Very true. The great thing is you don't have to shoot one if you choose. But the extended magazine seemed a waste of money to me personally. To each their own. mtmuley
300 rum factory 10 twist heavies?
- Thread starter rogerthat
- Start date
Okay, here is a question I've been researching and asking myself as I just built a new 300 HH custom...
This not a troll or intended to instigate anything, it is an honest question...and same applies to the 300RUM throwing 225 vs 200
What is the real benefit in going heavier vs faster? provided one is using quality bullets and assume both are shooting moa or better out of the same rifle. and assume Elk sized and smaller game (create one load that works for everything.
Why this question... well, lets take a particular bullet nosler AB long range, and load and velocity...
The 300 HH will shoot the 168 at near 3300fps...the 190 grn at 2850fps:
the 168 carries better energy out past 1000yrds and shoots much flatter.
example at 600 yards:
168 is carrying 1700ft# @ 2151 fps
190 is carrying 1500ft# @ 1892 fps
at 1000 yrds:
168 is carrying 900ft# @1553 fps
190 is carrying 837ft# @ 1408 fps
This not a troll or intended to instigate anything, it is an honest question...and same applies to the 300RUM throwing 225 vs 200
What is the real benefit in going heavier vs faster? provided one is using quality bullets and assume both are shooting moa or better out of the same rifle. and assume Elk sized and smaller game (create one load that works for everything.
Why this question... well, lets take a particular bullet nosler AB long range, and load and velocity...
The 300 HH will shoot the 168 at near 3300fps...the 190 grn at 2850fps:
the 168 carries better energy out past 1000yrds and shoots much flatter.
example at 600 yards:
168 is carrying 1700ft# @ 2151 fps
190 is carrying 1500ft# @ 1892 fps
at 1000 yrds:
168 is carrying 900ft# @1553 fps
190 is carrying 837ft# @ 1408 fps
BackofBeyond
Well-known member
Energy is a worthless metric.
What’s the wind drift of both bullets at those distances with a full value 13 mph wind?
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,918
I will take a shot at this. So in my mind(yup it’s a dark screwed up place) if your shooting a highly frangible bullet, the extra mass will help you get a little more penetration so for that style of bullet it might make sense to go with the higher mass bullet. Additionally the .bc is higher typically in the heavier for caliber bullets which will mean flatter trajectory and less wind drift. However if your shooting a bonded or mono the extra mass as can be seen will mean lower velocity and the higher velocity will be more desirable for bullet performance as these bullets get lots of penetration but need the velocity to expand. So it may make sense to stay lighter. I don’t know anything about the ABLR. I’m thinking it’s a bit more frangible than the accubond so I would probably lean heavy. Just my thoughts in a rule of thumb explanation
Thank you both for answering and I will continue this discussion with this... again I'm new to hunt talk so I want to be clear, not trolling, I've been an avid hunter my entire life, my dad bought me my first shotgun when I was 5 yrs old. My first rifle, a 22-250 at 10 years old for antelope. I killed my first bear at 14 years over a 1/3 century ago. I have been reloading in some form for 41 years now(damn I'm getting old)i know for a fact I have loaded 10s of thousands of shotgun rounds as my dad was a competition trap shooter and I was his unpaid reloading employee, LOL.
Maybe energy is a worthless metric but it is a metric none the less. What other info to guide us is there? I know the old HIT from hornady I think but???
Wind drift is negligible and really NOT a concern, which is why I didn't present that info... in a 10 mph 90* wind:
@ 1000 yrds:
168 is 74 inches
190 is 78 inches
@ 600 yrds
168 is 23 inches
190 is 24.6 inches
These new bonded h bc bullets are amazing.
Now on the frangible thought? I do agree more initial mass gives more end mass...and yes these LR expand at lower velocity than the accubond, BUT they still have the same bonding and Solid base, I have recovered more than a few 168 Accubond LR from my 308 at 2750fps muzzle, ranges from 100 to 300 yrds on big mule deer, big whitetail deer and antelope hit at quartering angles and recovered under skin at far opposite of entry quarters. They have ALL retained around 70% of initial mass. I have not shot and elk with a 165 or 168 but i have shot them with a 140 grain SST superformance load 270 winchester and had complete pass throughs at 200 yards. I have also witnessed large deer hit with the 168 ABLR at ranges out to 330 from a 300wsm load i developed for a gr8 friend of mine, with complete pass throughs and devastating results to organs.
So considering this for the original poster: why take on the extra recoil of a 235 when a 180, 190 0r 200 would possibly do as well or more?? Simply asking as maybe it is a specific reason? I've gone down this rabbit hole on my new build 165 vs 200 grain 168 vs 190 grn etc... as I am getting very similar results from this 300 HH as a typical RUM provides. consider ME very intrigued.
Maybe energy is a worthless metric but it is a metric none the less. What other info to guide us is there? I know the old HIT from hornady I think but???
