If a TMK rocks in a 223 …why is the TSX a go to in the 270 win?

[Woolfstoe]

Just wondering why TSX / Partition/ Accubond seems to be the go to for big game in the 270 win but a TMK is the bullet for hunting in a 223? I know Berger has the 130 and is the most “match” style bullet for .277 but it doesn’t seem to be the one that is really leaned on. Am I missing something?

 

[z987k]

Someone that prefers the tmk in a 223 is not going to prefer the tsx in a 270. You're reading 2 different schools of thought and putting them together. When they disagree.

Sierra doesn't make a tipped match king in 270. So, if you want to stick with them, you'd have to use one of the tipped game kings. Much like Hornady doesn't make a 270 eld-m.

 

[Matt5266]

Just wondering why TSX / Partition/ Accubond seems to be the go to for big game in the 270 win but a TMK is the bullet for hunting in a 223? I know Berger has the 130 and is the most “match” style bullet for .277 but it doesn’t seem to be the one that is really leaned on. Am I missing something?

Who the hell said that?

 

[180ls1]

130 SST absolutely crushes in my .270.

Never tried any of the "high BC" stuff in it. The controlled expansion stuff was OK but did not work as well as the SST or Silvertip.

 

[swavescatter]

Who the hell said that?

Probably the Von Benedikt or Spomer Fudds.

 

[Woolfstoe]

No, I always strive for a well constructed bullet in any of my 270 loads. Accubond and LRX have been my staple. I’ve spent a bit of time going through the 223 info (hundreds of pages on that)so I can set up a practice rifle with cheaper ammo. I went down the rabbit hole of bullets in that caliber. I may have misread it, but it sure seems like the 77 grain TMK was found to be “the” bullet if you’re going hunt more than a varmint.
So, then I tried to use the same logic for a 270. I’ve always been schooled to go as heavy as I can, especially for elk. So, why not dial it back to a 130 or less and focus on shot placement and maybe a different bullet construction?

 

[Cherokeeguide]

I was happily whacking deer and pigs with 70 grain mono-metal bullets out of my AR-15. It didn't dawn on me to try the same 77 grain TMK bullets I use in CMP match shooting until I discovered the massive .223 thread here on rokslide. I tried them last fall on pigs before going deer hunting with them.

It is just a wild-ass guess, but I think they work as well as they do for me on hooved game because I'm pretty close to making them go as fast as a 5.56 NATO can make them at an average M.V. of 2854 fps. I suspect that many are launching them around 2700 from shorter barrels. 2700 fps starting speed with a simple cup and core bullet (no Interlock, Core Lokt, bonding, etc ) having a .212 SD is slow enough for the bullets to hold together, like old 150 grain Sierra Pro Hunter bullets in a Garand-compatible .30-'06 load.

If I still had a .270 Winchester, I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't dig the TMK as a game bullet. The .270 Winchester rifles I used the most were a Ruger No.1 B and and Interarms Whitworth Mauser, both of which had 26" barrels and would "shit and get" on the common 130 grain bullet over 55 grains of 4350 load, topping 3,100 fps MV.

It's a question, I think, of the coupling of mass with impact velocity.

But, as I said, I'm just throwing out a wild-ass guess here. In reality, I don't give a shit why the TMK works so damn good out of the .223 Remington / 5.56 NATO. All I care about is that it does, and because it does, the only rifle I need to own is my beloved home-assembled AR-15 and the only ammo I need to load is the same recipe I use for CMP matches and practice for them and have no need anymore for a .270 Winchester.

 

[B_Reynolds_AK]

I’ve always been schooled to go as heavy as I can, especially for elk. So, why not dial it back to a 130 or less and focus on shot placement

You realize that those are two opposing thoughts right?

 

[Wizzum]

I will vouch for the 145gr ELD-X being violent on elk.

 

[Chris in TN]

 

[Stinky Coyote]

If I could go back to when I ran 270’s I’d ditch the accubonds I used for something like ballistic tips or anything non bonded or tough. I went directly from that to trying a 6.5 Grendel and factory 123 eldm and where before I saw more 100 yard runners the Grendel combo drt’d nearly everything. Basically a 100% flip flop. A lot of questions were answered in short amount of time and nothing changed over half dozen seasons or 20+ critters. The slow little eldm has like an 11 yard average recovery distance some 8 seasons later ~25 animals of 7 species from 10-420 yards. So I was over cartridged, over bulleted, but thankfully I wasn’t over scoped haha.

It is 100% about the bullet. There’s a formula, for game intended, and shade of death desired. When you figure out what you like it’s easy to repeat for new choices and game you go after.

 

[Woolfstoe]

You realize that those are two opposing thoughts right?

