Anyone used the Nosler E tip?

[mcseal2]

I'm going on a moose hunt this September and I was planning to shoot my handloaded 180gr Accubonds through my 300 win mag. I found a box of factory E tips on sale and decided to give them a shot. They shoot very well through my rifle and averaged 2896fps. That would keep them above 1900fps according to my ballistic calculator to 600yds, further than I would shoot with my lightweight rifle. The bullet is supposed to expand down to 1800fps. Moose hunting where I'm going a 350yd shot would be unusual, most are much closer.

The Accubond is a heck of a bullet and fully capable of taking a moose, but I figure an even tougher bullet might not be a bad idea. Also I would not be surprised to see more states ban lead bullets and I'm not sure making the switch with one rifle would be a terrible idea so I'd have a load found and scope set up for it.

Anyone have any experiences they would share, good or bad, with this bullet? Thanks!

 

[OXN939]

Taking Nosler E Tips in 7mm-08 to Alaska this fall. They group just under MOA in my Remington 700 and chrono right around the factory advertised data. Also seem to be very terminally effective on the small sample size I've observed (late season doe last year).

I've actually gone to all copper bullets voluntarily. Better for the environment, less lead microfragments you're eating/ serving in game meat and terminal performance better than most lead-based bullets I've shot. I wouldn't hesitate at all to take them if they group well with your rifle.

 

[wind gypsy]

I'm of no help to you here but agree there will be a lot more moving to lead free ammo in the future.

Recently listened to Newbergs podcast about leadfree ammo and it got the wheels spinning about moving that direction.. hard to give up the ballistic advantage of lead though!

 

[OXN939]

... hard to give up the ballistic advantage of lead though!

For me, it has more to do with safety than environmental concerns. The small ballistic advantage that lead provides is negated by the fact that you're shooting your food with a toxic substance at supersonic velocities, which is proven to disperse said toxin throughout a large percentage of the meat. Good on Newberg for covering the environmental side of things, though!

 

[Bubblehide]

I've been using them on deer and pigs with good results. They are gilding metal, not cooper.

 

[doverpack12]

I've been using them since 2007 or 2008 in my 30-06 and been very happy with them (taken 12-14 elk and deer with them). I've taken a cow elk at 400 with a 150 grain started at 2850 with no issues. Only issue I ran into was shooting the 180's out of 30-06's and recovering bullets without alot of expansion so I definatly would not push the 1800 fps minimum if you can avoid it. Other than that I prefer their performance and if you do hit meat a small 1-2" circular cut around the bullet hole and the rest of the meat is 100% usable unlike lead that might ruin an entire shoulder. In spring 2016 I used a friends 30-378 on a bear we snuck into 80 yards on and shot it with a 180 Etip in the chest facing head on. Flipped the bear over with complete penetration and caught the bullet between the hide and hind quarter (we were both amazed we finally caught a bullet from his rifle).

 

[TauPhi111]

I haven't used the E-tips, but I have been shooting monos at big game since the early 2000s and I've yet to see a single one not perform fantastically on game. Not having to worry about lead in your game meat is a big part of it. You will also have less wasted meat. All the bloodshot meat you find around the wound channel is from tiny frags of led coming off and radiating out. You don't get that with a Barnes but it still turns the lungs into soup. When you hear Barnes shooters say you can eat up to the hole, they're pretty much telling the truth. With a mono you'll also almost always get 2 holes in your animal, which equals better blood trails. If you like a fragmenting bullet, people make those in copper too. Look to Hammer or Cutting Edge. They fragment, but the frags are big chunks and travel farther into the vitals than lead fragments

I'm of no help to you here but agree there will be a lot more moving to lead free ammo in the future.

Recently listened to Newbergs podcast about leadfree ammo and it got the wheels spinning about moving that direction.. hard to give up the ballistic advantage of lead though!

And I don't think there is a discernable ballistic advantage with lead over copper, at least at hunting ranges. A 180 grain bullet has the same mass no matter what it is made of, and if ballistic coefficient is the same, then they will both carry the same energy at any yardage. Copper bullets will be longer than lead, they take up more room in the case at times, and may require a faster twist, but that is about where any internal or external ballistic advantages that lead has stop.

 

[wind gypsy]

I haven't used the E-tips, but I have been shooting monos at big game since the early 2000s and I've yet to see a single one not perform fantastically on game. Not having to worry about lead in your game meat is a big part of it. You will also have less wasted meat. All the bloodshot meat you find around the wound channel is from tiny frags of led coming off and radiating out. You don't get that with a Barnes but it still turns the lungs into soup. When you hear Barnes shooters say you can eat up to the hole, they're pretty much telling the truth. With a mono you'll also almost always get 2 holes in your animal, which equals better blood trails. If you like a fragmenting bullet, people make those in copper too. Look to Hammer or Cutting Edge. They fragment, but the frags are big chunks and travel farther into the vitals than lead fragments



And I don't think there is a discernable ballistic advantage with lead over copper, at least at hunting ranges. A 180 grain bullet has the same mass no matter what it is made of, and if ballistic coefficient is the same, then they will both carry the same energy at any yardage. Copper bullets will be longer than lead, they take up more room in the case at times, and may require a faster twist, but that is about where any internal or external ballistic advantages that lead has stop.

