Coloradotank
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2011
- Messages
- 13
How does it compare to the Accubond at extended ranges. Thinking of trying the 120 or 150 grain in a 7 STW for elk. Thanks in advance.
How does it compare to the Accubond at extended ranges. Thinking of trying the 120 or 150 grain in a 7 STW for elk. Thanks in advance.
Butt remember it is not energy that kills it is hydrolic shock and the flat front nose of the barnes creates massive hydrolic shocl
Butt remember it is not energy that kills it is hydrolic shock and the flat front nose of the barnes creates massive hydrolic shocl
Negative, they create very little of it and that is why you can eat right up to the hole. I've never had an animal shot with a Barnes have multiple organs broken that were not in the direct path of the bullets, they have a very narrow but long wound channel. And don't forget if you hit them hard enough to shear the petals of in the first couple inches all you have is the shank, which gets it done if it stays on path and does not deflect.
they create very little of it and that is why you can eat right up to the hole. I've never had an animal shot with a Barnes have multiple organs broken that were not in the direct path of the bullets, they have a very narrow but long wound channel. And don't forget if you hit them hard enough to shear the petals of in the first couple inches all you have is the shank, which gets it done if it stays on path and does not deflect.
Negative, they create very little of it and that is why you can eat right up to the hole. I've never had an animal shot with a Barnes have multiple organs broken that were not in the direct path of the bullets, they have a very narrow but long wound channel. And don't forget if you hit them hard enough to shear the petals of in the first couple inches all you have is the shank, which gets it done if it stays on path and does not deflect.
Spot on, BnG speaks from experience here and this is what I have seen too.
Jeff