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
The Solid Bullet Debate
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="MontanaRifleman" data-source="post: 290883" data-attributes="member: 11717"><p>You will get a debate on that. There is group who like the highly frangible bullets period. Berger is coming out with a 338. That being said, thes bullets (including the 300 SMK) have a mass of of 300 grains and typically muzzle velocities of less than 3000 fps. They will hold together much better than the smaller faster ones, especially at extended ranges.</p><p> </p><p>I basically agree with Micheal, except I never prefer an explosive bullet unless it's for varmit shooting, but that's just me, and there are a lot of others who think that way too. Different strokes for differnt folks.</p><p> </p><p>I have shot a number of antelope, deer and elk, not as many as some. In almost all cases, they were boiler room shots with a 7mm 160 partiton. It always left about a nickle to quarter size exit hole and almost all dropped in their tracks with a few wandering off a few yards. A couple were hit just aft of the boiler in the liver/gut area. They did not go anywhere. One was a Texas heart shot (Fed 180 SP, 300 WSM) on a buck antelope. It traveled the entire length of the body and came to rest under the hide in the front of the shoulder and weighed 93 grains. The antelope didn't go anywhere dropping it's hind legs first then the front a few seconds later.</p><p> </p><p>Good wound channels and exit holes kill quickly, not always as quickly as a grenade, but IMO, more reliably.</p><p> </p><p>I am a total believer in Gerard's philosophy of terminal ballistics.</p><p> </p><p>-MR</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MontanaRifleman, post: 290883, member: 11717"] You will get a debate on that. There is group who like the highly frangible bullets period. Berger is coming out with a 338. That being said, thes bullets (including the 300 SMK) have a mass of of 300 grains and typically muzzle velocities of less than 3000 fps. They will hold together much better than the smaller faster ones, especially at extended ranges. I basically agree with Micheal, except I never prefer an explosive bullet unless it's for varmit shooting, but that's just me, and there are a lot of others who think that way too. Different strokes for differnt folks. I have shot a number of antelope, deer and elk, not as many as some. In almost all cases, they were boiler room shots with a 7mm 160 partiton. It always left about a nickle to quarter size exit hole and almost all dropped in their tracks with a few wandering off a few yards. A couple were hit just aft of the boiler in the liver/gut area. They did not go anywhere. One was a Texas heart shot (Fed 180 SP, 300 WSM) on a buck antelope. It traveled the entire length of the body and came to rest under the hide in the front of the shoulder and weighed 93 grains. The antelope didn't go anywhere dropping it's hind legs first then the front a few seconds later. Good wound channels and exit holes kill quickly, not always as quickly as a grenade, but IMO, more reliably. I am a total believer in Gerard's philosophy of terminal ballistics. -MR [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
The Solid Bullet Debate
Top