For mostly south Texas deer and occasional hog around 200 lbs which round would you recommend between the factory load Hornady 240 grain XTP & Hornady 300 grain XTP. Shooting range would be 50 yards or less.
Thanks

It is cliche' but I'd say whichever shoots best from your gun. The game won't care.

What he said. Both would kill with aplomb.

I seriously doubt any game in that size range would run far after being hit with either.

For Texas I used the 300XTP,never know when an Eland or big hog might come through..

I personally would choose the 300 grainers of those two loads. You never know how much hog you may encounter and if it's a big boar, that gristle plate will provide some resistance. I have also found that 300 grain Hornady load to be absurdly accurate out of the revolvers I have shot them.

I'm a fan of heavy for caliber bullets. Do so in most of my handguns. Simply because I like to do so. But, that being said.........there is no feral.......non-pen raised/fed hog will stand up to a 240gr XTP at reasonable distance.

I've dropped plenty with .223 and 6mm bullets. They are not the fabled bullet proof tank many believe them to be. As with any caliber or cartridge. A bad shot will cost you and a good shot will pay dividends.

I like heavy bullets in handguns. But, it's not because less won't work.

I would go with the 300s at those ranges. It's not as flat shooting as the 240 so long shots can get a little tricky

Gary for a hog like your son shot I would want all I could put down the bore.

At those ranges 300

I agree that either round will work well. However, to be on the safe side if hunting in the South Texas "Brush Country", I would select the 300 gr. in hopes of dropping the animal "right there" and avoiding the possibility of tracking through the brush.

Thanks for the replies, I've been using the 300, it is just getting hard to find right now. No dealer around me as well as online folks have it at this time.
May have to switch year if the 300s don't start showing up.
Thanks,
Charlie

I wouldn't expect them to start showing up - it's the wrong time of the year. Since the general public and the manu's think there are no rounds other than the 223 and 9mm, all big bore projectiles are getting harder to find.

I'm with ya on that. I'm really glad it was dead when we found him. I don't usually go in unarmed but I was - won't do that again.

As we all knew the 300 grain XTP performed perfectly this past weekend on a south Texas doe, which as a guest on a lease I previously was on, was all I was allowed to shoot. Heart shot, piled up in 30 yards. Wanted a large hog but none spotted.
Sunday morning whatI wanted to get but my iPhone picture did not come out as I expected was what I would call a great representation of south Texas hunting. Picture this, ranch road, transmission line on the far left, oilfield related pipeline on the left of the road,
coyote eating corn on road in the foreground, hogs in the middle and a whitetail deer in the background. Then I flipped 180 and took a picture of large corn and protein feeders with an active drilling rig in the background.
No hero picture of doe Saturday evening.

Well, ya got something. That's always icing on the cake. The joy is being outside, no?

I put a 300gr cast bullet through both front shoulders of a whitetail doe to include breaking the off shoulder into a compound fracture a couple weeks ago. Using a Casull. That girl ran 43 yards after impact.

Conversely, last week, I put a 250gr XTP into a doe with a .460 S&W. Breaking the on side shoulder. She dropped on the spot with barely a quiver.

Both impact velocities were approximately the same.

So tell me, how does bullet weight equate to less tracking? In and of itself.

Not arguing. I just enjoy discussions and the science of death is intriguing to me. Plus, I don't buy off on pad answers, generalities, myths, or wives tales. I like getting to the root of the matter. It's always more enjoyable and I learn more that way.

I run a 250 XTP @ 1400 in my 45 Colt and there isn't a critter on this continent that I'd be afraid to take on with it. I really don't think a 300 moving slower would offer any more appreciable result. It matters more where you hit 'em than what you hit 'em with.

I agree that bullet weight can aid in deeper penetration. That's simple physics. Objects in motion remain in motion until acted upon by equal or greater force.......or something along those lines. More mass tends to be harder to slow down.

But, bullet construction also has to be factored in here. A heavy but soft (frangible) bullet will expand faster and offer more surface resistance to hinder momentum. A lighter but harder bullet will often penetrate deeper than a bullet of similar weight but sifter construction. Take the Barnes Bullets, for instance.

We all know this, I assume. In the two instances I mentioned above, the heavier bullet was of harder construction and completely penetrated the deer. On the flip side, the lighter and softer bullet stopped in the off side hide. Failing to fully penetrate the deer.

Which one required less tracking? The lighter..........softer bullet.

So, we are forced to re-evaluate a previous statement in this thread regarding the necessity to use a heavier bullet to reduce/eliminate the possibility of tracking.

But, what if we compared a lighter bullet and heavier bullet of similar construction. Whether soft or hard. We know that a lighter bullet travels faster than a heavy bullet when both are loaded to maximum safe potential. Less mass is easier to get moving faster but usually easier to slow down. More mass, while usually moving slower (all other things being equal) from the get go..........takes a little more resistance to slow down.

