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
Why Berger?
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="Coyote_Hunter" data-source="post: 1896638" data-attributes="member: 110773"><p>I wouldn't change a thing if you are happy with the way the TSX and Scirocco work. I'm a big fan of the TTSX and LRX in all my rifles (not the TSX) and the Scirocco II have been very good for me in my 6.5-06AI as well.</p><p></p><p>I refuse to use Berger or other thin-skinned bullets for my big game hunting. Everything I shoot is withing 600 yards and my longest has been a cow elk at 487 yds. Barnes TTSX/LRX, Nosler AB, Swift Scirocco II and North Fork SS all work just fine for me. I've seen what thin-skinned bullets can do (and failed to do) and have no use for them. </p><p></p><p>What I want is bullets that have fast and reliable but controlled and limited expansion, with high weight retention for deep penetration, and provide good accuracy. High B.C. values are nice so long as the other characteristics are not compromised. And the fact is that the benefit of high B.C. values is way more important past 600 yards than inside it.</p><p></p><p>Last week I was at the range shooting my 243 with 95g SST (B.C. 0.355) launched at a nominal 3000fps. Hit a clay pigeon at 600 yards on the third try (first shot was a sighter, second barely missed, third destroyed it). I use this load for antelope (and have no doubt that it would have been effective on antelope at that range) but wouldn't consider it for elk or mulies, simply because I have much better options. </p><p></p><p>Among those better options are the bullets I listed above and I'll include the new Federal Terminal Ascent bullets. I'm working up a 155g TA for my .280 Rem and 7mm RM. Turns the .280 Rem into a viable 700-yard elk rifle with a nominal 2100fps and 1500fpe at that range and 7000 feet altitude and gets the 7mm RM to 875 yards. Better yet, the TA does it with a bullet using design characteristics that I know work very well from years of personal experience - the tip for higher B.C., a bonded front core and a monolithic rear core. That, 700+ yard effective range for elk, longer for smaller game, relatively mild recoil and no worries about bullets splattering on close range, high-velocity impacts - not much to dislike.</p><p></p><p>YMMV</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Coyote_Hunter, post: 1896638, member: 110773"] I wouldn't change a thing if you are happy with the way the TSX and Scirocco work. I'm a big fan of the TTSX and LRX in all my rifles (not the TSX) and the Scirocco II have been very good for me in my 6.5-06AI as well. I refuse to use Berger or other thin-skinned bullets for my big game hunting. Everything I shoot is withing 600 yards and my longest has been a cow elk at 487 yds. Barnes TTSX/LRX, Nosler AB, Swift Scirocco II and North Fork SS all work just fine for me. I've seen what thin-skinned bullets can do (and failed to do) and have no use for them. What I want is bullets that have fast and reliable but controlled and limited expansion, with high weight retention for deep penetration, and provide good accuracy. High B.C. values are nice so long as the other characteristics are not compromised. And the fact is that the benefit of high B.C. values is way more important past 600 yards than inside it. Last week I was at the range shooting my 243 with 95g SST (B.C. 0.355) launched at a nominal 3000fps. Hit a clay pigeon at 600 yards on the third try (first shot was a sighter, second barely missed, third destroyed it). I use this load for antelope (and have no doubt that it would have been effective on antelope at that range) but wouldn't consider it for elk or mulies, simply because I have much better options. Among those better options are the bullets I listed above and I'll include the new Federal Terminal Ascent bullets. I'm working up a 155g TA for my .280 Rem and 7mm RM. Turns the .280 Rem into a viable 700-yard elk rifle with a nominal 2100fps and 1500fpe at that range and 7000 feet altitude and gets the 7mm RM to 875 yards. Better yet, the TA does it with a bullet using design characteristics that I know work very well from years of personal experience - the tip for higher B.C., a bonded front core and a monolithic rear core. That, 700+ yard effective range for elk, longer for smaller game, relatively mild recoil and no worries about bullets splattering on close range, high-velocity impacts - not much to dislike. YMMV [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Why Berger?
Top