300 Grain SMK Performance

[TH]

jmden,

I agree with your post. I guess I should of ben more specific.

My accuracy load with the 300grn smk is 2925. Can I push it faster of course but this is where my gun shoots best with R 25 powder.

My accuracy load with my 30-338 lapua improved or 300 yogi is 3047 fps.

This is my real world data.

I calculated both bullets to 1700 yards where the 300grn smk has 1083 lbs of energy and drops 56 MOA or 1003 inches

240 gr smk at 3047 has 827lbs of energy and drops 54.6 MOA or 971 inches.

I have killed deer and elk with both bullets at long range. They both worked well. I agree the 300 grain smk works better on game at long ranges over 1700 yards but the 240 is not far behind. My expirence is that the 240 is actually a tuffer bullet and holds together better than the 300 grain smk. It acts more like a match bullet and does not expand as well the 300 grain smk.

Just like many have said there is something magical when the 300gr smk hits an animal droping it in their tracks over 1000 yards.

But I can say the same thing in my real world ventures with the 240. Is the 240 gr sierra as good as the 300grn smk no way but it would be my next choice.

 

[jmden]

jmden,

I agree with your post. I guess I should of ben more specific.

My accuracy load with the 300grn smk is 2925. Can I push it faster of course but this is where my gun shoots best with R 25 powder.

My accuracy load with my 30-338 lapua improved or 300 yogi is 3047 fps.

This is my real world data.

I calculated both bullets to 1700 yards where the 300grn smk has 1083 lbs of energy and drops 56 MOA or 1003 inches

240 gr smk at 3047 has 827lbs of energy and drops 54.6 MOA or 971 inches.

I have killed deer and elk with both bullets at long range. They both worked well. I agree the 300 grain smk works better on game at long ranges over 1700 yards but the 240 is not far behind. My expirence is that the 240 is actually a tuffer bullet and holds together better than the 300 grain smk. It acts more like a match bullet and does not expand as well the 300 grain smk.

Just like many have said there is something magical when the 300gr smk hits an animal droping it in their tracks over 1000 yards.

But I can say the same thing in my real world ventures with the 240. Is the 240 gr sierra as good as the 300grn smk no way but it would be my next choice.

OK, that clears thing up a bit.

But, my question now would be what bc data are you using to 'calculate' energy and drop at 1700 yds?

Edit: When I calculate the 2 bullets performace using actual bc testing data from Bryan Litz (or you can go to JBM ballistics and get the same info as he's using Bryan's bc info now) and your respective MV's at 2000' elevation, 50 F, 50% humidity and standard pressure at that altitude with 1.5" sight height and 100 yd zero for each, Exbal gives me 54.75 MOA drop and 1092 ft. lbs of energy for the 300g pill. With the 240 and your MV, I get 56.5 MOA drop and 782 ft. lbs. of energy. It's been shown by a few folks that Sierra's bc data on the both pills is off, not much on the 300, but a fair amount with the 240.

 

[Down Under Hunter]

They have been good to me on Sambar deer in Aus.

Take a look here.

At extended ranges past 1000 I think it helps if you hit large bone as I have found they wont open as well and need a shoulder blade or front leg to get in their way.

Both wounds are from just behind ther front leg. Both pics are of the front leg region after a cut under the armpit then folded back.

I still think the est ELR bullet to run out of the EDGE or AM.

Cheers

DUH

 

[jessej]

[




going back to jessiej question

Im trying to decide between the 300 and the 338 lapua improved.

Pick the 300 lapua improved. I have never tried to see how fast I can shoot the 240grn smk Im sure it can be shot 3100+ fps. You alread have a 338 get a 30 cal you have a huge choice of bullets. I shoot tactical steel matches and the fast flat shooting 208 A maxes and 210 bergers are hard to beat. Plus you have a big variety of bullets to choose from[/QUOTE]

Thanks, thats exactly the kind of info and answers im looking for.
Maybe i can give you some first hand experience in a few weeks.

 

[TH]

I used the sierra v6 exterior ballistics program when i did the calculation. I also use exbal but, i did not feel like going down stairs to get my hand held computer.

 

[jmden]

I used the sierra v6 exterior ballistics program when i did the calculation. I also use exbal but, i did not feel like going down stairs to get my hand held computer.

Having Exbal on both PDA and PC is helpful. But if your input are not correct, the outputs won't be correct with any of the programs. It has been found that that Sierra had assigned a fairly inflated bc to the 240 for some reason. Bryans groundbreaking work and original contribution to long range shooting by using a standard method to consistently test over 175 long range bullets has been revealing to many people and dispelled some bc and bullet shape/construction 'myths' that we've all had. Good stuff.

 

[TH]

I just pluged the 240 gr smk in Exbal. With a 100 yard sight in Muzzel velocity 3047. Sight height of 1.5 inches Altitude at 1000 feet Humidity of 78% Temp at 55. Im showing the 240smk drops 53 MOA at 1700 and has 864lbs of energy why the difference?

 

[jmden]

I just pluged the 240 gr smk in Exbal. With a 100 yard sight in Muzzel velocity 3047. Sight height of 1.5 inches Altitude at 1000 feet Humidity of 78% Temp at 55. Im showing the 240smk drops 53 MOA at 1700 and has 864lbs of energy why the difference?

I arbitrarily used 2000' ele. with, 50 F and 50% humidity and used the programs standard pressure at that altitude. That might be one are of difference, although if you used 1000' as your altitude with corresponding standard pressure at that altitude, your data should show less energy at 1700yds that my data did as the air will be more dense at lower altitude. So, my guess is that you are using Sierra's bc data, which has been shown to be fairly inaccurate on the 240.

If you're using Sierra's G1 velocity banded bc data (which has been experimentally shown to be quite inaccruate for the 240), that'll skew the results as well to show the 240 performing better than it actually is.

Bryan's experimentally derived G1 velocity banded data with lower velocity limits for the 240SMK in fps: 3K and above--.639, average of 2.5k to 3K--.6415, average of 2k to 2.5k--.653, average of 1.5k to 2k--.6525, 1.5k and below--.643.

So for .639 (3K and above), the lower velocity limit would be 3k fps; for .6415 (average of 2.5k to 3k), the lower velocity limit would be 2.5K; for .653 (average of 2k to 2.5k), the lower velocity limit would be 2k; for .6525 (average of 1.5k to 2k), the lower velocity limit would be 1.5k; for .643 (1.5k and below), the lower velocity limit would be 0 fps.

Sierra's program lets you enter your own velocity banded G1 bc data as well, like Exbal, so once you plug these bc number is, the outputs should be identical or nearly identical.

Unless a person can toss that 240 quite a bit faster, there's just no way it can outperform the 300 in terms of drop and energy and wind deflection at long range and for long range hunting, those are typically preminent factors to consider, obviously.