Here's a great brain teaser for you all when you look at terminal ballistics on three very fine bullet choices for big game... which would you pick after reading the ballistics?

bullet 1: 168 grain TTSX
mv: 2800fps; 500 yards energy: 1343ft/pds at 1898fps with sd of .253

bullet 2: 180 grain Nosler partition spitzer
mv: 2730fps; 500 yards energy: 1345ft/pds at 1834fps with sd of .271

bullet 3: 200 grain Nosler partition semi-spitzer
mv: 2625fps; 500 yards energy: 1380ft/pds at 1763fps with sd of .301

hmmmm.......

All good bullets, but the sectional densities are all growing with the additional bullet weight, and they all carry considerable energy to a 500 yard target.

So, if you could work up a "good load" (reasonable accuracy) with the three bullets above, which one do you think is really going to do more damage, generally, looking at the fps/energy/sd differences on the three???

How's this for a good brain teaser?

My choice, 3, 2, 1. I like heavy for caliber bullets. Noslers have worked well for me on several moose and caribou.

Couldn't argue with you on your selection!

Cariboujack nailed it.

Like everything else in life, there are trade-offs.

Nosler doesn't list a 200g Semi-Spitzer but they do list a 200g Spitzer, so I used it for calculations.


Using 7500ft altitude and zeroed for MPBR (Maximum point Blank Range) for a 6" diameter target:

500 yards
Bullet, Zero/MPBR, Drop, Velocity/Energy
168g TTSX = 242/286, 036.3", 2109fps/1660fpe
180g Partition = 236/278, -38.4", 2055fps/1688fpe
200g Partition = 227/268. -43.6", 1975fps/1731fpe


I don't see any bad choices there but I would lean towards the TTSX, and in fact have used that in my .30-06s.

With the advent of the175g Barnes LRX BT, though, I might lean toward it. Assuming a MV of 2750fps:

500 Yards
175g LRX BT = 239/282, -38.8", 2114fps/1737fpe

This would give you a tad more energy than the 200g, a tad more velocity than the 168g and a trajectory only 2" different than the 168g.

I've never recovered a Barnes X, MRX or TTSX. One 180g MRX traveled lengthwise through mule deer and exited at about 350-400 yards and another at 400 yards put a cow elk down very quickly after passing through on a broadside. I would expect the LRX BT to perform the same.

No bad option there, and being realistic, not much of a tradeoff. I've used other TTSXs and the 30 cal 180 Partition and been very impressed. I would go 180 Partition with the -06. Just because its a great blend of ballistics and terminal performance. I've always wanted to build an -06 just for that bullet.
As an aside, comparing SDs of a mono and the Partition is not very useful. The monos retain SD as they penetrate whereas the cup and core style bullets lose SD dramatically as they shed weight.

Barnes is my choice as well. I have similar experiences with it. Example- shot a cow elk broadside at 300 yd, bullet entered the right shoulder and exited the left shoulder shattering it. Until a few years ago never recovered a bullet. But, did recover 2 from a bull (what are those odds). Much to my surprise, one was laying on the ground next to the elk. Both were picture perfect mushrooms.

I don't go in for alot of statistical gak, but I did kill a bull elk and a cow moose with the .06 this year and 180 gr Partitions that I got from Shooters Pro Shop for $13/50.

The elk was laserd at 369 yards.The moose was about 80.

The proof is the doing,not the figuring

Whichever shot the best in your rifle.
200gn Semi Spitzer Partions are obsolete but the extant spitzer is never a bad selection.

The fact is you would have to kill an aweful lot of animals to find any difference in the averaged results, my guess would be no difference on game for similar placement and game awareness.

30-06 and 180 grain Nosler Partitions with Spitzer points, hand-loaded to perform like a .300 magnum (61 grains RL22 – 2,870 fps).

