close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

hardcast 200gr vs 230gr

Discussion in 'The 10 Ring' started by JeremyInMT, Jun 29, 2012.


  1. JeremyInMT

    JeremyInMT
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 16, 2012
    36
    0
    I was looking at hardcast ammo and bought some DT 200gr and 230gr as they were the same price. I've shot both and don't notice much of a difference but that could be because I'm a novice. Can someone tell me which would be better to woods carry? Maybe no difference? If I don't get a few replies I'll mention that we have bears around here and see if that helps, lol.
     

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. Taterhead

    Taterhead
    Expand Collapse
    Counting Beans

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    3,582
    98
    Location:
    Boise, Idaho
    The WFNGC hardcast is a good choice. I personally prefer the 200 grain weight because you have diminishing returns gowing heavier.

    I would suggest collecting a whole bunch of different stuff to shoot them with and then decide. Milk jugs filled with water, leather, wood, meat. Just pile a bunch of crap in front of water jugs and you will find that they punch a pretty nice and deep hole. Just put a lot of water-filled milk jugs as a backstop because they will plow through several. Either should have plenty of penetration for black bear, although I feel that the 200 might have the edge.
     

  3. Opie 1 Kenopie

    Opie 1 Kenopie
    Expand Collapse
    Regular Guy

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    1,789
    3
    Location:
    Still Stuck in the Suck--Central CA
    Is anyone shooting limited quantities of WFNGC through a stock G20 barrel? I'm not interested in aftermarket stuff for my new 20SF right now, but I'm always looking for the best deep woods round. Im currently hiking with some classic Swampfox 200 gr. XTPs. Thanks for any replies
     
    #3 Opie 1 Kenopie, Jun 30, 2012
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2012
  4. CanyonMan

    CanyonMan
    Expand Collapse
    In The Saddle

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    5,707
    9
    Over 14/15 years, I have shot a truck load of Hard Cast bullets through the stock G20. All makes and models (of HC) but mostly 200gr WFNGC Beartooth.. Never an issue and no problems, and run from 1150/1300+ with Blue Dot and 2400.

    I believe it is "Yondering," here on GT, that shoots a ton of lead for years and years through his G21.

    Use good quality Hard Cast, with proper lube and no worries !

    The 200gr'ers work far better in the 10mm in 'any barrel' IMO than the 220gr. I am not (after a good deal of testing) a fan of the 220gr in the 10mm..

    Go have fun and enjoy your gun amigo ! ;)







    CM
     
    #4 CanyonMan, Jun 30, 2012
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2012
  5. hillbillyhans

    hillbillyhans
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2012
    49
    1
    Any reason why? What have you found on the 200 vs. 220/230? Was mulling over the purchase of some 230gr.
     
  6. robert91922

    robert91922
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    430
    0
    Location:
    Slovenia, Europe
    230gr bullets are too long for 10mm auto cases. Not enough space left for powder. Prolonging OAL to 1.270 or more leads to fail-to-feed problems. Plus such long rounds w. wide meplat often stuck in Glock magazine.
    IMHO 200gr HC bullets are optimal for powerful 10mm hunting loads w. good penetration. I developed such ammo w. 212gr HC Target bullets, cause couldn't get 200gr.
    But, YMMV. Try it on your own, maybe you'll make it better. HC bullets are not expensive, if I could buy them I would try 220 or 230gr as well.
    my 2 c :cool:
     
    #6 robert91922, Jul 1, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2012
  7. CanyonMan

    CanyonMan
    Expand Collapse
    In The Saddle

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    5,707
    9

    Amigo, Not trying to back out on ya here, but for 'my' time sake ( which I have 'very little of at present'). I am hardly able to get on here long enough to type this at times lately....

    Do a search on this form and the 10mm reloading forum especially, and on CC forum. I have a pretty fair number of postings in lengthy details covering our test results and "why" concerning NO 220gr in the 10mm.

    Yes you can is the short answer... But the long detailed answer for you I would appreciate you doing tje search for now. Again, There are several pretty long detailed post of "mine" and I do think if you search all three places mentioned above here you'll find them. I would start with 10mm reloading forum first.

    If you don't find them after a good shot at it, then PM me and I will try to find them and cut paste them on the PM for you...


    Just would take me a great deal of time to type all that up again.. Your important, and your question is important, and I will get the answer to you if you can't find all those post through the search. Please let me know either way ok ?


    PS... The Boys in the above post gave ya some real good advice/reasons/answers already ! ;)



    Let me know if can or if ya can't, find those test reports post ok?





    Thanks pard.










