Overthinking Bullet construction on Elk

[BCsteve]

My wsm loves the 175lrx. Great results on paper at 600 and does well in game as well.

Was going to suggest the same. 175 LRX st 3000fps shoots moa and under in mine.

 

[TX_Diver]

I’d suggest the 178 eld x as I have a bunch for sale

I am shooting them in my 30-06 but plan to mostly use 143s out of my 6.5 so offloading some of the 30 cal stuff. Shot a deer with them out of a 308 a few years ago and he was down quick.

 

[ARK08]

I use different bullets, for different applications. The cartridges where impact velocities will likely be above 3000fps get monometal bullets, and the rest get jacketed bullets.

 

[Taudisio]

190 Impacts also shoot well out of my Tikka WSM with H4835SC and have a great BC (according to Speer). My latest 5-round group was one big hole (still finalizing my loading procedures). Your friend's test and other reports I have read indicate that the expansion and weight retention looks to be as good as it gets for a bonded bullet from 0-500+ yds. I have some 172gr that I may also try in the WSM.

He is loading above max load of h4350 (in the 60’s of gr, I don’t have his book) and getting sub moa. I haven’t measured his groups. Velocity has been scratching 2900+/-
When we were load developing, he put roughly 50-55 rounds under 1.5” over 3 grains of powder difference. Rifle is a tikka t3x stainless, cut to 22” and muzzle brake installed.

 

[Timberline001]

I would go with the Berger 200.20x We shot 5 elk with them this January from 450 yards to 870 and they all died within seconds and the bullet performed great.

Attached is the damage behind the front shoulder on a shoulder shot cow with an impact velocity of 2475. What was left of the bullet stopped at the offside hide. Animal was dead on impact.

 

[roymunson]

Loaded some 200 grain ELD-X bullets and went to the range saturday. Was really satisfying to get in under an MOA and call it a day.

the heavier bullets shot much better

 

[Taudisio]

Loaded some 200 grain ELD-X bullets and went to the range saturday. Was really satisfying to get in under an MOA and call it a day.

the heavier bullets shot much better

That’s great! You should get more weight retention and penetration with the 200 over the 178. I wouldn’t hesitate using the same setup. Happy hunting!

 

[Pharmseller]

Attached is the damage behind the front shoulder

Any pics of the rear shoulder?




P

 

[Fujicon]

That’s great! You should get more weight retention and penetration with the 200 over the 178. I wouldn’t hesitate using the same setup. Happy hunting!

Seems peculiar that Hornady loads 200 gr ELD-X ammo for the 300 Win Mag, but not the 300 PRC. Kind of a pisser. Whatever, I roll my own, but just sayin...

 

[wind gypsy]

Seems peculiar that Hornady loads 200 gr ELD-X ammo for the 300 Win Mag, but not the 300 PRC. Kind of a pisser. Whatever, I roll my own, but just sayin...

Not peculiar at all IMO. The 200 is designed with a short nose to work in traditional magazine length and throat constrained cartridges. The 212 has a much better form factor (BC for its weight) that can take advantage of the PRCs longer COAL and throat.

 

[Timberline001]

Any pics of the rear shoulder?




P

She was slightly angled and what was left of the bullet went just in front of the shoulder. I don’t think those fragments would have went through the off shoulder if she was squared to the shot

 

[Timberline001]

Not peculiar at all IMO. The 200 is designed with a short nose to work in traditional magazine length and throat constrained cartridges. The 212 has a much better form factor (BC for its weight) that can take advantage of the PRCs longer COAL and throat.

Exactly. I shoot 200.2xs out of mine because it didn’t like the 212s and 215s as much. The 200.2s don’t fit the case very well at all. They’re way off the lands in order to have an okay amount of bullet within the case neck.

 

[Fujicon]

Not peculiar at all IMO. The 200 is designed with a short nose to work in traditional magazine length and throat constrained cartridges. The 212 has a much better form factor (BC for its weight) that can take advantage of the PRCs longer COAL and throat.

Yes, there are definitely BC differences. The 212 has a BC (G1) of .663, the 200 is .597, and the 178 is .552. But below are the profiles shown by Hornady on their website. Not really sure what you meant by form, but interesting to compare how Hornady depicts them. The only real difference seems to be shank length. It should also be noted that Hornady's manual provides load data for the 200 grain, and in fact goes all the way down to the 178 grain for 300 PRC, which at least implies they see these rounds as perfectly viable for that cartridge. Which again raises the question why they do not make ammo in 200 grain despite supporting it in their manual. Hornady even makes CX ammo in 190 grain for 300 PRC.

212 ELD-X:

200 ELD-X:

178 ELD-X:

 

[Taudisio]

Yes, there are definitely BC differences. The 212 has a BC (G1) of .663, the 200 is .597, and the 178 is .552. But below are the profiles shown by Hornady on their website. Not really sure what you meant by form, but interesting to compare how Hornady depicts them. The only real difference seems to be shank length. It should also be noted that Hornady's manual provides load data for the 200 grain, and in fact goes all the way down to the 178 grain for 300 PRC, which at least implies they see these rounds as perfectly viable for that cartridge. Which again raises the question why they do not make ammo in 200 grain despite supporting it in their manual. Hornady even makes CX ammo in 190 grain for 300 PRC.

212 ELD-X:
View attachment 698523
200 ELD-X:
View attachment 698524
178 ELD-X:
View attachment 698525

My thoughts are that the 300 prc was designed so shoot the long/heavies. You have a magnum length cartridge. If you want to shoot the lighter stuff, use a standard length, like the 300wm/30 nosler. You can shoot the heavies in the other two but they “should” not be as efficient as they would be in the 300prc.
If you want my opinion, the 300prc is a waste of space as the nosler can beat it with most bullets, even without needing the extra magnum length action. The 212 should be considered a light bullet in the prc compared to the 220-250 class bullets that seem more appropriate given the extra room.

