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
Recovered Barnes TTSX
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="HarryN" data-source="post: 1061691" data-attributes="member: 69773"><p>I might be wrong, but my conclusion is that the best way to deal with copper bullets, is to move up 2 solid caliber levels from where you are with lead bullets.</p><p> </p><p>In my case, starting with a .270, I am considering my next rifle to be at least a 338 or 375. (maybe 416 if I get silly) I guess I can thank CA for giving me a reason to buy another gun. (trying to find the silver lining in all of this)</p><p> </p><p>I am very impressed what has been accomplished with the copper bullet technology, but when you really compare the "perfection needed" to make it work, the difference between having exactly the correct bullet ready to go, distance, and hitting a bone or not make a huge difference.</p><p> </p><p>The easiest way to regain some margin for error, is to move up in caliber and the sweet spots for BC are 338, 375 and 416. It seems silly to use a 375 on a deer, but that is the hand we are being dealt. If there were no such thing as alloys denser than copper, it is entirely possible that few people would own guns smaller than 338 at all.</p><p> </p><p>Start with your elk / bear rifle and that is now your deer rifle.</p><p> </p><p>I agree though, Barnes is at least 50% marketing overhype. I am tending toward GS right now.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HarryN, post: 1061691, member: 69773"] I might be wrong, but my conclusion is that the best way to deal with copper bullets, is to move up 2 solid caliber levels from where you are with lead bullets. In my case, starting with a .270, I am considering my next rifle to be at least a 338 or 375. (maybe 416 if I get silly) I guess I can thank CA for giving me a reason to buy another gun. (trying to find the silver lining in all of this) I am very impressed what has been accomplished with the copper bullet technology, but when you really compare the "perfection needed" to make it work, the difference between having exactly the correct bullet ready to go, distance, and hitting a bone or not make a huge difference. The easiest way to regain some margin for error, is to move up in caliber and the sweet spots for BC are 338, 375 and 416. It seems silly to use a 375 on a deer, but that is the hand we are being dealt. If there were no such thing as alloys denser than copper, it is entirely possible that few people would own guns smaller than 338 at all. Start with your elk / bear rifle and that is now your deer rifle. I agree though, Barnes is at least 50% marketing overhype. I am tending toward GS right now. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Recovered Barnes TTSX
Top