is a much softer bullet that opens up at lower velocity, which matters a lot more than if it hits 100 fps faster or drifts 1" less in the wind.
I get the impression that a lot of guys either don't know this, or don't realize the significance.