    CM
     
    #7 CanyonMan, Jul 1, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2012
  8. hillbillyhans

    hillbillyhans
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2012
    49
    1
    The length thing makes sense to me. Always wanting a heavier projectile. I love the Underwood 200gr. XTP though. Maybe I'll just get 100rds of some 230gr to try out. I live in WY, I am a realist, and know the only "grizz defense gun" is a 12ga with slugs. Still, bigger if better in a sidearm.

    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
     
  9. CanyonMan

    CanyonMan
    Expand Collapse
    In The Saddle

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    5,707
    9
    hillbillyhans,


    Sent ya a PM....





    CM
     
  10. Any Cal.

    Any Cal.
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2008
    442
    0
    Canyon Man is probably referring to this post... http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18234381&postcount=7 where he says that 220g can't reach 1K fps in a 6" bbl safely, and that it isn't accurate enough to bother with due to issues w/ tumbling, etc.

    -Edit- this was from a similar thread I started, before I knew anything about 200 or 220+g bullets in a 10mm. Thread here... http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1384905 Now that I know a bit more, I only shoot the heavyweights.

    I don't agree with most of that in the least, and have been running 225g bullets at 1115 for my plinking load out of a 5.3" bbl. These run fine out of the stock barrel as well, though they are on the edge of showing pressure. If I lighten up a bit, they still run 1035 out of the stock 4.6" bbl w/ no signs of pressure. When I want to ramp things up a bit, I run 225s @ 1190 out of the 5.3" bbl, which is a load that starts to smile some in the stock barrel.

    All of this info doesn't matter in the least though if you are shooting DT ammo, and not just loading their components.

    If you are loading your own, you really need to decide what levels of overpressure you are comfortable with, and work within that limit. Even if you work with a stock barrel, you can still get over 1K fps with a 225ish bullet, probably even below SAAMI spec pressures, considering how the brass looks.
     
    #10 Any Cal., Jul 1, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2012
  11. Yondering

    Yondering
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2011
    564
    0
    Since the question in the first post was about DT ammo, not handloads... Does anyone know what velocity those 200 and 230 DT loads actually produce?

    My target velocity for a WFN type bullet is 1200 fps at impact, and generally choose the heaviest bullet weight that will get there. Depending on range, that means 1250-1300 fps muzzle velocity. I wouldn't be surprised if the DT 230 WFN load only does 1,000 fps from a G20 barrel. Between the DT 200 and 230 loads, I'd choose the 200 for this reason.

    Handloads are a whole different story.
     
  12. hillbillyhans

    hillbillyhans
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2012
    49
    1
    I couldn't produce the information again(tried to find it), but thought I read the DT 230's were at 1100(think this was from the muzzle though)? I'd be using a 6" bbl so that might bring it up into your target range (happens to be mine as well). As I don't reload yet, I'm still looking for production ammo as well.

    That being said, some of the points made in the posts CanyonMan pointed out make sense, although I haven't been totally turned off by them. My biggest concern is accuracy. If I can't hit anything, even with diminished velocity, it is of no use to me to have a heavier bullet.

    A 50yd. bench test ought to weed out some of these concerns. If the ammo doesn't fly right, it should be noticable.
     
  13. Yondering

    Yondering
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2011
    564
    0
    That's DT's advertised velocity though; actual velocity may be quite different. The 6" barrel will help of course.

    I'd like to know what 220gr bullets CanyonMan was testing that gave such bad results. I'm suspecting it was one of the common TC designs, not a WFN. The TC design does take up more case capacity, and sometimes gives poor accuracy too, IME.

    There's nothing specific about a 220gr 10mm bullet that has to result in poor accuracy or low velocity, it depends a lot on bullet design. I've posted here before that I'm pushing my own 220gr cast WFN bullets to 1300+ fps from my 6.6" barrel, with great accuracy and reliability. That's outside the scope of your question though...

    Granted, a big part of accuracy is consistency of bullet size and hardness, and who knows where DT's WFN bullets are in those respects?
     
  14. Any Cal.

    Any Cal.
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2008
    442
    0
    The one YouTube vid I found a long time ago showed DTs 230s running in the 900s from a stock G20 bbl. 930ish? I wouldn't expect more than 1000 or so out of the 6" barrel.

    I haven't shot their loaded ammo, so can't really comment on it.

    -Edit- That is why I said above that if you are shooting their loaded ammo, it doesn't matter, you are sort of locked into whatever they produce. If using their components to make your own, you have a lot more choices.
     
    #14 Any Cal., Jul 2, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2012
  15. CanyonMan

    CanyonMan
    Expand Collapse
    In The Saddle

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    5,707
    9


    Hey amigo...



