ligonierbill
New member
Like most folks, I'm always looking at ballistic coefficients to get the most effective range out of my rifles. Less concerned with "flat" shooting with a laser rangefinder in my pocket, but I always want to see how much energy they can carry downrange.
But recently, I've been working with heavy round nosed bullets. I started with some 160s in 6.5x55, just because I have to try everything in that versatile round. They do OK, but the one that is impressing me is the 220 gr Sierra Pro Hunter in 30-06. I picked up an old sporter Remington-made Model of 1917 last year. It has aperture sights, which I do not intend to change, and that limits these old eyes to about 200 yards. Well, working up with IMR-4350, these lumps go just over 2,400 out of a 23" barrel and are pretty accurate. (Note that this is a "fast" rifle. It tends to run considerably faster than my other '06 with the same load.) If you run those numbers through a ballistic calculator, you're not giving up much to a sleek long range bullet until you pass 300.
There's an old study somewhere that says this setup is the ticket for big bears. I'd choose a bigger caliber, but I can see the virtue. And just to show he wasn't always right, Elmer Keith concluded the '06 is "no elk rifle" after shooting a north bound elk in the south end with a 220. He expected it to go through the critter from end to end, which it did not. Me, I'm going to load some 180 Pro Hunter RN at 2,700 and take my old Enfield deer hunting.
The other big bullets I have just started fooling with are a couple 286 gr 9.3x62 loads. This round is often compared to the .338 WM, but they're very different. Many, me included, love the ability of the .338 to send a ton of energy a very long way. (See my first paragraph.) The old Mauser round goes bigger, slower. It looks to be a hammer out to 300, maybe 350, but beyond that, a big .338 GameKing leaves it. (Too bad Sierra doesn't make a 9.3.) But I'm getting older and slower, so maybe my rifles should match.
Anyone have field experience with bigger, slower, round nosed bullets? If not, I know you all have opinions.
But recently, I've been working with heavy round nosed bullets. I started with some 160s in 6.5x55, just because I have to try everything in that versatile round. They do OK, but the one that is impressing me is the 220 gr Sierra Pro Hunter in 30-06. I picked up an old sporter Remington-made Model of 1917 last year. It has aperture sights, which I do not intend to change, and that limits these old eyes to about 200 yards. Well, working up with IMR-4350, these lumps go just over 2,400 out of a 23" barrel and are pretty accurate. (Note that this is a "fast" rifle. It tends to run considerably faster than my other '06 with the same load.) If you run those numbers through a ballistic calculator, you're not giving up much to a sleek long range bullet until you pass 300.
There's an old study somewhere that says this setup is the ticket for big bears. I'd choose a bigger caliber, but I can see the virtue. And just to show he wasn't always right, Elmer Keith concluded the '06 is "no elk rifle" after shooting a north bound elk in the south end with a 220. He expected it to go through the critter from end to end, which it did not. Me, I'm going to load some 180 Pro Hunter RN at 2,700 and take my old Enfield deer hunting.
The other big bullets I have just started fooling with are a couple 286 gr 9.3x62 loads. This round is often compared to the .338 WM, but they're very different. Many, me included, love the ability of the .338 to send a ton of energy a very long way. (See my first paragraph.) The old Mauser round goes bigger, slower. It looks to be a hammer out to 300, maybe 350, but beyond that, a big .338 GameKing leaves it. (Too bad Sierra doesn't make a 9.3.) But I'm getting older and slower, so maybe my rifles should match.
Anyone have field experience with bigger, slower, round nosed bullets? If not, I know you all have opinions.