In Bullet Weight, Less Is More?

Steven A

New Member
I have been knocking deer over since the early 1960s. I grew up reading Robert Ruark and he said; "Use enough gun!" That is especially true when hunting the dangerous stuff that old Robert went after.

I have hunted nothing bigger or tougher than elk and they are not bullet proof.

I hand load and with the modern, bonded bullets, one can expect maximum penetration and a wide wound channel from much lighter bullets than used to be the case. Most of the older designed hunting bullets separated fast, after hitting heavy tissue and bone. Thus, losing critical amounts of their original weight and then, not being able to continue to penetrate and kill quickly and humanely.

Some time ago, I sold the magnum chambered rifles that I had and settled on using a Browning Stalker, chambered in 280Remington. The best, quick killing, bang/flop bullet that I have found for deer, up to and including big muley, is the Nosler 120gr. Ballistic Tip (Hunting). The only bullet that I recovered, using that 120gr. Nosler, was in the off side, frontal armor if a big wild boar hog. The bullet had broken the left shoulder and lanced through, stopping with just a bit sticking out of that tough frontal armor on the right side.

For all shots, I limit myself to 400 yds. or less. If I cannot stalk into that range, I figure that I am not much of a hunter. Give the game a chance to at least know that you are in the same county, before you kill him.

For elk, using the same 280Rem. chambered rifle, I move up in weight to the 160gr. Barnes Solid. Granted, I have only taken two bulls, but both hits were through and through with wide wound channels that would have bled out the bull quickly, had he not gone down right away.

I am not going to tell anyone what cartridge to hunt with. That said, does anyone really believe that given my own, self imposed range of 400 yards or less, that I need anything heavier than what I am using?

Comments appreciated.

Steven A
 
I think for deer you are fine. I would consider your load on the light side for elk. Plenty capable of killing elk, but maybe a little light if a mishap in bullet placement occurs - in my opinion. If I had your set up, and no other to use - I would definitely take it elk hunting. If I had a choice, I would probably choose something in the .30 caliber range - for those less than ideal occurrences or mishaps.;)
 
SwampCat; Thank you for your kind response. Regarding my elk hand load, I did say in my initial post;
"For elk, using the same 280Rem. chambered rifle, I move up in weight to the 160gr. Barnes Solid. Granted, I have only taken two bulls, but both hits were through and through with wide wound channels that would have bled out the bull quickly, had he not gone down right away."

I have been on a number of elk hunts where others are using 30cal. or bigger. I have not seen any elk drop quicker or deader than they do when hit right with the 7mm 160gr. Barnes Solid. For heavy elk, I am convinced that my 280Rem. load, using the 160 gr. Barnes Solid cannot be beat. Again as I previously wrote, I do not fire at animals beyond 400 yds. For those killing elk in the next county, have at those big, long, heavy magnum cartridges. I do not criticize what another man chooses to carry afield, nor how far away he will attempt to take game.

Once, when I was flying into Gunnison, CO. for a self guided elk hunt I was seated next to a gent, who it turned out was also heading out after elk. I did not end up getting in front of any legal bulls on that hunt. When the other hunter heard what I was carrying, his eyebrows went up; "280Remington? You know, of course", he said, "you are way under gunned for elk!" Too many men believe that only they have the truth.

To me, it just does not make sense, that if a man is launching a .284cal. (7mm) bullet at elk, that he is going to kill any more elk more effectively by moving up to a .30cal. bullet (7.62mm). Either bullet simply has to be producing the energy, down range, to create a wide, deep, wound channel, preferably thru and thru the animal. If that is accomplished, the animal dies.

I would prefer to break both shoulders on an elk and I have loaded up to the point where I am convinced my bullet will do that. However, a wide wound channel, thru and thru anywhere in the heart/lung area, will bleed out the bull very quickly and if he does not instantly drop, he in any case, will not go far.
 
