Chronos wrote:I'd be interested in seeing some numbers showing a 6.5X55 has anything on a .270 for energy. Remembering the 6.5x55 is generally under powered due to down loading factory ammo for surplus rifles. Handloads in a modern rifle would greatly level the playing field.
Yes a 6.5mm pill would have a BC advantage over a .270 pill of the same weight but BC has absolutely nothing to do with killing at common Victorian deer ranges
Chronos
<<Genesis93>> wrote:There should have been an energy minimum and calibre minimum... but that would have meant the enforcers, the rangers and popo would need to understand numbers....
<<Genesis93>> wrote:BC has zero to do with energy or bullet performance, in fact a higher BC projectile would possibly translate into a poor hunting proj, at least compared to a low BC soft point........
WayneO wrote:<<Genesis93>> wrote:BC has zero to do with energy or bullet performance, in fact a higher BC projectile would possibly translate into a poor hunting projectile, at least compared to a low BC soft point........
I must disagree at least in part to this statement. The higher the BC, the less wind drag the less speed lost and the less bullet drop you experience. So out at 400m the bullet with the higher BC will be traveling faster and dropping less.
With most expanding bullets, be they expanding monolithic's or soft points, they tend to expand better at medium to high velocities. So choosing a bullet that keeps the most speed out at a distance makes more sense.
happyhunter wrote:<<Genesis93>> wrote:BC has zero to do with energy or bullet performance, in fact a higher BC projectile would possibly translate into a poor hunting proj, at least compared to a low BC soft point........
The bullets that give superior wound ballistics are the ones that yaw post impact, regardless of construction.
<<Genesis93>> wrote:Horizontal animals.... like as in snakes??
<<Genesis93>> wrote:Horizontal animals.... like as in snakes??
But 'yaw' and 'superior wound ballistics' ?? Someone's been reading Mil technical document A23.56 part 1 concerning the reasoning for adopting the 5.56x45 over the redundant 7.62x51, because the terminal performance involving the yawing of the tumbling projectile created more damage..... all this because they find the bullet would conveniently destabilise on impact with soft (or other) tissue....
I'd prefer to use a big fat chunk of lead that expands and wounds conventionally.... mind you, its possible that more animals the globe over have found there 'end' with the aid of FMJs, mostly from a 39mm case.... of differing diameters.
<<Genesis93>> wrote:Horizontal animals.... like as in snakes??
But 'yaw' and 'superior wound ballistics' ?? Someone's been reading Mil technical document A23.56 part 1 concerning the reasoning for adopting the 5.56x45 over the redundant 7.62x51, because the terminal performance involving the yawing of the tumbling projectile created more damage..... all this because they find the bullet would conveniently destabilise on impact with soft (or other) tissue....
I'd prefer to use a big fat chunk of lead that expands and wounds conventionally.... mind you, its possible that more animals the globe over have found there 'end' with the aid of FMJs, mostly from a 39mm case.... of differing diameters.
Chronos wrote:The top's ok but the thing holding it up is a bit rough