A
Help Support Modern Muzzleloading Forum:
Very comprehensive analysis!(1) How are they to load in comparison say to the 300 Barnes Expanders?
(2) N120 VS AA 5744. You shot both. Which do you prefer with the 300 Barnes bullets..Expanders & the Original 45/70's & why?
(3) Is this the bullet in your Analysis of A Load: (Ignore...I reread & you list the Cat# :lol: )
45 / 70
Dia. Weight. Desc. Jacket S.D. B.C. CAT#
.458" 300gr. S.S.P. .032" .204 .291 457010
R Man sent me a PM and almost SOLD me on them! I do like the Original's semi spitzer's looks better than those MZ Expanders though. They look more like a boolet! :lol:
Thanks
A
Anonymous
Guest
Loggy said:
(1) How are they to load in comparison say to the 300 Barnes Expanders?
(2) N120 VS AA 5744. You shot both. Which do you prefer with the 300 Barnes bullets..Expanders & the Original 45/70's & why?
(3) Is this the bullet in your Analysis of A Load: (Ignore...I reread & you list the Cat# :lol: )
45 / 70
Dia. Weight. Desc. Jacket S.D. B.C. CAT#
.458" 300gr. S.S.P. .032" .204 .291 457010
Yes, the .458 Semi-Spitzer is "the bullet"-- Barnes part #457010.
They load similarly, if not a bit easier. There is less bearing surface due to shorter bullet length, so by rights (all else being equal) they should load a tad easier.
As to N120 vs. AA 5744, that is a tough question. Both shoot both bullets better than 3/4 MOA, and I can't ask for more than that.
AA 5744 has the general advantage of being Lee scoop-loadable with accuracy, and is the easiest to ignite Savage powder I know of. If you are going to shoot 2050 - 2100 fps, then 5744 gets the call with no hesitation. That is still a VERY impressive load, with either bullet out to 175 yards or so. I hesitate to use the term reliable, as both powders are reliable and consistent with 300 gr. bullets, but the best I can say is that 5744 is "a little bit more reliable" from an ignition standpoint-- or, "more forgiving."
The reason to use N120 is strictly more velocity, and of course you get more recoil with that velocity as well. A bit more recoil is due to the increased powder weight as well.
There is no doubt in my mind that the MZ-Expander is the better bullet on game. It reliably expands at a far lower velocity than the Barnes Original, and has the likely 100% weight retention.
There is also no doubt that the Barnes Original flies flatter, with great accuracy-- flatter than any other bullet I've tried (that shoots accurately).
So, it is a compromise either way. I've already killed enough stuff with the MZ-Expander to be really, really impressed. For next years's pig in Crossville, there is no reason I can think of to use anything other than the MZ-Expander.
But, on this pronghorn hunt, trajectory is more important to me than on most hunts. It seems I'll need the ability (or want the ability) to reach out and touch someone past 220 yards with confidence, and 60 gr. N120 and the Barnes Original gets the call for that reason.
I have no idea what precise amount of expansion there will be on a 130 lb. live weight pronghorn @200 yards-- I anticipate very little. But, a .45 caliber hole in the right place is still a mighty big hole to a pronghorn, and just the tumbling of the bullet alone after impact will cause horrific damage. Recovery is no matter of concern, either, on this type of hunt. So, we will pop Mr. Pronghorn in the right spot with confidence, and autopsy him as best we can to learn more about what the terminal effects really are from the Barnes Original 45-70. If it does what I think it will, then it will be time to take more animals with it. :shock:
A
Anonymous
Guest
This more graphically illustrates things, as graphics normally do. :?
Thanks Randy. Your indepth reviews & field tests really help me decide on a load or at least narrow things down somewhat. I just dont have enough time to test so many of the powders & bullets out there. I'm sure I echo lots of other folks here too.
Best of luck on your upcoming pronghorn hunt.
Best of luck on your upcoming pronghorn hunt.
