Ronald W Schaefer
Well-Known Member
Sierra does not recommend using the match king bullets for game and they're the guys that make the bullets. They have game king and tipped game king with higher BC than original GK, maybe use those?
Which long range .338 Bullet to use?
- Thread starter orangeride
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
memtb
Well-Known Member
From the Sierra website…..quote:
While they are recognized around the world for record-setting accuracy, MatchKing® and Tipped MatchKing® bullets are not recommended for most hunting applications. Although MatchKing® and Tipped MatchKing® bullets are commonly used for varmint hunting, their design will not provide the same reliable explosive expansion at equivalent velocities in varmints compared to their lightly jacketed Hornet, Blitz or Varminter counterparts.
Maybe Sierra knows their bullets better than we do……Juss Say'n! memtb
While they are recognized around the world for record-setting accuracy, MatchKing® and Tipped MatchKing® bullets are not recommended for most hunting applications. Although MatchKing® and Tipped MatchKing® bullets are commonly used for varmint hunting, their design will not provide the same reliable explosive expansion at equivalent velocities in varmints compared to their lightly jacketed Hornet, Blitz or Varminter counterparts.
Maybe Sierra knows their bullets better than we do……Juss Say'n! memtb
Mike Matteson
Well-Known Member
I have alway failed to see why people want to use traget bullets for hunting. Most bullet manfactures put something on the side of there boxes stating there use. This bridge has been crossed over before. It's not worth the time.
Montucky Roamer
Well-Known Member
Oh they might. But not sure if they know the tipped match kings from 77 grain .224 to 130 .264 are one of the best killers out there.They WILL MAXIMIZE the cartridge you use them in.
I will say the standard match kings are too inconsistent terminally.
Montucky Roamer
Well-Known Member
That's easy. Because the CORRECT target bullets are the best KILLING bullets. Not all target bullets. Just the right ones. 215 bergers for instance, might say something about target only on the box.
But if my target is an elk,deer or bear it's dead in seconds because the effective wound channel is much larger than a bonded or mono bullet or a harder bullet like a game king or partition. And the accuracy and high bc helps place the shot perfectly. It's all about the size of the wound channel. Shoulder blade on elk is 2/10s of an inch thick so quartering to is not a concern for me.
This is what I was talking about.
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2013
- Messages
- 75
300 SMK, 338 Lapua. Never failed me…
Blkrflguy
Well-Known Member
I shot my elk last year from 301 yards with a 168 grain Berger in 308. 1 and done. She took 4 steps and dropped. If you're shooting a 225 grain bullet and think that's not heavy enough, try shooting them somewhere other than in the leg
Blkrflguy
Well-Known Member
We've been told my manufacturers that match bullets aren't for hunting. But the special forces use them. I wonder why? Search YT for gel tests on match bullets. We've been lied to for a long time.
blackburbot
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2011
- Messages
- 53
SMK aren't recommended by sierra because they can't guarantee that the bullet will expand everytime perfectly. They will expand great 99% of the time. Will they drop everything with everyshot, nope. Neither will any other bullet. Its shot placement and the individual animal. I've taken large northern Alberta deer with the 300SMK and moose. I've also lost them with those bullets because I thought "Its a 338LM and 100yards, this things no problem" i've also had small deer run 3/4mile with major wound canal from 156gr Berger elite hunters, and elk lie down from them with just a scratch on them. Each animal
Best is to see if they will group to your satisfaction, then practice with them. Let your budget and ability dicate your shooting experiances
I just wanted to jump in on the side discussion here regarding target/match bullets for hunting. So here goes.
A lot of the big bullet manufacturers have defense contracts, as well as commercial sales to many different countries. These defense contracts require the bullets to meet the military specs, and within those specs are the ability to appease the treaties that stipulate bullets used in combat cannot be designed to expand. It doesn't say they can't be a "hollow point", or more accurately: an open tip.
So with that said, they have to be very careful with how they advertise their bullets that are also used for those contracts, even on the commercial side. They'd potentially lose their high dollar contacts if they breached those requirements.
Some countries also have certain regulations where they need to be careful with how they market the bullets as well.
