@ 01:04 pm (GMT)
mark korteI was hoping someone could suggest a load for 7x57 using IMR 4064 and Barnes TSX boattails in 150 gr or 160 gr. My rifle is a Ruger #1a. I am concerned about the all copper bullets opening sufficiently on elk sized game at 200 yards and under.
@ 03:57 pm (GMT)
Re: 7x57 loads for barnes bulletsHi Mark, below are my loads for the 140gr bullet. The start load is way above book max so I cannot condone this information as being safe.
1-2 foulers @ 42 grains
42gr x 3
42.5 x 3
43 x 3
43.5 x 3
44 x 3
44.5 x 3
45 x 3
Observe cases, observe targets. Decide on whether it is safe to pursue load work to 46-47 grains. Or, if partial sweet spot found, work around sweet spot in .2 grain increments.
If using a 150gr bullet, reduce loads by 1 grain.
If you are using a non tipped Barnes bullet, there is nothing to stop you drilling the hollow point touch deeper and testing for accuracy after developing initial loads. I have put the 140gr TSX clean through cattle, the bullet exiting. There is no need for this level of penetration or energy retention on Elk unless you intend on taking Texas heart shots. So if you want to drill deeper, go for it (and keep your camera handy when hunting please).
@ 04:13 pm (GMT)
Re: 7x57 loads for barnes bulletshave a very hard look at energy figures for these type of projectiles. a friend in the states has done a heck of a lot of testing of them in 6.8mm/.277 and the figures surprised the heck out of me.
If as you say you are looking at shots under 200 yards a LIGHTER projectile may well be a better bet. flatter shooting....MORE energy..and more than enough penetration. for example the 110grn .277 beats the heavier weights by quite a lot...that had me scratching my head for a bit but the figures check out/back it up.
hope that helps
@ 08:41 pm (GMT)
Re: 7x57 loads for barnes bulletsThanks guys. I know the lighter bullets will shoot flatter and faster, but I have always been under the impression that the idea was to keep as much energy as possible in the animal and not have it fly out the other side - thus my interest in heavier bullet weights. Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I just figured at moderate ranges the heavier the bullet the better as long as you are achieving maximum expansion. I know this could be more easily achieved with conventional bullets, but I'm committed to the non-toxic alternative and I have no experience with them.
My only other question is that my version of the Ruger #1 has the front sling swivel attached to a barrel band. Does this affect accuracy when using the sling as an aid in aiming?
Great job on the website - Thanks again!
@ 10:06 pm (GMT)
Re: 7x57 loads for barnes bulletsMark,
I use the 30 cal. (308 Win) 130gr TTSX. Last year I shot a bull caribou at 270yds, hitting just behind the shoulder. The bullet exited the other side, but did lots of damage on the way through so I am assuming it opened sufficiently to dump lots of energy. I really like the Barnes copper bullets and I also use them in my 45-70 Ruger No 1 and 44 RemMag revolver, but neither one has shot anything yet.
Using a sling on my No 1 to help with aiming does change POI in unpredictable ways, for me. Perhaps developing more consistency in the way it is used could help, but I think the barrel band is a bad idea.
@ 12:44 am (GMT)
Re: 7x57 loads for barnes bulletsNon Toxic alternative? Copper is toxic too. Don't believe the hype. If you ingest copper, it will affect you as will lead.
I know it's only Wiki, but it's a good place to start.
@ 03:08 am (GMT)
Re: 7x57 loads for barnes bulletsdumping energy is just the reason a lighter projectile is better..they are going fast enough to open up properly thus doing more damage and creating a bigger hole..the heavier projectiles not as fast will penetrate further but not open up as far/fast...if you take it to the other extreme you get all energy dumped but not a lot of penetration.
have a look at energy figures for the different weights at realistic speeds at the ranges you are talking...sure if it goes out other side it wastes some of that but you get an out hole to let the blood out fast and give you a trail if shot not quite where it should be.
the bigger the hole the better and from what Ive seen/read the 100-130 weight range will do this best.
@ 03:17 am (GMT)
Re: 7x57 loads for barnes bulletsHi mark, you are quite right, sometimes a heavy bullet can be devastating in the field, providing the bullet can transfer that energy.
Just as an example, lets say that a hunter uses a .300 Win Mag. He normally hunts light bodied deer and uses the stout 150 grain Interbond rather than a softer (traditional) 150 grain bullet. If he comes across a large bodied deer, his bullet will still be able to get the job done. Coming from another angle- lets say another hunter mainly hunts large bodied deer but he uses a heavy and soft bullet. If this hunter comes across a light bodied animal, his bullet will still impart its energy for a fast kill.