This is why heavy for caliber bullets of an aerodynamic nature tend to have higher Ballistic Coefficients.

If we have same constructions but opposite weights resulting in different velocities.........both shot through the lungs in like manner...........which would theoretically kill faster?

Remember, we are talking deer sized game here. Where penetration from an adequate cartridge is not in question. After all, that is what this thread is about.

What factor, when weight and velocity are opposite and construction is similar............do we need to factor in when considering cause of death and the speed thereof?

There is the slow moving heavy cast (2 holes) vs. the faster expandable (energy dump) debate, been beaten to death. Both work. Presently I prefer the latter, and whether the bullet exits or not doesn't concern me. If it works as it should the damage will be done and I will be skinning. I have seen deer run forever after being hit hard with a magnum rifle, so I don't think there is any specific recipe for a quick death other than a head shot.

I don't care about the 1 or 2 hole debate. It's what happens in the juicy middle that matters to me.

;-)

What kills whether cast or expandable is still the same thing .A lack of oxygen to the brain caused by trama to the organs,preferably heart ,lungs or central nervous system[ the more trama the better]. CNS hits do the same things they shut down impulses to the brain and heart lungs causing no oxygen to get to the brain resulting in death. How far the animal will travel depends on how much oxygen the brain has available at the shot [if they have just inhaled or just exhaled]and if CNS is disrupted.If a deer has two to five seconds worth of oxygen and you don't take out the shoulders or CNS they can run a far piece in that time.
I personaly prefer a good expandable for MY OWN USE. JMHO

I will use either-No big deal to me.
Depends on which shoots the best, what I have in stock, and what I am in the mood to use.

Hydrostatic Shock

I have primarily used XTP's myself over cast.
But I have killed mule deer and antelope with cast.

I'm liking both. If for no other reason than the knowledge gained from the use of either.

In Alaska I'm a shoulder CNS shooter with HC when in Texas at time I'm a behind the shoulder shooter with whatever.

Perhaps your question should properly directed to the performance of the non-expanding cast bullet vs the expanding XTP hollow point.
The OP asked about using the two XTP bullet weights, and never said anything about reducing velocity. You also said with regard to bullet weight, "...in and of itself". There is no reason to reduce velocity in a .454 below 1400 fps whether using the original 300 gr. XTP version or the Magnum XTP version. I've used both at muzzle velocities from 1380 to 1550 fps on deer, brush country hogs, and African plains game up through African lion.
I've been reflecting back on it as I type, and I don't recall one animal moving more than a step or two. All were DRT. I have however had the less than wonderful experience of using a lighter weight bullet and following a hog into the brush country.

The OP asked for recommendations, and got some. We all have different experiences in our portfolio, and he and you are certainly free to use what you want. Personally, I rely on my own experiences, not the myths etc. you suggest some may use.

To add to the confusion, every single animal is a law unto itself...... Just thought I'd throw that out there! LOL!

Again, I don't think you can really go wrong with either, but I would lean more towards the 300 grain XTP.

This is a very true statement. Just when you think you have it figured out................something shatters your hypothesis.

No, my question is regarding the assumption that heavier weight results in less tracking. I understand and mentioned the difference in cast and expanding bullets.

The only reduction in velocity I was referring to was that heavier bullets tend to have a lower velocity that lighter bullets. Not......that one needed to intentionally reduce velocity. Just that, as weight increases, velocity decreases. How much can obviously vary due to design and weight difference. So, I'm not saying that you "have" to reduce velocity. Just that, a 300gr bullet will generally travel slower than a 240gr bullet when both are driven to optimal performance. It's physics. There is only so much powder capacity in a given case.

So my question still stands. How does increased bullet weight equate to less tracking on deer sized game (up to 200 pounds as posted)? I'm interested in learning.

I understand that bullet design (meplate) can play a roll in the displacement of tissue and the resulting hydraulic/hydrostatic shock. But in the case of the OP, as you pointed out........he is referring to the same XTP bullet in simply a different weight. So, the difference in bullet design (meplate) is negligible to my mind.

In the case being discussed. Same bullet design but different weight. Game animals up to 200 pounds. How does a 300gr bullet equate to less tracking than a 240gr bullet?

Personal preference aside, as I already mentioned that I am usually a heavy for caliber bullet kinda guy. I'm not arguing for or against either!

I'm just wanting us to expound on our answers. We learn more that way as a group. You say it does..........I ask why.

Friendly conversation.

We appear to have a discrepancy. A heavier weight and the meager doe still ran 30 yards.

Whitworth said it best, I believe. Every animal is a lesson unto itself. There are very few absolutes outside of physics when discussing terminal performance.

To my mind, that just means I need more data. Guess I'll just have to go gather more test subjects. It's tough, but somebody has to do it.

