DeerMadness
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,459
I have a nice .270 Kimber I have shot deer and antelope and cow elk. No chasing or wounded. I used 130 grain Barnes VorTX 130 grain. I have a Bull Elk hunt and should bump up to 150 grain ?
Question for bullet grain
- Thread starter DeerMadness
- Start date
The_Coloradoboy
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,149
If you can get the 150s to shoot I'd say go ahead but if the gun is dialed with 130s don't fix what isn't broken. A good bonded 130 grain bullet with good shot placement will work fine.
Coloradoboy
Coloradoboy
Cahunter805
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,357
+1. If the 130s are shooting good I'd spend the time practicing from field positions and getting comfortable with the rifle.
roadrunner
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,757
What shot distance do you anticipate?
The 150 gr will perform better at longer range.
I chose a 150 gr for my daughter's. 270 for larger game for obvious reasons.
Something just to throw out there, I saw a post on another forum (on MM's) about the same thing and advice was given to go with the heavier bullet.
The 150 gr will perform better at longer range.
I chose a 150 gr for my daughter's. 270 for larger game for obvious reasons.
Something just to throw out there, I saw a post on another forum (on MM's) about the same thing and advice was given to go with the heavier bullet.
DeerMadness
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,459
Thanks for all the replies ! I guess I will stick with the 130 grain then. I have a Leopold 4.5-16 x 50 VX-3 scope I shoot zero at 200 yards. I don't attempt shots over 450 yards max. I think 400 yards on a buck was my longest shot.
It is a November hunt. Went out and bought some military fleece today for the cold weather ahead. There are a few really nice bulls out this last week so I am excited to see opening day roll up.
It is a November hunt. Went out and bought some military fleece today for the cold weather ahead. There are a few really nice bulls out this last week so I am excited to see opening day roll up.
BIGJOHNT
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,185
Stick with the Barnes! That's the same bullet my daughters hunt with and have killed both bulls and cows with. I hand load them and also buy Barnes. I load their suggest load from their manual and it Chronograph's the same as my hand loads. I must have found the factory load specs. The girls use a BDC scope so matching loads is important. With the Quality of the Barnes bullet it equals the weight increase in the low quality bullet .
roadrunner
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,757
LAST EDITED ON Oct-14-19 AT 09:01PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Oct-14-19 AT 09:01?PM (MST)
>If your rifle is shooting great
>groups with your 130 gr.
>load, stay with it. I
>would be willing to bet
>that more elk has been
>killed with the 130 gr.
>load in 270 over the
>many years it has been
>around.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>RELH
Agreed. We used 130 gr all the time in the past.
>If your rifle is shooting great
>groups with your 130 gr.
>load, stay with it. I
>would be willing to bet
>that more elk has been
>killed with the 130 gr.
>load in 270 over the
>many years it has been
>around.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>RELH
Agreed. We used 130 gr all the time in the past.
DeerMadness
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,459
LAST EDITED ON Oct-14-19 AT 09:47PM (MST)[p]This was 400 or a little over. Had cancer surgery 3 months before hunt. It took the sting out of how the cancer affected me.
roadrunner
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,757
Nice deer!
headshot05
Active Member
- Messages
- 267
No, just hit em in the right spot
tailchasers
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,323
What can I say that already hasn't been said? 130 will do great in that 270.
"Courage is being scared to death but
saddling up anyway."
"Courage is being scared to death but
saddling up anyway."
deadibob
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,067
The most common reason for stepping up in bullet weight is for retained bullet weight and penetration. Barnes bullets out penetrate every other hunting bullet. They also usually retain 95-100% of their original weight. Barnes bullets like velocity to get maximum expansion and the best way to get speed is to step down in weight.
I use Barnes tsx and ttsx almost exclusively and I always step down in bullet weight when using them. The best thing about Barnes bullets for me is that they don't ruin meat like a standard cup and core bullet does.
I use Barnes tsx and ttsx almost exclusively and I always step down in bullet weight when using them. The best thing about Barnes bullets for me is that they don't ruin meat like a standard cup and core bullet does.
