Are boat-tail bullets what they’re cracked up to be for deer hunting?

[whatnickname]

First let me say that I’ve used boat-tail bullets for deer for most of the past 50 years. Recently the shortage in components has forced me to use some of the old technology cup and core flat based bullets. The Hornady Interlock 30 and 270 caliber bullets have proven super accurate in four of my rifles. Started a thread on the reloading forum about it. This thread raised, to a minor degree, the flat base vs. boat-tail discussion. This started me thinking about the distances I’ve taken the majority of deer...99% under 300 yards and a good many of the deer I’ve taken, in fact most of them, have been taken between 100 and 200 yards. I shot competitively for 16 years. I can hit targets much further than 300 yards. My issue is the residual energy required to reliably take a deer. The other side of 300 yards the energy stats start falling off pretty quickly. Given the normal ranges I typically hunt, I’m thinking those flat base bullets should be just fine. Does anyone think at those distances there’s a nickel’s worth of difference between flat base and boat-tail bullets?

 

[troy fairweather]

Doesn't make any difference at normal ranges even out to 400 with a 270-3006 the difference isn't much. With ballistics calculators it really don't after 400 either anymore. Bt are easier to load and look better on paper, fb generally shoot better and can have a better gas seal, there shorter oal for the same weight compared to bt, and don't use as much powder space.

 

[earlthegoat2]

For the vast majority of hunters, no. Marketers will still tell them what they need though.

 

[Jerry M]

Until you get a barrel that prefers boat tail bullets. Ballisticly it might not matter, accuracy wise it can.

 

[horsemen61]

Nah all my stuff shoots em both good so to me in my situation no it doesn’t

 

[memtb]

Often the flat base bullets are more accurate! However, if longer ranges are the norm (500 + yards) then the boat tail is more desirable due to improved ballistics result in flatter trajectories, greater energies, and less drift. The one problem that has plagued the boat tail is it’s tendency to have jacket/core separation, due to the taper of the boat tail. The bonded bullets have helped resolve the separation issue! memtb

 

[jmorris]

Does anyone think at those distances there’s a nickel’s worth of difference between flat base and boat-tail bullets?

100-200 yards, no. I’d likely end up using a FB bullet for a benchrest rifle as it’s not uncommon for them to be more accurate at such short distances. I also often use the Partition for hunting as they have always worked well despite not being the most accurate bullet, they are closer to what would be called a bevel base in a pistol bullet.

Other areas of design are more important than the base for a hunting bullet for sure.

 

[JDeere]

I use to be a boat tail only in hunting bullets until I tried FB and there was no difference in accuracy or ballistics at hunting ranges. My 3 different hunting rifles that shoot BTs well shoot FBBs with the same accuracy within the same grain bullet. Love the Sierra Pro Hunter bullet. ymmv

 

[.38 Special]

I prefer flat bases myself. When I shot benchrest, a long time ago, nobody used boat tails at the standard distances (100 to 300 yards) because they weren't as accurate, and I still carry that bias. And looking at the drop and energy tables, it never seemed to me that there was any significant difference between the two at hunting distances. Between that and the old timers complaining that boat tails would squirt the core out on impact (I have no idea if that was ever true, though I do recall Ross Seyfried claiming it as well) I don't think I've ever actually hunted with anything but flat base!

 

[Captcurt]

My only gripe with boattails for hunting is jacket/core separation. Unless they are a bonded or mono there are a few that will shed their jacket, especially when used at close range or out of hot calibers like the mags. I had it happen a couple of times last year with the Sierra Game Changers in 6.5 CM and they were mild loads. They shoot 1/2MOA in my M18 Mauser though.

 

[.308 Norma]

Between that and the old timers complaining that boat tails would squirt the core out on impact ( I have no idea if that was ever true

As I mentioned in that thread about 308 penetration, I once had a 165gr Hdy BTSP from my 30-06 shed its jacket inside a mule deer buck. But I found both the jacket and the perfectly mushroomed core inside the dead deer that was on his back not 5 feet from where I shot him.
To answer the OP's question though about whether or not boat-tail bullets are "all they're cracked up to be" for deer hunting, I don't know that they're all that "cracked up" in the first place. Like I said, I used them in my 30-06, and I use them now in my .308 Norma for mule deer hunting in the widely varied terrain here in southern Idaho. Additionally, my wife uses them in the 7mm Rem Mag she uses for mule deer hunting nowadays. But my wife used to use a Ruger 77, 7mm-08 that wouldn't put 4 Hdy 139gr SPBTs in 4" at 100 yards no matter what we tried - different seating depths, different powders and charges, different primers, etc. etc.. So she switched to Hdy 139gr flat-based SPs (for 4-shot, 1" groups at 100) in her 7mm-08, and she put a lot of venison on the table with that load.

