6.5 smk recovered

These debates are always really interesting to me as a bullet maker. There are strong points to be made from both sides (target vs. hunting) You need accuracy and preferably high b.c. at 1000 yds. and best case is expand when it hits! Again, herein lies the problem! NEITHER expand reliably at 1000 yds. That is why so many guys go with the target bullets. I have yet to see an accubond or the like expand at 1000 yds. and I,m speaking from talking with other guys and my own experiences. That is exactly why I started making my own and will continue to. The bullet makers simply haven't caught up with long range hunting and there is no long range " HUNTING BULLET". My opinion....Richlightbulb
 
JWP,

You are adding 2 plus 2 and coming up with 5. I have nothing against the SMK. My angle is, don't use a bullet, any bullet, beyond it's performance limits. You know... you have me greatly confused. In another thread where the OP asks about killing energy, you argued with another member about the value or lack of value using energy as measurement of killing potential, which I actually agree with to some extent. However, your argument contridicts your philosophy fo "placement trumps all" you compared a 22-250 to a 475 handgun wich had a little less enrgy than the 22-250. IMHO, shot placement would be much more accurate with the 22-250 than the 475 especially at a good safe distnce from a brownie. What gives??? Is it becasue the 475 bullet performance is more to be desired than the 22-250???

On the GS bullets... a member here has tested some of the HV's and found the drops out to about 1K to be consistant with the advertised BC's.. if you take a look at the diagram of the 267 SP, you will see that it has a very long ogive. It will definitely out run the 300 SMK by a long shot. Not saying the SMK is a bad bullet. It has a lot of killing potential. But for pure pencil holing shot placement, the higher BC nonexpanding SP's would be a better choice.

I can post pictures of the game I've taken. So what? All kinds of bullets have taken all kinds of game and the debate goes on... Like I said, if you want to pencil hole game, have at it... but I would recommend a better bullet for that.
 
These debates are always really interesting to me as a bullet maker. There are strong points to be made from both sides (target vs. hunting) You need accuracy and preferably high b.c. at 1000 yds. and best case is expand when it hits! Again, herein lies the problem! NEITHER expand reliably at 1000 yds. That is why so many guys go with the target bullets. I have yet to see an accubond or the like expand at 1000 yds. and I,m speaking from talking with other guys and my own experiences. That is exactly why I started making my own and will continue to. The bullet makers simply haven't caught up with long range hunting and there is no long range " HUNTING BULLET". My opinion....Richlightbulb



Rich, you are spot on. Berger's were match bullets untill they relized that they would never take the Military contract away from Sierra. Boss Hoss was spot on with his post on that subject. The Bergers are no differrent than they were when thay were only advertised as a "Match Bullet". The SMK IME acts just like the cup and core bullets that I shot in the 60's. I love the Barnes TSX bullet and have killed game out to 777 yards with the 180 grain out of my 300 Win. But as a pure Xtreme long range hunting bullet the 2 that stand out are the 300 .338 SMK and the 240 30 cal SMK.

I have seen Rimfire kill a lot of game in thier tracks with SMK's. Put them in the right spot and they are deadly
 
Bud, if you are reading any of these last few pages, please know that I am not in anyway directing any criticisms to you or your client. That deer is dead and accounted for and it is in the history files as far as I'm concerned. I am just trying to take an objective look at the subject which apparently has been revived in this thread.

I read his stuff several years ago and I read it again. It is interesting and he makes some good points and has some good data.

Couple of peculiar points that seem strange to me. He spends time discrediting other peoples work because they are not scientific enough and then he follows right down the same path. I do not know if he thinks people are not smart enough to understand his own deviations from science or he just doesn't have the personal integrity to deal with things honestly.

The 10 second to death time he selects is artificial and allows him to make his second assumption which is that the bullet is placed in the chest cavity behind the shoulder. Thus he gets around the mechanical issue of having to break the shoulder bone and actually work with momentum and energy. It also allows him to make the assumption that a deers chest is uniform and close to the density of water and a fluid.. This allows him to go into fluid dynamics because now the deer is a uniform fluid mass instead of a heterogeneous assemblage of hide, bones, lung, air, blood and muscle.

The point I wonder about is that he is in the profession of designing body armor so he clearly knows the mechanical side of bullets and hard objects yet he studiously avoids it in his work. In the end, I concluded that what he really wanted was not a theory to explain bullets in animals but a theory to explain bullets in wet phone books. Thus we go back to the initial thought of why did he spend time running down other peoples work. None of the other people cared anything about wet phone books.

He spends a lot of time collecting a lot of good data on bullets and I learned some things from it but in my experience you just cannot ignore the bone structure of an animal (except for antelope).

BB, I sure cant argue with your comments and have no intention of trying. I referenced the articles to look at the subject in general as it applied to the original post... namely, a bullet that penetrated a deer without hitting any bone and that did not expand. In this case the bullet pierced the heart causing a fairly rapid death.

What I gleaned from the article is the definition and cause of rapid death. And a little more specifically, a general understanding of wound mechanics to include temporary and permenant wound channels and just what they are, what causes them and what their effects are.

This is in response to another member's apparent assertion that "all that matters is placement" (my paraphrase) I think it is a very over simplified and errant view, especially in the world of LR hunting. Bullet performance is a big part of the equation and that is why bullet manufactures go to such great lengths to produce performing bullets of various type and function.

I believe that if the subject deer of this thread had been hit in the lungs only, with a non-expanding bullet (6.5 mm in diameter), it would have left a very small permenant wound channel, resulting in a relatively slow loss of blood and little to no blood trail which would have disappeared very quickly as the wound clogged up. Of course this is all speculation, but I think it's very reasonable specualtion.