Tikka
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 4,919
Here you go buckhorn..,,
What is the difference between the TSX?, the TTSX? (Tipped TSX) and the LRX? bullets?
Barnes TSX, TTSX, and LRX share the same all-copper design resulting in virtually 100% weight retention. Four razor-sharp cutting petals expand to double the bullet's original diameter to create a very long and wide wound channel. Additionally, all three designs feature the Accu-groove? technology which provides the shooter with decreased fouling and improved accuracy. The TTSX differs from the TSX in that it features a re-engineered nose cavity that accommodates a polymer tip. The addition of the polymer tip initiates rapid expansion and improves ballistics at extended distances. The LRX also features a polymer tip along with a longer nose profile and a boattail design that delivers match grade accuracy at long range with an incredibly high B.C. without sacrificing terminal performance. The LRX has a very wide range of functionality ? terminal performance is unmatched on game at not only close, but extreme distances for long range hunters. The LRX?s combination of a high B.C. and wide range of functionality can really extend the shooters? effective range resulting in quick, clean and ethical kills.
What is the difference between the TSX?, the TTSX? (Tipped TSX) and the LRX? bullets?
Barnes TSX, TTSX, and LRX share the same all-copper design resulting in virtually 100% weight retention. Four razor-sharp cutting petals expand to double the bullet's original diameter to create a very long and wide wound channel. Additionally, all three designs feature the Accu-groove? technology which provides the shooter with decreased fouling and improved accuracy. The TTSX differs from the TSX in that it features a re-engineered nose cavity that accommodates a polymer tip. The addition of the polymer tip initiates rapid expansion and improves ballistics at extended distances. The LRX also features a polymer tip along with a longer nose profile and a boattail design that delivers match grade accuracy at long range with an incredibly high B.C. without sacrificing terminal performance. The LRX has a very wide range of functionality ? terminal performance is unmatched on game at not only close, but extreme distances for long range hunters. The LRX?s combination of a high B.C. and wide range of functionality can really extend the shooters? effective range resulting in quick, clean and ethical kills.
deadibob
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,067
>Here you go buckhorn..,,
>
>
>What is the difference between the
>TSX?, the TTSX? (Tipped TSX)
>and the LRX? bullets?
>Barnes TSX, TTSX, and LRX share
>the same all-copper design resulting
>in virtually 100% weight retention.
>Four razor-sharp cutting petals expand
>to double the bullet's original
>diameter to create a very
>long and wide wound channel.
>Additionally, all three designs feature
>the Accu-groove? technology which provides
>the shooter with decreased fouling
>and improved accuracy. The TTSX
>differs from the TSX in
>that it features a re-engineered
>nose cavity that accommodates a
>polymer tip. The addition of
>the polymer tip initiates rapid
>expansion and improves ballistics at
>extended distances. The LRX also
>features a polymer tip along
>with a longer nose profile
>and a boattail design that
>delivers match grade accuracy at
>long range with an incredibly
>high B.C. without sacrificing terminal
>performance. The LRX has a
>very wide range of functionality
>? terminal performance is unmatched
>on game at not only
>close, but extreme distances for
>long range hunters. The LRX?s
>combination of a high B.C.
>and wide range of functionality
>can really extend the shooters?
>effective range resulting in quick,
>clean and ethical kills.
That would be the difference. I prefer the TTSX but I have about two lifetime supplies worth of the TSX bullets so I generally use them.
>
>
>What is the difference between the
>TSX?, the TTSX? (Tipped TSX)
>and the LRX? bullets?
>Barnes TSX, TTSX, and LRX share
>the same all-copper design resulting
>in virtually 100% weight retention.
>Four razor-sharp cutting petals expand
>to double the bullet's original
>diameter to create a very
>long and wide wound channel.
