• Help Support TNDeer:

Smokeless terminal ballistics for common .45 smokeless proj.

Smokeless
S

smalljawbasser

Well-Known Member
TNDeer Supporter
Joined
Nov 9, 2013
Messages
1,428
Location
Elizabethton
does anybody have any data on the terminal ballistics of the common bullets used in a .45 cal smokeless?

specifically, i'm trying to find out what the recommended impact velocities are on the hornady sst and barnes expander, or other bullets that i might want to use.

seems like if they are made to work from smokers, they may not work too well leaving the muzzle at 2500+.

barring actual data, i'm sure a lot of you guys have killed a lot of deer with smokeless .45's. do you have any bullet performance info you would share? how many yards, did the bullet pass through, tear up a lot of meat, good blood, etc etc.

TIA
 
I can vouch for 200 gr. SSTs at smokeless speeds. 1st deer was 135 yrds, high shoulder shot. Passed through both shoulders. 2nd deer was 22 yrds, high shoulder shot. Passed though both shoulders.

I was worried about the SSTs at first as well but I've got plenty of faith in them now. The 195 gr. Barnes are plenty tough as well, I just couldn't get them to shoot as well in my H&R.

Muzzle velocity on my gun was in the 2650-2675 fps range with the SSTs.
 
200 SST gave me slow/ light blood trail at 65 yards lung shot. It did pass through, just not super impressed with it.

195 Barnes heart/lung shot large buck gave a blood trail Stevie Wonder could follow. 60 yards 2550 fps.

Both will work, but I like the Barnes better. Some guns won't shoot them well though.
 
in most guns the sst is more accurate and has a slightly better bc, the 195s are really good killers but either will suffice, If I were shooting a moose, bear or elk the 195 would get the nod but I doubt the lowly deer would know the difference
 
ratsnakeboogy said:
200 SST gave me slow/ light blood trail at 65 yards lung shot. It did pass through, just not super impressed with it.

[color:#FF0000]195 Barnes heart/lung shot large buck gave a blood trail Stevie Wonder could follow. 60 yards 2550 fps. [/color]

Both will work, but I like the Barnes better. Some guns won't shoot them well though.
Click to expand...
But no matter what the bullet, anytime either the heart, or an artery around it is nicked, you're typically going to have a blood trail Stevie Wonder could follow. I like the Barnes bullets better, too, but that's an apple-to-orange comparison with just those two shot examples. :)

Deer Assassin said:
as far as one vs the other

flip a coin
Click to expand...
Or just use the one that shoots most accurately in your gun. :)
 
I agree to a point.

The hole-size being the limiting factor with the SST. I've put the SST through the heart as well, small entrance/exit and the hole plugs chest just fills with blood. Still dead, but very little blood trail.

I've shot a lot of both, the SST is actually a touch more accurate in everything I've run it through. I still like the Barnes 195 for hunting, but the SST will work.
 
ratsnakeboogy said:
I've shot a lot of both, the SST is actually a touch more accurate in everything I've run it through. I still like the Barnes 195 for hunting, but the SST will work.
Click to expand...

This has been my experience as well.

I've killed a bunch with both bullets going around 3,000 fps.

They both work. I tend to hunt with the Barnes more, but an sst in my gun would do just fine.
 
Shoot whichever one shoots the best for you. Either work well with good shot placement. SSTs shoot better in mine but not enough to matter unless the range gets pretty long.

On tougher game than deer, i would choose the Barnes every time.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top