And then you have other reasons such as they've simply made different bullets for different specific applications. That doesn't mean they can't be used for a different application, it just means that's not what they were purposely and specifically made for us all. This is usually based on the current demand. The current demand isn't always what is best either, regardless of you may may think or believe. Big companies after profits only want to make what will sell. They're not really interested in investing a lot of time, money, and other resources on making what's truly the best bullet for the job, and then educating their customers on why that is, especially if it goes against the grain. They don't want to risk the backlash. They make something that works and is in demand, and market the heck out of it to sell.
So you end up with labeled target bullets that happen to be cheaper and easier to make, with no bonding, with thin jackets, lead cores, etc and then the "premium hunting bullets" that go with the demand, which feature things like thick jackets, interlock rings, bonding, no lead at all, etc.
They simply try to give the consumer what the consumer thinks they want, because that's what will sell. They market it accordingly.
Also, I can tell you that sometimes it also comes down to what they've actually tested in house for proper expansion and terminal performance. As an example, I spoke with Tommy Todd, the Chief Ballistician at Sierra, and he told me one of the main reasons they haven't advertised the TMKs for hunting is because they only advertise bullets for hunting that they've specifically tested for that purpose, and that have passed their testing requirements. He told me at the time that they have yet to do that with the TMKs, but it was planned for down the road. That was several years ago now…
So, until they are specifically tested by them for that purpose, and pass their tests, they don't advertise them for that purpose. Makes sense, right? It doesn't mean they won't work well though. Lots of people have proven that they do indeed work very well.
Then you have the smaller companies that start out and simply try to duplicate what's already out there and selling well so that they can start out profitable as well. I mean zero offense by this, but many have no clue about terminal ballistics themselves and don't really take the time to learn either. A lot of these companies come and go, because they've never managed to make anything truly better than anyone else and at a competitive price, or if they have they failed to market it well enough. To be clear too, this is a lot of companies, and a lot that are no more, not all of them.
So then you have guys like Nathan Foster for example, that have shown us droves of evidence from an immense amount of actual experience of what truly works and works well, and how and why, and the companies start to take note. I truly believe companies like Hornady (another example) have taken his information and they do agree with it, but they continue to do what is working for them and let guys like Nathan essentially take the liability of telling their customers they can use their "non-hunting" bullets for hunting and have great success. They're still selling bullets, and now lots of them even for applications they don't specifically market them for, so they're happy. And when someone inevitably uses one outside its limitations, they can't blame Hornady. So it kind of becomes a win win for these companies.
You can go looking around online, and especially right here in this forum, right now and find countless examples of guys talking about less than ideal results, and even excellent results, using match/target bullets for hunting and there will be several guys basically telling them they're an idiot and to never use those type of bullets for hunting. In my eyes, this is just ignorance blinded by marketing.
The fact is, even the marketed "hunting" bullets have well over their fair share of poor results too. All bullets have limits, and some are very unforgiving to shot placement errors or being used outside of their particular limits.
And to be fair, and clear, there are indeed many actual target/match bullets out there that aren't a good option for hunting. They're not all made alike and some will produce extremely unreliable and inconsistent terminal performance. So don't take me wrong in thinking I'm saying any target/match bullet is good for hunting, because I'm not saying that and not all are. That's a fact.
Long story short, it's very frustrating that these manufacturers don't help out the hunting community as much as they could or should. I'm afraid they never will either. Their hands are tied in some instances, and in other instances they either don't want to or don't feel they need to.
Just some food for thought on the matter. It's not really as simple as some might lead you to believe.
A lot of the big bullet manufacturers have defense contracts, as well as commercial sales to many different countries. These defense contracts require the bullets to meet the military specs, and within those specs are the ability to appease the treaties that stipulate bullets used in combat cannot be designed to expand. It doesn't say they can't be a "hollow point", or more accurately: an open tip.
So with that said, they have to be very careful with how they advertise their bullets that are also used for those contracts, even on the commercial side. They'd potentially lose their high dollar contacts if they breached those requirements.
Some countries also have certain regulations where they need to be careful with how they market the bullets as well.