In both instances, we can add a level of versatility that was not otherwise present though careful bullet selection.
Now, regarding your Barnes bullets and Elk. What you have to understand is the the front section of each Barnes bullet is the same, regardless of whether the bullet is 120, 140 or 160 grains. They all open up to the same diameter. The differences between bullets are weight and SD which translates into differences in momentum or penetration and energy transfer. Nervous trauma is my main concern here because at similar impact velocites, internal wounding is generally the same. But if we can increase nervous trauma (see game killing section of KB- hydrostatic shock), we can effect fast incapacitation. This can save us having to track and or potentially lose game.
I suggested deepening the HP of the Barnes so that you could still utilize a bullet of a weight that you would feel comfortable with while also increasing energy transfer. Its merely an option, no more, no less.
Mike- I don't play much with energy figures as they are unreliable in the field, they do not take bullet design / performance into account. A good example would be a .338 firing stout bullets into light game with 4000ft-lb energy, yet causing less wounding than a .243 with a good hunting bullet and half the energy. My main concern is whether the bullet energy can be utilized. Nevertheless, I can see where you are going with this and I agree with what you are saying.
@ 04:04 am (GMT)
Re: 7x57 loads for barnes bulletsSlim did a heap of testing with 6.8/.277 projectiles...tried all sorts of weights..the 6.8 spc has created a whole new batch of sizes
he took tips off and tried with and without etc etc testing was done through milk jug filled with water then into paper magazines...yes its not an animal but being the same for each bullet gives a fair indication of one vs the other.
the results were quite surprising with the indications that the 100-110s worked best...and then he goes and shoots an ELK at 400yrds with a 130 !!!!
if you want to have a look at this I can direct you to findings. 6.8 forums Xman is the author . food for thought ....
@ 11:45 am (GMT)
Re: 7x57 loads for barnes bulletsAll -
Thanks for all the info - Its obviously an exact science! I guess I'll have to try something and then do my part in putting the elk/bullet where they need to be - unquestionably the most important part of the equation!
Does anybody have any additional thoughts on the potential problem of the barrel-band sling attachment? Trying to be consistent seems a good start but alot more doable at the bench as opposed to field conditions.
@ 04:46 pm (GMT)
Re: 7x57 loads for barnes bulletsIt has taken me some time to get around Homogenous copper bullet designs.
As a general rule, I have only dropped down 10 or 20 grains bullet weight when setting recommendations for a given Barnes bullet within the KB. But as time has passed, I have come to realize that it is quite possible to drop down much further. A 130 grain .30 caliber TTSX will retain the same weight as a 180 grain Partition, a 110gr .270 caliber bullet will retain the same weight as a 150-160 grain Partition. The 110-120 grain 7mm Barnes retains the same weight as a 160-175 grain Partition.
With homogenous copper bullet designs, we can run into quite a bit of trouble at low impact velocities. This furthers the need to keep impact velocities high. That said, there comes a point where we need to change bullet designs as the ranges are simply too long, velocities too low. At this point we can utilize long, heavy and very fast expanding bullets.
I get a few folk complain that I am not hard enough on the Barnes bullets. I get regular complaints regarding game running long distances after the shot. The last was a about a week ago, a culler had been using the Barnes bullet in a couple of calibers and observing others using it in their rifles. I also get complaints about its use on dangerous animals regarding slow kills.
Factory ammunition users tend to be the most disadvantaged as they cannot tweak bullet weights or velocities in the same manner as hand loaders.
You are right Mark, there is quite a bit to it. The key factors are getting the bullet weight right and not pushing ranges too far. If impact velocities are low and shot placement less than ideal (e.g wind drift), a copper bullet can be very slow killing, far from the environmentally friendly image authorities wish to promote. A 6-12 hour death versus a 30 second death. Shots may be called as a miss when they were in fact a hit.
Hunters get quite upset that they are (in some locations) being pushed into using such bullet designs. There may also be a corporate element to this. The copper bullet makers may well be the ones pulling the strings in government as a means to sell their bullets. Nobody seems to be asking the questions as to where this will end. What about .22LR ammo or black powder projectiles. Are these to be eventually put on the banned list. Will we then have to buy all of our .22 ammo from Barnes at twice the price we normally pay? At the same time, we do not see the military going down this route.
