.260 load for elk

[Flatland Crusoe]

You're right I'm an idiot and I don't know what I'm talking about.

How many elk have you tracked around the mountains?

Sorry, just trying to apply some basic ballistics to whats going on here. There are lots of great hunters who don't split hairs on ballistics but they use plenty of gun. Since 260 is on the low end for elk lets see how the numbers play out.

Your Statement:

I get leery of Barnes in those small calibers, especially at low MV.

Stick with lead.

Assumptions for this test:
1) 1200-1500 ft-lbs energy to kill an elk, use 1200 ft lbs as the worse case scenario to produce the slowest velocity for lower expansion
2) Barnes TTSX requires 1800 ft/s to get full expansion, but we will use 2000 ft/s as a worst case minimum.
3) According to Barnes load data for H4350 and 120 gr TTSX velocities will be between 2700-2900 fps (2800 fps used for load data)

According to the Shooter App, 260@ 43 gr H4350 with a muzzle velocity of 2800 fps:

Dist Energy Velocity
0 2088 2800
50 1952 2706
100 1822 2615
150 1699 2525
200 1583 2437
250 1473 2351
300 1369 2267
350 1272 2184
400 1179 2104

Based on the assumption of 1200 ft lbs of energy to kill an elk the load is good to 380 yards @ 2140 fps which is more velocity than the required 2000 fps.

Based on the more conservative assumption of 1500 ft lbs of energy to kill an elk the load is good to 225 yards @ 2400 fps which is 20% more velocity than the required 2000 fps.

The point is a copper hollow point will be prohibited by energy before velocity in the case of elk. Yes there are many great copper/lead bullets that would serve the purpose very well, but it doesn't mean the copper hollow points won't work and have many ballistic and manufacturing advantages by virtue of their homogeneous metallurgy. Their biggest issue today is their relative cost.

 

[1_pointer]

Problem with assumption #1 is that it doesn't really tell you anything.

 

[elkantlers]

Sorry, just trying to apply some basic ballistics to whats going on here. There are lots of great hunters who don't split hairs on ballistics but they use plenty of gun. Since 260 is on the low end for elk lets see how the numbers play out.

Your Statement:

I get leery of Barnes in those small calibers, especially at low MV.

Stick with lead.

Assumptions for this test:
1) 1200-1500 ft-lbs energy to kill an elk, use 1200 ft lbs as the worse case scenario to produce the slowest velocity for lower expansion
2) Barnes TTSX requires 1800 ft/s to get full expansion, but we will use 2000 ft/s as a worst case minimum.
3) According to Barnes load data for H4350 and 120 gr TTSX velocities will be between 2700-2900 fps (2800 fps used for load data)

According to the Shooter App, 260@ 43 gr H4350 with a muzzle velocity of 2800 fps:

Dist Energy Velocity
0 2088 2800
50 1952 2706
100 1822 2615
150 1699 2525
200 1583 2437
250 1473 2351
300 1369 2267
350 1272 2184
400 1179 2104

Based on the assumption of 1200 ft lbs of energy to kill an elk the load is good to 380 yards @ 2140 fps which is more velocity than the required 2000 fps.

Based on the more conservative assumption of 1500 ft lbs of energy to kill an elk the load is good to 225 yards @ 2400 fps which is 20% more velocity than the required 2000 fps.

The point is a copper hollow point will be prohibited by energy before velocity in the case of elk. Yes there are many great copper/lead bullets that would serve the purpose very well, but it doesn't mean the copper hollow points won't work and have many ballistic and manufacturing advantages by virtue of their homogeneous metallurgy. Their biggest issue today is their relative cost.

Now if you can get the elk to abide by these numbers you will be set.

 

[Muskeez]

Too much data for a beginner like me; Point is many people say my interlock load is fine. I enjoyed getting that load dialed in, so I am going to experiment with a 140 grn partition and 4831 powder as well as 4350. I will try to find the right combo that is the most accurate in my gun. Accuracy trumps a little more energy or speed for me. The reason I am trying the partition is not only are the numbers there but mostly because a friend and his daughters have killed many elk with that bullet from their 6.5 and that is good enough for me. A larger caliber gun would be nice but that day will have to wait a while. Thanks to everyone for the education, It's greatly appreciated.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I also think your Interlock load is fine.