KC

180 Partitions are almost impossible to beat. No mistake in choosing that bullet.

Steve

Crab, I loaded ammo for a friends '06 BAR for his Shiras cow hunt this year. Used medium load, old gold 200gr part. SS, I-4350, CCI 250 mag and new RP brass. He shot her through the ribs, one from each side and both bullets recovered. The recovered weight (171 gr.) expanded dia. (.605") and expanded length (.761") were well within 1% of each other. Both were under the skin on the opposite side of the entry and each broke a rib. She was at approx. 80 yards when shot, use any partition. Muddy

Good combination of retained weight and expansion. Thanks for the recommendation.

Just dont' use them in a 300 mag.... they are not worth a flip there. Go up to 200s in that case. FWIW

Hey, seems another hands down Barnes fan.

I have yet to see any issues with them... I"m sold.

Run a 210 ttsx in my 338-06. Kills moose just fine, though it did catch the hide after breaking the neck and shoulder at a bit over 100 yards. But I consider for such a light round, that to be good performance. And retained weight I"ll let you guess on.. lets just say the blue tip must not weigh much... LOL

Old Crab,

I've used all three bullets on elk and other big game, and agree with those who say all will work. But have taken more elk with the 200-grain Partition than any other bullet, including the old semi-spitzer, which was what Nosler was still making when I first started elk hunting in the 1970's. I have yet to recover a 200 Partition of either sort from an elk, whether they were shot from a .30-06 or some sort of .300 magnum, but have recovered 168 TSX's and 180 Partitions from various animals, including some much smaller than a mature bull elk.

Obviously all the animals were dead, but if complete penetration is the goal (personally I'm not all that sure it's essential) the 200 Partition sure seems to do the job.

Sorry, but I am 1;2;3. I have shot a bunch of animals with the 30-06 and Hornady 165 grain bullets. They never let me down. Actually I don't shoot anything but 165 grain Hornady bullets. Moose aren't that hard to kill, and there isn't one animal I shot with the 30-06 that a heavier bullet or partition would have made them any deader...

3,2,1....no contest for reasons MD stated.

Definitely a Barnes fan but I do use a variety of bullets in various weights and diameters including Nosler Accubond and BT, Barnes TTSX and what few MRX I have left, North Fork SS and FP and Swift Scirocco II and A-Frame.

The BT only see use in hunting loads in my Blackout (125g @ ~1900fps) and Ruger Scout with its 16.1" barrel (150g @ 2699fps) and neither has taken any game yet.

3, 2, 1 would be my choice but honestly there isn't a bad bullet in your selections. I'd choose the one my rifle likes and go with it. I gave up looking at foot pounds thirty years ago. Pick a good bullet, load it to a reasonable velocity for the cartridge coupled with reasonable accuracy and go kill stuff.

Interestingly, the 200-grain Partition is incredibly accurate. I was in Nosler's Ballistics Lab a few years ago and one of the guys was exclaiming that this was so.

And he fired four or five five-shot groups with the 200s in their .300WinMag barrel to show me. All groups were in the 0's.

Unbelieveable.

Steve

I'm glad there are still guys out there that like heavy for caliber bullets....I'd also run the 200gr. partition. They have been damn accurate in my 30-06's...

That says a lot for the good ol 165gr. Hornady interlock. My 30-06 also loves both the SP and BTSP. They sure do kill stuff well too...

200 partition.

Going deep long before the mono-metals with the added benefit of lead 'shrapnel' to aid in bullet effect...

John,
Thanks for your note. I am indeed "leaning" toward the 200g Partition because it arrives downfield at very close to the same speed and trajectory of the other two bullets, but should be quite a "driver" with the additional mass and sectional density. Am going to order some and give it a try. My 06' has an 11-twist barrel, and that should be a great fit to the 200 spitzer.
Merry Christmas to you and yours.

Great info, Steve.
Nothing like witnessing the results right in front of your eyes.
I am looking forward to working up some loads after Christmas!

