I've shot a few antelope with the 122 Cayuga at 75-100 yards, mv was 3450 muzzle. Shoulder shot with half dollar exits, didn't really notice much petal damage, just the bore hole of the bullet.
Anyone using PVA Cayuga bullets?
- Thread starter Westernhuntr
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Is that a good thing or not so good? Was hoping for petal separation as I've seen the advantages in my Hammer experiences.
@codyadams can't ask for much better than that. Terminal performance seems excellent.
The Cayuga is made of a harder alloy, plus the hollow point isnt as deep. So they don't petal or expand as well. However they fly through the air MUCH better. Hammers have BC of brick. Literally same as a nosler partition, and the partition is probably just as good a bullet for expansion/retained weight. I'm sorry I'm not a hammer guy. I want a bullet thay bucks wind and has a high BC that's reasonably close to what a manufacturer states out to at least 1k yards. Hammers didn't do that for me. They're a 500y and in bullet in my opinion. They do kill very well and don't damage meat, they do have their place! I've had a few rifles that loved em, and a few that didn't. All people make it sound like it's 20 shot load development and you're good. Not the case for me. Cayuga took a lil tuning as well, but they shot quite good from the get go and showed little preference on seating depth, and they love to go fast.
What about the tumbling design we hear rumbles about? Anything to that? To be clear, I'm not looking to cut 'em down. I want them to work because I'm always looking for advancement. I like high BC in a terminally effective projectile but would be hard pushed to give up terminal consistency for a higher BC. @codyadams, maybe you covered this before, but would you put them in a similar class as the Badlands? Wish there was a 170 class Badlands option for my 8 twist. Thinking to try the 170 Cayuga's in my 7 Allen till next year. With the short barrel life that goes with such an over-bore, I like to have a pretty solid degree of confidence in the end result before taking the time and barrel life to develop a new load.
Those of you with experience with both in multiple case designs, what would be your educated guess on velocity potential from the 170 Cayuga based on the comfortable 3,665 I'm getting now with the 150 BD-2? And what powder would you start with - Retumbo? The RL-33 did the best with the Badlands and the Bergers, but I understand the Cayugas pressure up different. By the way, this is a long range elk rifle. I'm just taking some deer this year in the experimental phase. Hoping to try elk next fall.
EDIT:
Looked back in my records and Kirby had actually tested the 195 EOL. Maybe I should play with that load a bit as that gives some serious long-range numbers. Here's his data for what he did in my rifle: (maybe this will help you tell me what a 170 Cayuga will do?)
195 gr. Berger EOL
100.0 gr. RL33
Fed-215 primer
3.680" oal
3300 fps average
Those of you with experience with both in multiple case designs, what would be your educated guess on velocity potential from the 170 Cayuga based on the comfortable 3,665 I'm getting now with the 150 BD-2? And what powder would you start with - Retumbo? The RL-33 did the best with the Badlands and the Bergers, but I understand the Cayugas pressure up different. By the way, this is a long range elk rifle. I'm just taking some deer this year in the experimental phase. Hoping to try elk next fall.
EDIT:
Looked back in my records and Kirby had actually tested the 195 EOL. Maybe I should play with that load a bit as that gives some serious long-range numbers. Here's his data for what he did in my rifle: (maybe this will help you tell me what a 170 Cayuga will do?)
195 gr. Berger EOL
100.0 gr. RL33
Fed-215 primer
3.680" oal
3300 fps average
Last edited:
codyadams
Well-Known Member
I would estimate you would get north of 3500 fps with the 170 Cayuga without much trouble.
As far as terminal performance, all has been good so far with the relatively small data pool we have accumulated thus far, and I have only seen one bullet that possibly tumbled, and it was the elk my cousin shot at 620ish with the .277 bullet, however that bullet hit and destroyed the rear femur/hip joint, a large mass of bone. The bullet recovered had damage to the boat tail, indicating that it hit something with that end at some point. However, considering it is a 127 grain bullet and hit a massive hunk of bone, I can't say I would tout it as a "tumbling" bullet, as that is the only circumstance we have seen that happen, and I wouldn't be surprised if any bullet reacted that way considering the path it took. I simply haven't put them or seen them put through enough animals to draw a solid conclusion.
Considering that the bullet penetrated in a very strait path for essentially the entire length of a large mule deer, I can say without hesitation, that particular 151 7mm bullet didn't tumble ha ha.
Thanks bud. I appreciate the feedback. Sounds promising. Would you have any powder recommendations to try in the 7 Allen case based on your experience? (338 Lapua Improved parent) I was given H4350 as a recommendation for the 177 HH... Retumbo is what Kirby had tried with the Hammers when he played with it, but velocity was nothing to crow about in my opinion with that recipe.
codyadams
Well-Known Member
I'm no expert, but with a 177 Hammer in that massive case, I personally wouldn't go any faster than IMR7828ssc, Ramshot Magnum, or H1000 type powders. Honestly I think H4350 is way too fast (possibly even dangerously so) in a 7mm case with 122 grains of H20 capacity....I understand Hammer bullets generally can run with a little faster powders than your typical bullet of the same weight, however in the several rounds I have loaded with hammers you can generally use your standard powders with great results, I used H1000, Retumbo and even N570 for a 285 Hammer in my .338 Norma mag and did not run out of case capacity. Using faster powders lowers your case fill, which can often lead to higher e.s., which may not matter if your max is 500 yards, but for reaching out there, it isn't a good mix. And in the extreme case of H4350 in a 7 AM, the possible low case fill in such a large capacity cartridge might be in the neighborhood of leading to a very dangerous ka-boom type situation. I would strongly recommend talking to Kirby on powder choices for his cartridges, he will know better than anyone else on this forum. Even H4831sc, while completely acceptable and a decent choice, is on the quicker side of burn rate for a 177 in a standard 7 remington mag. Now add 40 grains of capacity and go to an even faster burning powder.....just be safe! And talk to Kirby ha ha.
Last edited:
What is prompting the desire to modify the Cayuga hollow point depth & the alloy change by PVA.
Is it because of poor terminal performance?
Also I'd think that modification to either of those would affect flight characteristics, tune ability & potentially lower the BC?
It would be interesting to see what impact those adjustments would make.
Thanks for the helpful info here. We'd probably start with Retumbo on the 170 Cayuga unless you forsee problems with that based on your experience.
codyadams
Well-Known Member
Sounds fine to me, I would think anything IMR7828SSC or slower would be fine. Outside that, I would talk to Kirby, and Steve could probably help too
Last edited:
I used to own a 25RUM built by Kirby. He always used to say his large overbore cartridges required heavy for caliber bullets, in order to take full advantage of those big case capacities.
So you might be best served with the heavier bullets in your fast twist 7 Allen Magnum anyhow. They should still be screaming. Breaking the sound barrier way on out there. And the lower MVs due to heavier bullets should mean less bullet splattering on game meat should you paste some game animals at closer ranges.
My thinking as well...
More expansion, larger wound cavity, shedding of petals. A softer copper is probably less dense, dropping overall weight but most importantly nose weight. Deeper/larger hollow point, same thing less nose weight. This would all sacrifice ballistics by a fair bit. So at this point sounds like Josh is sticking to his current design in favor of flight over a possible improvement in terminal performance.