 

[wind gypsy]

Yes, there are definitely BC differences. The 212 has a BC (G1) of .663, the 200 is .597, and the 178 is .552. But below are the profiles shown by Hornady on their website. Not really sure what you meant by form, but interesting to compare how Hornady depicts them. The only real difference seems to be shank length. It should also be noted that Hornady's manual provides load data for the 200 grain, and in fact goes all the way down to the 178 grain for 300 PRC, which at least implies they see these rounds as perfectly viable for that cartridge. Which again raises the question why they do not make ammo in 200 grain despite supporting it in their manual. Hornady even makes CX ammo in 190 grain for 300 PRC.

212 ELD-X:
View attachment 698523
200 ELD-X:
View attachment 698524
178 ELD-X:
View attachment 698525

The 212 is rated at a BC of .662 with a 10 twist barrel at sea level but when spun enough to reach full stability it has a 0.702 BC. Applied ballistics tested the 212 @ 0.702 and the 200 @ 0.591. Here’s what the 212 and 200s I have on hand look like side by side. The 200 actually has a longer bearing surface and notably shorter nose. It hits a 200 grain weight goal but form factor was compromised with the shorter nose to fit in shorter mag boxes.
If you want to read more about form factor: https://bergerbullets.com/form-factors-a-useful-analysis-tool/

Not at all saying the 200 ELDx isn't perfectly viable in the PRC just that it is a bullet designed for COAL constraints which the PRC was specifically designed to avoid.

 

[Fujicon]

My thoughts are that the 300 prc was designed so shoot the long/heavies. You have a magnum length cartridge. If you want to shoot the lighter stuff, use a standard length, like the 300wm/30 nosler. You can shoot the heavies in the other two but they “should” not be as efficient as they would be in the 300prc.
If you want my opinion, the 300prc is a waste of space as the nosler can beat it with most bullets, even without needing the extra magnum length action. The 212 should be considered a light bullet in the prc compared to the 220-250 class bullets that seem more appropriate given the extra room.

Good points regarding the 30 Nosler. However, as so often happens these type discussions the issue of purpose becomes relevant. In other words, what is the intended usage? For me usage is centered on hunting (specifically elk), but if I was oriented to match competition then the 30 Nosler might indeed be better. But within reasonable hunting ranges (within my limitations) the 300 PRC already does the trick, so more/better/longer won't make a salient difference. That is also why I choose to load my own 200s. Needless to say, others will have different purposes in mind and so other choices to make.

 

[Taudisio]

Good points regarding the 30 Nosler. However, as so often happens these type discussions the issue of purpose becomes relevant. In other words, what is the intended usage? For me usage is centered on hunting (specifically elk), but if I was oriented to match competition then the 30 Nosler might indeed be better. But within reasonable hunting ranges (within my limitations) the 300 PRC already does the trick, so more/better/longer won't make a salient difference. That is also why I choose to load my own 200s. Needless to say, others will have different purposes in mind and so other choices to make.

I have a lot I would like to say, but I do not want to get myself banned so I’ll see myself out. Enjoy your 300prc!

 

[Timberline001]

My thoughts are that the 300 prc was designed so shoot the long/heavies. You have a magnum length cartridge. If you want to shoot the lighter stuff, use a standard length, like the 300wm/30 nosler. You can shoot the heavies in the other two but they “should” not be as efficient as they would be in the 300prc.
If you want my opinion, the 300prc is a waste of space as the nosler can beat it with most bullets, even without needing the extra magnum length action. The 212 should be considered a light bullet in the prc compared to the 220-250 class bullets that seem more appropriate given the extra room.

I love the 30 nosler and agree it’s the better offering for custom builds and handloaders. The 300 PRC definitely isn’t a waste of space though for the guy who wants a factory extended long range rifle or wants to order a prefit barrel. As amazing as the 30 Nosler is it’s not as useful in SAAMI configuration.

 

[wabash503]

I think it really depends on your hunt.

In more timbered or broken terrain, or in country that is notoriously windy, you may not have many chances to take a longer shot. I'd rather have a bullet that will give guaranteed penetration for a quartering shot in those circumstances.

OTOH, you might have several opportunities at a distance where the higher BC and better accuracy will be useful.

I would decide based on probabilities instead of your maximum potential shot distance, if that makes sense.

I would add where are they comfortable placing that shot? If they're just going to shoot double lung, that's nearly a 2 MOA size target at 500Y... So a 1 MOA gun/load would be more than sufficient.

 

[wabash503]

Yes, there are definitely BC differences. The 212 has a BC (G1) of .663, the 200 is .597, and the 178 is .552. But below are the profiles shown by Hornady on their website. Not really sure what you meant by form, but interesting to compare how Hornady depicts them. The only real difference seems to be shank length. It should also be noted that Hornady's manual provides load data for the 200 grain, and in fact goes all the way down to the 178 grain for 300 PRC, which at least implies they see these rounds as perfectly viable for that cartridge. Which again raises the question why they do not make ammo in 200 grain despite supporting it in their manual. Hornady even makes CX ammo in 190 grain for 300 PRC.

212 ELD-X:
View attachment 698523
200 ELD-X:
View attachment 698524
178 ELD-X:
View attachment 698525

I've found the same thing with 7 rem mag... Hornady only loads up to 162 gr, but has data for 190-200 gr bullets. Only thing I can think is they don't want to produce any that completes with the 7 PRC.