Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
sectional density & stopping power ?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HARPERC" data-source="post: 598978" data-attributes="member: 30671"><p>My thoughts for what their worth:</p><p>I like SD within it's limits. I believe it's a good indicator to predict penetration in similar bullets, in similar situations. I don't own a 270 I'd use the 160, When I shoot my 30 calibers I like bullets 200 and up. My experience I prefer SD's of about .3. </p><p>Energy, momentum or something is a factor in lethality, but the variables will always make this elusive to establish. In addition it would take a pretty good number of controlled kills to be conclusive.</p><p>My first experiences were with a 30-06. It came with factory Remington 220 RN. I also got a can of surplus military AP ammo. Both would penetrate, both were lethal, but to my eye the 220 expanding was more "decisive". The statute of limitations is past, but I won't boor you with details, of why I don't like the "harder" type bullets.</p><p>SD of expanding bullets change on impact, with the newer bonded bullets it's often advised to use a step lighter than usual. I feel with that larger frontal area maintained a step heavier is a better way to go. Example the old 210 338 Partitions in my experience out penetrate the 225 Accubond. I've never seen a deer stop the 210, but have recovered the 225. We shot the 30 caliber 180 Scirrocco into a lot of old inedible hog meat and bone. We could never destroy one, but we could never get much penetration either. It proved so in the field as well. In the choice you are making I believe the 160 .270 will out penetrate the 165 .30 which in my mind makes it a better choice.</p><p>Wound channels are both width and length, exit holes are good. If I was going to shoot 160 bullets the 270 is what I'd pick. 180 in 7mm, and 200 up in 30, and so on. Bryan Litz has a pretty good article on why heavier 30 caliber bullets, or something like it.</p><p>I know this will be a Taste Great, Less Filling kind of thread, but that's my 2 cents.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HARPERC, post: 598978, member: 30671"] My thoughts for what their worth: I like SD within it's limits. I believe it's a good indicator to predict penetration in similar bullets, in similar situations. I don't own a 270 I'd use the 160, When I shoot my 30 calibers I like bullets 200 and up. My experience I prefer SD's of about .3. Energy, momentum or something is a factor in lethality, but the variables will always make this elusive to establish. In addition it would take a pretty good number of controlled kills to be conclusive. My first experiences were with a 30-06. It came with factory Remington 220 RN. I also got a can of surplus military AP ammo. Both would penetrate, both were lethal, but to my eye the 220 expanding was more "decisive". The statute of limitations is past, but I won't boor you with details, of why I don't like the "harder" type bullets. SD of expanding bullets change on impact, with the newer bonded bullets it's often advised to use a step lighter than usual. I feel with that larger frontal area maintained a step heavier is a better way to go. Example the old 210 338 Partitions in my experience out penetrate the 225 Accubond. I've never seen a deer stop the 210, but have recovered the 225. We shot the 30 caliber 180 Scirrocco into a lot of old inedible hog meat and bone. We could never destroy one, but we could never get much penetration either. It proved so in the field as well. In the choice you are making I believe the 160 .270 will out penetrate the 165 .30 which in my mind makes it a better choice. Wound channels are both width and length, exit holes are good. If I was going to shoot 160 bullets the 270 is what I'd pick. 180 in 7mm, and 200 up in 30, and so on. Bryan Litz has a pretty good article on why heavier 30 caliber bullets, or something like it. I know this will be a Taste Great, Less Filling kind of thread, but that's my 2 cents. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
sectional density & stopping power ?
Top