:-)

That's the spirit ;-)

Here is a example.I'm 220# not 200 but close enough. No world champion boxer up to a 150# can knock me out and he has speed on his side.Now I feel there is a fair chance that a champ at 175 will at least put me down and 180# put me out though both will have a slower punch.In a round about way its what TKO is all about.A 200#der would be hard pressed to knock out Klitschko.

Formula's have never meant much to me.
They are interesting to some degree, but that is where it ends.
Actual performance on game is what I'm looking for.
I guess I am not much into theory.
I have killed elk with a fairly large spread of bullet weights (from a 120 grains on up/bottleneck cartridges) and calibers.
Back to straight-wall:
On a deer If can penetrate at least one shoulder (if needed) and then wipe out the heart/lung area-The more violent the better for me, I am a happy camper.

Then, by your example, since the 300gr XTP failed to TKO the original poster's deer................do we need to use a 400gr bullet instead?

A few seasons ago, I shot a whitetail doe with a 500gr RNSP from a .458 Win Mag at about 50 yards. The doe jumped in the air, turned, and ran approximately 50 yards with a hand size exit hole in her ribs and insides hanging out. The bullet bisected the lungs and exited in front of the diaphragm on the off side. However, the temporary cavity created by suck a mastic hydrostatic shock, ruptured the diaphragm and shredded the liver. Being as the liver is not a pliable organ (like the lungs) and highly susceptible to tearing. A .458 Win Mag...........with a 500 gr bullet and she ran.

Conversely, about 20-30 minutes prior to that, I'd shot a doe with a .375 Ruger and a 270gr Spire Point bullet. She was quartering to me at maybe 100 ish yards. At the shot, she crumpled to the ground. That bullet struck the point of the shoulder and passed just below the spine. The impact of hitting bone and the disruption of the nervous system by the hydrostatic shock caused instant incapacitation and unconsciousness. She died of her wounds before regaining consciousness.

I'll go ahead and say it. It's not what you use for the most part. It's where you put it. Weight does not equate to less tracking just because it weighs more. If a 500gr .458cal bullet from a .458 Win Mag does not drop a whitetail doe, you cannot emphatically say that a 300gr XTP from a .44/.45 caliber handgun will drop a deer any better than a 240gr bullet from the same gun.

It might........it might not.

I dropped a boar pushing close to 300 pounds a couple months ago with one shot of an 85gr 6mm bullet from a 6x45 cartridge at around 200 yards. One shot, he hit the ground squealing. A bullet through the spine.

Ain't what you use, it's where you put it.

But, even that is not an absolute. Without proper penetration, the rest is moot.

Heavier weight does not equate to less tracking in and of itself. It can assuredly help because of the increased penetration it may provide. But, just because it's heavier, does not mean it will. There are too many other factors and variables to consider.

Of all the good reasons to suggest and recommend a heavy for caliber bullet, less tracking is not a realistic one in my opinion. Not when there are more viable reasons to suggest it.

Again, this is in NO WAY presented to be demeaning or spitefully argumentative. It's a discussion. We all have opinions and views. Experiences and thoughts. I'm just sharing mine and enjoy reading others.

I understand where you are going with this, but I have to disagree with this analogy as a former prize fighter. Punchers that can hurt you can be in any weight class. However, typically the real heavy punching starts at about 160-lbs - in my experience. I fought from middleweight through light heavyweight and sparred everything from flyweights up well into the heavyweights, and nothing was as rough as the middleweight division. They have the punch of the heavier categories and the speed of the lower categories -- this is a painful combination to face. No one in two decades ever hit me as hard as a 158-pounder who was nearly 6'4" and as thin as a rail (think Tommy Hearns). Unless you have trained to be hit, you cannot predict that a 175-pounder "will at least put you down." I don't think Klitschko would be particularly hard to knock out for other heavyweights, if he wouldn't tie fighters up when they get close. He is hard to knock out because he is hard to hit. Don't get me wrong, he's a sturdy guy, but he has longevity because he avoids punishment.

I'm just under 210 now and in pretty good shape. I can still brawl, but I was a lot more dangerous 35-lbs ago.

I hope the other ex-prizefighter tradmark weighs in on this.....

Sorry for the thread hijacking!

SEAK, i get you're analogy, though i'd take issue with what you wrote. first, I'd place good money that ANY world champ at any weight class would knock you out without any trouble. i was a former pro fighter at 147lbs and now i'm 265 and bp over 500lbs and total over 1850lbs and i don't hit as hard as i did then at 147. not even close! obviously you've never ever fought a good pro. if you're in texas i'll lay a nice hunting revolver at your feet if you can last 10 rounds with my son who's a good amateur at 165#. sorry for any thread hijacking.

Yep I left out from 150# to 175# for a reason:).Yes I can take blows to the head well but can't take anything to the gut.Most all my experience is without gloves and that would be the bet if it happened.. Boxing gloves protect the hands for sure but the extra weight adds to the punch for sure.