>Additionally, all three designs feature
>the Accu-groove? technology which provides
>the shooter with decreased fouling
>and improved accuracy. The TTSX
>differs from the TSX in
>that it features a re-engineered
>nose cavity that accommodates a
>polymer tip. The addition of
>the polymer tip initiates rapid
>expansion and improves ballistics at
>extended distances. The LRX also
>features a polymer tip along
>with a longer nose profile
>and a boattail design that
>delivers match grade accuracy at
>long range with an incredibly
>high B.C. without sacrificing terminal
>performance. The LRX has a
>very wide range of functionality
>? terminal performance is unmatched
>on game at not only
>close, but extreme distances for
>long range hunters. The LRX?s
>combination of a high B.C.
>and wide range of functionality
>can really extend the shooters?
>effective range resulting in quick,
>clean and ethical kills.
That would be the difference. I prefer the TTSX but I have about two lifetime supplies worth of the TSX bullets so I generally use them.
roadrunner
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,757
>The most common reason for stepping
>up in bullet weight is
>for retained bullet weight and
>penetration. Barnes bullets out penetrate
>every other hunting bullet. They
>also usually retain 95-100% of
>their original weight. Barnes bullets
>like velocity to get maximum
>expansion and the best way
>to get speed is to
>step down in weight.
>
>I use Barnes tsx and ttsx
>almost exclusively and I always
>step down in bullet weight
>when using them. The best
>thing about Barnes bullets for
>me is that they don't
>ruin meat like a standard
>cup and core bullet does.
>
I disagree, an increase in velocity isn't necessarily what you need. Faster objects tend to decelerate at a faster rate. Any bullet will perform within their respective velocity range.
What you really want a bullet that will maintain its velocity range at whatever distance you will be using it at for optimal performance.
Bullets do not kill based on penetrating. If you were bowhunting, then the most penetration you can get is optimal. With bullets, you want the most damage that can be done via a hemorrhagic shockwave.
Every bullet manufacturer will market theirs ad the best deep penetrating slow expanding, maximum damage bullet on the market. Their data supports them all as does our anecdotal evidence.
>up in bullet weight is
>for retained bullet weight and
>penetration. Barnes bullets out penetrate
>every other hunting bullet. They
>also usually retain 95-100% of
>their original weight. Barnes bullets
>like velocity to get maximum
>expansion and the best way
>to get speed is to
>step down in weight.
>
>I use Barnes tsx and ttsx
>almost exclusively and I always
>step down in bullet weight
>when using them. The best
>thing about Barnes bullets for
>me is that they don't
>ruin meat like a standard
>cup and core bullet does.
>
I disagree, an increase in velocity isn't necessarily what you need. Faster objects tend to decelerate at a faster rate. Any bullet will perform within their respective velocity range.
What you really want a bullet that will maintain its velocity range at whatever distance you will be using it at for optimal performance.
Bullets do not kill based on penetrating. If you were bowhunting, then the most penetration you can get is optimal. With bullets, you want the most damage that can be done via a hemorrhagic shockwave.
Every bullet manufacturer will market theirs ad the best deep penetrating slow expanding, maximum damage bullet on the market. Their data supports them all as does our anecdotal evidence.
>LAST EDITED ON Oct-14-19
>AT 09:47?PM (MST)
>
>This was 400 or a little
>over. Had cancer surgery 3
>months before hunt. It took
>the sting out of how
>the cancer affected me.
>
DeerMadness
Nice buck Congratulations
Hope you are doing OK I know what that is like, but with any luck and God's help we will live on for a long time.
>AT 09:47?PM (MST)
>
>This was 400 or a little
>over. Had cancer surgery 3
>months before hunt. It took
>the sting out of how
>the cancer affected me.
>
DeerMadness
Nice buck Congratulations
Hope you are doing OK I know what that is like, but with any luck and God's help we will live on for a long time.
DeerMadness
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,459
Well , I cleaned and oiled the Kimber, cleaned my binos and spotter and packed up for a short outing for Muleys tomorrow. The hunting has not been good due to the moon I believe. It was at 7/8 moon last night.
I have 2 Badlands coast and pants. One of the Zippers failed again. The other coat us good though. They were plenty of money and I sent that coat in once before. I think it is about $20 to fix. Probably Korea or China made.
