User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 9:56:00 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How are 77 grain bullets on coyotes compared to 50-55 grain BT?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 9:57:06 PM EDT
[#2]
IMHO the military should have just upgraded the general use ammo to 70+ grain bullets at 5.56 pressures and rolled with it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 9:58:10 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: See thread linked below. Beat me to it. It will change your mind on caliber and bullet selection forever. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Just move to an intermediate cartridge for game application. Shooting a Elk or a moose is not a great idea. See thread linked below. Beat me to it. It will change your mind on caliber and bullet selection forever. I've culled several dozen deer with 223s and don't like hunting with it unless I'm passing on a lot of marginal shots. I have no doubt it can be done. I don't think it's a great practice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 10:01:32 PM EDT
[#4]
I've shot 45 to 69gr 223 but never 77. I hear they are great for long distance accuracy. Can they load from a magazine? IIC years ago I was told 77 were too long for that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 10:01:48 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They are about the same price nowadays No, they're not. 55s can be had for ~13c cpr 77s are gonna be 30cpr if you get a good deal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 10:02:49 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote History |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 10:03:25 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you want to make the case that a 130 gr. .357 is an awesome elk round, please carry on. That sounds like a Physical Challenge! They're so cute compared to moose, like a a caribou on Tren 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 10:03:26 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: False, 70 Gr TSX is best grain. Alas, way more ‘spensive than 77gr. JMO. ETA: 62 gr TTSX also rocks. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 77gr is best grain. False, 70 Gr TSX is best grain. Alas, way more ‘spensive than 77gr. JMO. ETA: 62 gr TTSX also rocks. This. I love some 77s, but I have seen enough 70gr TSX to be a believer in its terminal performance |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 10:03:39 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not tipped just hollow point yeah the TMKs have been gone for a long time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 10:04:25 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not tipped just hollow point Quote HistoryQuoted: Not tipped just hollow point My mistake |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 10:06:37 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've been shooting Black Hill 69gr SMKs for years. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yes. I'll even settle for 69 gr. I've been shooting Black Hill 69gr SMKs for years. IMI stuff has treated me right so far. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 10:06:58 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've shot 45 to 69gr 223 but never 77. I hear they are great for long distance accuracy. Can they load from a magazine? IIC years ago I was told 77 were too long for that. the non tipped 77s will mag load 2.26" pretty easily TMKs and the tipped hornady ones will need to be set back. Completely different profile ETA ^ this is ar15 info wrt mags length my bolt gun has AICS so we go all the way long there |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 10:07:29 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Heck, you tube has tons of "gel test" vidoes showing how mucb mkre effective the 70+ grain loadings are. Well said! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 10:09:23 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 77g TMKs will fuck everything up. From paper targets at 600 yards to elk/moose.  Let's not oversell a 22 cal, mkay. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 10:10:51 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've shot 45 to 69gr 223 but never 77. I hear they are great for long distance accuracy. Can they load from a magazine? IIC years ago I was told 77 were too long for that. You can load Hornady 73 ELD-M and Hornady 75 grain BTHP, Sierra and Nosler 77 BTHP, Sierra 77TMK, to mag length. You generally can't do this with any 80, or with the Hornady 75 ELD-M. I have no clue about Bergers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 10:11:20 PM EDT
[#16]
LOL
Ummmmm, do you guys not know that AAC/PSA has been selling 77gr TMK's for sometime now? As I'm posting this, they are in stock. $16.99 a box ($0.85/rnd). https://palmettostatearmory.com/aac-5-56-nato-77-grain-sierra-tmk-20rd-box-ammunition.html Lots of discussions about this ammo in the Ammunition forum. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 10:12:54 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: LOL Ummmmm, do you guys not know that AAC/PSA has been selling 77gr TMK's for sometime now? As I'm posting this, they are in stock. $16.99 a box ($0.85/rnd). https://palmettostatearmory.com/aac-5-56-nato-77-grain-sierra-tmk-20rd-box-ammunition.html Lots of discussions about this ammo in the Ammunition forum. Stop it! If people quit buying that, *maybe* I could snag a box of component bullets. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 10:20:50 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: LOL Ummmmm, do you guys not know that AAC/PSA has been selling 77gr TMK's for sometime now? As I'm posting this, they are in stock. $16.99 a box ($0.85/rnd). https://palmettostatearmory.com/aac-5-56-nato-77-grain-sierra-tmk-20rd-box-ammunition.html Lots of discussions about this ammo in the Ammunition forum. We just want the pointy end. Not all the other bits. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 10:21:20 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Stop it! If people quit buying that, *maybe* I could snag a box of component bullets. Just the bullets? Oh...sorry....dude. I'm guessing PSA probably has ALL of them now. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 10:25:55 PM EDT