As for your forend assembly, this will require experimentation. SL in his post above stated that you may need to omit using the sling as a shooting aid- but still concentrating on a good forend hold.
You may need to experiment with forend bedding. If you need to experiment, I suggest mock bedding as described in my third book. See how you get on.
If you wish to try a 110 or 120 grain TTSX bullet, you can add 1 grain powder weight per 10 grains bullet weight. My start load for a 140 grain bullet was 42 grains 4064. This translates to 44 grains 4064 with a 120 grain TTSX.
@ 08:54 pm (GMT)
Re: 7x57 loads for barnes bulletsThanks for your thoughtful reply Nathan. Are you suggesting that a 120 - 140 grn Barnes may be better for elk sized animals at moderate ranges than a 150-160 grn bullet when using lighter calibers like 7x57?
As to the reality of a need to switch to non-toxic bullets - my personal view is that all the hullabaloo is mostly us accommodating to change. I well remember the switch in the US to non-toxic shot for waterfowl hunting back in the '80's. I remember taking the same shots with steel as I was used to taking with lead and watching with frustration as clearly hit birds flew away. In the end we all had to adjust our view as to what was in killing range and what wasn't. In addition, research by ammo companies came up with better loads and now I rarely hear water fowlers complain about non-toxic shot. I am not familiar with the ranges involved with those complaints of copper bullets, but I do know that friends who have hunted with Barnes bullets for years here in Montana swear by them. But they limit their shots to reasonable ranges. I know this will rankle the hides of you long distance shooters out there, but in the end it may be the adjustment we all have to make and it may well be one we should take on ourselves in the face of increasing opposition from the non-hunting public. My view is that we embrace this change - we can develop more effective bullets/loads and the voluntary acceptance of this will play much better in a public view that does not understand what we are about in the first place. We should pick our battles carefully. With that I offer my neck to the guillotine!
@ 09:16 pm (GMT)
Re: 7x57 loads for barnes bulletsI just had an email from a correspondent in Europe who states:
Regarding military: Norway adopted lead-free ammunition in their army. It laid to big problems, exploding barrels in MG3 machine gun and generally low performance. Ammunition produced by Nammo. Adopted 2003.
Caveat- I can't find sources if they still use it. There has been health issues since powder gasses contained more zinc and copper.
If I get the time, I'll give you an update.
@ 10:19 pm (GMT)
Re: 7x57 loads for barnes bulletsI guess I wasn't considering the military. Generally if you are shooting at people your # 1 concern isn't toxicity to raptors or anything else other than who is shooting back at you. So I clearly see the difference. But I was speaking to the public hunting animals on public land (at least where I live in the US - I can't speak for how other countries manage their publicly held lands - if they have any - nor do I have the right to) so please let this one go.
More to the original point - do you have any suggestions as to whether a 120 grn bullet in a 7x57 is a better choice for elk sized game than a 160 grn in a copper bullet?
Sorry if I have ruffled feathers - I appreciate the expertise.
Thank you for your time!
@ 10:51 pm (GMT)
Re: 7x57 loads for barnes bulletsSorry Mark, I missed your post above- timing of my log in.
Yes, my point was that you could go lighter as Mike suggested. He made highly valid points that are in line with what I have been finding with the passing of time.
Long range basically depends on muzzle velocity. If the cartridge is of low to mild power, long range may be 300 to 400 yards.
It is not a hullabaloo regarding basic resistance to change. There are issues that need addressing that are not being looked into.
Let me put this into perspective. I have a friend, a U.S veterinarian surgeon who has studied lead toxicity in carrion eating birds for the U.S government. He knows it exists, he has studied the effects and problems.
Last week, my friend was at a local rifle range. beside him, a man was shooting his rifle, it produced 4" groups. the man stated load and clear to all who would listen, that his rifle was plenty acurate enough for Elk as they have a big vital zone. So at 300 yards, his rifle is grouping 12" without wind drift error. If he hits an animal with a Barnes bullet- there is a high chance that it will be a slow killing wound, regardless of whether he uses a .243 or .338.
My friend is very intelligent. He knows that the copper bullet is better for the environment. But he also knows that a frangible or partially frangible bullet would be kinder to the animal in an inaccurate rifle or where wind drift may be effecting the bullet. The compromise is hunter education- making sure offal is covered. Its a simple thing, just make a hole in the ground and bury blood shot meat. My friend goes further though, he does use Barnes bullets where applicable. But I believe he enjoys having the choice.