I have 2 Badlands coast and pants. One of the Zippers failed again. The other coat us good though. They were plenty of money and I sent that coat in once before. I think it is about $20 to fix. Probably Korea or China made.
deadibob
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,067
>>The most common reason for stepping
>>up in bullet weight is
>>for retained bullet weight and
>>penetration. Barnes bullets out penetrate
>>every other hunting bullet. They
>>also usually retain 95-100% of
>>their original weight. Barnes bullets
>>like velocity to get maximum
>>expansion and the best way
>>to get speed is to
>>step down in weight.
>>
>>I use Barnes tsx and ttsx
>>almost exclusively and I always
>>step down in bullet weight
>>when using them. The best
>>thing about Barnes bullets for
>>me is that they don't
>>ruin meat like a standard
>>cup and core bullet does.
>>
>
>I disagree, an increase in velocity
>isn't necessarily what you need.
> Faster objects tend to
>decelerate at a faster rate.
> Any bullet will perform
>within their respective velocity range.
>
>
>What you really want a bullet
>that will maintain its velocity
>range at whatever distance you
>will be using it at
>for optimal performance.
>
>Bullets do not kill based on
>penetrating. If you were
>bowhunting, then the most
>penetration you can get is
>optimal. With bullets,
>you want the most damage
>that can be done via
>a hemorrhagic shockwave.
>
>Every bullet manufacturer will market theirs
>ad the best deep penetrating
>slow expanding, maximum damage bullet
>on the market. Their
>data supports them all as
>does our anecdotal evidence.
Wrong! I'm referring to Barnes bullets and solid copper bullets like barnes will always expand more with velocity. If you are talking about standard lead/copper cup and core bullets then I will agree with you but solid copper bullets do have a higher velocity range than standard cup and core bullets and will always perform better with a higher impact velocity.
You are also wrong about penetration not being a factor on killing big game with a firearm. Your statement on that is complete ignorance. You can get a large shockwave but if it doesn't reach the vitals you will have a wounded animal nearly all the time. Shoot an animal in a shoulder or other bone that stops the bullet and then get back to me on how penetration doesn't matter. I'm sure you've seen animals knocked flat from the initial shockwave of a bullet only to get back up and run off because it was a poor or non-penetrating shot. So much for the killing power from that theory. That crap was debunked about 40 years ago after the Weatherby craze.
Also the shockwave you are referring to is damaging to meat. I used to hunt with a 6.5 ultramag and barnes bullets, the shockwave from that cartridge was severe enough to blow pieces of animal back through the entry hole and still completely penetrate the animal. I have never before seen that amount of pressure/shock on an animal.
>>up in bullet weight is
>>for retained bullet weight and
>>penetration. Barnes bullets out penetrate
>>every other hunting bullet. They
>>also usually retain 95-100% of
>>their original weight. Barnes bullets
>>like velocity to get maximum
>>expansion and the best way
>>to get speed is to
>>step down in weight.
>>
>>I use Barnes tsx and ttsx
>>almost exclusively and I always
>>step down in bullet weight
>>when using them. The best
>>thing about Barnes bullets for
>>me is that they don't
>>ruin meat like a standard
>>cup and core bullet does.
>>
>
>I disagree, an increase in velocity
>isn't necessarily what you need.
> Faster objects tend to
>decelerate at a faster rate.
> Any bullet will perform
>within their respective velocity range.
>
>
>What you really want a bullet
>that will maintain its velocity
>range at whatever distance you
>will be using it at
>for optimal performance.
>
>Bullets do not kill based on
>penetrating. If you were
>bowhunting, then the most
>penetration you can get is
>optimal. With bullets,
>you want the most damage
>that can be done via
>a hemorrhagic shockwave.
>
>Every bullet manufacturer will market theirs
>ad the best deep penetrating
>slow expanding, maximum damage bullet
>on the market. Their
>data supports them all as
>does our anecdotal evidence.