Wind drift is negligible and really NOT a concern, which is why I didn't present that info... in a 10 mph 90* wind:
@ 1000 yrds:
168 is 74 inches
190 is 78 inches
@ 600 yrds
168 is 23 inches
190 is 24.6 inches
These new bonded h bc bullets are amazing.
Now on the frangible thought? I do agree more initial mass gives more end mass...and yes these LR expand at lower velocity than the accubond, BUT they still have the same bonding and Solid base, I have recovered more than a few 168 Accubond LR from my 308 at 2750fps muzzle, ranges from 100 to 300 yrds on big mule deer, big whitetail deer and antelope hit at quartering angles and recovered under skin at far opposite of entry quarters. They have ALL retained around 70% of initial mass. I have not shot and elk with a 165 or 168 but i have shot them with a 140 grain SST superformance load 270 winchester and had complete pass throughs at 200 yards. I have also witnessed large deer hit with the 168 ABLR at ranges out to 330 from a 300wsm load i developed for a gr8 friend of mine, with complete pass throughs and devastating results to organs.
So considering this for the original poster: why take on the extra recoil of a 235 when a 180, 190 0r 200 would possibly do as well or more?? Simply asking as maybe it is a specific reason? I've gone down this rabbit hole on my new build 165 vs 200 grain 168 vs 190 grn etc... as I am getting very similar results from this 300 HH as a typical RUM provides. consider ME very intrigued.
Wind Gypsy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2017
- Messages
- 2,057
I have a hard time seeing how a 168 is able to be pushed 450 fps faster than a 190 in a H&H and think that’s why your numbers are what they are.
Edit: you’re 40 FPS slower than fastest listed load on a 190 and 130ish fps faster than fastest load listed for 168s in nosler data. That said, they used higher velocity potential powders with the 190 data.
www.nosler.com
Edit: you’re 40 FPS slower than fastest listed load on a 190 and 130ish fps faster than fastest load listed for 168s in nosler data. That said, they used higher velocity potential powders with the 190 data.
300 Holland & Holland (H&H) Magnum Load Data
Explore the world of Nosler, renowned for crafting the finest bullets, ammunition, rifles, and brass. Discover our extensive lineup, including Partition, AccuBond, E-Tip, Ballistic Tip, Custom Competition, and more. Experience superior quality and performance with Nosler products.
www.nosler.com
Last edited:
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,918
Definitely for your scenario the 168 appears to outperform. I think in a lot of instances you make a great point. For a 30 cal it really goes back to what distance you expect most of your shots and the design of the bullet your shooting. Most 30 cal bullets have plenty of mass to perform on North American big game.
BackofBeyond
Well-known member
The same one that all bullet manufacturers use to demonstrate efficacy - FPS. All manufacturers say "opens reliably at xxxx fps" or "needs at least xxxx fps to open." Not one of them says "must have ZZZZ ft/pds of energy to kill."
Wind Gypsy... all I can tell you is that my Garmin xero is showing me these as average numbers at max recommended loads over the last 50 rounds (25 each) of ammo down the barrel...I'm not calculating these velocities...they are ACTUAL velocities... I was extremely surprised to see the 3300 on the 168s... but it IS what my Xero shows at 3200' elevation, 55*F, clear. ALSO of note I load for accuracy FIRST not velocity... and these loads are using max charge of 4831SC for the 190 and max of 4350 for the 168. (also a 26 inch proof barrel.) for some reason this lighter bullet performs very well from this barrel. I'm not a combustion pressure engineer but I have zero pressure signs
Back of beyond... these scenarios both fall well into the specs of the ABLR for velocity expansion. I would NEVER shoot an animal at 1000yards, it's just to show comparison. I see velocity and energy as building block of usable information not sole factors. just like if i told you i weighed 300 pounds...you would say I'm fat but if I then told you I was 6'11" and a pro football player...it gives more perspective. (I'm none of those thing by the way)
Roger That... I came to the conclusion the 168 is the way to go but I guess I am looking for a reason that the large mass would be "better"... all of this while trying to understand the OP desire to load heavier for his RUM... I'm honestly trying to understand why heavier would be better...in same caliber of course
Back of beyond... these scenarios both fall well into the specs of the ABLR for velocity expansion. I would NEVER shoot an animal at 1000yards, it's just to show comparison. I see velocity and energy as building block of usable information not sole factors. just like if i told you i weighed 300 pounds...you would say I'm fat but if I then told you I was 6'11" and a pro football player...it gives more perspective. (I'm none of those thing by the way)
Roger That... I came to the conclusion the 168 is the way to go but I guess I am looking for a reason that the large mass would be "better"... all of this while trying to understand the OP desire to load heavier for his RUM... I'm honestly trying to understand why heavier would be better...in same caliber of course
Last edited:
Wind Gypsy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2017
- Messages
- 2,057
With the #'s you posted and measured, the only reason i could see choosing the 190 load is if you were concerned about the 168 load not penetrating well enough with the lower sectional density. That said, a 450 FPS gap doesn't seem in line with what I'd expect between those two bullets given powders with equal velocity potential in a given application and at the same pressure.