Hitting bone is a big variable in the equation and usually assists in incapacitation and bullet deformation. I am looking at the least common denominator of a clean entry and passage.

My approach to rifle hunting has always been to lean to a deep penetrating, reliable controlled expansion bullet placed through the lungs, and if no double lung shot is available the construction of the bullet gives me insurance of getting the job done. So far this approach has been very effective in my experience... not to say other approaches dont work. However, the approach of pin holing game because "placement trumps all" is a very poor one IME, especially at extended ranges where placement becomes very challenging, and a miscalc of 1 mph of wind can result in a 10" error of POI.

Yeah, we can look at the pics and say, "dead deer"... but there are no pics of the ones that dont get found and we seldom here of those stories....
 
Last edited:
Great thread, and great read.
Maybe I am not interpreting the original post correctly, but Bud if you felt you had questionable bullet performance from this caliber last year, why did you use it again this year ?
 
These debates are always really interesting to me as a bullet maker. There are strong points to be made from both sides (target vs. hunting) You need accuracy and preferably high b.c. at 1000 yds. and best case is expand when it hits! Again, herein lies the problem! NEITHER expand reliably at 1000 yds. That is why so many guys go with the target bullets. I have yet to see an accubond or the like expand at 1000 yds. and I,m speaking from talking with other guys and my own experiences. That is exactly why I started making my own and will continue to. The bullet makers simply haven't caught up with long range hunting and there is no long range " HUNTING BULLET". My opinion....Richlightbulb

Rich, I think your observation of there being no real "LR Hunting Bullet" is basically correct. But on the other hand... if it's true that "placement ALWAYS trumps ALL", why do we need a "LR Hunting Bullet" :rolleyes: I digress....

Anyway, I think the GS HV 308 177 is a true all range hunting bullet, with high BC, good accuracy, better velocity, and great terminal performance, that will get a 300 WSM well past 1K on elk size game. I've also seen some posts in this forum about AB's expanding well past 1K - just a few.

Having said that, I think you're on the right track and hope your pursuit of the LR Hunting Bullet is succesful. If you need any help testing the .308 and .25 calibers, I have a couple of good shooting Senderos that can help. They have 10" twists. But I think my time and resources might be a little limted this winter and I am just about out of primers.:cool:

Mark
 
I don't think I intended to say placement trumps all, but if i did, let me qualify. Placement( accuracy) is obviously of high importance. Accuracy and throwing everything else out the window doesn;t amount to much. I think someone earlier made a great analogy "we wouldn't hunt elk with field points when we have broadheads"! Again, this is exactly why I make my own bullets and they work.....,Rich:D
 
I don't think I intended to say placement trumps all, but if i did, let me qualify. Placement( accuracy) is obviously of high importance. Accuracy and throwing everything else out the window doesn;t amount to much. I think someone earlier made a great analogy "we wouldn't hunt elk with field points when we have broadheads"! Again, this is exactly why I make my own bullets and they work.....,Rich:D


Rich,
If your own bullets work so much better than bergers then send me some samples and (if) they really work that well then I'll start buying ALL my bullets from you:) If the price is affordable.

Bigbuck
 
I don't think I intended to say placement trumps all, but if i did, let me qualify. Placement( accuracy) is obviously of high importance. Accuracy and throwing everything else out the window doesn;t amount to much. I think someone earlier made a great analogy "we wouldn't hunt elk with field points when we have broadheads"! Again, this is exactly why I make my own bullets and they work.....,Rich:D

No Rich, it wasn't you who said placement trumps all :)
 
No Rich, it wasn't you who said placement trumps all :)

I said that "placemet trumps all else" If you think that is incorrect why don't will explain how anything can trump placement. Hell a 22 rim fire can kill an Elk with a perfectly place shot or a Grizz it has already been done, I;d say that placement trump caliber in that instance. Placemen always trumps all else.

Simple is hard on some folks
 
I don't think I intended to say placement trumps all, but if i did, let me qualify. Placement( accuracy) is obviously of high importance. Accuracy and throwing everything else out the window doesn;t amount to much. I think someone earlier made a great analogy "we wouldn't hunt elk with field points when we have broadheads"! Again, this is exactly why I make my own bullets and they work.....,Rich:D



How are your bullets made? Just currious.
 
A SMK recover from a dead Moose at 982 yards taken bu goodgrooper (note expansion0


300GrainSMKRecoveredFromMoose982Yar.jpg




A TSX recovered from a dead Deer (one shot) notice lack of expansion


TTSX.jpg





Here is Remington CoreLoc recovered from a dead Moose. Notice lack of expansion


8mmFailedCoreloc.jpg





There are 2 "so called hunting bullets" that failed to give picture perfect perfomance, it happens with all bullets, yet with perfect placement they all performed their intended purpose and that was to kill the animal
 
A SMK recover from a dead Moose at 982 yards taken bu goodgrooper (note expansion0


300GrainSMKRecoveredFromMoose982Yar.jpg




A TSX recovered from a dead Deer (one shot) notice lack of expansion


TTSX.jpg





Here is Remington CoreLoc recovered from a dead Moose. Notice lack of expansion


8mmFailedCoreloc.jpg





There are 2 "so called hunting bullets" that failed to give picture perfect perfomance, it happens with all bullets, yet with perfect placement they all performed their intended purpose and that was to kill the animal

I think you have missed the point here.

We all know that SMK's expand at times. We also know that "hunting" bullets dont always expand. However you cannot hide from the fact that hunting bullets will behave with a reasonable degree of predictability most of the time.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 15 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Recent Posts

Top