Wrong! I'm referring to Barnes bullets and solid copper bullets like barnes will always expand more with velocity. If you are talking about standard lead/copper cup and core bullets then I will agree with you but solid copper bullets do have a higher velocity range than standard cup and core bullets and will always perform better with a higher impact velocity.
You are also wrong about penetration not being a factor on killing big game with a firearm. Your statement on that is complete ignorance. You can get a large shockwave but if it doesn't reach the vitals you will have a wounded animal nearly all the time. Shoot an animal in a shoulder or other bone that stops the bullet and then get back to me on how penetration doesn't matter. I'm sure you've seen animals knocked flat from the initial shockwave of a bullet only to get back up and run off because it was a poor or non-penetrating shot. So much for the killing power from that theory. That crap was debunked about 40 years ago after the Weatherby craze.
Also the shockwave you are referring to is damaging to meat. I used to hunt with a 6.5 ultramag and barnes bullets, the shockwave from that cartridge was severe enough to blow pieces of animal back through the entry hole and still completely penetrate the animal. I have never before seen that amount of pressure/shock on an animal.
deadibob
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,067
>Well , I cleaned and oiled
>the Kimber, cleaned my binos
>and spotter and packed up
>for a short outing for
>Muleys tomorrow. The hunting has
>not been good due to
>the moon I believe. It
>was at 7/8 moon last
>night.
>I have 2 Badlands coast and
>pants. One of the Zippers
>failed again. The other coat
>us good though. They were
>plenty of money and I
>sent that coat in once
>before. I think it is
>about $20 to fix. Probably
>Korea or China made.
I used to be a badlands dealer and one of my current 2200's that I use has two broken zippers that need to be fixed. Their zippers suck.
>the Kimber, cleaned my binos
>and spotter and packed up
>for a short outing for
>Muleys tomorrow. The hunting has
>not been good due to
>the moon I believe. It
>was at 7/8 moon last
>night.
>I have 2 Badlands coast and
>pants. One of the Zippers
>failed again. The other coat
>us good though. They were
>plenty of money and I
>sent that coat in once
>before. I think it is
>about $20 to fix. Probably
>Korea or China made.
I used to be a badlands dealer and one of my current 2200's that I use has two broken zippers that need to be fixed. Their zippers suck.
roadrunner
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,757
>>>The most common reason for stepping
>>>up in bullet weight is
>>>for retained bullet weight and
>>>penetration. Barnes bullets out penetrate
>>>every other hunting bullet. They
>>>also usually retain 95-100% of
>>>their original weight. Barnes bullets
>>>like velocity to get maximum
>>>expansion and the best way
>>>to get speed is to
>>>step down in weight.
>>>
>>>I use Barnes tsx and ttsx
>>>almost exclusively and I always
>>>step down in bullet weight
>>>when using them. The best
>>>thing about Barnes bullets for
>>>me is that they don't
>>>ruin meat like a standard
>>>cup and core bullet does.
>>>
>>
>>I disagree, an increase in velocity
>>isn't necessarily what you need.
>> Faster objects tend to
>>decelerate at a faster rate.
>> Any bullet will perform
>>within their respective velocity range.
>>
>>
>>What you really want a bullet
>>that will maintain its velocity
>>range at whatever distance you
>>will be using it at
>>for optimal performance.
>>
>>Bullets do not kill based on
>>penetrating. If you were
>>bowhunting, then the most
>>penetration you can get is
>>optimal. With bullets,
>>you want the most damage
>>that can be done via
>>a hemorrhagic shockwave.
>>
>>Every bullet manufacturer will market theirs
>>ad the best deep penetrating
>>slow expanding, maximum damage bullet
>>on the market. Their
>>data supports them all as
>>does our anecdotal evidence.
>
>Wrong! I'm referring to Barnes bullets
>and solid copper bullets like
>barnes will always expand more
>with velocity. If you are
>talking about standard lead/copper cup
>and core bullets then I
>will agree with you but
>solid copper bullets do have
>a higher velocity range than
>standard cup and core bullets
>and will always perform better
>with a higher impact velocity.
