Whoa!

I just caught on TacticalGunReview.com’s Facebook feed that Wilson Combat is now making a 6.8 SPC load using the Barnes 95gr TTSX bullet!

Buy yours here.

It’s reporting 2850 FPS out of a 16″ barrel. That’s amazing.

See, the Barnes 95 grain TTSX was purpose-built for 6.8 SPC (i.e. it’s not just another .277″ caliber bullet). In fact, Bill Wilson had a fair hand in the testing and development of that round (see here). Until now the bullet has only been available for handloaders, and folks at the 68forums were getting some good stuff out of them. But not everyone handloads so people want factory ammo. Silver State Armory makes and sells one but it only gets 2580 fps. Charles @ TGR told me the reasons why it’s not that hot, but the exact reason escapes me. It’s a shame because it’s THE bullet. But now Bill Wilson has made a load. It’s advertised at 300 fps faster, which is quite significant. What did Bill achieve? Or could it suffer the problems and may end up being finicky? Don’t know. Curious tho!

I’ve got a ballistics app on my iPhone and I ran some numbers. I plugged in numbers from Wilson Combat’s 95gr TTSX load and their 110gr TSX load, and since they don’t make a 85 grain I used SSA’s numbers from their 85 grain tac-load (since SSA’s 110gr tac-load gave similar numbers to Wilson’s, I figure this is as close to apples-to-apples as I can get). When you compare the 85 grain TSX vs. the 95 grain TTSX, the trajectories are very similar: out to 200 yards the paths are almost similar with the 95 grain being only about 1/3″ lower at 200 yards and about 3/4″ lower at 300 yards. But when you compare energy at same distances, the 95gr has more energy (over 100 ft-lbs more at 300 yards). And even tho the 85 grain starts at a higher velocity at the muzzle, by 300 yards they’re doing about the same speed.  Now comparing the 95 TTSX to the 110 TSX, the heavier and slower 110 of course drops faster and more significantly. Of course, at longer distances the 110gr still has more energy.

To me, between the 85 TSX and 95 TTSX? I’ll take the 95 TTSX. On paper, the 85 does have a flatter trajectory, but the 95’s isn’t off by much at all. It has more energy, and the TTSX expands better. What’s not to like? Between the 95 TTSX and the 110 TSX well, that’s harder to determine because there’s no question the 110 will pack more punch, but you’ll have to do a little more work to get it there. But then if it gets there, how well will it expand? But still, I think I’d go for the 95 because it’s a TTSX with improved expansion, especially at lower velocities. This isn’t to say the other bullets are totally obsolete and should be taken off the market, far from it, because they still have purpose and roles. But if I can only have my rifle zeroed with one load, to have one load to take into the field for deer or hogs or whatever… that 95 TTSX is going to be the best all around. And now that Wilson Combat is making a load for it well… eventually I’d still like to do my own loads to see if I can do even better, but until I can get to loading myself well, I think I know what ammo I’d like to use. 🙂

Updated: found some info about it at the 68forums. One message in particular:

This ammo is based on extensive reloading experience of the WC staff, and has proven to be accurate, effective, and safe in SPECII chambers. It is loaded with Reloader 10x powder, SSA small primer brass, and premium projectiles. I do not have any pressure data that I can share.

Posted from Wilson Combat themselves. R10x powder. Nice! But interesting, since supposedly R7x is the “preferred” powder for this bullet. We’ll see how the thread progresses.

Some long time ago I purchased The Destroyer, from Sniper Hog Lights. It was so long ago I forgot exactly why I settled on this light vs. the competition. But I finally got to use it on the hog hunt this past weekend.

I can say, it works as advertised. I’m very happy with it.

I purchased the light in red. They advertise 150+ yards visibility. I can vouch for that, and if you have a high quality scope with good “light gathering” ability, you’ll see even further. IMHO, that’s more than adequate for hunting hogs at night. I will caveat that I was using the light on the night’s of the “super moon” so there was a lot of ambient moonlight on a clear night. Still, I could see the red beam out to distance just fine. I would like to try it say on a new moon evening. I’ve tried it numerous times in my backyard and it lights up fine, but I don’t have a good empty country (i.e. no city light pollution) field to try it out in as much darkness as possible. Nevertheless, I’m satisfied with the throw. The throw is good, and I think the beam “shape” is good to provide a good focused beam but also enough spread for you to see what you need to be able to see.

I like that they provide numerous mount options. Generally I’m using the option to go on a rail, but it’s nice to have the “clamp” mount in my closet in case I wanted to use it on something like a shotgun or maybe my Savage bolt action rifle. I will say tho, there is some weight to the light so if you did clamp it onto the barrel, you best re-check your zero because even a tiny bit of weight out there could bend your barrel just enough to change your point of impact vs. point of aim. While a different specific issue, The Box O’Truth #51 talks about the effects of a rifle rest on your POI vs. POA; essentially the same issue, about affecting your barrel.

