but I assumed most 300Rum owners have the traditional 24 inch barrel meaning we will see "similar" performance . I'm sure I could find a better powder for the HH if velocity was my main concern. BUT in no way am I saying that a 300 HH is equal to a RUM...
Bullet came apart. I think I have the pieces still. Not the bullets fault. Just not what it was designed for. I have more faith in the "regular" Accubond. mtmuley
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.
I’m not saying your results aren’t real. I’m saying a guy could have say a “max” load of rl26 under a 190 and say a “max” load of a slow lot of 4831 under a 168 and come to the exact opposite conclusion about a 190 being just as fast but retaining velocity and energy better while also having less wind deflection. His conclusion would be errant based on contributing factors beyond just the different bullets driving the results and I think yours are skewed a bit as well.
I’m not saying your results aren’t real. I’m saying a guy could have say a “max” load of rl26 under a 190 and say a “max” load of a slow lot of 4831 under a 168 and come to the exact opposite conclusion about a 190 being just as fast but retaining velocity and energy better while also having less wind deflection. His conclusion would be errant based on contributing factors beyond just the different bullets driving the results and I think yours are skewed a bit as well.
What exactly am I skewed about ? it feels like you are doubtful about the velocities I am seeing...Fact is that these ARE the numbers I am seeing... beyond speculation of a slow tub of 4831 or a fast tub of 4350 ... i've been loading these loads for 20 years in the plain accubond 165 and 200... seen same results in a 22 inch rem 721 300HH but slower... i could load 20 different powders and get 20 different results... but THESE are the results I got with the loads that are very accurate for ME.
What exactly am I skewed about ? it feels like you are doubtful about the velocities I am seeing...Fact is that these ARE the numbers I am seeing... beyond speculation of a slow tub of 4831 or a fast tub of 4350 ... i've been loading these loads for 20 years in the plain accubond 165 and 200... seen same results in a 22 inch rem 721 300HH but slower... i could load 20 different powders and get 20 different results... but THESE are the results I got with the loads that are very accurate for ME.
For the 3rd time, I believe that you actually loaded ammo and measured those velocities.
You posed the question “What is the real benefit in going heavier vs faster?” and proceeded to share your numbers as if they were a good basis to address your question with. They are #'s between 2 different loads you worked up worthy of being compared but not as an answer to a strict 190 LRAB vs 168 LRAB or heavier vs lighter bullet comparison.
All i'm saying is your #'s are not apples to apples (meaning similarly optimized powder at a similar pressure) if one is trying to compare the ballistics of 2 bullets from the same line but one step apart in weight - here's your sign:
168 gr @ 3300 FPS = 4063 ft-lb energy
190 gr @ 2850 FPS = 3427 ft-lb energy
Do you believe the 190 is only capable of being loaded to about 84% of the same energy as the 165 in the same gun/brass?