>
>
>You are also wrong about penetration
>not being a factor on
>killing big game with a
>firearm. Your statement on that
>is complete ignorance. You
>can get a large shockwave
> but if it doesn't
>reach the vitals you will
>have a wounded animal nearly
>all the time. Shoot an
>animal in a shoulder or
>other bone that stops the
>bullet and then get back
>to me on how penetration
>doesn't matter. I'm sure you've
>seen animals knocked flat from
>the initial shockwave of a
>bullet only to get back
>up and run off because
>it was a poor or
>non-penetrating shot. So much for
>the killing power from that
>theory. That crap was debunked
>about 40 years ago after
>the Weatherby craze.
>
>Also the shockwave you are referring
>to is damaging to meat.
>I used to hunt with
>a 6.5 ultramag and barnes
>bullets, the shockwave from that
>cartridge was severe enough to
>blow pieces of animal back
>through the entry hole and
>still completely penetrate the animal.
>I have never before seen
>that amount of pressure/shock on
>an animal.
No, I'm not wrong. Please re-read my post in its entirety before stopping at the first thing you "disagree with" and commenting on my wrongness and your rightness.
Carry on though, its kinda cute in a sophomoric way..
>>>up in bullet weight is
>>>for retained bullet weight and
>>>penetration. Barnes bullets out penetrate
>>>every other hunting bullet. They
>>>also usually retain 95-100% of
>>>their original weight. Barnes bullets
>>>like velocity to get maximum
>>>expansion and the best way
>>>to get speed is to
>>>step down in weight.
>>>
>>>I use Barnes tsx and ttsx
>>>almost exclusively and I always
>>>step down in bullet weight
>>>when using them. The best
>>>thing about Barnes bullets for
>>>me is that they don't
>>>ruin meat like a standard
>>>cup and core bullet does.
>>>
>>
>>I disagree, an increase in velocity
>>isn't necessarily what you need.
>> Faster objects tend to
>>decelerate at a faster rate.
>> Any bullet will perform
>>within their respective velocity range.
>>
>>
>>What you really want a bullet
>>that will maintain its velocity
>>range at whatever distance you
>>will be using it at
>>for optimal performance.
>>
>>Bullets do not kill based on
>>penetrating. If you were
>>bowhunting, then the most
>>penetration you can get is
>>optimal. With bullets,
>>you want the most damage
>>that can be done via
>>a hemorrhagic shockwave.
>>
>>Every bullet manufacturer will market theirs
>>ad the best deep penetrating
>>slow expanding, maximum damage bullet
>>on the market. Their
>>data supports them all as
>>does our anecdotal evidence.
>
>Wrong! I'm referring to Barnes bullets
>and solid copper bullets like
>barnes will always expand more
>with velocity. If you are
>talking about standard lead/copper cup
>and core bullets then I
>will agree with you but
>solid copper bullets do have
>a higher velocity range than
>standard cup and core bullets
>and will always perform better
>with a higher impact velocity.
>
>
>You are also wrong about penetration
>not being a factor on
>killing big game with a
>firearm. Your statement on that
>is complete ignorance. You
>can get a large shockwave
> but if it doesn't
>reach the vitals you will
>have a wounded animal nearly
>all the time. Shoot an
>animal in a shoulder or
>other bone that stops the
>bullet and then get back
>to me on how penetration
>doesn't matter. I'm sure you've
>seen animals knocked flat from
>the initial shockwave of a
>bullet only to get back
>up and run off because
>it was a poor or
>non-penetrating shot. So much for
>the killing power from that
>theory. That crap was debunked
>about 40 years ago after
>the Weatherby craze.
>
>Also the shockwave you are referring
>to is damaging to meat.
>I used to hunt with
>a 6.5 ultramag and barnes
>bullets, the shockwave from that
>cartridge was severe enough to
>blow pieces of animal back
>through the entry hole and
>still completely penetrate the animal.
>I have never before seen
>that amount of pressure/shock on
>an animal.
No, I'm not wrong. Please re-read my post in its entirety before stopping at the first thing you "disagree with" and commenting on my wrongness and your rightness.
