# 180 grains for deer too light?



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

So currently I shoot a Hornady XTP out of my muzzy with a sabot. I have shot the 240 gr. and the 300 gr. and I have found that the 240 gr. is amazingly flatter than the 300 gr. out to 200 yards. My trajectory with the 240 gr. is only 3 inches low at 200 yards where as the 300 gr. XTP is 18 inches low. While browsing sportsmans web page I noticed that they make a 180 grain bullet which would streamline and shave 60 gr. from the 240 gr. bullet and I wonder as a result if it would make the gun a point and shoot type of ordeal all the way out to 200 yards. 

Both the 240 gr. and the 300 gr. rounds are 3 inches high at a 100 yards so I guess I am wondering... if the result of shooting a lighter bullet would be an even flatter trajectory enabling even more long distance accuracy. If it extended range out to 250 yards with the same trajectory then 300 yards would not really be that far away... 

Originally when I was considering switching to muzzleloader from rifle I was considering a .45 cal because I had heard that the streamlined bullets in a .45 cal can be more accurate to longer distances. My Centerfire rifle shoots 180 gr. bullets but with almost 3 times the velocity. These XTP's are .430 cal in diameter. 

With a bipod and steady rest and a 1x scope I think aiming out to 300 yards is easily doable. Where do I find data about how much energy a 180 gr. bullet from a muzzleloader has? I might just consider buying some 180 gr. XTP's for the prarrie dog towns.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I tried'em... shot a couple deer with them. They are about as long as they are wide so they tumble pretty easy. Get one to hit right and they blow up quickly in huge holes.

I stick with the 240's for deer.

You can use this to calculate energy, you only need to know the muzzle velocity:

http://huntingnut.com/index.php?name=PointBlank

-DallanC


----------



## Mr.CheddarNut (Jan 16, 2013)

I dont know about the new fangled bullets they have these days but, I shoot 190 grain lead round balls out of my 50cal and they have always done the job on deer.
Made some pretty remarkable shots as well.

Cheddar


----------



## muzzlehunter (Nov 29, 2009)

I would stick with the 240gr for your longer shots. They will carry more energy down range. If your only 3" high at 100 yrds and 3" low at 200 I would'nt change a thing. Sounds like your dialed in with a great load to me. Good luck!


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool (Sep 15, 2007)

^^^Agree 100% with muzzlehunter. I would not sacrifice the energy for 3 inches of drop. 3 inches is essentially point and shoot, especially at that range. You'll be beginning to lose energy quickly out at that range.


----------



## waspocrew (Nov 26, 2011)

I can't add anything to what's been said besides it wouldn't hurt to try them out... I think you'll see you are served well with the 240s.


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

Ya at 3 inches high at 100 and 3 inches low at 200 that seems to work. A 6 inch variance out to 200 yards is a lot to ask for. DallanC's comment on the tumbling is enough for me to not want to even give them a try.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

240's are fantastic, you will love them.

-DallanC


----------



## manysteps (Sep 28, 2009)

Not going to even try to start an argument on this, but IN MY OPINION, even 240 gr is too light beyond 100 yards. I shoot a 405 gr bullet with 100gr of powder behind it, and I won't take a shot beyond 200 yards with that. (not to mention with open sights, or even a red dot... that's a TINY target)

The last time I checked the ballistics, my load only has ~900 ft/lbs of energy at 200 yards... that isn't very much if you end up hitting a shoulder.

</end of opinionated rant>


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

manysteps said:


> Not going to even try to start an argument on this, but IN MY OPINION, even 240 gr is too light beyond 100 yards. I shoot a 405 gr bullet with 100gr of powder behind it, and I won't take a shot beyond 200 yards with that. (not to mention with open sights, or even a red dot... that's a TINY target)
> 
> The last time I checked the ballistics, my load only has ~900 ft/lbs of energy at 200 yards... that isn't very much if you end up hitting a shoulder.
> 
> </end of opinionated rant>


I've only ever recovered two, of my 240grn xtps. Both were from deer at 129 and 143 yards, both quartering (away) shots, both traveled approx 30" diagonally though the animals before stopping on the far side. One weighs 198grns, the other 151 and both retained their jackets.

I fully respect your opinion, but my in field experience with them has been outstanding. I've never recovered a 300grn XTP, those things leave huge holes in one side and out the other of elk with massive wound channels.

405's are cool and very deadly conicals though, no doubt about it.

-DallanC


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

405 grains!!! That's like shooting a lead rod at a deer!!! If you packed 2 of those things in your pocket you would get exhausted from so much weight.. JK

I plan on using the 240 gr. XTP's for deer and I will be shooting the 300 gr. XTP's for elk. They are so identical out to 100 yards that there is no need to resight my gun in between the deer and the elk hunt. Past 100 yards I just have to remember how fast those 300 gr. rounds drop though.


----------



## manysteps (Sep 28, 2009)

Nambaster said:


> 405 grains!!! That's like shooting a lead rod at a deer!!! If you packed 2 of those things in your pocket you would get exhausted from so much weight.. JK
> 
> I plan on using the 240 gr. XTP's for deer and I will be shooting the 300 gr. XTP's for elk. They are so identical out to 100 yards that there is no need to resight my gun in between the deer and the elk hunt. Past 100 yards I just have to remember how fast those 300 gr. rounds drop though.