    I have to go public here in a very humble way and appologize. A dead brain and a typo caused all this fuss....It was a 230gr bullet NOT a 220gr bullet. We were sent a box of it to test from a GT'er. It was DT's 230gr. So my sincere regrets and appology to everyone on this forum and on GT...


    Man I'm getting old !


    All the testing was done and documented on CC forum a year or 2 ago. I truly had it in my mind this was a 220, NAY, it was their 230gr ! :embarassed:

    Well, I'll just have to eat a plate of crowcause I am not going back to dig up all those post and documented test and change it all, so let it be known here and now that all MY post concerning the testing 3 of us did on the 220gr HC bullet, in in fact a 230gr HC bullet. !!!

    Here are some things (Below) I just wrote for THIS post, but I got to thinking about it, and went back and looked and uh oh, it was 230gr.

    You can dig that up on CC from yester year if your a mind to.

    I pulled all my post on there (about a year ago) for over a year worth of posting on one thread, "furniture bullet penetration" thread on cc), because of personal reasons and some unfortunate difficulties and conflicts that came up, so if ya see my stuff 'blank' that is why. Probably another stupid thing I did in 'haste."

    I sure am sorry.


    But, I STILL do not reccomend 220 or 230gr in the 10mm anyway, and see no sense in it over a 200gr HC at 1300+fps.


    I can see how you 'ANYCAL" arrived at your vels for a 220/225gr but we could not make it work with the 230gr.


    Here is what I "just wrote to you" (see below) and then looked at my load notes and saw it was indeed the DT 230gr not 220gr.

    SOOO, had to come back and change it... I didn't have to do all this and look like a moron, just thought it the right thing to do !


    ANYCAL:

    We used the worst looking HC bullet I have seen in almost 50 years. It was a DT (component box of 100) Three of us worked on this for a long long time. The bullets were all very crude, and VERY uneven in their weight. 220/230/215 etc etc..

    We worked with the two powders (after weeding out several other on the public market) that a scienticfic computer model from a friend of mine that worked at Sierra Bullets pushed through for us. He helps design bullets for them and writes their loading manual. He did the same thing for Barnes before he went to Sierra. I would suppose he knows a couple of things. We have worked with him many times over the years in a great deal of arenas ballistically speaking...

    Keep in mind we presented him with several popular on the public market powders to try this with. All fell through and we got down to only a couple, and then one.


    What the above post says "by me" is the way it is/was.. I cannot add to it and will not subtract from it, as it took 3 of us a good deal of time and effort to arrive at all the conclusions we arrived at. **** NOTE.. Except it should read 230gr NOT 220gr

    I can assure you that the 220gr (should read 230gr) bullet in a 10mm G20 will not out shoot a 200gr in the same as for accuracy or longer range especially. It is just not a good choice ballistically speaking, and has little advantage in this case senerio for any real practical use at the vels other than 'close range' deer.

    But you cannot throw out the labor and testing and results of three men, each with about 50 years of doing this behind them and some computer model that is used by one of the leading bullet manufactures in the industry to run the test they run in house in order to produce their bullets in quality and reputation, and then test them to the closest perfection possible and write it up in their own load book.

    Again folks... This is for a 230gr. But still applies to the 220gr as well. Not enough case capacity to be as useful as the 200gr.

    Plus the TIME and effort of 3 men working on this and doing the hands on testing. It failed miserably and that is the way it was..../is. From the vels, to penetration through many different types of media. The 200gr won hands down over the "230gr". And I assure you it (the 200gr) will also be more useful in the 10mm than even the 220gr/or 230gr, for the reasons already mentioned by myself and others on "this" thread as well. ;)


    Again, I do not know what bullet your using at 225grs, but the figures (vels) your giving are not impressive enough for me to want to change from a 200gr HC at 1300+ to a 220 at your vels. I see no big deal in it. Or in the 230gr

    I am proud though, that you got those vels with the 220gr/225gr bullet. Good job.

    We could not "SAFELY" reccomend the 230gr at these vels of 1,000fps or more, and saw no need in it any way with these type vels comparied to using the proven 200gr WFNGC from beartooth.

    **** Because it was a 230gr. Again my mistake.

    But again, I say the same for the 220 vs 200gr.

    I literally threw the rest of these bullets in the trash. They were that bad. Perhaps a bumb box? I give the 'benefit of the doubt to the product'. But this box we had was the pits in every way, most were not even lubed and the lube was loose in the box...

    But again, I'll take the 200 at 1300+ over the 220 at 1035/1090/1115fps, or a 230gr at 1,000 and less fps.

