Choosing ammunition - Hunting scenario

[Frostbite]

I have nothing against target shooting, I think it is necessary and fun to practice. However, my question is hunting oriented.

I do not reload.

I use a .270 Winchester semi-automatic rifle.

Do you think ammunition selection for deer hunting, where the typical shot for me will be between 25 to 125 yards, with occasional shots up to but almost never farther than 250 yards, should be based on the bullet's performance in term of accuracy in my particular firearm or rather in term of impact effectiveness (bullet terminal performance, I believe is the term, but I am not sure it is the good way to express my idea) on the animal?

I take for granted that most ammunition that would be used in that rifle, between 130 and 150 gr., readily available in most places where one can buy ammo, would be adequate in both ways.

I am just asking myself what should be the reasoning around such a decision, how you look at it.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts about this.

 

[ColtPythonElite]

I would go with the round hunting bullet loaded that feeds best and offers decent accuracy....You don't need a tackdriver or the best terminal performance in the hunting round line to kill a deer at your intended ranges.....A box of Remington Core-Lokts will probably do you fine.

 

[rcmodel]

A .270 at 25 yards can be pretty hard on the eating part of a deer with a traditional cup & core jacketed bullet.

I would probably lean toward some sort of controlled expansion bullet that won't blow up at close range, but will expand reliably at long range.

You don't need sub-MOA accuracy to kill a deer at 250 yards, every time.
And it is unlikely your semi-auto is capable of sub-MOA anyway, even with match ammo.

So, I'd go with a controlled expansion, or bonded core bullet in the weight of your choice.

rc

 

[Frostbite]

Shots taken at 25 yards usually allow such a good placement, when I have time to take them (at 25 yards, I find running deer very difficult to take a shot at, and usually do not, with the scoped rifle), that they do not affect meat much with that rifle in my personal experience, although with the unscoped muzzleloader with fiber optic sights I also use, it is a different story. I guess I should have specified that the rifle is scoped with a 1.5x6x32 optic, nothing fancy, but it gets the job done.

The muzzleloader, well, is a little different. It sure makes big holes and a lot of damage on impact!

Actually, when using the rifle, I doubt more about the shot when they are farther away. (Please, not the rear!)

One heart shot I took at approximately that distance of 25 yards with the said rifle was extremely successful as it did make a hole in the middle of the cardiac muscle, which did not explode or anything. No "meat" was lost (I do not like to eat the heart so much, even if I usually eat it when it is not damaged, so I do not count it as "meat", even if it is).
The ammo used on that particular occasion was one Winchester 150 gr. Super X (soft point), which, as per Winchester's ballistic calculator and website, is not really their best in anything.

At less than a buck a shot, they are very affordable, though.

But for hunting, I would not mind paying the premium ammo price, because I want to avoid animal suffering when possible. That would especially apply if I went moose hunting, because the shots would most likely be taken farther then when I hunt deer and because a moose is tougher to kill than a deer. Honestly, for the deer hunting I do, I believe any is good enough. It is the reasoning implied that is interesting to me.

As for the rifle's inherent accuracy, rcmodel is probably right, but I do not know for sure: I have tried only two different kinds of ammo with similar (in my eye) good results, I am far from being a sniper, and I do not reload, so I have most likely no way to know if it can shoot sub MOA from what I have learned, in great part on this forum, for the last few months.

 

[WestKentucky]

3030s are inherently not super accurate and they have been doing the job for a century plus at the range your talking about. Buy ammo for effect, not for precision. The smallest target your looking at is the size of a softball, and you don't need much precision to do that.

 

[Dmitri Popov]

I think you need to find a round that will balance both factors. Don't go one way over the other, try to find something that is reasonably accurate, that will take the deer down as efficently as possible.

 

[jmr40]

For your criteria most anything should work. I'd use the cheapest ammo that functions reliably and provides reasonable accuracy. Ammo choices start to become more critical when ranges start to get out to around 400+ yards or the game starts to approach 1000 lbs.

 

[d2wing]

Just about any soft point ammo will work fine. Be aware that ammo designed for varmints will not perform well, it may expand and break up with out good penetration. Nor will ammo designed for Elk or larger game as it may not expand and pass through with a minimal wound. Other than that shot placement and a bullet that expands but retains it's weight is what matters. Weight won't make much difference at those ranges on deer.

 

[gspn]

At 250 yards you will likely find that most factory hunting loads will print well enough for the job at hand.

You don't need to think about sacrificing terminal performance for a smidgen more accuracy at these ranges. In fact I'm not sure that I'd ever sacrifice terminal performance in a hunting round...the further away the animal is the more important it becomes that it receives enough damage to leave a blood trail and/or not run off.

Find a bullet that's designed for the critter you're chasing, and shoot it enough to know how it performs at your intended ranges.

 

[bflee]

I used core loct bullets for years. At close range most of the time they go straight through and dont hurt the meat alot. After about 60 yards it seems they change and flatten out alot more. Cheap and effective. Thats what I like.

 

[Frostbite]

Many interesting thoughts, thank you guys.

By the way, I am happy to learn that my bullet choice, which was based on nothing at all and a complete lack of ammunition knowledge years ago, was not so bad after all and that even when compared with the new designs of ammunition, some costing more than the double of what I pay, you educated folks seem to consider it adequate.

You see, I think I may have been a victim of the good marketing of the ammo companies lately. Since the aforementioned ammo has always worked fine in my rifle and that my understanding is that it is judged sufficient for the task at end, I guess I will save some money and just stick with it.

More rounds for practice for the same money is only better! And to say that I thought 250 yards was far... I still have a lot to learn. Thank you for your help with that!