Mark, I come from a country where our government carpet bomb our forests with poison to kill introduced animals for the sake of the environment. Bi kills of native birds can be very high, especially if baits are cut to the wrong size. I managed to spend some time with an entomologist who studied the effects of the poison, killing pretty much everything from the ground up. His research was buried.According to this ethic- you do have to break a few (or many) eggs to make an omelet. I think we have to be very careful what we agree to. As I wrote in the cartridges book, there is a need for improvement before we move ahead and fully embrace homogenous bullets.
@ 10:56 pm (GMT)
Re: 7x57 loads for barnes bulletsNo worries regarding feather ruffling. We do need to discuss these things for better or worse.
@ 02:13 am (GMT)
Re: 7x57 loads for barnes bulletsexcellent discussion gents
I supported the banning of lead shot for waterfowl hunting in Aust. it was obvious that lead shot could be ingested by a variety of water-birds due to their feeding patterns and the existence of small freshwater invertebrates that make up a large part of the diet of these birds , some being approx the same size as a no. 4 pellet.
However I have completely missed the rationale behind the push to ban the use of lead in rifle projectiles - I cannot see how rifle projectiles could become concentrated in an environment to the extent that they could be readily ingested by wild life etc. - or is it the Human consumption angle - or does lead kill trees ?
I am obviously missing a large part of that argument here
@ 11:25 am (GMT)
Re: 7x57 loads for barnes bulletsLes - the problem is the potential for scavengers to ingest fragments of lead bullets when they show up to clean up gut-piles etc. As Nathan mentioned above this is pretty much a proven problem with some species in some places.
Nathan - It sounds to me like the blowhard your friend had to endure at the range should maybe stick to shots of 200 yrds and under. Long range is relative not only to caliber and bullet but also to rifle and shooter.
Although I think its a good idea for some places, burying gut piles in this part of the world is not very practical - our big game season is in November when the ground is often frozen and covered with snow. In addition the coyotes would probably have the hole opened up before you got the last load of meat to the truck. Where its applicable it should be promoted. This is an example of hunters proactively recognizing that there is a problem and trying to mitigate it. That is the view the non-hunting public needs to see. The other issue concerning lead is the shooting of "varmits" like prairie dogs and ground squirrels - an activity enjoyed by many in my part of the world. Shooters often shoot hundreds of rounds of highly frangible bullets a day and the dark joke is "prairie mist" caused by exploding rodents. Bullet manufacturers market these bullets specifically for this purpose! It doesn't take much imagination to consider the amount of lead fragments lying about in all that blown up prairie dog meat after just one day's "hunt". My point here is that we need to recognize our faults and clean up our act or the general public is going to clean it up for us. Its already happening.
As an invasives species manager here in the States I fully understand the concept of by-kill. In my case the invasives are plants (I understand that the problem is animals in your example) and not using herbicides in some situations would lead to the invasive in question totally out-competing the native plant community and essentially forming a catastrophic ecosystem- changing monoculture - you can't have elk if they don't have anything to eat. So we make the sacrifice, but we try to harm as little as we can by using herbicides that are as selective as possible. That's how I want to approach hunting in my own world. Yes, I'm going to try to kill something, but I want as little by-kill as I can possibly manage. If choosing the proper non-toxic bullet and recognizing its limitations (and mine) in range and shot placement are what I need to do to limit non-target mortality, then to me that's the ethical choice. Its never going to be that precise, but at least trying to do the right thing is important. That's why I like this website - its based around practical experience that most of us would never be able to experience on our own. I never would have guessed that a lighter, higher velocity bullet would be the go to in this case.... I thank you for that information.
I agree with you - more research needs to be done and as hunters we need to promote that research as well as have honest, open and frank discussions about the issues facing us. I very much appreciate that opportunity here.
@ 07:17 pm (GMT)
Re: 7x57 loads for barnes bulletsJust noticed I used the term Bi-kill. I didn't mean accidental killing of lesbians sorry.
One of the troubles with varmint hunting is the need for a bullet that will fragment and not ricochet on flat land. Again this shows a need for better copper bullet designs if these are to be used in this manner.
DRT have been working on / with powdered steel bullets. I was hoping to work closely with them but they have yet to send me test samples of new designs. nevertheless, their existing designs seem to be performing well.
@ 08:31 pm (GMT)
Re: 7x57 loads for barnes bulletsCopper projectiles . Hmmm the jury is very divided on this one!