I load 127 barnes LRX (0.46 G1) and 130 JLK (0.60 G1) for my 6.5 SAUM, I would beg to differ that there are not sufficient BC differences for a given weight. CEB has a little higher rated BCs but they seem to be inflated.

Seems there might be better options from CEB for 30 cal and bigger bore sizes.

 

[TauPhi111]

I load 127 barnes LRX (0.46 G1) and 130 JLK (0.60 G1) for my 6.5 SAUM, I would beg to differ that there are not sufficient BC differences for a given weight. CEB has a little higher rated BCs but they seem to be inflated.

Seems there might be better options from CEB for 30 cal and bigger bore sizes.

I shoot CEB in my 260 AI , my AR, and a couple other guns and their BCs aren't inflated. There are a lot of form factor differences between the LRX and the CEB MTH for example, that account for that difference. I've actually toured the CEB facility and talked to their engineers (I'm an engineer myself, so sorry for the super technical post to follow for those not savvy in fluid dynamics), and the reason why the Barnes BC is so much lower is mainly due to the drive bands. They are cut with sharp 90 degree edges which create turbulence in the boundary layer of the airflow over the bullet in flight, which increases the drag significantly. CEB uses a different design that creates a much smoother profile for much more laminar air flow. Hammer bullets solves the turbulence problem a little differently by giving their drive bands a sinusoidal shape which does not create as much turbulence, hence the higher BC. CEB also tends to have really long ogives. This makes them much like a VLD bullet with a high BC, but it also requires a faster twist to stabilize. Barnes markets to a much broader hunting community and designs their bullets to stabilize in more standard twist rates. There are many factors that play into BC, and mass is only one part of the equation. With regards to the original post, any percieved ballistic advantage of lead may be due to many other factors such as form factor. A lead bullet can have a longer ogive for a given length and diameter compared to copper, resulting in a higher BC, but there are other design variables that can be manipulated that can make a monolithic bullet, be them E-tips, TTSX, MTH, or Hammer Hunters, equal to a comparable lead bullet.

 

[Bubblehide]

And to think, I thought someone would dispute me in saying they are not copper but gilding metal. Nice info though.

 

[wind gypsy]

I shoot CEB in my 260 AI , my AR, and a couple other guns and their BCs aren't inflated. There are a lot of form factor differences between the LRX and the CEB MTH for example, that account for that difference. I've actually toured the CEB facility and talked to their engineers (I'm an engineer myself, so sorry for the super technical post to follow for those not savvy in fluid dynamics), and the reason why the Barnes BC is so much lower is mainly due to the drive bands. They are cut with sharp 90 degree edges which create turbulence in the boundary layer of the airflow over the bullet in flight, which increases the drag significantly. CEB uses a different design that creates a much smoother profile for much more laminar air flow. Hammer bullets solves the turbulence problem a little differently by giving their drive bands a sinusoidal shape which does not create as much turbulence, hence the higher BC. CEB also tends to have really long ogives. This makes them much like a VLD bullet with a high BC, but it also requires a faster twist to stabilize. Barnes markets to a much broader hunting community and designs their bullets to stabilize in more standard twist rates. There are many factors that play into BC, and mass is only one part of the equation. With regards to the original post, any percieved ballistic advantage of lead may be due to many other factors such as form factor. A lead bullet can have a longer ogive for a given length and diameter compared to copper, resulting in a higher BC, but there are other design variables that can be manipulated that can make a monolithic bullet, be them E-tips, TTSX, MTH, or Hammer Hunters, equal to a comparable lead bullet.

Good info.

Looking at examples of the MTH like the .308 180 gr it shows a G1 of 0.60 and a Applied Ballistics tested G7 of 0.245, the 155 gr .284 shows G1 0.610 and applied ballistics G7 of 0.246. I'm used to seeing a G7 around 0.30 correlate with a G1 of 0.60, why are these different?

 

[AkMtnRunner]

The only negative-ish thing I've heard of the e-tip, and similarly the barnes, is velocity is more important than with lead bullets. It's just a harder material than lead and it needs to be driven fast for reliable expansion.

 

[TauPhi111]

Good info.

Looking at examples of the MTH like the .308 180 gr it shows a G1 of 0.60 and a Applied Ballistics tested G7 of 0.245, the 155 gr .284 shows G1 0.610 and applied ballistics G7 of 0.246. I'm used to seeing a G7 around 0.30 correlate with a G1 of 0.60, why are these different?

The G1 to G7 conversion or vice versa depends on velocity as well, it's not just a straight conversion. I believe it stems from the difference in shape of the "standard projectile" that each curve is based on. The G7 projo is more VLD shaped and the curve tends to vary less with velocity, whereas the G1 projo is more of a round nose, flat base bullet that is much more sensitive to velocity (this is why Sierra lists their G1 BC in velocity brackets.) So if you convert a G1 BC to G7 at different velocities, you'll get different numbers. So when you see a bullet manufacturer list a G1 and a G7 BC, the missing info is at what velocity the BC was measured. Google "JMB drag curve conversion" to find a calculator that you can play with to convert BC between all the different curves.