I won't argue with you about the interlocks....
My Dad and Uncle both ordered pre-64 300 h&h's many moons ago, and had Winchester ship them directly to Weatherby to get them chambered for the 300 Weatherby. Then, they used nothing other than Hornady Interlocks for 30 years of additional hunting in Eastern Oregon. (successful hunting)
Uncle Walt hand loaded for both Dad and himself, buying Weatherby brass and putting 180 grain interlocks on the nose.

Old Crab,

The Interlockeds are not a mistake either (Fireproof suit just put on :grin).

I used 180-grain Hornady SPBTs on my last safari and took about twenty-five animals with the bullet. All were one shot kills and the game varied from impala and warthog to a huge "blue bull" eland that weighed 1069kg ... 2,352-pounds.

I've also killed several bull elk with the Hornady 190-grain Interlocked SPBT in both the .30-06 and the .300 WinMag and have experienced nothing but one-shot DRT kills.

This is seemingly the Golden Age of bullets and rifle barrels. We are fortunate indeed.

Blessings,

Steve

Steve,
I did pick up a box of 165g spbt's (interlocks) and am adding them to the mix to do some fun load work-ups this winter.
Your safari sounds like you had a great time! That Eland was a real monster..wow.
Thanks for all your input.

to help at any time.

Merry Christmas to you and yours,

Steve




1,069Kg eland.







This is by far the heaviest-horned impala I've ever seen. And not only heavy, his horns measure 27"X27" inches in length. He is a true monster impala ... if such a thing is possible.




Rowland Ward bushbuck. Took me three days to close the deal, but it was worth every second of it. Gorgeous critter.

Steve

Steve, thanks for posting those great pics of your safari, and many blessings to you and yours through this Christmas Season and into 2016!

Yeah they've worked great for me.

Try all three, find the most accurate for the rifle and use that bullet. All three listed will work, one will probably be more accurate. My .06 likes 180gr bullets better than any other weight. Knowing if presented the long range shot can be taken with confidence. My 2 cents worth.

Old Crab, Obviously "reasonable" hunting rifle accuracy must be considered.If all bullets achieve your accuracy standards, then the Barnes(IMHO) would be the best choice. When the 200 grain Partition loses it's typical 35%, the Barnes 165/168 grainer will retain more weight.Which should equal greater penetration,which is beneficial with larger game. memtb

I have seen Barnes .30 180 TTSX shoot through both shoulders of a 06 and exit. Both with a 06 & .300Win. No small feat.

Lefty C

In the same camp as highlighted in bold. See earlier post. Also all of the elk I have shot with .30 Barnes bullets, from 90-300 yd, didn't go farther than 20 yd after they were hit.

memtb,

Unfortunately, retained weight doesn't have nearly as much effect on penetration as frontal area of a bullet. As noted in my previous post, I've shot animals with both the 168 TSX and 200 Partition, and in my experience their penetration is similar--but have never recovered a 200 Partition, even though I've shot more animals with it, and have recovered 168 TSX's.

leftycarbon,

Have never had the opportunity to put a 200-grain Partition through both shoulders of a broadside elk, but have seen a 150 Hornady Interlock from a .30-06 through both shoulders and exit. A lot depends on what part of the shoulders they hit. In the instance of the 150 Hornady it went through both shoulder blades.

Perhaps the most impressive penetration from a 200 Partition I've seen was on an average 6-point bull. The bullet hit the middle of the big shoulder joint and exited at the rear of the ribcage on the other side.

Have shot lengthwise through a big mule deer buck with a 200-grain Partition, and have recovered a 168 TSX from a big mule deer from an angling shot that went in just in front of the left hip. The bullet ended up in the right shoulder.

I am not saying which bullet is superior, just saying that people who haven't used the 200 Partition shouldn't assume a TSX will always penetrate deeper.

180 gr Nosler Partition.

Good Grief, that critter should have been domesticated because it looks like it could pull a 4 bottom plow without the use of diesel!