And then you have other reasons such as they've simply made different bullets for different specific applications. That doesn't mean they can't be used for a different application, it just means that's not what they were purposely and specifically made for us all. This is usually based on the current demand. The current demand isn't always what is best either, regardless of you may may think or believe. Big companies after profits only want to make what will sell. They're not really interested in investing a lot of time, money, and other resources on making what's truly the best bullet for the job, and then educating their customers on why that is, especially if it goes against the grain. They don't want to risk the backlash. They make something that works and is in demand, and market the heck out of it to sell.
So you end up with labeled target bullets that happen to be cheaper and easier to make, with no bonding, with thin jackets, lead cores, etc and then the "premium hunting bullets" that go with the demand, which feature things like thick jackets, interlock rings, bonding, no lead at all, etc.
They simply try to give the consumer what the consumer thinks they want, because that's what will sell. They market it accordingly.
Also, I can tell you that sometimes it also comes down to what they've actually tested in house for proper expansion and terminal performance. As an example, I spoke with Tommy Todd, the Chief Ballistician at Sierra, and he told me one of the main reasons they haven't advertised the TMKs for hunting is because they only advertise bullets for hunting that they've specifically tested for that purpose, and that have passed their testing requirements. He told me at the time that they have yet to do that with the TMKs, but it was planned for down the road. That was several years ago now…
So, until they are specifically tested by them for that purpose, and pass their tests, they don't advertise them for that purpose. Makes sense, right? It doesn't mean they won't work well though. Lots of people have proven that they do indeed work very well.
Then you have the smaller companies that start out and simply try to duplicate what's already out there and selling well so that they can start out profitable as well. I mean zero offense by this, but many have no clue about terminal ballistics themselves and don't really take the time to learn either. A lot of these companies come and go, because they've never managed to make anything truly better than anyone else and at a competitive price, or if they have they failed to market it well enough. To be clear too, this is a lot of companies, and a lot that are no more, not all of them.
So then you have guys like Nathan Foster for example, that have shown us droves of evidence from an immense amount of actual experience of what truly works and works well, and how and why, and the companies start to take note. I truly believe companies like Hornady (another example) have taken his information and they do agree with it, but they continue to do what is working for them and let guys like Nathan essentially take the liability of telling their customers they can use their "non-hunting" bullets for hunting and have great success. They're still selling bullets, and now lots of them even for applications they don't specifically market them for, so they're happy. And when someone inevitably uses one outside its limitations, they can't blame Hornady. So it kind of becomes a win win for these companies.
You can go looking around online, and especially right here in this forum, right now and find countless examples of guys talking about less than ideal results, and even excellent results, using match/target bullets for hunting and there will be several guys basically telling them they're an idiot and to never use those type of bullets for hunting. In my eyes, this is just ignorance blinded by marketing.
The fact is, even the marketed "hunting" bullets have well over their fair share of poor results too. All bullets have limits, and some are very unforgiving to shot placement errors or being used outside of their particular limits.
And to be fair, and clear, there are indeed many actual target/match bullets out there that aren't a good option for hunting. They're not all made alike and some will produce extremely unreliable and inconsistent terminal performance. So don't take me wrong in thinking I'm saying any target/match bullet is good for hunting, because I'm not saying that and not all are. That's a fact.
Long story short, it's very frustrating that these manufacturers don't help out the hunting community as much as they could or should. I'm afraid they never will either. Their hands are tied in some instances, and in other instances they either don't want to or don't feel they need to.
Just some food for thought on the matter. It's not really as simple as some might lead you to believe.
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2013
- Messages
- 75
Petey308 - Thanks for spending the time on this write-up! Good information…
Mike Matteson
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the information. I was one that against using target bullets for hunting. In Mexico-North there was laws on type of bullets you could use for hunting. Still is today, but different when I was a kid. I re-read the rules and they had changed them somewhere along the line.
In war you can't use soft point bullets. It's against the law.
I often wonder about it too. We used 20, & 30 mm rounds the bullet explosed on contact. So I don't really see much differents. As far as being in a war. In the field hunting animals, it's a different story.
It's and Isn't funny how we walk the line.
In war you can't use soft point bullets. It's against the law.
I often wonder about it too. We used 20, & 30 mm rounds the bullet explosed on contact. So I don't really see much differents. As far as being in a war. In the field hunting animals, it's a different story.
It's and Isn't funny how we walk the line.