    And 'especially' when you lob these 220/NOW 230gr's out there at 50/75/100 yds. There ain't much steam left when it gets there at these vels. The 200gr takes (Texas deer) any way, at 100yds very nicely, and shoots much flatter. The 200gr is still going to get the better penetration at 1300+ than the 220/230gr at their vels.


    But, I will still stand on the fact that the 220gr has no advantage I see over the 200gr at 1300+ fps. The latter is flatter shooting and has more long range down range thump than the 220/230gr.

    Well everyone. I cannot make it any more clear than that. What a way to get up in the morning and eat crow for breakfast.! :faint:

    I do not usually ever make a loading typo mistake like that when doing these things, but obviously I had my mind on 220gr, when all my post should read 230gr :fred:

    But these are still my experience and thoughts on the 220gr/230 vs the 200gr Hard Cast bullets for the G20 10mm !

    Just for the record, we used Unique and at 1.260 to get to the 1,000 fps mark. Nothing else worked with the "230gr HC bulletto get here for us with the powders we suggestedto our friend at Sierra Bullets.


    I have done with it the best I could here.




    At least it is a very colorful post !! :supergrin:





    **** Edited out most of my color.. Over kill ! It was for "emphasis" but I suppose any one who wants to understand this can do so ! ;)




    CM
     
    #15 CanyonMan, Jul 2, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2012
  16. Any Cal.

    Any Cal.
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2008
    442
    0
    It is colorful! :D
     
    #16 Any Cal., Jul 2, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2012
  17. CanyonMan

    CanyonMan
    Expand Collapse
    In The Saddle

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    5,707
    9


    And also it's true... ;)





    Good shooting!








    CM
     
    #17 CanyonMan, Jul 2, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2012
  18. Yondering

    Yondering
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2011
    564
    0
    Since we've gone off talking about handloads...

    CM, not going to quote your whole post to reply to points in it, but I do have a few points to make:

    - You said the 200gr gave better accuracy than the 230, but also said the 230 bullets were really poor quality. Doesn't sound like a valid comparison to me, and in no way would I use that information to say 220/230gr bullets aren't as accurate as 200's. Bad bullets = bad accuracy.

    - Computer models are only as good as the data put in to them. I don't know your friend, but if the model is something used by Sierra bullets, very likely it's set up for jacketed bullets, not cast, because that's what they make. Two very different things. I'd agree that you probably can't get useful velocity in 10mm from a 230gr jacketed bullet, if there were such a thing.

    - What powders did you try? Did you use AA9 and Blue Dot? If not, I don't think you can say "it can't be done"; those two powders are the top choices for a heavy bullet 10mm load.

    - Actual differences in velocity between 200 and 220 gr cast handloads in the 10mm are not as much as your examples above. From my longslide 6.6" barrel, I can push 180's just over 1400 fps, or 220's a bit over 1300 fps. That 220 load is with AA9, which as you know is bulky enough to run out of powder volume before exceeding pressure limits; that load is at max case capacity.



    Long story short, with all due respect, I don't doubt your results, but do have reservations about the methods you used, and the conclusions you arrived at. Just the fact that Unique gave the best velocity tells us that something was weird with that experiment.
     
  19. CanyonMan

    CanyonMan
    Expand Collapse
    In The Saddle

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    5,707
    9


    Sorry you feel this way..

    I have no further need of explaination... These are not the only 230gr/220gr bullets I have fired amigo. This was just one example. Yes the program used was geared for HC bullets as well. my friend has a good deal of computer models he can set up, this stuff is expencive stuff and would be something we could pay our truck off with I guess... ha., and very sopisticated equipment. Nothing "weird" about it.

    I got nothing to prove, and no reputation to defend, so what I have shared is what we got.

    I'm not a novice amigo with a couple years under my belt . ;)


    I'd be real interested to know what your doing to get 1300fps out of the 220gr bullet. Wow I have not got that yet either...

    Care to share?


    It is amazing how folks that did not do a thing, always find a way to make it look like those who did are dead wrong, and don't seem to know what there doing...

    I have spent enough time already on this, and it is clear to me. I see Anycal does not believe it either by his 'no response' to my long and humble post of appology.. Hey, that's the world for ya. I can do something for over 45 years at the bench and work side by side with the best in the industry we've met over the years and had out to the ranch to shoot as guest etc, and grew up doing this out here, but that don't seem to count for much.

    I did not need to make a fool out of myself and admit a mistake, but it was the right thing to do.. Seems it don't count for much either here.

