- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: .270 Question
Posted on 8/7/16 at 8:41 pm to SportTiger1
Posted on 8/7/16 at 8:41 pm to SportTiger1
quote:
I got one cuz I wanted something different and I like paying $3 per shot lol.
I reload so Im paying under $1 per shot using Barnes 130gr TSX
1
Posted on 8/7/16 at 9:11 pm to saintsfan1977
I might have to look at re loading one day. That wsm is the hardest and most expensive one to shoot in my bottom of the lake lineup.
Posted on 8/7/16 at 9:33 pm to highcotton2
I read your entire post. You said,
I've shared my actual experience of bullet penetration vs velocity when using the same bullet. I wasn't really concerned about the issue of different bullet construction and design as that makes things very complicated. Do you agree or disagree w/ my the statement: When comparing bullets of the same construction, diameter and weight, bullet penetration increases as velocity decreases? If you agree, then we're in agreement after all. If you disagree, I'd like to see something that supports you.
Thanks for the chart, but it compares apples and oranges (SOLID rifle bullets of different diameter and weight). My statements are based on an apples and apples comparison (expanding hunting rifle bullets of same diameter, weight and construction). In fact, the name of the article you referenced shows the apples to oranges comparison: "A New Concept in Deep Penetration of Solid Rifle Bullets in Large Animals." "The Penetration Index" in the chart is not a measurement of bullet penetration, but is an equation using kinetic energy, sectional density and bullet frontal area. My statements are based on actual measurements of penetration.
Disclaimer: I'm referring entirely to hunting bullets that are designed to expand, not solids that are designed to penetrate and not expand. I'm sure there's a minimum impact velocity a bullet needs to achieve in order to penetrate; below this velocity, bullet penetration will begin to decrease. I don't know what the minimum velocity is as we didn't study it.
quote:
All things being equal penetration increases with velocity. It is when you start talking different bullet construction and design that this changes.
I've shared my actual experience of bullet penetration vs velocity when using the same bullet. I wasn't really concerned about the issue of different bullet construction and design as that makes things very complicated. Do you agree or disagree w/ my the statement: When comparing bullets of the same construction, diameter and weight, bullet penetration increases as velocity decreases? If you agree, then we're in agreement after all. If you disagree, I'd like to see something that supports you.
Thanks for the chart, but it compares apples and oranges (SOLID rifle bullets of different diameter and weight). My statements are based on an apples and apples comparison (expanding hunting rifle bullets of same diameter, weight and construction). In fact, the name of the article you referenced shows the apples to oranges comparison: "A New Concept in Deep Penetration of Solid Rifle Bullets in Large Animals." "The Penetration Index" in the chart is not a measurement of bullet penetration, but is an equation using kinetic energy, sectional density and bullet frontal area. My statements are based on actual measurements of penetration.
Disclaimer: I'm referring entirely to hunting bullets that are designed to expand, not solids that are designed to penetrate and not expand. I'm sure there's a minimum impact velocity a bullet needs to achieve in order to penetrate; below this velocity, bullet penetration will begin to decrease. I don't know what the minimum velocity is as we didn't study it.
This post was edited on 8/7/16 at 9:42 pm
Posted on 8/7/16 at 10:01 pm to NOLAGT
quote:
I might have to look at re loading one day.
You should. You could reload that round for about $0.80 if you use a Hornady or Sierra bullets. It will be right under $1 a round if you use a premium bullet like Barnes or Nosler.
Posted on 8/7/16 at 11:17 pm to TigerOnThe Hill
quote:
When comparing bullets of the same construction, diameter and weight, bullet penetration increases as velocity decreases? If you agree, then we're in agreement after all. If you disagree, I'd like to see something that supports you.
Take .257 Roberts with a core bonded bullet and a .257 Wby core bonded bullet of the same weight and shoot them through ballistic gel and see which one penetrates more. I have done it before.
Having a bullet designed for the velocity you are shooting has more to do with penetration. A soft bullet will "splatter" at high velocities and not penetrate. All bullet designs have a "sweet spot" of velocity to create maximum penetration. But to state that the slower a bullet the more penetration is just false.
So with your theory a ballistic tip going 500 fps will penetrate further than the same bullet going 1500 fps?
Posted on 8/7/16 at 11:24 pm to TigerOnThe Hill
Bingo. When a bullet hits a target it expands/mushrooms pushing the matter inwards. If it finds the other side of the cavity it pushes the matter outwards. A ballistic/wound bullet is designed to explode on entry leaving a drain plug in the bath tub. A solid/soft point is designed to pass through leaving the drain open.
Posted on 8/8/16 at 6:58 am to highcotton2
The Roberts and weatherby likely use much different bullets. The weatherby bullet is probably significantly tougher even though they weigh the same and look the same.
Either way, you're on a different page than everyone else here. We're talking about changing the speed of one bullet. You're comparing calibers. Way different topics b
Either way, you're on a different page than everyone else here. We're talking about changing the speed of one bullet. You're comparing calibers. Way different topics b
Posted on 8/8/16 at 8:07 am to DownshiftAndFloorIt
I have been shooting 130 grain winchester ballistic silver tips out of my .270 since the late 90's and have had very good success. Killed a doe with a neck shot at 200+ yards last year.Blew a soft ball sized hole in the neck. Also my browning A-Bolt really likes these rounds and is very accurate with them.