Now I have never hunted Elk, and in all likelihood never will unless they make it back this far East before I'm dead and gone, but I agree with you when it comes to deer. Speed kills, and lighter bullets are faster. I will never deer hunt with my .308 because to me its just too slow. I like the big shock to the system you get with a lighter and faster bullet on impact, I feel that it offers a more humane kill. My weapon of choice is not too far from yours. I shoot a 150 gr nobler accubond and at 3300 FPS from a 2.270 WSM only one deer has ever not hit the deck on the spot, and he only made it 30 yards. And that was the buck in my picture, big and jacked way up on testosterone (he was about to partake in a female of the species at the time). But as to your question of range and bullet weight, I would almostnbe worried about over-stabilization leading to a decrease in accuracy at 400 yards with a 120 gr. bullet going that fast. And as much of a speed freak as I am I personally would hesitate with that loading past 300 yards. Now I might just be paranoid because of personal experience with bullets and shoulder blades, but I would want a little heavier bullet than 120 at 400 yards. But like I said, thats just my opinion, and I am paranoid about not making it through a shoulder. Its nice to see a fellow speed freak though, and I will agree that nothing puts a deer down faster than a light bullet thats pushing over 3000.
 
Hunters kill elk all the time with .243's. definitely not the "recommended" caliber by anyone I hope but it works.

Your 160 grain .280 loads are plenty for elk. I think most would consider.270 and up pretty standard elk medicine, especially when loaded with a quality bullet.


Sent from my iPhone using Deer Hunter Forum
 
I've only killed one elk in my life, a New Mexican cow, and I shot the top of her heart off with a .300 WSM. Had I built my Alamo Precision .280 Rem before this hunt, that is surely what I would have used, and would not have felt under gunned in the least. Lots of time has passed since Bob Ruark wrote that oft quoted line, and it's still good advice. But.....in that time many advancements have been made in ammo, both in powders, and more importantly, bullets. Well placed shots, to me, trump caliber each and every time.

BTW, my deer load is 53 grains of R19 behind a Sierra 140 grain Game King. If I were going after elk, the Barnes bullet would be one I would definitely experiment with.
 
Last edited:
I’m assuming by Barnes solid you mean the new expanding bullets. After having killed dozens of elk under all kinds of conditions (a few feet to 500+ yds), I have strong opinions on what’s ideal. Ideal for me was 210g partitions going 3250fps out of a 340wby. I like being able to count on racquet ball sized exit wounds at 500+yds and knowing I had the bullet weight to penetrate steep quartering shots and still crush an off shoulder leaving a large exit wound. I also appreciate how flat shooting this combination is.

Will lesser cartridges kill effectively? Of course. Indeed, I think a 300wby shooting Hornady spire points kills a second or two faster at 300yds when the bullet comes apart. Would I want that velocity/bullet combination on a quartering away shot at short distance? Absolutely not. The point is it’s all about compromise. For many an 06 or similar sized round is the perfect combination of recoil, range and bullet performance.

I admittedly don’t have experience with Barnes TSX bullets on game. I saw the pre TSX slugs fail to expand a couple times and gave up on them.

I’m glad you found something you have confidence in—confidence really matters.
 
I like middle of the road to heavy when it comes to bullets in most of my rifles. I don't care about speed until I get to the .204 Ruger. I shoot a 140gr Berger in my .270 traveling at 2832fps. My .300Wby is shooting factory loaded 165gr Nosler BT at 3200fps and I am thinking about reloading180gr once I run out. My .204 Ruger shoots 40r V-Max at 3900fps, but I bought some 35r Bergers to try, as they say 40gr is a little to heavy for the twist(shoots 1" groups, but does better with lighter). My .300blk AR really likes 220gr bullets over a 150gr and is shooting them at roughly 900fps-ish. My .257 Wby shoots a 117gr bullet really well at 3200fps(not max load), but I have been hunting with a 100r Hornady Spire Point at 3400fps(not max load). I'll take a well placed shot that is moving a little slower than it is supposed to be, over a bad shot that is screaming down the pipe. Most bullets seem to perform better at slower speeds anyway, especially ballistic tips. If you can get a ballistic tip to 2800fps or slower, they are fantastic. Its when they hit an animal at 3000fps+ that problems can occur. I tell everyone to shoot what you have confidence in and don't change.
 
