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
To SST or not to SST
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="upacreek" data-source="post: 990807" data-attributes="member: 59039"><p>So what I understand you to say is he had good results with this bullet until he didn't recover an animal? Then it wasn't the fact that elk are tough as hell to kill, or shot placement, it HAD to be the SST wasn't tough enough to knock it down first shot? I won't say SST's are the go to greatest bullet ever, BUT it's strange to me that a lot of 'stories' regarding this horrible hunting bullet dont have a lot of basis to support claims. </p><p>I bought a couple hundred amax's thinking guys on here kill elk with them and they have a good BC. Then I cut one apart and compared to my other hunting bullets. The next day I sold them here on this site cause I would never use them for hunting. Yes that is my opinion. </p><p>I see opinions generated in online forums where people hear a rumor or opinion, and have no real life basis for agreeing, but they buy into it and speak as if it has merit. Then a product that is pretty good gets a bad reputation needlessly. </p><p>Can someone please explain how it's possible that a bullet traveling at 3100fps could penetrate 3" but the same bullet traveling at 1800fps will penetrate deeper (I assume 10-12")? Or is it shot placement that makes the difference in those two scenarios? Heavy bone or thin skin?</p><p>My experience with accubonds, federal soft points, grand slams, and partions are two pencil sized holes and a blood trail.......maybe. </p><p>Sorry for the rant, but this whole SST thing is bugging me. </p><p>My dad shot a bull 3 times 2 years ago with .270/150gr(?) SST. The bull was less than 150yrds and quartering away from him. First hit it was sick, second it just stood there, 3rd it crumpled and fell. Upon quartering we found it's chest cavity was mush. Dad loads his .270 pretty hot and I can tell you each bullet had great penetration and expansion. But he didn't loose any meat, or hit any heavy bone.</p><p>All this being said, I just built a gun that I plan on shooting 180 bergers out of. I have never hunted with bergers, and though I have no complaints with the SST, I want to try something new.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="upacreek, post: 990807, member: 59039"] So what I understand you to say is he had good results with this bullet until he didn't recover an animal? Then it wasn't the fact that elk are tough as hell to kill, or shot placement, it HAD to be the SST wasn't tough enough to knock it down first shot? I won't say SST's are the go to greatest bullet ever, BUT it's strange to me that a lot of 'stories' regarding this horrible hunting bullet dont have a lot of basis to support claims. I bought a couple hundred amax's thinking guys on here kill elk with them and they have a good BC. Then I cut one apart and compared to my other hunting bullets. The next day I sold them here on this site cause I would never use them for hunting. Yes that is my opinion. I see opinions generated in online forums where people hear a rumor or opinion, and have no real life basis for agreeing, but they buy into it and speak as if it has merit. Then a product that is pretty good gets a bad reputation needlessly. Can someone please explain how it's possible that a bullet traveling at 3100fps could penetrate 3" but the same bullet traveling at 1800fps will penetrate deeper (I assume 10-12")? Or is it shot placement that makes the difference in those two scenarios? Heavy bone or thin skin? My experience with accubonds, federal soft points, grand slams, and partions are two pencil sized holes and a blood trail.......maybe. Sorry for the rant, but this whole SST thing is bugging me. My dad shot a bull 3 times 2 years ago with .270/150gr(?) SST. The bull was less than 150yrds and quartering away from him. First hit it was sick, second it just stood there, 3rd it crumpled and fell. Upon quartering we found it's chest cavity was mush. Dad loads his .270 pretty hot and I can tell you each bullet had great penetration and expansion. But he didn't loose any meat, or hit any heavy bone. All this being said, I just built a gun that I plan on shooting 180 bergers out of. I have never hunted with bergers, and though I have no complaints with the SST, I want to try something new. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
To SST or not to SST
Top