Posted on 8/8/16 at 3:51 pm to highcotton2
quote:
So with your theory a ballistic tip going 500 fps will penetrate further than the same bullet going 1500 fps?
Along your lines, take a .300 aac 208 grain hornady amax traveling around 1050fps.
Take that same 208 grain amax and put it in a .300 WBY Mag.
I would bet that the .300 blackout load would have greater penetration than the .300 WBY mag as there would be zero expansion in the slower moving cartridge. They only think that would slow it down is if it started to tumble on contact.
Posted on 8/8/16 at 5:13 pm to BeauxNArreaux
Shot hornady .270 150 gr boattails for years and lost a few deer. Been shooting .270 130gr corelokts and havent had an issue. They are 4/4 for me. This doe was a pass through and left a blood trail 3 ft wide. Huge blood. She ran 40 yards. This is entrance hole.
This post was edited on 8/8/16 at 5:14 pm
Posted on 8/8/16 at 8:59 pm to highcotton2
quote:
So with your theory a ballistic tip going 500 fps will penetrate further than the same bullet going 1500 fps?
Tsk, tsk HC2. You're putting words in my mouth. I never said that. In my last post I made a disclaimer to that effect. II specifically said there was a velocity at the lower end at which bullet penetration would begin decreasing. I admitted I didn't know at what velocity that occurred as we didn't study that. Here it is again.
quote:
I'm sure there's a minimum impact velocity a bullet needs to achieve in order to penetrate; below this velocity, bullet penetration will begin to decrease. I don't know what the minimum velocity is as we didn't study it.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words. If that's true, maybe I should've shared these pics at the beginning instead of trying to explain everything, but I didn't b/c I had to find the pics on my old computer and upload them to Photobucket. These are 30 caliber 125 grain Nosler Ballistic Tip bullets shot in a 308 rifle and chronographed 10 feet from the muzzle. You're right about a bullet having a "sweet spot" for performance. The box for this bullet says "Optimum Performance Velocity: Minimum 1800 fps; Maximum 3200 fps. The box also labels this bullet as a hunting bullet. Loads C, D and E had a "blip", but the trend is undeniable. Anyone who's ever done a science fair project will understand they're never perfect.
If anyone wants, I can post pics for 150 gr NBT, 165 gr NBT, 180 gr NBT but they all show the same thing: penetration decreases as velocity increases. The 150 gr FMJ pics were interesting because the bullets broke in half at the cannelure.
Posted on 8/8/16 at 9:05 pm to TigerOnThe Hill
Interesting. 
Posted on 8/8/16 at 9:23 pm to TigerOnThe Hill
I can't argue with those results.
Posted on 8/8/16 at 9:29 pm to TigerOnThe Hill
Any idea why the FMJs split? I figured they'd essentially act like a solid in gel at reasonable speeds.
Posted on 8/8/16 at 9:36 pm to TigerOnThe Hill
Thanks for posting the pics
Posted on 8/8/16 at 9:47 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
Any idea why the FMJs split? I figured they'd essentially act like a solid in gel at reasonable speeds.
I think he said he was shooting into wet newspaper not gel.
Posted on 8/8/16 at 9:51 pm to highcotton2
You're right he did. That's probably a good bit tougher than gel. I guess I give them too much credit for being tough. I know it's different, but every FMJ I ever recovered out of my .357mag looked like it could be reloaded and used again after hitting boards and a big pile of clay.
Posted on 8/8/16 at 9:52 pm to TigerOnThe Hill
Good stuff but OP was looking at .270 Win ballistics. Isnt 150 gr max for .270 here?
Posted on 8/8/16 at 9:54 pm to TigerOnThe Hill
I don't have anything to back this up so I may look like a dumbass but me and a buddy did this same thing with a 257 Roberts and a 257 Wby shooting the exact same bullet that he had reloaded through ballistic gel and we had very different results. This was done over 15 years ago so I don't remember the specifics but the faster Weatherby round had substantially deeper penetration.
But like I said I definitely cannot argue with your results. Very cool pictures.
Edit. After talking to him we were using a 100gr bullet and there was about 600fps difference between the two.
But like I said I definitely cannot argue with your results. Very cool pictures.
Edit. After talking to him we were using a 100gr bullet and there was about 600fps difference between the two.
This post was edited on 8/8/16 at 9:56 pm
Posted on 8/8/16 at 11:52 pm to rattlebucket
quote:
OP was looking at .270 Win ballistics. Isnt 150 gr max for .270 here?
Yeah, for all practical purposes. If he can find a factory load using Hornady's 130 spire point bullet, I think that's be a good choice. A good friend has had good results w/ the Barnes plastic tipped 130 grain bullet. I think the 130 Nosler Accubond and Partition would be good choices, as well. Some folks have a hard time getting the Partition to shoot well in their guns.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News