Carry on though, its kinda cute in a sophomoric way..
deadibob
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,067
>>>>The most common reason for stepping
>>>>up in bullet weight is
>>>>for retained bullet weight and
>>>>penetration. Barnes bullets out penetrate
>>>>every other hunting bullet. They
>>>>also usually retain 95-100% of
>>>>their original weight. Barnes bullets
>>>>like velocity to get maximum
>>>>expansion and the best way
>>>>to get speed is to
>>>>step down in weight.
>>>>
>>>>I use Barnes tsx and ttsx
>>>>almost exclusively and I always
>>>>step down in bullet weight
>>>>when using them. The best
>>>>thing about Barnes bullets for
>>>>me is that they don't
>>>>ruin meat like a standard
>>>>cup and core bullet does.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I disagree, an increase in velocity
>>>isn't necessarily what you need.
>>> Faster objects tend to
>>>decelerate at a faster rate.
>>> Any bullet will perform
>>>within their respective velocity range.
>>>
>>>
>>>What you really want a bullet
>>>that will maintain its velocity
>>>range at whatever distance you
>>>will be using it at
>>>for optimal performance.
>>>
>>>Bullets do not kill based on
>>>penetrating. If you were
>>>bowhunting, then the most
>>>penetration you can get is
>>>optimal. With bullets,
>>>you want the most damage
>>>that can be done via
>>>a hemorrhagic shockwave.
>>>
>>>Every bullet manufacturer will market theirs
>>>ad the best deep penetrating
>>>slow expanding, maximum damage bullet
>>>on the market. Their
>>>data supports them all as
>>>does our anecdotal evidence.
>>
>>Wrong! I'm referring to Barnes bullets
>>and solid copper bullets like
>>barnes will always expand more
>>with velocity. If you are
>>talking about standard lead/copper cup
>>and core bullets then I
>>will agree with you but
>>solid copper bullets do have
>>a higher velocity range than
>>standard cup and core bullets
>>and will always perform better
>>with a higher impact velocity.
>>
>>
>>You are also wrong about penetration
>>not being a factor on
>>killing big game with a
>>firearm. Your statement on that
>>is complete ignorance. You
>>can get a large shockwave
>> but if it doesn't
>>reach the vitals you will
>>have a wounded animal nearly
>>all the time. Shoot an
>>animal in a shoulder or
>>other bone that stops the
>>bullet and then get back
>>to me on how penetration
>>doesn't matter. I'm sure you've
>>seen animals knocked flat from
>>the initial shockwave of a
>>bullet only to get back
>>up and run off because
>>it was a poor or
>>non-penetrating shot. So much for
>>the killing power from that
>>theory. That crap was debunked
>>about 40 years ago after
>>the Weatherby craze.
>>
>>Also the shockwave you are referring
>>to is damaging to meat.
>>I used to hunt with
>>a 6.5 ultramag and barnes
>>bullets, the shockwave from that
>>cartridge was severe enough to
>>blow pieces of animal back
>>through the entry hole and
>>still completely penetrate the animal.
>>I have never before seen
>>that amount of pressure/shock on
>>an animal.
>
>No, I'm not wrong. Please
>re-read my post in its
>entirety before stopping at the
>first thing you "disagree with"
>and commenting on my wrongness
>and your rightness.
>
>Carry on though, its kinda cute
>in a sophomoric way..
You are wrong and I read and re-read your entire post. I didn't stop at the first thing I disagreed with, I disagreed with three things. 1- that velocity doesn't matter with copper bullets which is the type of bullet the original poster was speaking to. 2-that the hydrostatic shock from a bullet is what kills (even if that were the case an increased velocity impact increases hydrostatic shock which goes against your velocity doesn't matter comment). 3- to say that penetration doesn't kill is the most laughable, idiotic thing I've heard on this site since Cass was around. If you can't penetrate into the vitals i.e. lungs, heart, cns, you are going to have a lot of wounded and suffering animals, not to mention lots of tracking to do.