Your question is like asking a group of guys "Ford or Chevy":) They are all opinion and none are right or wrong. It is fun reading what works for other people.

Personally, I like heavy bullets for caliber because I want an exit hole every time, no matter the angle. This philosophy comes from some years spent in Alaska, where the animals were a little bigger and penetration is desirable. If using a 280, I'd much rather use a quality 150 or 160 grain bullet than a 120 Ballistic Tip, no matter the animal and especially as the range gets long. Also, you mean a 160 in the Triple Shock family, not an actual 160 Banded Solid, correct?

Very, very few people should ever attempt a 400 yard shot on a deer (unless they get a lot of practice time at long range). A 400 yard one shot kill on a deer is too easy to mess up from a field position, in field conditions, on an animal that can take a step at any moment. Based on range observations, I'd go so far as to say that 80% of hunters shouldn't shoot at a deer at even 200 yards.

George's .308 178gr ELD-X gets two thumbs up :D
 
Your question is like asking a group of guys "Ford or Chevy":) They are all opinion and none are right or wrong. It is fun reading what works for other people.

Personally, I like heavy bullets for caliber because I want an exit hole every time, no matter the angle. This philosophy comes from some years spent in Alaska, where the animals were a little bigger and penetration is desirable. If using a 280, I'd much rather use a quality 150 or 160 grain bullet than a 120 Ballistic Tip, no matter the animal and especially as the range gets long. Also, you mean a 160 in the Triple Shock family, not an actual 160 Banded Solid, correct?

Very, very few people should ever attempt a 400 yard shot on a deer (unless they get a lot of practice time at long range). A 400 yard one shot kill on a deer is too easy to mess up from a field position, in field conditions, on an animal that can take a step at any moment. Based on range observations, I'd go so far as to say that 80% of hunters shouldn't shoot at a deer at even 200 yards.

George's .308 178gr ELD-X gets two thumbs up :D

I'm with you on the long range shots at game. It's fun to shoot long range at steel or even paper, but they don't move and produce wounding shots. Now I'll be the first to say I'll take a hail mary at a hog or coyote, but game animals are another matter. My self imposed limit is 300 yards, dead rest, and completely calm animal. So far, 273 ranged yards has been my longest shot at game. Doe in a 75 acre oat field completely unaware, shoulder shot with a Ruger 77 in .280 Rem (yes, I'm a fanboy) using the old Hornady Light Magnums. She dropped in her tracks.
 
I think Ruark was spot on when he said "enough". Too many use too much, not too much for the animal but the shooter. The majority of my deer have been killed with a 308 or an 06 and 165 grain bullets. Were I to go elk hunting I would switch over to a 165 g Barnes and feel that I was packing enough gun. I have used 165 grain bullets on antelope which would probably be considered over kill. On deer I like to be able to penetrate to the vitals from any angle presented (TX heart shot when needed) and my 30 cals do that. Sounds like your 280 is working fine. Most of the debate in magazine stem from needing to sell the latest and greatest rifle that does what the 06 was doing in 1906. Teddy used it to kill lions and rhinos!
 
Yep, I have a .275 caliber (7mm rem mag) but the .308 is an easy shooter. It has a 200 yard zero but like most animals that I shoot, I shot my mule deer at 60 paces. I might buy a 6.5 creedmoor to shoot metal at longer ranges.

G
 
The 280 Remington is already "enough gun" for anything in North America, save the big bears. Ironically, you talk about light bullet weight, but a 160gr bullet is heavy for the caliber being used. I don't like the way very light, fast bullets kill, because of the mess they sometimes make and the fact that they are not 100% reliable on close range shots. Those 120gr BTs would be more reliable at 400 yards than they are at 40.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top