[#20]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 10:28:21 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted: 77g TMKs will fuck everything up. From paper targets at 600 yards to elk/moose. Let's not oversell a 22 cal, mkay. [/quote Does fine if you do your part.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 10:31:30 PM EDT
[#22]
77 gr is king, but the 75gr Hornady BTHPs are damn close and a lot cheaper when reloading. 75gr are fine for 3 gun out to 600 yards. For x ring type shooting, 77 all day long.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 10:31:33 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I did. There are a bunch of disagreements on the 77 applicability for big game. It's a bad choice for big game. I gave you the physics of the situation. I know physics is hard, but take a look. 8 feet of drop at 600 yards, 355 ft. lbs. Yikes. No cartridge on the planet "fucks above its class." It is physically impossible. All cartridges perform exactly as they are expected to perform based on physics. Claims like that are precisely why we have ballistics tables. It separates the men from the boys, as they say. By comparison, the lowly .30-06 w/100 yard zero with a 165 gr. Rem. AccuTip drops 90", but retains 1075 ft. lbs. http://gundata.org/blog/post/30-06-ballistics-chart/ 355 ft. lbs. vs. 1075 ft. lbs. THREE TIMES THE ENERGY at 600 yds. Huh. If you'd like, we can discuss Ballistic Coefficient. But it involves more physics. Foot pounds and energy don’t kill. Terminal damage does. By your logic a bow and arrow or spear won’t kill a deer because it doesn’t have enough foot pounds to do so. Actually read the thread, not just a few posts. Funny how you mention BC as that’s leading right into why these projectiles work better than traditional hunting bullets. And yes, as shown multiple, multiple times in that thread. .223 fucks above its class with heavy for caliber, high BC match bullets. There is even a cheat sheet on the top of page one for you if reading isn’t your thing. But the real technical stuff involving BC and bullet construction you’ll actually have to read a bit to find. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 10:31:53 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've heard several guys on podcast mention that when they shot people with 62 grain they kept going. 77grain dropped them fast. 855 drops folks just fine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 10:32:19 PM EDT
[#25]
75’s and 77’s do good work. If it’s a distance thing just step into the 308 AR world. It’s not expensive anymore.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 10:32:29 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I sent my son at 14 to a sniper class with a 16" Colt and 77 grain with a Vortex 1-6. He consistently hit steel at 950 yards. Yep, Great stuff. Regardless that is great shooting. He sounds like a natural. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 10:33:07 PM EDT
[#27]
According to DJ Shipley, it is. He should know.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 10:33:50 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I did. There are a bunch of disagreements on the 77 applicability for big game. It's a bad choice for big game. I gave you the physics of the situation. I know physics is hard, but take a look. 8 feet of drop at 600 yards, 355 ft. lbs. Yikes. No cartridge on the planet "fucks above its class." It is physically impossible. All cartridges perform exactly as they are expected to perform based on physics. Claims like that are precisely why we have ballistics tables. It separates the men from the boys, as they say. By comparison, the lowly .30-06 w/100 yard zero with a 165 gr. Rem. AccuTip drops 90", but retains 1075 ft. lbs. http://gundata.org/blog/post/30-06-ballistics-chart/ 355 ft. lbs. vs. 1075 ft. lbs. THREE TIMES THE ENERGY at 600 yds. Huh. If you'd like, we can discuss Ballistic Coefficient. But it involves more physics. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Read the rokslide thread above. It’s bullet selection and design not foot pounds. 77Gr TMK/ELDM fucks above its class. I did. There are a bunch of disagreements on the 77 applicability for big game. It's a bad choice for big game. I gave you the physics of the situation. I know physics is hard, but take a look. 8 feet of drop at 600 yards, 355 ft. lbs. Yikes. No cartridge on the planet "fucks above its class." It is physically impossible. All cartridges perform exactly as they are expected to perform based on physics. Claims like that are precisely why we have ballistics tables. It separates the men from the boys, as they say. By comparison, the lowly .30-06 w/100 yard zero with a 165 gr. Rem. AccuTip drops 90", but retains 1075 ft. lbs. http://gundata.org/blog/post/30-06-ballistics-chart/ 355 ft. lbs. vs. 1075 ft. lbs. THREE TIMES THE ENERGY at 600 yds. Huh. If you'd like, we can discuss Ballistic Coefficient. But it involves more physics. Why do you think energy matters for killing big game? Do you think the bullet transfers its energy to the elk, and pushes the life force out the other side or something? Opening holes up so blood gets where air should be and air gets where blood should be is how things get killed, and energy is a poor predictor for how well a bullet will do that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 10:38:39 PM EDT
[#29]
It all depends on how far you're shooting, what your precision expectations are, and how much you want to spend.