If there’s anything I don’t like, it’s the rechargeable batteries. They’re nice and all, but I just hate having to manage rechargeable batteries. Some can do X, some can’t. Some can be charged over and over no matter how much they’ve been used, some need to be drained all the way. It’s just a bother to me to try to keep everything straight. To their credit, theirs are fairly straightforward and simple; it’s just a personal thing. However, if you want to you can use CR123A’s, which is cool. I’m not sure how that affects the output nor the runtime, but to at least have it as an option is welcome, especially if you get caught out somewhere with dead rechargeables.

Another possible source of complaint. I got the tailcap switch with the button that would click on and click off. The click is loud. It’s very tactile with a lot of positive feedback, which I like. Plus you can half-depress it to momentarily enable/disable the light. But it’s still loud. That said, checking their website now it seems they have come up with a whole new switch which looks like it solves a lot of the problems. I obviously haven’t tried the new switch, but on paper it seems like a good version 2.0 improvement.

All things said, I like the light. Any nits are my own personal tastes or something they appear to have remedied. While the hog we whacked wasn’t taken at night with the light, we used the light frequently on the two evenings we were out and it served us well to scout and keep tabs on everything.

Why suppressors (silencers) for firearms?

Because it’s polite.

Put it this way. Ever hear a car engine without a muffler? Probably not. So have you heard a Harley-Davidson motorcycle that’s so loud it rattles your fillings loose? Most motorcycles that are that loud are that loud because their exhaust pipes don’t have mufflers. Imagine if we didn’t mandate mufflers for cars and trucks? Imagine how loud and unbearable that would be, and how much damage it would do to your hearing.

Suppressors for firearms are no different. A gunshot can register 120-150dB or more (conversations are 60-70dB, rock concerts register maybe 115dB, jet engines are 140dB). Exposure to sounds that loud will damage your hearing. But more than that, all that noise is going to bother your neighbors.

A local gun range was putting on night shoot matches. While I’ve been unable to participate in them, it was not only a cool thing but was also one of the few opportunities people might have to practice shooting at night. Come on… if we’re all expecting home invasions in the middle of the night, wouldn’t it be good to be able to have practice shooting with flashlights in a low-light situation? Alas, they had to cancel the matches now and for the foreseeable future because of noise complaints. It’s understandable. I mean, if it’s 9:oo PM and there’s a lot of loud noise and I’m trying to get my kids to sleep, I’d complain too no matter what the source of the noise was.

Suppressors could help mitigate this situation.

I did a hog hunt at night where we used suppressed rifles. Why? because it was polite to the neighbors and land owners, as well as the local law enforcement.

We can buy suppressors here in Texas, but there are tons of legal hoops and expense to go through to get them. Why? We don’t cause people this much grief to get a new muffler for their car; in fact, if you didn’t have a muffler on your car you’d get in trouble for that! Why can’t I just go to the local gun shop, buy a suppressor, and be off and running… quietly?

A lot of people consider .223 Remington to be an inadequate cartridge. I wouldn’t try taking an elephant with it, but with the right bullet and load it can certainly take deer and hogs.

But its use in that context always gets predicated with the statement: “with good shot placement”. Something like “yeah, .223 will work, but you have to have good shot placement”.

Is there any bullet that doesn’t work with good shot placement?

If you miss (the definition of “bad shot placement”), the bullet won’t work.

If you hit the deer on the left rear foot with a .45-70, while his day is going to suck, that still won’t “do the job”.

Any time you shoot you need to have good shot placement. The only way any bullet will do its job is to put it in the vital organs. I understand the point of the statement is because with larger, more powerful rounds, you can have a greater margin of error since it’ll hit the target with more oomph, do more damage, thus if you’re off you still have good chances of bringing down your quarry. But big-ass guns should not be a crutch for poor marksmanship.

I maintain that good shot placement should be a given and always in effect, no matter what you’re shooting.

Before I get all righteous in thinking we need to do away with this useless qualifying statement, is there any sort of situation where it’s a valid qualifier?

Researchers at Texas Tech University’s Institute of Environmental and Human Health warned area farmers, ranchers and hunters Monday to use caution when handling wild game after finding evidence of the bacteria that causes tularemia in feral hogs in Bell and Coryell Counties.

Tularemia is a serious infectious disease caused by the bacteria Francisella tularensis, said Steve Presley, a zoonotic disease researcher who leads the team that tested about 130 feral hogs from Bell, Coryell and Crosby Counties.

Yikes. Full story here.

The bacteria is normally present, but what’s troubling is they found an unusually high number of hogs carrying the bacteria.

Regardless of which type it turns out to be, Presley says anyone who may come into contact with wild animals—especially those that might hunt or eat wild hogs—should be cautious.

“If you are handling or cleaning or eating wild game, particularly hogs, deer or rabbits, you should be wearing rubber gloves and eye protection when you’re dressing wild game,” he said.

“The bacteria can enter any sort of small cut or hangnail. During this time of year, it might not be as big of an issue, but you should check yourself for ticks, wear tick repellent and avoid biting flies, including mosquitoes.”

Presley also recommends making sure game meats are thoroughly cooked before eating them and says homeowners and lawn care professionals should look for wild rabbit nests hidden in tall grasses prior to mowing.

So you hog hunters take care. Take precaution when handling the animal, ensure you fully cook the meat.