Trying to get over 3000 fps for 300 WM and 180 grain Accubond

[marc357]

My wife has the Tikka Roughtech which is the same gun without the camo job.
Remington brass
CCI 250
180 gr Barnes TSX
80.0 H1000
OAL 3.353
3022 FPS

 

[FEENIX]

To be honest, I was hoping to get to 3000+ fps to see if I could get there. I am shooting sub MOA groups at 100 yds with the 180 grain Accubonds, using H1000, and was hoping to find a load where I could get both. I am really enjoying working different aspects of reloading, i.e. different powders, neck tension, distance off lands, etc. Like I said in my original post, I am working up a load for elk, here. I will be zereoing at 200 yds and have a range I can shoot out to 600 yds. Time will tell if I will be comfortable shooting that far. I was thinking if I can get the bullet over 3000 fps, at the muzzle, that will carry plenty of energy out to 400-500 yds for an ethical kill. I may be off base, but that was my thinking.

You will have plenty even if you do not achieve your 3000 FPS MV goal. LRH does not happen overnight; practice, practice, practice. I harvested a bull elk at 931Y with my 300 WM 190 Berger VLD, which has an MV of 3043 FPS. Good luck!

 

[med358-boise]

Would a better answer be to step down in bullet weight? Either a 165 grain Accubond or a 168 grain Barnes TTSX? How does everyone feel about one of those lighter bullets versus 180 with a little less speed? Am I going down a unnecessary rabbit hole here?

Yes, you are going down a rabbit hole.

From your post 29 "I was thinking if I can get the bullet over 3000 fps, at the muzzle, that will carry plenty of energy out to 400-500 yds for an ethical kill. I may be off base, but that was my thinking."

IMO, you are very off base. Energy is probably (IMHO and many others) the most overrated specification there is. All animals die from lack of oxygenated blood to brain whether that is caused by disruption of the CNS, destruction of lung tissues, or destruction the heart etc. The most consistent way to accomplish that is thru shot placement, penetration, and controlled bullet expansion.

The difference in energy (using the 180 Accubond) related to 100 fps at 600 yards is 138 ft lbs. There is not an elk, moose, deer, caribou etc on the planet that can tell the difference.

168s or 180s and a 150 or fps with either is not going to make any difference. One of the things I have learned from the internet over the last 20+ years is that "Big game animals can tell the difference between .015 of an inch in diameter, 15 grains of bullet weight, and 150 fps."

If you like reloading and playing around with loads. See which one the rifle shoots best and which one you shoot best (recoil does effect the shooters accuracy)

I see you are from Minnesota and don't know the type of hunting you do or where you do it. You would be much better off practicing shooting from the sitting position using a bipod or (my preference) shooting sticks along with your pack tucked under your should or across your thigh. Many times prone is not an option in the West.

 

[rlshrumva]

Would a better answer be to step down in bullet weight? Either a 165 grain Accubond or a 168 grain Barnes TTSX? How does everyone feel about one of those lighter bullets versus 180 with a little less speed? Am I going down an unnecessary rabbit hole here?

Would a better answer be to step down in bullet weight? Either a 165 grain Accubond or a 168 grain Barnes TTSX? How does everyone feel about one of those lighter bullets versus 180 with a little less speed? Am I going down a unnecessary rabbit hole here?

Would a better answer be to step down in bullet weight? Either a 165 grain Accubond or a 168 grain Barnes TTSX? How does everyone feel about one of those lighter bullets versus 180 with a little less speed? Am I going down a unnecessary rabbit hole here?

I was going to suggest the same thing. I'm not a reloader, so I can't help with any advice in that space. However, I shoot 168 grain ttsx's at 3243fps (which is a bit higher than projected) sold by Choice Ammunition in Montana (see link below) for elk. The performance from both an accuracy and terminal performance perspective has been exceptional! See my profile pic for evidence…

.300 Winchester Magnum 168 Grain Barnes TTSX (lead free)~100% Hand Loaded !!

.300 Winchester Magnum 168 grain Barnes TTSX (lead free)~100% Hand Loaded !!

choiceammunition.com

 

[baldhunter]

The 300 Win Mag can easily achieve over 3000fps with a 180gr bullet.So many powders to work with these days.The 4350 powders work very well in this cartridge as well as many of the slower burnrate powders all the way to around the Magnum powder range.A few years ago I tried Ramshot Hunter.It's just a little slower on the burnrate scale than the 4350 powders,much like IMR4831.These are my test load results.I like it.The Bergara has a 24" barrel and the Sako has a 26" barrel.