There's a reason match bullets and ammunition cost more. If you never intend to shoot past 200 yards and you want tiny groups you can put fast 50-55 grain benchrest bullets into bug-holes. If you want to ensure you cover out to 300 try Sierra 69s. If you want to consistently hit man-size targets without lots of work try 73s to 77s. There's no free lunch. 55 and 62 FMJ Ball will go bang and hit big targets to 300. You'll have to work harder to hit little targets or not get blown around too much by wind to 400. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 10:43:11 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why do you think energy matters for killing big game? Do you think the bullet transfers its energy to the elk, and pushes the life force out the other side or something? Opening holes up so blood gets where air should be and air gets where blood should be is how things get killed, and energy is a poor predictor for how well a bullet will do that. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Read the rokslide thread above. It’s bullet selection and design not foot pounds. 77Gr TMK/ELDM fucks above its class. I did. There are a bunch of disagreements on the 77 applicability for big game. It's a bad choice for big game. I gave you the physics of the situation. I know physics is hard, but take a look. 8 feet of drop at 600 yards, 355 ft. lbs. Yikes. No cartridge on the planet "fucks above its class." It is physically impossible. All cartridges perform exactly as they are expected to perform based on physics. Claims like that are precisely why we have ballistics tables. It separates the men from the boys, as they say. By comparison, the lowly .30-06 w/100 yard zero with a 165 gr. Rem. AccuTip drops 90", but retains 1075 ft. lbs. http://gundata.org/blog/post/30-06-ballistics-chart/ 355 ft. lbs. vs. 1075 ft. lbs. THREE TIMES THE ENERGY at 600 yds. Huh. If you'd like, we can discuss Ballistic Coefficient. But it involves more physics. Why do you think energy matters for killing big game? Do you think the bullet transfers its energy to the elk, and pushes the life force out the other side or something? Opening holes up so blood gets where air should be and air gets where blood should be is how things get killed, and energy is a poor predictor for how well a bullet will do that. Energy is a useful predictor of what might happen when bone is encountered. I'm not obsessed with exit wounds but I do appreciate them. I had a very hard time getting exit wounds on 200lbs deer. If they don't strike bone they would get caught by the offside hide. The tmk is a good bullet but it's also not great from a 20" barrel inside 50 yards. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 10:47:55 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Let's not oversell a 22 cal, mkay. [/quote Does fine if you do your part. Quote fail :) I'm just saying, it's a .556; let's not make it something it's not (moose killer). :) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 10:52:07 PM EDT
[#32]
I guess in some weird contrived scenario, I’d shoot an elk or moose in the throat with a TMK and expect it to perform fine. But that’s really just because it’s easy to kill things in general when they’re shot in the throat, let alone with any rifle round.
It’s also almost the last way I’d prefer to carry out the task of big game hunting too short of just squaring up and fighting the moose lol there are so many better cartridges and projectiles to be selecting from for this that it’s silly to even entertain the hypothetical. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 11:00:14 PM EDT
[#33]
Sticking with 62 grain gold dots.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 11:31:56 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote fail :) I'm just saying, it's a .556; let's not make it something it's not (moose killer). :)  Also kills bou,bear,seal and walrus fine. Just limit on how far and where you shoot them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 11:35:05 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote fail :) I'm just saying, it's a .556; let's not make it something it's not (moose killer). :) Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Let's not oversell a 22 cal, mkay. [/quote Does fine if you do your part. Quote fail :) I'm just saying, it's a .556; let's not make it something it's not (moose killer). :) Moose, dead by .223 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 11:35:21 PM EDT
[#36]
I have other ARs but the only one I have shot for years is my JP PSC-11 rifle with a 1:8" twist. I reload with REDDING Type S Match Bushing Full Dies on a Dillon press. It hates 55gr. and below. As you go up the scale it gets more and more happy. Shooting 69gr. and 75 gr are impressive but with 77gr. match it truly shines. I can produce .330" groups with it. It really is in a higher class. I have a lot of fun pushing myself to shoot as well as my rifle. The rifle has top charging and side charging systems. A trip to the range and you will never use the top charging system again. It is the most useless thing on my rifle.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 11:41:31 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryThese are what I shoot. I used to buy them Molly coated but they don't make them anymore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 11:47:21 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How are 77 grain bullets on coyotes compared to 50-55 grain BT? Projectile weight is only one piece of that puzzle. There are a ton of 77gr .224 projectiles. Some perform well terminally, others may not. Velocity (and by default barrel length) is a factor as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 11:49:57 PM EDT
[#39]
If it's so great how come .mil hasn't completely replaced it over 55gr or 62gr?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 11:55:04 PM EDT
[#40]
I shot a bunch of 77gr SMK handloads today out to 600yards. They do so much better against the wind and really do extend the range of the cartridge.