I also think Barnes TSX bullets are an outstanding choice. I've killed elk with them using my .243.

Many great bullets available today, I don't think you can really go wrong unless you use one that is not intended for the purpose.

 

[Flatland Crusoe]

Problem with assumption #1 is that it doesn't really tell you anything.

Then please quantity in physics terms a good assumption of how much energy it takes to kill an elk with a modern centerfire load and a non head/spine shot.

I don't pretend to think these things are exact sciences, but most hunters base these types of things off a few observations in the field with way too many uncontrolled circumstances to develop much of a trend. Putting numbers and calculations to potential calibers, powders and bullets helps you eliminate options to investigate and develop.

 

[Muskeez]

agree to disagree. end of topic.

 

[.280 Remington]

Then please quantity in physics terms a good assumption of how much energy it takes to kill an elk with a modern centerfire load and a non head/spine shot.

I don't pretend to think these things are exact sciences, but most hunters base these types of things off a few observations in the field with way too many uncontrolled circumstances to develop much of a trend. Putting numbers and calculations to potential calibers, powders and bullets helps you eliminate options to investigate and develop.

Tell us again, how many elk have you shot?


I've killed animals, including elk, with Barnes bullets. Without exception, they run further and bleed less than with lead core bullets. That, in itself, is not a problem. However, when you start to use marginal bullet diameters for animals such as elk, it could be.

I've never used them in a rifle with a muzzle velocity less than 3300 fps, and I've never had one fail to expand. However, John Barsness post a lot over on the 24 hour campfire. He's stated on several threads that high RPMs help Barnes expand, and most of the failures he has seen have been with Barnes bullets shot at muzzle velocities less than 3000 fps.

Barnes bullets are great in certain applications. I'm just not sure that shooting elk with a .260 is one of them. They penetrate like mad, but penetration isn't everything. A Partition or Accubond will penetrate more than adequately and probably drop a bull without having to track it too far.

 

[1_pointer]

Then please quantity in physics terms a good assumption of how much energy it takes to kill an elk with a modern centerfire load and a non head/spine shot.

I don't pretend to think these things are exact sciences, but most hunters base these types of things off a few observations in the field with way too many uncontrolled circumstances to develop much of a trend. Putting numbers and calculations to potential calibers, powders and bullets helps you eliminate options to investigate and develop.

I can't and I won't because I don't think that energy is useful at all in predicting on game performance. Which has more energy a 300 WIn Mag with a 110gr Vmax at 3600fps or a 260 Rem with a 140gr Partition at 2600fps? Which is better to use on elk for "non head/spine shots"?

Remember, we're only talking energy...

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Most of the elk I've shot with Barnes bullets took on average about 3.5 steps before falling over. Some just stood where they were hit, and then fell over. I hardly think that elk running forever after being shot with a Barnes is reflective of the bullet itself, more likely the placement of the shot.

Edit: I'm shooting them at a lowly 2850 fps.

 

[Flatland Crusoe]

I can't and I won't because I don't think that energy is useful at all in predicting on game performance. Which has more energy a 300 WIn Mag with a 110gr Vmax at 3600fps or a 260 Rem with a 140gr Partition at 2600fps? Which is better to use on elk for "non head/spine shots"?

Remember, we're only talking energy...

Sorry, I didn't consider stating the assumption that we were using CP2/CP3 bullets to begin with. I assumed we weren't comparing vmax to dangerous game solids.

Energy matters in that the other factors detract from the efficient transfer of energy to the target. You only have so much energy when the bullet leaves the muzzle and no more is being created. That is why factors like Ballistic Coefficient and Sectional density are so critical to rifle performance. Higher ballistic coefficient helps the bullet not loose speed from air drag and sectional density of the bullet accurately predicts how far a round will penetrate a solid object (sharp knife vs dull knife).

The reason Barnes penetrate so well is that they stay together as a solid piece so they have a much more consistent sectional density through the animal whereas a bimetal bullet might turn 25% of its weight into smaller pieces that have a much lower individual sectional density. This is especially remarkable when you consider the density of lead is about 20 percent more than copper.

Typically speaking as you use a small caliber for a situation or go up in size of game penetration becomes the priority over expansion within reason. This is why an African professional hunter might use a true solid or when using a tiny caliber carry handgun (380 or less) hollowpoints are typically abandoned for solids.

