Big Game Hunting Moose, elk, mulies, caribou, bear, goats, and sheep are all covered here.

Comparing ballistics

Old 05-04-2005, 09:16 AM
Boone & Crockett
James B's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wall SD USA & Jamestown ND
Posts: 11,474
Default RE: Comparing ballistics

I agree on the flat shooting debate. For me this does not play a big factor because I am not going to push the envelope range wise. I have never shot at an Elk that was more than 250 yards and make every possible attempt to get well within 200 yards. I get enough oppertunities so I have no need to take iffy shots. There is nothing and I mean NOTHING more important to me than knowing that when I pull the trigger, that bullet is going where I want it to go. I have faith in my shooting and equipment to perform well out to 250 yards. Nothing except an already wounded animal is going to make me shoot any further. At one time when I shot silhouettes and shot a lot more than I do now, I would have set my limit at more like 400 yards. However times have changed and I have shortened the range.
James B is offline  
Old 05-04-2005, 09:20 AM
Nontypical Buck
BareBack Jack's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Moccasin, Montana
Posts: 1,835
Default RE: Comparing ballistics

Now I think everyone kinda knows when it comes to Bigger game than deer a heavy for caliber bullets do better on game,Right.Is'nt that why when ever someone mentions a 270 for ELK,about everyguy that owns on s"Say Pick the 140's and 150 and yuell'be fine"or I'm using a 30-06 for elk
"I would take the 180 gr bullet of good construction and aim for the boiler room so on and so on."

Now that makes sense right,bigger the bullet the more lead,the more the penetration,more knock down power(shock to the animal).
Thats why you don't see very many guys posing with their B&C Bull elk and 130 from a 30-06 or 110 SP from a 270.Oh I'm shure someone has done it,but the Higher you climb into the caliber class the more weight you will contend.

As for the trajectory,well thats science and I never could get thru that in College,(let alone spelling).I figure the more powder behind a projectile the faster it flies ther for it flys farther,so look at it this way,you can only defiy gravity and aerodinamic's for so long.You move the 30-06 out 500 yds,with standared run of the mill 180 core-lok and put is besides the 300 Ultra mag with a 180 nosler,the 300 will get there first and less drop,think of those inches as yards for every inch your low from point of aim thats minus 1 Yds from the target.
Well thats how I think about it.
But the I'm no Physics Schollar(or speller)
BareBack Jack is offline  
Old 05-04-2005, 12:45 PM
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 815
Default RE: Comparing ballistics

James B - Wasnt tryin to wind you up , just pokin some fun at you. We both know that we agreed to disagree long ago on small/medium calibers usefullness when you go north of deer on the size chart. But Shatos point of "use the 270 cause its a flat shootin SOB" mentality doesnt hold water. I also know recoil is a big factor for you and that is the one legitimate knock on the big guns as I see it. And the big guns DO kill more efficiently, not to say the mid to small calibers cant do the job. However a 270 handloaded w/ heavy Barnes will probably do better than $8 a box 140gr 30-06 on elk. Range is an important factor as well. A 300yd shot is MUCH more realistic than a 400yd. The chances of a hunter being 100%, ABSOLUTELY, GAURANTEED, hitting EXACTLY where he's aiming go down quicklyafter 250yds.
NVMIKE is offline  
Old 05-04-2005, 05:35 PM
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Rocky Mtns
Posts: 231
Default RE: Comparing ballistics

ORIGINAL: ShatoDavis
300 win with 150 gr bullet at 3200 fps--> 17 inches low at 400
300 ultra with 150 gr bullet at 3500 fps--> 14 inches low at 400
Staying away from the 270 debate! [:@]
To me this points out exactly why some of us go with the Ultra's. The difference isn't huge, no, but enough IMO. 300 extra fps, 3 extra inches to play with and more ft/lbs of energy is fine by me. The 300 win is already a "big gun" and the Ultra just addes a little of everything. I paid the exact same for my 7mm RUM as I would have my 7mm Mag (plus I reload, so costs there or lack of over the counter selections aren't a factor). IMO I'll take the little extras and enjoy that little extra forgiveness out there at that distance. Obviously, the big picture is still, you must learn to sight in your gun for you and shoot, shoot, shoot. Heck a good place boulder will kill an elk.
HuntElk4Fun is offline  
Old 05-04-2005, 10:20 PM
Boone & Crockett
James B's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wall SD USA & Jamestown ND
Posts: 11,474
Default RE: Comparing ballistics

I can see no 270 debate. Thousands of elk have been taken with the 270. Plenty to show that it is a capable elk round. The only thing in question is the ability of a shooter to hit the mark. Same as any other hunting tool. I have no need for more range that the 260-270-280-30-06 will provide because I won't shoot past 250-275 yards anyway. Thats the max range that I can place the shot regardless of weapon.
James B is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 02:03 AM
Slamfire's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rocky Top Tennessee
Posts: 683
Default RE: Comparing ballistics

Its funny how those who run down a particular cartridge the most, are usually those who have the least experience using it.
Slamfire is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 08:21 AM
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: La Grange, TX
Posts: 324
Default RE: Comparing ballistics

Thousands of elk have been killed with well placed arrows. I'd have to say the 270 is way overkill.
rost495 is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 02:00 PM
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1,429
Default RE: Comparing ballistics

Let me state this again just to be clear. I was in no way running down any cartridge. If you took offense I'm sorry.
ShatoDavis is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 04:38 PM
Typical Buck
rather_be_huntin's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cedar Valley Utah
Posts: 977
Default RE: Comparing ballistics


Another thing, ALL of the bullets are NOT of the same construction, so NO MATTER what it says on paper they will NOT work the same on an animial!!!!

Drilling Man

DM and myself haven't always agreed but I agree with this statement 100%. On game performance is like having a 3 legged table. Of course you have the ballistics, and we'll include energy in this category, as mentioned in the original post but that's only part of the story.

Edit: I take it back energy is too important to be lumped with ballistics. Energy is an important factor and we now have a 4-legged table but you get the idea.

You also need good bullet contruction and I'll throw in one more, you need enough bullet weight (caliber fits here and you may prefer to plug in cross-sectional density here). Without any one leg it just doesn't hold up. So balistics are a good thing, there's just more to it.
rather_be_huntin is offline  
Old 05-06-2005, 06:56 AM
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,395
Default RE: Comparing ballistics

I have sat back & watched this thread unfold. I am wondering how my firearm of choice stacks up againgt the others?
I am currently shooting a Remington Model-700 BDL Deluxe 375-Remington Ultra Mag.
My bullet is a 260-grain Nosler Accubond.
Ballistic Coefficient .473
Sectional Density .264
Muzzle Velocity 3100 f.p.s.
0 @ 100-yards.
- 23" @ 400-yards.
Energy @ Muzzle & @400-yards priceless.
Wolf killer is offline  

Quick Reply: Comparing ballistics

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.