Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
What hits harder?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="silvertip-co" data-source="post: 452095" data-attributes="member: 8712"><p>From one who carried a 264 for 25 yrs I can say that when I loaded 160gr round nose they seemed to kill better with less meat damage and were in fact more accurate, as long as I wasnt trying to shoot 600y across the Susquehanna or something. Now admittedly they didnt fly as flat as the 140s I shot a lot or as flat as the 129 I tried. But for sheer killing power the 160 rn were it. </p><p></p><p>Also they were a much longer bullet so tended to shoot smaller groups at closer ranges( which is not what the 264 was made for). But I tend to agree with your comment about bullet shape having an effect on killing power. Perhaps thats why old cals like the 257 roberts with 117 rn were so deadly on game. On the other hand I cant see my using rn bullets in my 7mm rem mag I recently acquired(again) . But I think if I was gonna hunt grizzlers I'd try to find some kind of RN ammo for it. </p><p></p><p>Ballistics and physics is wonderful sciences, but on game it just aint everything...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="silvertip-co, post: 452095, member: 8712"] From one who carried a 264 for 25 yrs I can say that when I loaded 160gr round nose they seemed to kill better with less meat damage and were in fact more accurate, as long as I wasnt trying to shoot 600y across the Susquehanna or something. Now admittedly they didnt fly as flat as the 140s I shot a lot or as flat as the 129 I tried. But for sheer killing power the 160 rn were it. Also they were a much longer bullet so tended to shoot smaller groups at closer ranges( which is not what the 264 was made for). But I tend to agree with your comment about bullet shape having an effect on killing power. Perhaps thats why old cals like the 257 roberts with 117 rn were so deadly on game. On the other hand I cant see my using rn bullets in my 7mm rem mag I recently acquired(again) . But I think if I was gonna hunt grizzlers I'd try to find some kind of RN ammo for it. Ballistics and physics is wonderful sciences, but on game it just aint everything... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
What hits harder?
Top