The only reason 6.5mm rounds are even viable as large game rounds is their sectional density and penetration are proportionally better than most of their 30 caliber cousins.

 

[.280 Remington]

Most of the elk I've shot with Barnes bullets took on average about 3.5 steps before falling over. Some just stood where they were hit, and then fell over. I hardly think that elk running forever after being shot with a Barnes is reflective of the bullet itself, more likely the placement of the shot.

Edit: I'm shooting them at a lowly 2850 fps.

Yeah, shot placement matters. You could say the same thing about FMJs or varmint bullets too. Doesn't mean much.

 

[1_pointer]

Sorry, I didn't consider stating the assumption that we were using CP2/CP3 bullets to begin with. I assumed we weren't comparing vmax to dangerous game solids.

Energy matters in that the other factors detract from the efficient transfer of energy to the target. You only have so much energy when the bullet leaves the muzzle and no more is being created. That is why factors like Ballistic Coefficient and Sectional density are so critical to rifle performance. Higher ballistic coefficient helps the bullet not loose speed from air drag and sectional density of the bullet accurately predicts how far a round will penetrate a solid object (sharp knife vs dull knife).

The reason Barnes penetrate so well is that they stay together as a solid piece so they have a much more consistent sectional density through the animal whereas a bimetal bullet might turn 25% of its weight into smaller pieces that have a much lower individual sectional density. This is especially remarkable when you consider the density of lead is about 20 percent more than copper.

Typically speaking as you use a small caliber for a situation or go up in size of game penetration becomes the priority over expansion within reason. This is why an African professional hunter might use a true solid or when using a tiny caliber carry handgun (380 or less) hollowpoints are typically abandoned for solids.

The only reason 6.5mm rounds are even viable as large game rounds is their sectional density and penetration are proportionally better than most of their 30 caliber cousins.

Yep, I still am convinced that energy as a stand alone number or to create some threshold is useless.

 

[BuzzH]

The reason Barnes penetrate so well is that they stay together as a solid piece so they have a much more consistent sectional density through the animal whereas a bimetal bullet might turn 25% of its weight into smaller pieces that have a much lower individual sectional density.

Pretty bold statement there...and more likely to occur in fantasyland than reality...in particular at ranges where a controlled expansion bi-metal bullet (ones being discussed here) "might" turn 25% of its weight into smaller pieces.

At ranges where a CE bi-metal bullet will shed 25% of its weight, the remaining 75% is going to penetrate more than enough to reach vitals even on a severe raking shot (BTDT once or twice). Broadside shots will require a shovel and metal detector to recover a bullet to even know how much of the bullet weight was "shed".

As range increases, CE bi-metals, and even standard cup and core bullets will likely mirror both expansion and weight retention of all copper bullets.

I've seen lots of game shot with both types of bullets...cant deny that the all copper bullets work. But, its a lame argument that says they work any better than a CE bullet on big-game. I flat haven't seen anything on a few hundred head of big-game to convince me otherwise.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Yeah, shot placement matters. You could say the same thing about FMJs or varmint bullets too. Doesn't mean much.

Yep, I'll say it about those too. Shot placement trumps all else.

 

[.280 Remington]

Yep, I'll say it about those too. Shot placement trumps all else.

Ok sweet. Bullet construction doesn't matter. That will save me some money. Thanks for the tip.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Ok sweet. Bullet construction doesn't matter. That will save me some money. Thanks for the tip.

Huh. I re-read what I wrote and I don't see anywhere in there that I said bullet construction doesn't matter.

Don't be an idiot.

 

[elkantlers]

Of course bullet construction matters, not as much as shot placement though. However, we all have had marginal shots. It's when you have the marginal shots that bullet construction really comes into play.

 

[.280 Remington]

Huh. I re-read what I wrote and I don't see anywhere in there that I said bullet construction doesn't matter.

Don't be an idiot.

The idiot is the guy who can't pick up the sarcasm

 

[sbhooper]

The battle of mono vs bi-metal will continue forever. I believe the real difference in them, is that the monos are more prone to expansion failure when shot at medium/low velocity and extended ranges. They are fine at moderate range and especially with high velocity calibers. That is why I am trying to sell my GMX bullets. I just don't trust extended range expansion with a .308 and monos.