Thread: Matches with hunting bullets

Originally Posted by Magnetite

So can I make a few assumptions:

First the rifle doesn't have a preference (impossible to tell without testing anyway).
Second the QC between match and hunting bullets will be the insignificant.
Third the main difference will be BC due to differences in the jacket.

So it boils down to try the projectile with the best BC first.

What range do generally take game at ? Rifles DO often have a preference with projectiles. You dont want non-expanding target projectiles to pass through an animal with little damage. At long-range, your higher BC bullet should be more accurate, providing it is accurate closer-in. This doesnt mean its necessarily a target-specific projectile. The highest BC, best SD, isnt necessarily the most accurate projectile in All rifles. Shot-placement/velocity combined with bullet construction, is what is needed and hunting projectiles are designed to perform differently to target projectiles. A mate who hunts with a .243, fills a 20liter-bucket with cases, every couple of years. Ive never seen him miss, and he uses cheap PPU ammo. Same cheap Nikko-Sterling scope that came came with the rifle in 1982. Find what works and stick with it

BC 100% does matter at field matches. BC directly effects wind drift. the less drift you have the more tolerance you have in a slightly off wind call.

In saying that I shoot a lot of PRS/field matches and would very happily shoot eld x's or TGK. I believe they are just as consistent as the match lines of bullets but have a different internal make up. match bullets are cheaper because they are a little less complex or have less copper in the jacket.

If i was a primarily hunter shooting the odd match I would 100% use my hunting load. knowing your load and rifle is so bloody important for knowing your own ability and making ethical shots on game.

Just find a good consistent load and stick to it mate

Specifically what I'm looking for:
One load so I'm not mucking round with different zero's, scopes, drop etc.
Hunting, limited to 400m.
Targets, not limited to any distance.
Reasonable cost (read around $100/100).
A tip that won't be damaged in the magazine.
A limited range of choices as load development is fairly intensive, around 70 rounds. So I'm not wanting to test every bullet under the sun. Multiple weights of the same projectile seem pointless. Preferably 2 maybe three options.

Expected velocities are 2700fps for 140gr, 2750fps for 130gr, 2800fps for 120gr with a 1:8 twist.

The list consists of:
1. Hornady 140gr ELD-M
2. Sierra 130gr TMK or 140gr TGK. Whichever comes into stock first. The TGK perform better inside 400m and the TMK beyond that.

Possibles:
Nosler 140gr BT
Hornady 123gr or 140gr SST (123gr has better on paper performance).

Ruled out:
147gr ELD-M, marginal stability under certain conditions.
143gr ELD-X, if the M won't shoot the X probably won't.
Speer 140gr Gold Dot, potentially low BC ~0.490.
Lapua, unreliable availability.
Matchking, unreliable on game.
Monolithics, too dear.
Berger, too dear.

Out to 250m, I found 120gr (very little dif to 123) flattened animals better/faster than 140's. I experienced pass-throughs 400+ with the 140's, though they are the best long-range technically as everyone knows. Back then, I didnt try 120's on long-shots, and these days rarely shoot past 200. There are charts online, showing the equivalents of 6.5 projectiles,ie, 120gr 6.5 = something like 140 in 308, for hitting-power, wound-channel etc. 140gr 6.5, out-penetrated 7.62nato(.308) by 9 inches into compressed sand. These tests were done by The Military. If I bothered using 140's today, I would find the most frangible, accurate projectile I could, to ensure expansion at longer-ranges. I should mention that all this was from a sporterised m38 Swede, so longer barrel-length may make a difference. I still prefer this rifle to my 'flash' sako x55, which weighs a ton, and has only shot paper 3 times with 140's,... all pass-throughs...