I shot 62gr BTHPs out to 600 as well out of a (12”) SBR, by chance both shoot almost the exact same muzzle velocity at 2660fps vs 2664fps. The difference in sound alone on steel at that distance is something to behold as the 77s just hold velocity so much better. Not an apples to apples comparison given the different barrel lengths, but I do think it’s interesting to see 2 bullet weights at the same velocity and how the down range performance drops off so quickly with the lighter bullet. (Ignore the drops as I use a 50yd zero on my 12”) 77gr SMKs.  vs 62gr which shed an extra 300fps by the time they get to 500yards.  That said, the 69gr bullets have been treating me very well lately in some of my other rifles. There are some slippery projectiles in that range and it’s a bit easier to crank up the velocity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 12:08:44 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The 77 gr. Sierra Matchking has 96" (that's 8 feet, gentlemen) of drop at 600 yds w/200 yd. zero, and retains a whopping 355 ft. lbs. of energy. By comparison, a lightweight 130 gr. bullet from a .357 magnum has 373 ft. lbs. at 100 yds. If you want to make the case that a 130 gr. .357 is an awesome elk round, please carry on. https://www.sierrabullets.com/223-remington-77-grain-matchking-trajectory-chart/ If you are playing the long-range game you are correct. However, that is not the .223s game. I've been using the.25-06 for deer for 50 years and it has never failed me. I also used the venerable .30-06 with a 200 gr. bullet to bag my moose in Alaska. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 12:14:01 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've shot 45 to 69gr 223 but never 77. I hear they are great for long distance accuracy. Can they load from a magazine? IIC years ago I was told 77 were too long for that. They feed just fine. Now if you want to go higher in weight, you might have to shoot single shot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 12:19:33 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/113559/IMG_5478_jpeg-2895011.JPG prone with bipod and rear bag DD LW 16 inch barrel and Razor 1-6 https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/113559/IMG_5045_jpeg-2895013.JPG Nice 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 12:48:54 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I did. There are a bunch of disagreements on the 77 applicability for big game. It's a bad choice for big game. I gave you the physics of the situation. I know physics is hard, but take a look. 8 feet of drop at 600 yards, 355 ft. lbs. Yikes. No cartridge on the planet "fucks above its class." It is physically impossible. All cartridges perform exactly as they are expected to perform based on physics. Claims like that are precisely why we have ballistics tables. It separates the men from the boys, as they say. By comparison, the lowly .30-06 w/100 yard zero with a 165 gr. Rem. AccuTip drops 90", but retains 1075 ft. lbs. http://gundata.org/blog/post/30-06-ballistics-chart/ 355 ft. lbs. vs. 1075 ft. lbs. THREE TIMES THE ENERGY at 600 yds. Huh. If you'd like, we can discuss Ballistic Coefficient. But it involves more physics. Is there someone suggesting that .223/5.56 should be used on Elk at 600 yards? Why do you keep bringing this up? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 12:51:44 AM EDT
[#45]
Op never hunts
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 12:56:28 AM EDT
[#46]
55g for practice and all around range use.
62g soft point bonded core for CQ, ideal with SBR’s. 77g gives the AR longer legs, makes it effective out to 600 yards. Really shines in an 18” barrel with 1/8 twist. M855 is great for trading for any of the three above or for demonstrating shitty accuracy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 1:05:19 AM EDT
[#47]
Idk about a different class. I use 77s in my sbrs though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 1:11:18 AM EDT
[#48]
Pricewise?
I flinch and shake when I see the price on a box of 77 gr. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 1:11:26 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: Is there someone suggesting that .223/5.56 should be used on Elk at 600 yards? Why do you keep bringing this up? On the last page "77g TMKs will fuck everything up. From paper targets at 600 yards to elk/moose." He's not saying elk and moose at 600 yards but it is in the same sentence and seems to be implying it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 1:11:49 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: When rounds like the 6.5x55 and 30-06 (30-03) were interdicted they had extremely heavy for caliber bullets. "Interdicted"??? noun /'in(t)?r?dik(t)/ an authoritative prohibition. "an interdict against marriage of those of close kin" /?in(t)?r'dikt/ prohibit or forbid (something). "society will never interdict sex" intercept and prevent the movement of (a prohibited commodity or person). "the police established roadblocks throughout the country for interdicting drugs" |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