    We have tested Lord knows how many heavy weights, this was only ONE example. Yes they were crude and screwed, I agree results can be funky. BUT, each one we used weighed the exact same.. 230grs hand weighed and picked out of the bunch. Lube was redone on them and everything was as it should be.

    Again, I am real interested in how your getting 1300fps out of your 220gr. I get that out of my 200gr, but Man please share your load with us.

    I really have nothing else to add here amigo.

    The 220/230gr is a poor preformer in a 10mm and does not stand with the 200gr in vel/flatter shooting, or more way down range ability. This is what we have found over the years, and folks can take it or leave it.

    With all the powders presented to our very learned friend, the ONLY powder for consideration with the 230gr was Unique to even try to get 1,000fps. Nuff said there. No other powder was going to work safely to get to this vel... What is hard to under stand. If you can get 1,000fps with a 230gr HC then again share that load with us as well please.

    I truly do not know what else to tell ya. I test bullets 99% cast, for Cast bullet manufactures, and have 2,500 of them at present sent to me from one of them, Hunter Supply this time, to test 500 each in 5 different cals. I have not even had the time to hardly scratch the surface for him yet.

    I sure have not arrived, and have no claim to fame, or as I said any reputation to defend... I learned long ago there is a ton of peace in "Not having to be some body." I sure ain't, so try your own testing on media, and for vel, and in animals, and see what you get.

    We don't just get on a forum, we're doing it. Animals to various media, to watching what things do from a quarter century of guiding hunts, to my own experiences hunting.

    I come over here from time to time to share some things "I know," hoping it might help someone. I am about to the point of just dropping it all and going on. Don't seem to matter to much..


    Got no other answer for ya. Seems easy to understand to me.. :dunno: I see nothing strange or weird about anything we did in "this one senerio" we really poured orselves into it, and did all we were told and knew how, between 3 guys with each having around 45 to 50 years doing this all the time and for a living as well. From case capacity weighed with water in the case to powders, to the computer models to math, to shooting. It was all done the best we knew how, and the results "In this case" as are I shared them.

    I do not seem to be the only one around here who does not favor a bullet over 200grs for the 10mm in a Hard Cast bullet.


    So, I got no where else to take you friend. ;)




    Wish I could satisfy whatever it is you need to know, but I cannot think of anything else to add... It seems very simple here to me.




    Good shooting.









    CM
     
    #19 CanyonMan, Jul 2, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2012
  20. Yondering

    Yondering
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2011
    564
    0
    Not trying to offend ya CM, just pointing out a few things in the details you posted that don't make sense to me, and asking questions...

    I'm not saying you don't know what you're doing, but the results don't fit in with my experiences. If one guy says "can't be done", and another guy says "I'm doing it", something must be pretty different between the two methods. Maybe those 230's are a poor bullet design too? Never tried them myself. Being a WFN, they shouldn't be that much longer than mine, but with the gas check too... :dunno:

    I just don't think your 230gr load conclusions apply to all heavy 10mm cast bullets, regardless if they are correct for that DT bullet. (I do believe your results, never doubted that.)

    I don't understand why Unique would be the best choice here? Was case capacity reduced that much? A slower powder like Blue Dot would seem to work a lot better. It's no surprise that you couldn't push it over 1,000 fps with Unique; it's generally too fast for full power 10mm loads. If that was the slowest powder you could fit in because of a really long bullet, then yeah, I'll agree that that particular 230gr is no good in 10mm.

    I'm happy to share my 220gr load, with the caveat that it only applies to my bullet, which has a length of .675". My load is with 13.0gr of AA9 under this bullet loaded to 1.255", with a Win large pistol primer. 1308 fps average, fired from my 6.6" LW barrel in a solid top long slide with a muzzle brake and "24lb" ISMI spring. (The "24lb" spring is actually less than 19 lb.) Notice that this bullet is shorter than a 200gr XTP, and with less bore friction. This matters!

    I have another milder load with a .410" 220gr bullet sized down to .401", and Blue Dot powder, but don't have my load data in front of me so I won't post the powder charge right now. It does 1200-1250 from my long barrel, and 1150-1200 from a stock G20 length or 1911 barrel.


    One more thing to add - 10gr difference in bullet weight is right about .030" of ww lead in .401". Looking at my 220 gr bullet length above, you could make it a 230gr at .705" long. That is the same length as my sized down .410 220 bullet. The DT230 is maybe longer though? In the 200+ weight range, I think bullet length is much more important than weight. I don't know for sure, but would estimate that anything longer than about .720" might be too long for good results.
     
    #20 Yondering, Jul 3, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2012