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
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
twist rate
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="Jon A" data-source="post: 1072" data-attributes="member: 319"><p>rufous,</p><p></p><p>I've kind of had this debate with myself already. Of course testing is always the best, but as you know GS bullets aren't cheap and they take quite some time to get....</p><p></p><p>I think the answer depends upon what you're hunting and what shots you're willing to take. I'm pretty sure I've heard Gerard say the 173's would be just fine in flight from a 300 Win with a 1:10. The problem is tumbling after impact.</p><p></p><p>If you're hunting deer or smaller game and limit yourself to broadside shots, then I would guess the bullet would do just fine whether it tumbles or not--dead dear!</p><p></p><p>But, if your style of hunting could have you following the trophy of a lifetime through the brush showing you nothing but his ***, if you want to take that shot you need deep, straight penetration--you can't have the bullet tumbling.</p><p></p><p>Personally, I'd take that shot. I want a bullet that will reliably penetrate from stem to stern--just in case. That's why I decided on the 160's. I don't have the time or money to test everything, so I figure Gerard wouldn't recommend what he does without good reason. That's all I have to go on. I know the high BC of the 173 is tempting, but when its maker recommends against its use from your rifle...is it worth the risk?</p><p></p><p>FWIW, I think one of the biggest reasons he is so strict about twist recommendations is how long his bullets are--<em>after expansion</em>. Most bullets will be reduced to about 1/2 their length or even less after initial expansion. His bullets only seem to expand back to about 3/4 of their length. So, their CG is much farther away from the force resisting the penetration. For the same angular deflection if they hit a bone or something there will be a larger moment trying to rotate the bullet...'n stuff.... <img src="http://images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> </p><p></p><p>Anyway, that's just my theory and I have no experience to back it up.</p><p></p><p>But, it's enough for me to just use the 160's until I rebarrel my rifle. That reminds me, if I want to test them by this summer, I had better order them now, eh?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jon A, post: 1072, member: 319"] rufous, I've kind of had this debate with myself already. Of course testing is always the best, but as you know GS bullets aren't cheap and they take quite some time to get.... I think the answer depends upon what you're hunting and what shots you're willing to take. I'm pretty sure I've heard Gerard say the 173's would be just fine in flight from a 300 Win with a 1:10. The problem is tumbling after impact. If you're hunting deer or smaller game and limit yourself to broadside shots, then I would guess the bullet would do just fine whether it tumbles or not--dead dear! But, if your style of hunting could have you following the trophy of a lifetime through the brush showing you nothing but his ***, if you want to take that shot you need deep, straight penetration--you can't have the bullet tumbling. Personally, I'd take that shot. I want a bullet that will reliably penetrate from stem to stern--just in case. That's why I decided on the 160's. I don't have the time or money to test everything, so I figure Gerard wouldn't recommend what he does without good reason. That's all I have to go on. I know the high BC of the 173 is tempting, but when its maker recommends against its use from your rifle...is it worth the risk? FWIW, I think one of the biggest reasons he is so strict about twist recommendations is how long his bullets are--[I]after expansion[/I]. Most bullets will be reduced to about 1/2 their length or even less after initial expansion. His bullets only seem to expand back to about 3/4 of their length. So, their CG is much farther away from the force resisting the penetration. For the same angular deflection if they hit a bone or something there will be a larger moment trying to rotate the bullet...'n stuff.... [img]images/icons/confused.gif[/img] Anyway, that's just my theory and I have no experience to back it up. But, it's enough for me to just use the 160's until I rebarrel my rifle. That reminds me, if I want to test them by this summer, I had better order them now, eh? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
twist rate
Top