John, you are pretty logical. Your views are probably somewhere in between O'Connor and Keith. Good to have you around here..

I've shot 12 animals with the 180 grain partition in my 300 Winchester magnum and caught 2, one in a bushbuck and one in a blesbok. I've switched to 200 grain partitions in that rifle but haven't tried them on game.

So my choice would be 3,1,2.

Old Crab, I was a AB fanman all the way. I have since went back to a 180g Partition on my -06. Could not be happier. No loss in accuracy, nothing. Killes 'em dead.

My son loaded up some 200g. partitions that I use in my 300RUM. He likes them and they are accurate... even more so than the AB's in his -06. I know there is a lot to that equation, but he is sticking with that combo. I will stick with the 180's.

I think any of the three will do you well.

Good Luck.

WM

My first choice would be the 180 Partition, second the 180 grain Partition, third choice the same.
I have seen "lots" of elk taken with the Partition and the results are boring as hell, dead elk everywhere and Partition performance every time.

TTSX and you can push it faster than 2800 without much of a problem.

For Elk and Moose, there is only one right choice;

200 Grain Nosler Partition.

No wonder they call you bonecrusher...

It does seem that way sometimes,
but penetration tests done with 9,3x62 in elephant showed that weight retention was ones best friend by a large margin.

WL 286gn went 20"
WL 320gn went 40"

NP 286gn went 23"
AFrame 300gn went 42"

The 286NP is only 5% lighter that the AF300 and NP had rather noticeably smaller expanded dia. than the AF.
so the NP should be the winner, yes?...well no, since NP penetration was miles behind the AF.
Final weight for NP was 217gn (75%) and the AF 298.5gn.(99%)

Used the 200 and 180 Partitions on quite a few animals, not from a 30/06 but from various 300 magnums. The 200 digs deeper but there are no flies on the 180 at any distance.It will exit sometimes and other times stay inside a heavy animal. It will break both shoulders of a bull elk from what I have seen. Seems it's velocity dependent.

My experience is similar to John's in terms of seeing the 200 gr penetration. One bull elk was hit back forward of the flank, into the back ribs, and the bullet smashed the upper leg bones on the opposite side....one of Elmer's "raking shots". I did not recover that bullet.

Starman,

Your results are classic "examples of one," and are flawed in other ways, since obviously original bullet weight and muzzle velocity were not the same.

Repeated bullet tests repeated in various kinds of media (including animals), using bullets bullets of equal original weight at a wide variety of velocities, show that frontal area of the mushroom affects penetration as much or more than retained weight. This is especially applicable at higher muzzle velocities.

180 partition in 300 wtby has been a dismal failure on our white tails if you try a frontal shot, barely makes it to the hindquarter... I have a small 6mm, slower than 243 that does the same with 85 tsx...

On nilgai, which are 500ish pounds, I've shot a few... quartering shots the 180s never exited... ugh....

JB told me the 200 partitions where the thing with mags.. to not use the 180 partitions..

I solved the issue by going all barnes basically if possible.

Regarding the “winner”, initial and final weights and final expanded diameter only tell part of the story. How fast the bullet expands plays an important role. My guess is the NP expanded sooner/faster.

Impact velocity also plays an important role. Given identical bullets, it has been shown many times that the slower bullet will often penetrate deeper. This may be in part or even mostly due to how soon/fast the bullet the bullets expand or it may have to do with the mechanical properties of the impact – push your hand flat into water and there is no problem, slap it into the water fast enough and your hand will turn to mush.

For example, take a couple of .458” hardcast FN bullets fired from my .45-70 into water jugs. The first was a 460g Cast Performance WFNGC @ 1812fps while the second was a 300g Oregon Trail Laser-Cast bullet at 1167fps. The 460g bullet (461.2g actual) had a sectional density of .314 and started out with 3362 ft-lbs energy and a relative momentum of 836 while the 300g had a sectional density of .204 with a paltry 907 ft-lbs energy and a relative momentum of 350. After firing into the water jugs the 460g bullet retained 352.9g with a maximum width of 0.58” (due more to a bent/deformed tip leaning to one side than true expansion). Expansion and final weight of the 300g bullets was unknown as none were recovered but the Laser-Cast bullets are hard and little expansion or weight loss, if any, is likely.