That's our oldest grandson, Jake, and his mom (our oldest daughter) with the 4-point Jake killed a couple of years back. Jake was shooting his grandmother's (my wife's) old Ruger 77, 7mm-08 loaded with Hdy 139gr, flat-based SPs. Jake has kind of "laid claim" to that rifle, but that's okay; guns are meant to be used, and Jake laying claim to that 7mm-08 gave my wife an excuse to buy another one.

 

[Random 8]

I used to load exclusively flat based bullets in my .308 when I first started loading as I was (wisely) advised to use the specific component set tested in my Lyman loading manual. This practice served me well for many years until I drank the Kool Aid. Believing there was something to be gained by switching to a boat tail design, I tried some out. I found them generally less accurate (with a few exceptions) in my particular rifle and others. I could get them to shoot well, but they required significantly more load development to find their happy place. With a flat based cup and core, the book max load and COL generally got me acceptable accuracy. With boat tails, this was sometimes true, but often not. With the Hornady SST, this was generally true (see .308 penetration thread for additional information of my experience with those).

Fast forward some 35 years from my first rifle cartridges, 100 or more deer shot by myself, wife and friends, and I think I can draw some meaningful conclusions. I've loaded BT: Sierra BTSP, Nosler Solid base, Hornady SST, and Speer BTSP. Flat base: Speer Hotcor and Mag Tip, Speer GS, Hornady IL, Rem Core Lokt. I've found performance of the FB bullets on Northwoods deer to be superior. They just hold together better. The BTs kill deer, but the few failures I've had at moderate velocity primarily in .308 and .300 Sav have been with BT designs, and a hit near edible parts results in additional meat loss. The exception was the old Nosler Solid base. I dearly miss those. I found there performance indistinguishable from the Hornady IL. If you run the numbers, the Speer Hot Core in medium for caliber weights especially doesn't give up much in the way of BC to similar weight BTs. The Hornady IL isn't far behind. I don't think one would notice the difference to 300 yards.

I now shoot exclusively FB designs for hunting with the exception of one dedicated LR load in the .280 Rem and various practice ammo using up old stock or sale/shortage items I've acquired over the years. I subscribe to the pass through theory in terms of deer hunting, and just believe the FB designs, especially the Horn. IL and Spr HC perform this task more reliably.

My match ammo is loaded with BT designs as I'm shooting to 600 yards where the difference is notable in terms of wind drift, and I pay the price in terms of extra load development to get them to shoot well.

 

[Bull Nutria]

About 10 years ago I was developing a load for my 7mm08 TC Venture. I couldnt get it to group better than 2in with BT bullets. I read on a forum that often flat base bullets are more accurate at shorter ranges. I tried 140 g REM core loct FB and shrank the groups to about 1-1.25 inches at 100 yds. I had decent luck with Horn 139 FB also. I dont have shots much over 100yds here in LA so I am satisfied with the FB performance!!

Bull

 

[LoonWulf]

I shoot boat tails exclusively, though if I have issue finding an accurate load for a rifle I'll usually at least try a flat base.

Never had any issues with performance on game besides the speer botail soft points, Those have almost always squirted the core out earlier than I would like.

I mostly shoot tipped match bullets, or hunting bullets of similar design, in heavier bullet weights.
6.5s or 140s or 143s+
7 mm My favorites are the old 162 A-max
30 calibers I start at 180 and go up from there. All being shot out of a 30-06 or larger.

 

[Patocazador]

I read an article by Jim Carmichael a long time ago that stated generally that boat-tailed bullets were no more accurate than flat-based ones for hunting ranges and uses. I trusted Jim's assessments because I was able to substantiate some of them. However, Jack O'Connor's worship of the .270 was bogus in my book. I found that 130 grain .270 bullets sucked on deer so I never would try them on anything else.

As stated by Random 8 above, I loved the discontinued Nosler FB as well as the Partition.

IMO boat-tails are the choice of long-distance target shooters who fine tune their loads to the nth degree and are not necessary nor needed for hunting.

 

[Bfh_auto]

I run both. Both kill deer dead.
I prefer boat tails for slight edge in my 22-250, 240WBY, and 260.
My 30-30, 30-40, 35 Whelen, and 30 WM get flat based bullets.
I prefer round or flat nose when it comes to cup and core bullets.

 

[Jerry M]

I read an article by Jim Carmichael a long time ago that stated generally that boat-tailed bullets were no more accurate than flat-based ones for hunting ranges and uses. I trusted Jim's assessments because I was able to substantiate some of them. However, Jack O'Connor's worship of the .270 was bogus in my book. I found that 130 grain .270 bullets sucked on deer so I never would try them on anything else.

As stated by Random 8 above, I loved the discontinued Nosler FB as well as the Partition.