That's kind of the point... I "dinked' the first deer I ever shot with a round ball, and I don't ever want a repeat performance.

If I had my way, they'd all drop in their tracks, but I'm realistic enough to know that isn't going to happen.

Still, an "ethical shot" has multiple sides--and more view points than you can count.

In my opinion, hit them at a distance you are more than comfortable shooting at, with a bullet that has PLENTY of punch at that distance.

"Could" I kill one at 400 yards? Yep, probably could... we saw a guy drop one at 385 yards with a 285(ish) power belt just a few years ago... would I take that shot? Good question... it was one MONSTER of a buck. Hard to say what any of us would choose in the heat of that moment.

"Game plan" wise, I choose to hunt a little heavier than needed, and try to get myself in closer positions so I don't have to take the "tough" shots.

I hunt for an enjoyable experience, and I go for a quick, ethical kill... this isn't a contest on who can shoot the furthest for me.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

manysteps said:


> That's kind of the point... I "dinked' the first deer I ever shot with a round ball, and I don't ever want a repeat performance.
> 
> If I had my way, they'd all drop in their tracks, but I'm realistic enough to know that isn't going to happen.
> 
> ...


that...


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

IMO, and from what I have found from shooting over the past 30+ years, is that the heavy bullet has a better chance of being more consistent in staying on course to the target. I shoot the 300gr. XTP out of my 50 cal. guns. 

I've never lost, or tracked a deer more than 50yds. after being whacked with one of those. Elk have all dropped within the first three steps.


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

I like the sound of that....


----------



## hossblur (Jun 15, 2011)

I shoot the 240 out of my Knight as well. But, and I am thinking out loud, how sad has muzzleloading become? When I started I had a Thompson New Englander 50 cal. Used #11 caps, 90 grains of powder, and Maxi balls(never settled on a slug, but they were enough to give me lead poisoning). They were unreliable, hang fired, poor sights, etc., but I got to hunt in November. I would gladly, in one second go back to that gun to get the late season back. I would even go truly old school and go patch and ball if we could get it back. IMO, the fun of smokepoling is the difficult nature of the firearm, yeah I went modern too, but when we start talking about shots over 200 yards, and scopes and red dots it seems we have lost the intent of why we muzzleload. I started doing it as a challenge, because even at 18, shooting across canyons to kill deer had become unexciting. Well there is the end of the soap box, but I would love a truly primitive season, perhaps the bow hunters could get one too if they dumped the compounds, just thinking, and IMPATIENTLY waiting for a month, just like you all.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

hossblur said:


> IMO, the fun of smokepoling is the difficult nature of the firearm, yeah I went modern too, but when we start talking about shots over 200 yards, and scopes and red dots it seems we have lost the intent of why we muzzleload. I started doing it as a challenge, because even at 18, shooting across canyons to kill deer had become unexciting. Well there is the end of the soap box, but I would love a truly primitive season, perhaps the bow hunters could get one too if they dumped the compounds, just thinking, and IMPATIENTLY waiting for a month, just like you all.


You do realize inlines predate hawkin style muzzleloaders by 100 years right? Germany was using them in 1734.

The problem is, todays modern "sidelock" replica is just as advanced as any modern inline. Both benefit from the same advancements, both have super accurate barrels built on multi-million $$$ CNC machines. Both use high tensile strength coil springs (the single greatest advancement in black powder rifle design IMO, old flat springs got out of alignment, broke, weakened etc and had other flaws).

Anyone remember the Black Mountain Magnium FLINTLOCK a few years back? Flintlock ignition with special system that was dead reliable, polymer stock, fiber optics, special ignition channel designed to ignite pyrodex pellets, and a max charge rated at 150grns. Did I mention scope mounts?










I hate to hear someone propose me having to shelve my Rem700 which has a SAFETY, for a season in which they can use the above mentioned gun, all on the premise of being less technologically advanced.

There simply is no difference in ignition beyond a few milliseconds of lock time, or accuracy of a sidelock vs inline with the same twist. Even White when they were making ML's built 1 barrel, and used it on both their sidelocks AND inlines.

What makes these 300 yards possible is the projectiles. Limitations need to be in the form of powders and projectiles and optics to a lesser degree (I think they should allow a 2x scope for guys who are getting on in years).

I have muzzleloader tags going back decades, it never ever said "primitive weapons" on it, it always said "Muzzleloader".

I just wish I could use a museum quality 1977 Ferguson rifle in our hunts... but sadly, a break loader flintlock isnt a "muzzleloader", even if it is 10x more primitive than an off the shelf T/C Omega.

Nothings going to change with the season, just like archery. But if you want the thrill of doing it "old school", you certainly can still take to the hills with a swinghammer. My boy shot his first deer with my Hawkin last year... that gun I rebarreled years earlier with a same twist barrel as my M700 and its just as accurate.

-DallanC


----------