Given just these numbers many people would expect the 460g bullet to penetrate further – after all it had 1.54x the mass and sectional density, 1.55x the velocity, 3.7x the energy and 2.4x the momentum, all packaged into a projectile with the same diameter and (more or less) construction. Those people would be wrong – way wrong.

In fact, the 460g bullet stopped in the 9th water jug. The 300g bullet repeatedly exited 12 water jugs. One notable difference was the amount of destruction. The 460g bullet violently destroyed many of the water jugs while the 300g passed through the 12 jugs destroying one or two but leaving only entrance and exit holes leaking water in the rest.

Another bullet tested was the 350g North Fork SS at 2189fps. This bullet started out with 3726 ft-lbs energy and a relative momentum of 767. It expanded to 0.80” and stopped in the 6th water jug. Not only did this bullet violently destroy most of the water jugs, it did a lot of damage to the sawhorses and plywood surface the jugs were resting on as well. The plywood was a 12” wide strip of 1/2” or 19/32” plywood. The front water jug was resting on the leading edge of the plywood, flush against the right side. The bullet impact not only destroyed a lot of the water jugs, the concussive force blew a hole in the plywood that matched the footprint of the first water jug. The force also broke the horizontal support of the front sawhorse, dropping the plywood and water jugs to the ground. It just goes to show that penetration is not a good measure of a bullet’s destructive ability. If it was we would all be shooting non-expanding spire point solids for big game hunting.

what powder/how much do you use to get 2625 with a 200 partition?? ( 59 grain of h-4831?) also if you could get the federal high energy 180 grain tipped bonded bear claw at 2880 fps that would be one I would really consider. I do shoot factory ammo rarely , but my older federal high energy ammo loaded with both 180 partitions and 180 bear claws get 2888 out of a 22" Remington 700 mtn rifle. light gun a lot of recoil.

roninflag,

Not Old Crab, but I use 59.0 H4831SC in my NULA .30-06 with the 200 Partition. It has a 24" barrel and the load averages 2690 fps.

Still have a little bit of the High Energy 180 Trophy Bonded load you mention, and in the NULA it averages around 2940 fps, with decent accuracy. But Federal doesn't make anything like it anymore, partly because in a few rifles with tight barrels and/or chambers it was pretty warm. I know of a couple rifles where the load blew primers.

MD,

you yourself compared a 200NP to the 168TSX for penetration
their MVs and original weights are also not the same, should we consider it a flawed comparison?



I don't put much relevance in any of those other( non animal tissue) kinds of test media.
Since none of them accurately replicate the mechanical properties of animal tissue reaction to projectiles.
some of them give very misleading results.
But they sure are good for entertainment purposes and to easily impress the uneducated.

Ballistic GEL:
is often used to test bullets, but its actually a Non-Newtonian (shear thickening) media,
can you say animal tissue reacts with the same Newtonian properties?
For a start, blood itself reacts the exact opposite to the reaction one gets from ballistic gel,
blood gets less viscous(less resistant) when agitated while ballistic gel gets more viscous(more resistant) with agitation.
(to give people an idea of how important the Newtownian nature of a particular bullet test media is,
just consider that they are designing bullet proof vests with Non Newtonian-shear thickening fluids.
So its not something to ignore.)


Telephone book tests:
These tests make me laugh, simply because animal tissue does not at all react like wet paper to a rifle projectile.
Paper has very different shear and tensile properties to animal tissue. Wet paper also "wads -up" to form a
clump in front of a travelling projectile....as such it produces a larger frontal- larger wound channel and larger exit hole
in the paper than would be achieved with just a bullet passing through animal tissue.
We know that the greens found in an animals gut do (like paper)also wad-up and slow/stop a bullet considerably
So a sensible person would not use either of such type clumping-wading materials to simulate penetration of animal tissue
..or the common chest shot.