They have a long way to go before they win me back! l have used them with varying degrees of success, shot placement critical would be my findings when compared to the same shot placement against a well designed, traditional projectile. Many hunters have a very different view and swear by the TTSX but it is not my experience with them.
I hunt vermin of all sizes here in OZ, l actively hunt and kill these animals and am very proud and passionate about it! The small amount of lead (and its effects), that l use to eradicate these predators/vermin is absolutely pitiful in comparison to the damage these animals wield to the indigenous flora & fauna.
Design me a copper alternative that performs and then find enough copper to support us all and youll have an argument. As Nathan says DRT seem to have merit but l am yet to see them here in OZ!
I'm with Les on this one!
Sorry Mark carnt help you with the 7mm:)
@ 02:48 pm (GMT)
Re: 7x57 loads for barnes bulletsHi all,
There seems to be at least one fragmenting so called "green" lead free bullet on the European market made by the German ammunition producers of RWS. Well, they have two. A fragmenting round nosed copper round and the interesting fragmenting tin round called the Evo Green.
Take a look at the links and tell me what you think.
And their advertisement 'test'
I have seen the effect of these 'goddamned German plastic rounds' as they were introduced to me. 2inch exit holes on lean roe deer - sorry no pics and I didn't get to handle them.
Don't come cheap though, at $6 a round of 308 in Germany. And the do make them in 7 mm, but don't know about price of bullets for hand loading. Couldn't find anyone stocking them when doing a quick search.
All the best
@ 02:24 pm (GMT)
Re: 7x57 loads for barnes bulletsBelow is a studythat I found that clarifies some of the points we have been discussing. Don't know how scientific it all is, but it is explained well.
@ 06:12 pm (GMT)
Re: 7x57 loads for barnes bulletsI read the study shortly after it was published, thought it was interesting and thorough, but didn't solve any problems or questions regarding long range work.
I use the Barnes TTSX 130 gr bullets in my 270 Weatherby mag lightweight rifle, with a mv of 3460, that ables hydrostatic effect within 350 - 400 yards, based on Nathans research, and I try to limit this rifle to those ranges as max range.
( load is 73 gr of Norma MRP, coal 3,27, fed.215 mag match primers, Norma brass )
It's forbidden to use any lighter bullet weights than 140 gr in Norway, hunting big game animals the size of caribou and deer and from there on upwards.
That' s a pitty, and the rules are not based on the making of modern bullets. If these rules where different I would have utilized the Barnes TTSX 110 gr bullet, and extended my range to 600 yards with this particular rifle.
Anyway, I have only good experiences to tell about the TTSX, kills like hell, and have dropped both roe deer and red deer instantaniously. The only complaint would be the meat damage - which is exstensive.
@ 02:35 pm (GMT)
Re: 7x57 loads for barnes bulletsHi Nathan -
A question concerning the Ruger #1A and reloads using IMR 4064 - you stated in an earlier post about this powder/rifle that the COAL should be kept to 3.094 for the load this gentleman was talking about. Is this where I should be for that caliber/rifle/powder only using the Barnes 140 or 120 grn bullet?
@ 05:15 pm (GMT)
Re: 7x57 loads for barnes bulletsHi Mark, please go to the rifle accuracy section of this site and look for the article "determining maximum COAL". Pick a method and follow the instructions. Once you have your maximum COAL, you can then deside on appropriate bullet jump. The Barnes bullets normally prefer 40 thou jump.
If the throat is very long, you may have to seat for optimum concentricity rather than focusing on jump. This is also explained in the article.
@ 05:34 pm (GMT)
Re: 7x57 loads for barnes bulletsHi Guys
Mark, Id go light and keep the velocity as high as possible, penetration is no problem.
Ive done a lot of deer culling in Australia with 30 cal Barnes TTSX projectiles, I dont like them unless I use them in something like a 300 win mag where they do massive damage due to the very high velocity. At 308 Win velocity they completely penetrate doing little damage so point of impact has to be precise or they run a long way, making an animal very hard to find in some terrain. Ive used the130gn Barnes projectile in a 308 with OK results but impact point has to be precise over 200m. Ive shot a lot of deer with Barnes projectiles but I never recovered a projectile. The only time I use Barnes now is when meat hunting, taking the time for perfect shot placement. I like Woodleigh PP projectiles, I very rarely get complete pass throughs, I find the projectile under the skin on opposite side with very little weight loss. For long range I use 165gn Hornady SST or A max in my 30-06.