There really is no magic bullet and the 165 ABLR will not preform well in a 1/10 twist. It may hit paper straight but the BC and terminal performance will not be acceptable.
.270 WSM with the 165 Nosler Accubond LR
- Thread starter Trgrtyme
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
I will be Leary of Nosler's BC numbers until someone else test them.
I guess they are not concerned about information being accurate before they publish it.
High Drum the 270 WSM is the way to go with a 1/8 twist. I could not be happier with Norma brass and RL-26 it is a hammer.
I guess they are not concerned about information being accurate before they publish it.
High Drum the 270 WSM is the way to go with a 1/8 twist. I could not be happier with Norma brass and RL-26 it is a hammer.
I have some RCC brass coming for my 300wsm, it supposed to be tough as nails. I have an 8 twist barrel on order. We'll just have to see!
Westernhuntr
Well-Known Member
RCC? Never heard of it could you tell us a little about it
Roberson Cartridge Company. They make custom brass. I'm next exactly sure of their process but they gurantee the best performance. The member Swamplord in here uses RCC brass for all his huge wildcats minus what uses lapua as parent case.
DocDoc
Well-Known Member
The 165 is a hunting bullet, so a 1/10 twist is a concern for me for terminal stability. You want the bullet to stay point forward at the target to open properly and not tumble or go off course.
Calvin45
Well-Known Member
I too have my suspicions about bc but out of legit curiosity what do you mean regarding terminal performance? That it will tumble as soon as it hits? Not being contentious, actually want to know what you suspect will happen terminally with a marginally stable bullet.
Maybe it's just me, but that bullet doesn't look squared up in the calipers. If it isn't , it will probably be slightly less once it is squared up to measure .
Last edited:
If a bullet is not fully stabilized then when it hits flesh it will not perform as well as a fully stabilized bullet. The results are unpredictable, it could not expand or it could tumble uncontrolled missing vital organs. Steve at Hammer Bullets has written quite a bit about poor terminal performance with under stabilized bullets.
I think that we when we see poor bullet performance we tend to blame the bullet when in fact is because the twist rate was too slow for the bullet in question. I have experience with 270 caliber bullets and I can tell you that a 1/10 twist is marginally stable for a 150 class bullet. I have seen them fail and I now know that they were probably under stabilized. There may be several factors involved. I have also seen barrels that had the incorrect twist. We assume that a 1/10 means just that and I believe we might be getting a 1/10 1/2 or 1/11 which would account for poor bullet performance. Also bullet manufacturers tend to overstate their bullets ability to stabilize in a given twist because of their desire to sell then to all the standard twist gun owners out there.
There is a thread going now about the .277 165 ABLR and whether it will stabilize in a 1/10 twist. It will not preform well but it might hit the target straight and thus deceiving people into think that it will have good terminal performance.
I want to say kudos to Steve at Hammer Bullets for stating the minimal twist rate for good terminal performance. Also to Berger for having the courage to make a heavy for caliber bullet in .277 and stating up front the minimal twist rate of 1/8.
Having used the 170 gr Berger in a 270 WSM with a 1/8 twist I can attest to its good performance.
Henry
I think that we when we see poor bullet performance we tend to blame the bullet when in fact is because the twist rate was too slow for the bullet in question. I have experience with 270 caliber bullets and I can tell you that a 1/10 twist is marginally stable for a 150 class bullet. I have seen them fail and I now know that they were probably under stabilized. There may be several factors involved. I have also seen barrels that had the incorrect twist. We assume that a 1/10 means just that and I believe we might be getting a 1/10 1/2 or 1/11 which would account for poor bullet performance. Also bullet manufacturers tend to overstate their bullets ability to stabilize in a given twist because of their desire to sell then to all the standard twist gun owners out there.
There is a thread going now about the .277 165 ABLR and whether it will stabilize in a 1/10 twist. It will not preform well but it might hit the target straight and thus deceiving people into think that it will have good terminal performance.
I want to say kudos to Steve at Hammer Bullets for stating the minimal twist rate for good terminal performance. Also to Berger for having the courage to make a heavy for caliber bullet in .277 and stating up front the minimal twist rate of 1/8.
Having used the 170 gr Berger in a 270 WSM with a 1/8 twist I can attest to its good performance.
Henry
It is the camera lens bending the bullet. It is square and I have measured several of them and they average 1.517
SedanCowboy,
Thank you for the excellent explanation. Looks like I'll be stopping by Hart Barrels after work.
Yeah , that make's sense, I'm just sittin' here bored.
freddiej
Well-Known Member
TRGRTYME, my hope is your rifle is not the 1:10" twist but a 1:9" or 1:8" twist. I have two 270 WSM's and neither one will shoot anything over the 145/150 grain class SPBT from anyone. I had my hand in a friend's build of his 270 WSM. He was going to shoot 150 grain Barnes TSX, and Berger heavies. he was under the impression that a 1:10" twist would handle them. we went to the range with my two rifles and shot the slugs he was slated to shoot in his. results were not good.
I ordered a 1:8" twist for his gun, among other things.. once it was all together, the gun shot everything he wanted under 1/2". Now true load development is happening.
I ordered a 1:8" twist for his gun, among other things.. once it was all together, the gun shot everything he wanted under 1/2". Now true load development is happening.