Water jug tests :
water is not like animal tissue because it does not compress.
Water is also not like blood or ballistic gel, because the Newtonian nature of water is that its viscosity does not change
with agitation.
Water is at best a good bullet trap.

I'd let the accuracy of either the 180NP or the 200 NP which one to use. Either one is as good as the other.

Not a bad choice in the bunch. Lot of talk on how the bullet performs after it hits the critter. I'd say that how it prerforms getting there is just as important. Especially if you find yourself needing to take a poke. That being said, I'll add the 175g Barnes LRX to the list.

Starman,

I don't use ballistic gelatin or wet paper, because I have found through plenty of experimentation that neither resembles shooting animals.

You might read the chapter in my most recent book on pre-testing big game bullets to find out what I do use, because the "test media" used more closely replicates the results from shooting lots of animals.

This.

Of course same could be said of smaller rounds too.

From what I have read, any one of the bullets originally posted would be a good choice but my question is which would you recommend for a small frame female? She shoots good, as good as most men but I don't want her to get recoil shy and she has shot a few 180's in a 06. We were in Africa so adrenaline may have eliminated recoil.

In my experience on deer only, I have found that the Barnes 130TSX penetrates/performs almost identically to the 180CoreLokt. If anything, the TSX consistently exits on the hide rather than being caught.

The recoil is much lower on the 130 load.

Undoubtedly a good bullet for elk and moose, but I wouldn't call it the "only one right choice."

I have been lucky enough to have lived in elk country most of my life, and have hunted them for most of the past 50 years.

In the late 60's and early 70's I lived in Steamboat Springs, Colorado which was in the heart of some of the best elk hunting in the world. Five of the first seven elk that I've killed were while I was living there, and I killed them with a .30-06 using 180 grain Sierra GameKing bullets.

In 1975 I moved to Northwestern Montana, and the three elk that I killed there were also with my .30-06 and 180 grain Sierra GK bullets.

I moved to my present home near Bozeman, Montana in 1978, and 21 of the elk and the two Shiras bull moose that I've killed while living here were with my .30 Gibbs (an improved .30-06) and 180 grain Nosler Partition bullets. The last two elk that I've killed were with my .300 Weatherby using a 168 grain Barnes TSX and a TTSX bullet.

Both of my moose and most of my elk (including the elk that I've killed with sub .30 caliber bullets) were one shot kills, and I've never felt that I needed more gun or a heavier bullet.

Accuracy and bullet placement are the most important. Any of the three bullets listed in the original post will easily kill any elk or moose IF they are put in the right place. I'd pick the one that shoots best in MY rifle.

A couple of thoughts here.

First, “examples of one” are often good representatives of “examples of many”. If there is any consistency in outcomes, which is often both desirable and the actual case, there are sound statistical reasons why this is so. Some people foolishly believe you need to shoot a large number of animals to determine how a bullet will behave. This is often not the case at all. For example, if a bullet fails to perform as advertised on the first use and again on the second, what are the chances it will perform as desired for the next 98 uses? Put another way, if the bullet will fail 2% of the time, the chances that both failures will occur on the first two uses are 4 in 10,000. For myself, if a bullet fails on first use it may never get another chance – there are way too many good and well proven alternatives. My first elk was taken with my 7mm RM and a 162g Hornady BTSP InterLock. I was not impressed with its performance and switched to 160g Speer Grand slams instead. The Grand Slams performed flawlessly for two decades. When Barnes introduced the XLC bullets I tried the 160g version in my 7mm RM. After a miserable first use experience involving a very unfortunate buck antelope, the rest of my XLC’s were relegated to target duty only. No regrets and the replacements (North Fork SS, Barnes TTSX and more Speer Grand Slam bullets) have worked flawlessly for the last decade and an half.