IMO boat-tails are the choice of long-distance target shooters who fine tune their loads to the nth degree and are not necessary nor needed for hunting.

Carmichael also said that people should not hunt with modern sporting rifles (AR-10 and AR-15s).

If you're having trouble with about .270 Winchester killing deer unlike millions of others since 1925, try some boat-tail bullets.

 

[Patocazador]

Carmichael also said that people should not hunt with modern sporting rifles (AR-10 and AR-15s).

I endorse those sentiments. Pipsqueak cartridges (.223) are for small to medium game only in my book.

 

[memtb]

I read an article by Jim Carmichael a long time ago that stated generally that boat-tailed bullets were no more accurate than flat-based ones for hunting ranges and uses. I trusted Jim's assessments because I was able to substantiate some of them. However, Jack O'Connor's worship of the .270 was bogus in my book. I found that 130 grain .270 bullets sucked on deer so I never would try them on anything else.

As stated by Random 8 above, I loved the discontinued Nosler FB as well as the Partition.

IMO boat-tails are the choice of long-distance target shooters who fine tune their loads to the nth degree and are not necessary nor needed for hunting.

Unless your hunting involves long range.....in excess of 500 yards.

While I personally do not advocate some of the extreme ranges that many shooters take game....under near perfect conditions, 600 to 800 yard shots on big game are certainly enhanced by the use of boat tail bullets! memtb

 

[Loyalist Dave]

..., I’ve taken the majority of deer...99% under 300 yards and a good many of the deer I’ve taken, in fact most of them, have been taken between 100 and 200 yards. I shot competitively for 16 years. I can hit targets much further than 300 yards. My issue is the residual energy required to reliably take a deer. The other side of 300 yards the energy stats start falling off pretty quickly. Given the normal ranges I typically hunt, I’m thinking those flat base bullets should be just fine. Does anyone think at those distances there’s a nickel’s worth of difference between flat base and boat-tail bullets?

So I have a similar opinion as the others, and yours. I think one should use the most accurate load, and if there is a negligible difference between bullets in both accuracy and effect, then use the least expensive.

I have an Israeli Mauser in "7.62 NATO", and I shoot .308 Winchester in it. I put emphasis on the cartridge as the barrel was made in the 1960's, and I've found that after testing, the bore only likes certain bullets.

I tested several brands of .308 ammunition, some expensive match, some not. The Remington Core-Lokt 150 grain soft-point [flat based] bullet, the least expensive of the loads that I tried, shot extremely accurate from the barrel, while the most expensive match .308 shot poorly. We all know that you need to hit the deer, and hit it in the right spot, so in my case the flat based bullet was/is the best choice. I, like you, would never be going past 300 yards, and more than likely be engaging deer at 100-150 yards. So it was unlikely that a boat-tail bullet would've shown superiority at the distances that I'd be hunting.

LD

 

[buck460XVR]

Does anyone think at those distances there’s a nickel’s worth of difference between flat base and boat-tail bullets?

Nope. Shoot whatever is most accurate from your gun and what you have the most confidence in with terminal performance.

 

[jmr40]

I prefer to use boat tail bullets. I see no disadvantage other than slightly more cost. And given the costs of hunting licenses, firearms, and gas getting to where I hunt 10-15 cents more for the bullet isn't a deal killer. But on the other hand if limited to flat base bullets for whatever reason I wouldn't feel terribly handicapped.

Unless your hunting involves long range.....in excess of 500 yards.

The difference shows up at ranges much closer than 500 yards

The advantage of boat tail bullets at " typical" hunting ranges may be small, but it is real. Comparing a 165 gr Nosler Accubond or Ballistic Tip to a 165 gr Partition in my 308 @ 2740 fps. The Partition's impact speed much past 300 yards may not be fast enough to reliably expand. Trajectory is close enough to not matter, One or 2 inches.

But the AB or BT started at the same MV will still impact fast enough for reliable expansion to at least 450 yards.

Inside of 300 yards, at least with a 308 or similar rifle I'll agree that there is no difference. With a 30-06 or 300 WM that would start the bullets at a much faster velocity then the range where it makes a difference would be extended. I concede that I will most likely not take a shot beyond 300 yards. But then again I might. For about 10 cents more per bullet I'd prefer to be prepared just in case.

I think the real advantage of modern high BC bullets is that they allow hunters to use smaller cartridges, in lighter more compact rifles with less recoil. And still match the performance of old school rifles on game. This is why we've seen cartridges like 308, 7-08 and 6.5CM push classics like 270 and 30-06 from the top. If you're shooting a 30-06 with a bullet with a BC in the .380 range, and the same bullet weight in a 308 with a BC closer to .480, the advantage 30-06 offers beyond 200 yards is much less.