Printable View
Specifically in 6.5x55, but any feedback is welcome.
for the x55 caliber, the 140 grain Naturalis is an interesting mix of 140 grain velocity and 156-160 round nose design. Seems like it would be an excellent mid-large game hunting round.
Wondering how it stacks up against other hard hitting round options, like the TTSX, Oryx, Partitions, SMK, etc.
It LOOKS like the kind of bullet used on dangerous game. Just remember though that those hunts usually were stalked to within feet (not 100's of yards) so shooting was usually point blank. It certainly looks like a tough bullet made to hang together and penetrate (and probably expand moderately). The finns probably use them for moose and it seems that a lot of moose hunting is done at close range also.
Yeah, I'm on the Eastern seaboard of the USA, so with all the woods around here, I'd likely be taking relatively short range shots. Be interesting to test them on white tail deer and see how they perform compared to 130 grain TSX, and 140 grain bonded bullets so commonly used for that purpose.
I posted a hid kn the creedmoor thread. Just search youtube for it.
If they expand correctly within their design range, those 140 gr Naturalis bullets should act a lot like 210 gr softpoint bullets.
See this discussion for the explanation: Ideal Bullet Weight
Stockrex - looked, failed.
JASmith - will read.
op, sorry bud, I posted it on the elk caliber thread, getting old...
here you go. the 2 links, the 2nd one is from lapua
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY0w1c-gf18
This one shows what a 243 is cable of doing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17PaafVyMJc
This one explains what happens when you hit a bone
Stockrex -
Video 1 - is darned tootin impressive, but according to the vid is a 6mm Berger VLD instead of a 6.5 Naturalis. I'm assuming this is just for comparison? As another example of an excellent bullet choice?
Video 2 - Brilliant, excellent vid on the bullet and its operation.
Thanks!
Yes Sir, the thread was a discussion on caliber for Elk,
can't go wrong with solids!
JASmith,
That is a very nice read and well put together, but I am more inclined to believe sectional density is more important than bullet grain size. The reason for this is because a 140 grain .270 bullet (SD=0.261) is a different beast compared to a 140 grain .264 bullet (SD=0.287).
Geo,
FYI:
Bullets of this sectional density, if
adequately constructed, have proven able to penetrate deep into large
game animals.
From Mr Chuck H:
For large (CXP3) game, such as red stag, kudu, elk
and moose anywhere in the world, bullets with higher sectional density
should be chosen. Good examples of such bullets would be:
- .264" (6.5mm) 140 grain, SD .287
.277" (.270) 140 grain, SD .261
.277" (.270) 150 grain, SD .279
.284" (7mm) 150 grain, SD .266
.284" (7mm) 154 grain, SD .273
.284" (7mm) 160 grain, SD .283
.308" (7.62mm) 180 grain, SD .271
.312" (.303) 180 grain, SD .266
.323" (8mm) 200 grain, SD .274
.338" (.338) 225 grain, SD .281
.358" (.35) 250 grain, SD .279
.366" (9.3mm) 250 grain, SD .267
.366" (9.3mm) 270 grain, SD .288
.375" (.375) 270 grain, SD .274
.458" (.45) 400 grain, SD .272
All of the bullets immediately above have a sectional density over
.260 and most exceed .270. Bullets of this sectional density, if
adequately constructed, have proven able to penetrate deep into large
game animals.
Stockrex,
I should have used 130 grain .270 caliber vs. 130 grain .264 caliber. The 130 grain .264 bullet has a SD=0.266 (which is higher than a 140 grain .270 bullet) compared to a 130 grain .270 bullet which has a SD=0.242. Under Chuck Hawks guidelines the .264 bullet has the sectional density to be used on elk; while the .270 bullet does not have the appropriate sectional density. Granted, bullet construction does impact usability and allows for lighter grain bullets on heavier game. In the case of the 130 grain bullets, you could use a standard cup and core for elk with the .264, but you probably should not use a cup and core 130 grain .270 bullets on elk.
I looked up that Chuck Hawks article and I found this statement:
As always, shot placement is key with any bullet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Hawks
I was also surprised when I went through all of the data from Sciuchetti, BCSteve, and others. I had previously felt that the Hornady HITS method was the best methodology and it relies heavily on the sectional density.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geo_Erudite
I plotted the data against weight, sectional density and impact velocity but found that the bullet weight was the strongest factor for both depth of penetration and expanded diameter. This appears to confirm the conclusions cited at http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/b.../wounding.html.
I had spent many years in the terminal ballistics business but with projectiles that either kept their shape through the event or were shaped charge jets that more or less completely eroded away in making their holes. In both cases the sectional density of the penetrator was all important.
The important observation is that most of the penetrating is done by the expanded bullet, so the original sectional density is not a good metric.
The key to accepting the results for me was realizing that the bullet truly transforms from a nice long object into an approximately spherical one within an inch or two of hitting the animal. Yes, the approximation is indeed crude, but it is a better descriptor of an expanded bullet than a nice pointy nose at the front of a cylinder.