Second, Starman’s example of the 286g NP and 300g AF penetration is a quantitative data point – and certainly better than no data point at all. While bullet weights and muzzle velocities were undoubtedly different, the penetrations were what they were. Thank you, Starman, for presenting that information.

Lastly, “what’s good for the goose…” and “the pot calling the kettle black” come to mind…



The fact that none of the target types accurately replicate the mechanical properties of animal tissue doesn’t mean tests using those other media are uninformative. I don’t use gel or phone books or old newspaper, but I do use a lot of water jugs, which, admittedly, is a “hard” medium due to its non-compressive nature. What I’ve seen is that bullets that come apart easily in the jugs also tend to do so in animals. Conversely, bullets that tend to hold together well in the jugs and penetrate deep into the water column also tend to do so in animals, although stopping them in animals can be problematic unless heavy bone is hit.

For example, consider my tests with my .338WM, Nosler 225g AccuBond @ 2742fps and 225g Hornady SST @ 2707fps. The AccuBond retained 140.1g or 62.3%, expanded to .628” and penetrated 6 water jugs. The first Hornady SST retained 98.2g or 43.6% but that weight was all in the small fragments that were recovered as the bullet came apart. Penetration was only 3 jugs. A second SST did better, retaining 126.5g or 56.2%, expanded to .743” and penetrated 4 jugs. The two loads shoot to about the same POI but based on these test results only the AccuBond go hunting – the less expensive SST are used only for target practice. Since that test I’ve taken two elk with the AccuBonds at ranges of 262 yards and 487 yards and, since they were pass-through shots, recovered none. While the first SST was an “example of one”, I didn’t need to shoot another 99 into water jugs to get the information I wanted.

The great thing about water is that it is highly consistent, readily available and dirt cheap. This is pretty much the opposite of animal tissue where angles change, bones and grass-filled gut may or may not be hit and shot opportunities may be limited to a few per year or maybe years or even one or two in a lifetime, depending on how often the hunter gets to hunt with a particular rifle and load.

More great things about shooting water jugs is that, regardless of arguments about their validity as a test medium, they are quick and easy to prepare and set up and a ***LOT*** of fun to shoot.

Which is why I have 40-50 empty one-gallon jugs out in the garage waiting for warmer weather.

Some time when you are going out to the club (BLGC),I'd like to meet you and hit a set of jugs with these 220 gr RN from my 30-06. It would take me a year for me even get 10 jugs.

I think that nose bullets will work great especially with vintage bores that may need recrowning. The non boat tails will help slug the bore coming out the muzzel. Them pesky Barnes bullets are a freaking nightmare for me to load with them deep grooves in the bearing surface of the brass. I like the originals and the blue xlc bullets. Don't like them newer ttsx or tsx things. They are too fussy 2 load 4 me.

Get her a 300 wsm. My wife, 5' 5" or so, shoots a Rem 700 with a youth stock. I also know 3 or 4 other woman, none of whom are large frame, who choose to shoot the 300 wsm. Just get a rifle that fits her, that is more important than anything.


As far as 30-06 bullets go, any decently constructed bullet from 165 on up will kill elk or moose just fine.

Saddlesore -

I'd be very happy to meet you and let you help destroy the jugs. Not only am i curious how the 220's will perform I'd like to thank you personally for your advice about hip surgeons. Last November when I was hunting I didn't think about my hip at all except now and them when I realized that I wasn't thinking about it.

I'll say this, it takes a lot longer to collect the jugs than it does to destroy them. I think Dave (my long time hunting buddy) and I destroyed 44 jugs with 7 shots or something like that last time we were out. I have a couple of contractor-size bags filled with jugs (guessing 40-45 or so) but any you could bring would be a help.

Some nice warm day in the spring...

165 gr. Barnes TTSX is what I've used for Elk, Moose,Deer, and Antelope. No Complaints.