I do. Both have a point. I just want to be effective. I was focused on matching a 270 load to the 223 with BC/ MV and noticed I could go with a much lighter bullet than I’d focused on, not worry about pushing it so hard and still be almost twice the bullet weight and faster with a 270. I’m pretty happy about that. It makes realize how great non magnum rifles can be.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

Read my post above. If.....IF your goal is drt primarily THEN get the formula right. It starts with the bullet construction type. Monos, bonded...suck for drt compared to tipped match style cup and cores. If you like trailing and tracking and eating to the hole then by all means.

When you see that work in 270 then maybe you’ll be ready to knock another 15-30 grains of powder off the charge lol and start to watch it happen in the scope. Ah ha moments inbound.

 

[Macintosh]

Just wondering why TSX / Partition/ Accubond seems to be the go to for big game in the 270 win but a TMK is the bullet for hunting in a 223? I know Berger has the 130 and is the most “match” style bullet for .277 but it doesn’t seem to be the one that is really leaned on. Am I missing something?

Yes, you're missing something. Those are two opposite and opposed schools of thought—its true that you’ll find lots of proponents of one or the other—but I dont think you will find any one person who recommends BOTH as “go to”.

The closest factory offering for a 270 following the 223/77tmk school of thought is perhaps the hornady 145gr eldx.

 

[180ls1]

No, I always strive for a well constructed bullet in any of my 270 loads. Accubond and LRX have been my staple. I’ve spent a bit of time going through the 223 info (hundreds of pages on that)so I can set up a practice rifle with cheaper ammo. I went down the rabbit hole of bullets in that caliber. I may have misread it, but it sure seems like the 77 grain TMK was found to be “the” bullet if you’re going hunt more than a varmint.
So, then I tried to use the same logic for a 270. I’ve always been schooled to go as heavy as I can, especially for elk. So, why not dial it back to a 130 or less and focus on shot placement and maybe a different bullet construction?

The guys using a TMK in their 223 are not the guys on the cutting edge of trying to get the most out of their .270.

Most .270 guys don't even own a scope that dials... It's not a surprise their advice differs GREATLY.

 

[wind gypsy]

223 = a diminutive cartridge. 77 TMK violence increases tissue damage in a small package.
270 = not diminutive. Doesn't call for a bullet with maximum wounding potential to effectively kill and it is not a caliber common in competition disciplines thus there is limited "Match" bullets. ELDx, sst, ballistic tips are close enough terminally though if that's what you seek.

 

[grfox92]

Copper bullets should only be used when hunting in California.

Sent from my SM-S931U using Tapatalk

 

[Woolfstoe]

The guys using a TMK in their 223 are not the guys on the cutting edge of trying to get the most out of their .270.

Most .270 guys don't even own a scope that dials... It's not a surprise their advice differs GREATLY.

Well, I own two 270’s and a 6.5 PRC. I know redundant. One 270 is 6.5 lbs scoped. Another is a fast twist w/ 26” tube. I also own a scope or two that dials although that’s not my preference(weight). Maybe that will change with some 223 practice.
Like many of you, I’m really starting to enjoy shorter barrels. I really like lightweight.
The goal in the long run involves taking my lightweight Kimber 270 down a couple inches so that means a loss of performance in the overbore cartridge. If I can focus on a lighter bullet and reasonable speed, I can keep recoil down. Makes the lightweight 270, in my opinion, not a bad idea for me out to 450 yards or so. Maybe further if I can learn to shoot well.
This has lead me to the 129 LRX, not because it’s copper, but because it has the highest bc in it’s weight.
I get it, no TMK because the 270 is not a competition caliber. I will see how the 130 VLD or SST shoots and go from there with an open mind.

 

[Stache Attack]

130 bergers, 130-150 sgk, eldx.

 

[One300wsm]

Well, I own two 270’s and a 6.5 PRC. I know redundant. One 270 is 6.5 lbs scoped. Another is a fast twist w/ 26” tube. I also own a scope or two that dials although that’s not my preference(weight). Maybe that will change with some 223 practice.
Like many of you, I’m really starting to enjoy shorter barrels. I really like lightweight.
The goal in the long run involves taking my lightweight Kimber 270 down a couple inches so that means a loss of performance in the overbore cartridge. If I can focus on a lighter bullet and reasonable speed, I can keep recoil down. Makes the lightweight 270, in my opinion, not a bad idea for me out to 450 yards or so. Maybe further if I can learn to shoot well.
This has lead me to the 129 LRX, not because it’s copper, but because it has the highest bc in it’s weight.
I get it, no TMK because the 270 is not a competition caliber. I will see how the 130 VLD or SST shoots and go from there with an open mind.

270 WSM with 130 VLD’s makes a big mess and there “DRT”