@flyguyskt I am curious what brand of brass you are using. I could not get those speeds with a 300 H&H that I built. I ended up running a 300 rum reamer in it.
Maybe I should have been using different brass.
Maybe I should have been using different brass.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 2,530
Energy transfer (initiated above a specified velocity threshold for bullet destruction) is what kills - at all. It is very hard to kill anything with very little energy transfer which is why velocity is on the box.
How much damage there is - in terms of volume - absolutely depends on the total energy and the location/amount of energy transferred.
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,918
The easiest example would be the 225 Hornady eldm vs the 155 eldm in a 30 caliber. Very frangible bullet the 225 has a bc of 0.777. The 155 is like 0.48. They aren’t even going to be close in wind drift and trajectory at 1000 yards as well as with it being a frangible bullet the heavier bullet will perform better likely
answering questions here:
custom built rifle complete package ready for the hunting just under 9 pounds with Zeiss Hd5 5-25x50 with talley one piece .600 nosler 21 base ring... Mack brothers titanium magnum action, proof research 1:9 twist 26" 1.20 shank barrel chambered tight: (my 22 inch barrel 300 HH will not achieve these velocities, I lose roughly 40-50fps per inch showing 2650fps with 190 and 3100fps with 168)
here is the DATA I can produce @ 3200ft elevation actual rounds fired average:
The velocities as I said were actual tested velocities at an average using a 2 month old Garmin XERO. Not a single error was displayed.
168 at 3280fps ( for the ballistics calculation I'll back off a bit from what I saw on Xero of 3300fps)...nosler book max load of 4350
190 at 2870 fps, nosler book max load of 4831SC
both using NOSLER brass, federal match magnum rifle primers
Both loaded to seating depth found to be most accurate for each load well under .5 groups for both
Zero pressure signs on brass, no heavy bolt lift or any other indication of over pressure.
I cannot explain how I am seeing these velocities but I can read a digital chrono.
I've used both Zeiss ballistics calc and Hornady ballistics calc and have included 168, 190 and the 210 nosler accubond long range data.
These ballistics charts are showing given elevation at 9000 ft where I hunt elk.
Maybe I'm missing something and I am always willing to be shown the error of my thinking. One doesn't know what they aren't willing to learn.
custom built rifle complete package ready for the hunting just under 9 pounds with Zeiss Hd5 5-25x50 with talley one piece .600 nosler 21 base ring... Mack brothers titanium magnum action, proof research 1:9 twist 26" 1.20 shank barrel chambered tight: (my 22 inch barrel 300 HH will not achieve these velocities, I lose roughly 40-50fps per inch showing 2650fps with 190 and 3100fps with 168)
here is the DATA I can produce @ 3200ft elevation actual rounds fired average:
The velocities as I said were actual tested velocities at an average using a 2 month old Garmin XERO. Not a single error was displayed.
168 at 3280fps ( for the ballistics calculation I'll back off a bit from what I saw on Xero of 3300fps)...nosler book max load of 4350
190 at 2870 fps, nosler book max load of 4831SC
both using NOSLER brass, federal match magnum rifle primers
Both loaded to seating depth found to be most accurate for each load well under .5 groups for both
Zero pressure signs on brass, no heavy bolt lift or any other indication of over pressure.
I cannot explain how I am seeing these velocities but I can read a digital chrono.
I've used both Zeiss ballistics calc and Hornady ballistics calc and have included 168, 190 and the 210 nosler accubond long range data.
These ballistics charts are showing given elevation at 9000 ft where I hunt elk.
Maybe I'm missing something and I am always willing to be shown the error of my thinking. One doesn't know what they aren't willing to learn.
Not sure I follow. mtmuley
I will try to clarify: seeing my velocities are very similar to a RUM 300 with my new 300HH build. At least on paper at safe pressures(i have never reloaded for RUM), So I am sincerely curious why one would need or want to go to the extra heavies. With the newest high BC 308 rounds. maybe if all you had to hunt BIG dangerous animals inside 200 yrds with a 300?
this 300 HH I am seeing 3300fps with nosler max recommended load of H4350...with 70 grns
RUM max load of IMR4350 is 3323fps with 90 grns holy moly different poders i know but a comparable load in the HH is 67 grns of IMR4350...
AND i know those are not optimal velocity powders for the RUM. that with better suited powders it will achieve 3400 maybe even 3500fps with the 168
Guess you got a fast H&H there. mtmuley
I think the barrel being 26" helps... in an era of short short barrels i chose longer. lol
Probably. But you are well short of RUM velocities in a like length barrel. But, splitting hairs for a hunting rifle. mtmuley
Similar threads