 

[TauPhi111]

And to think, I thought someone would dispute me in saying they are not copper but gilding metal. Nice info though.

The E-tips are guilding metal I do believe (as is the GMX). This reduces fouling over the pure copper Barnes, but the guilding metal is much harder and does take more velocity to open. I've talked to the Barnes engineers too and they design their bullets to open at different velocities depending on the cartridge they are designed for. For example, the 168 grain TTSX is designed for the 308 and 30-06 with it's longer ogive. They say it actually expands down to 1500 or 1600 FPS (I have yet to test this using my 300 BLK). The 165 grain TTSX was designed with a shorter ogive for the 300 WM and WSM and opens down to 1800 FPS. The highly engineered bullets (CEB, Hammer) advertise min expansion velocity from 1400 FPS to 1800 FPS depending on design. So again, its an "it depends" thing. They are on par with most tough bonded lead bullets in the velocity department. I do think that once a lead bullet starts mushrooming, it does so much more readily than a mono, but that is changing with new designs.

I'll end by just pointing that the only reason I know all this is I find bullet design and terminal ballistics fascinating and I read up on it in depth. I should have been a ballistics engineer.

 

[TauPhi111]

Sorry to hijack the thread. I think the moral of the story is you should give those E-tips a try. If it's worth anything, Newberg says he's been using e-tips successfully a lot in the last couple years in his latest podcast.

 

[Bubblehide]

I'll expound a bit. I've shot a lot of deer and pigs from anywhere from 10 yards to 667 plus yards without an issue.

TauPhi111, I for one, appreciated your input.

 

[mcseal2]

Thanks everyone.

I was asked to euthanize a cow this spring that was very ill and was suffering. Her calf had died inside her and not aborted which caused an infection. The rancher had them calving in a pasture he didn't use the rest of the year, which is usually a great deal because the tall grass and ravines offer great protection from the elements for calving cows. Unfortunately she used the terrain to hide just long enough that the treatments the vet tried once she was missed couldn't save her. Sometimes with a situation like that no treatment works anyway, nature just takes it's course despite our wishes.

When I got there she was in the edge of a treeline at 150yds where I couldn't make a clean head shot, but had the broadside behind the shoulder shot open. If she moved she was going to be in the timber and maybe not offer an ethical shot without chasing her and possibly losing her in the thick brush which would have extended her suffering. I felt the best option was to take a lung shot and end her suffering as best I could under the circumstances. After making that shot she stood there while we ran closer and I angled for a head shot, taking it as soon as it was available. When we got up to her to confirm she was dead I noticed that the 180gr Accubond from the lung shot had not exited. I was a bit surprised by that as I didn't think it had hit any bone unless it was a rib. I went back a few weeks later after nature's scavengers had done their work and there was not a hole through any bone. This is what got me thinking of a tougher bullet for a moose. This cow would have weighed 1400-1600lbs I was guessing, in the same ballpark as a mature bull moose although built different. The shot angle was perfect, and no bone was hit so it got me thinking. I've used Accubonds with great success on deer and elk for a number of years but never on anything quite this large. Maybe a 200gr Accubond would have perfomed differently. Anything I pull the trigger on I want to perish as quick and painlessly as possible so I thought maybe a tougher bullet would be my best insurance for that in this case.

 

[Bubblehide]

For larger animals, you might be much more please with a straight copper bullet, but 180 would be the minimum I would consider for elk or anything larger. I´m shooting 150´s on deer and pig, most of the time. Of the few times I didn't get pass'through, the bullet was very close to exiting. In my book that is maximum performance, as all the kinetic energy is being absorbed by the animalñ or in case of a pass'through, the vast majority of kinetic energy is being absorbed. I´ve hit bone several times, with good results. And head shots, well they are just DRT, before they hit the groundñ heart shots, pretty much the same.

In short, if I were looking at shooting larger game or as in your case euthanizing cows, I´d be looking at 190´s or above. I´m just waiting on Berger and the like to come out with non'lead )I hear it´s in the works).

As I am sure you are aware, most bullet manufactures increase wall thickness (traditionally) with bullet weight; or do something to maintain weight retention better, i.e., penetration/controlled expansion.

 

[6mm Remington]

I load a 90 gr. E-tip in my sons 6mm Remington and he has used it to take several antelope, a nice mule deer buck, and his first elk which was a large cow elk shot once at 350 yards. The elk went about 20 yards and tipped over. He hit her tight behind her right shoulder. The bullet angled forward just slightly and exited the center of her left shoulder. Pretty darned good performance on everything he has used it on!

I also have tested Nosler Partitions, E-tips, and Accubonds in gallon water jugs from 25-100-200-300-400- & 500 yards. They all have penetrated, expanded, and retained weight very nicely.