>>>>up in bullet weight is
>>>>for retained bullet weight and
>>>>penetration. Barnes bullets out penetrate
>>>>every other hunting bullet. They
>>>>also usually retain 95-100% of
>>>>their original weight. Barnes bullets
>>>>like velocity to get maximum
>>>>expansion and the best way
>>>>to get speed is to
>>>>step down in weight.
>>>>
>>>>I use Barnes tsx and ttsx
>>>>almost exclusively and I always
>>>>step down in bullet weight
>>>>when using them. The best
>>>>thing about Barnes bullets for
>>>>me is that they don't
>>>>ruin meat like a standard
>>>>cup and core bullet does.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I disagree, an increase in velocity
>>>isn't necessarily what you need.
>>> Faster objects tend to
>>>decelerate at a faster rate.
>>> Any bullet will perform
>>>within their respective velocity range.
>>>
>>>
>>>What you really want a bullet
>>>that will maintain its velocity
>>>range at whatever distance you
>>>will be using it at
>>>for optimal performance.
>>>
>>>Bullets do not kill based on
>>>penetrating. If you were
>>>bowhunting, then the most
>>>penetration you can get is
>>>optimal. With bullets,
>>>you want the most damage
>>>that can be done via
>>>a hemorrhagic shockwave.
>>>
>>>Every bullet manufacturer will market theirs
>>>ad the best deep penetrating
>>>slow expanding, maximum damage bullet
>>>on the market. Their
>>>data supports them all as
>>>does our anecdotal evidence.
>>
>>Wrong! I'm referring to Barnes bullets
>>and solid copper bullets like
>>barnes will always expand more
>>with velocity. If you are
>>talking about standard lead/copper cup
>>and core bullets then I
>>will agree with you but
>>solid copper bullets do have
>>a higher velocity range than
>>standard cup and core bullets
>>and will always perform better
>>with a higher impact velocity.
>>
>>
>>You are also wrong about penetration
>>not being a factor on
>>killing big game with a
>>firearm. Your statement on that
>>is complete ignorance. You
>>can get a large shockwave
>> but if it doesn't
>>reach the vitals you will
>>have a wounded animal nearly
>>all the time. Shoot an
>>animal in a shoulder or
>>other bone that stops the
>>bullet and then get back
>>to me on how penetration
>>doesn't matter. I'm sure you've
>>seen animals knocked flat from
>>the initial shockwave of a
>>bullet only to get back
>>up and run off because
>>it was a poor or
>>non-penetrating shot. So much for
>>the killing power from that
>>theory. That crap was debunked
>>about 40 years ago after
>>the Weatherby craze.
>>
>>Also the shockwave you are referring
>>to is damaging to meat.
>>I used to hunt with
>>a 6.5 ultramag and barnes
>>bullets, the shockwave from that
>>cartridge was severe enough to
>>blow pieces of animal back
>>through the entry hole and
>>still completely penetrate the animal.
>>I have never before seen
>>that amount of pressure/shock on
>>an animal.
>
>No, I'm not wrong. Please
>re-read my post in its
>entirety before stopping at the
>first thing you "disagree with"
>and commenting on my wrongness
>and your rightness.
>
>Carry on though, its kinda cute
>in a sophomoric way..
You are wrong and I read and re-read your entire post. I didn't stop at the first thing I disagreed with, I disagreed with three things. 1- that velocity doesn't matter with copper bullets which is the type of bullet the original poster was speaking to. 2-that the hydrostatic shock from a bullet is what kills (even if that were the case an increased velocity impact increases hydrostatic shock which goes against your velocity doesn't matter comment). 3- to say that penetration doesn't kill is the most laughable, idiotic thing I've heard on this site since Cass was around. If you can't penetrate into the vitals i.e. lungs, heart, cns, you are going to have a lot of wounded and suffering animals, not to mention lots of tracking to do.
DeerMadness
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,459
Yes and they cost at least 450.00 for the pants and 2 jackets..
I had a pack and it was good although a little heavy
I had a pack and it was good although a little heavy
