26 replies [Last post]
Offline
Location: kalamazoo, Mi.
Joined: 02/23/2009
Posts: 15
162 A-Max Moly 7MM Remington Magnum

I know there is a lot of conversation about A-Max bullets for hunting and a lot of it contradicting. Has anyone used 162grain Hornady A-max bullets out of a 7mm Remington Magnum to hunt ELK?? Please inform me of the results.... Thanks, -J

exbiologist's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 09/19/2008
Posts: 2399
Re: 162 A-Max Moly 7MM Remington Magnum

I have not used AMAX bullets on elk, nor would I be comfortable doing so. Penetration is big on my list of requirements in elk bullets and I suspect the AMAX wouldn't penetrate near as well as the standard Interlock or Interbond. It would probably work nicely on deer, but I think you are limiting yourself too much, and not enough margin for error with a bullet like that which may perform inconsistently on game.

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1774
Re: 162 A-Max Moly 7MM Remington Magnum

I agree with Exbiologist, the A Max bullets are designed to be for long range target shooting and are similar in terminal ballistics to a ballistic tip, very explosive versus holding together and penetrating. While this may be fine for light skinned game such as antelope or smaller deer, I wouldn't want to use it if I was hunting big mulies or elk. When hunting elk I want something that's going to punch through thick hide, muscle, and bone if necessary, and drop them as quickly as possible. Think Interbond, Accubond, TBBC, or someother quality bonded bullet.

Offline
Location: kalamazoo, Mi.
Joined: 02/23/2009
Posts: 15
Re: 162 A-Max Moly 7MM Remington Magnum

I appreciate your responses, thank you. However I do want to expand the question a little based on your responses. I shoot these bullets regularly though plywood and have even shot a quarter and they leave a clean hole and have a mushroom type expansion with minimal fragmentation and maximum weight retention. Would this not be enough penetration on a large animal? If they would work on Deer, which I have actually read blogs that say people swear by them. What is the tissue difference between the elk and deer that would make it OK for downing deer but not an Elk. I'm not dissagreeing........I simply want to understand why this would be? Have either of you tried them on an Elk? Thanks again!

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1774
Re: 162 A-Max Moly 7MM Remington Magnum
7Magjoe wrote:
I appreciate your responses, thank you. However I do want to expand the question a little based on your responses. I shoot these bullets regularly though plywood and have even shot a quarter and they leave a clean hole and have a mushroom type expansion with minimal fragmentation and maximum weight retention. Would this not be enough penetration on a large animal? If they would work on Deer, which I have actually read blogs that say people swear by them. What is the tissue difference between the elk and deer that would make it OK for downing deer but not an Elk. I'm not dissagreeing........I simply want to understand why this would be? Have either of you tried them on an Elk? Thanks again!

Joe, I've shot 55 gr hollow points from my 22-250 clear thru 2 x 4's, two inches of solid wood, but that doesn't mean they'd plow thru an elk. Imagine how thick an elks hide is then consider how thick it's fat and muscle are, then imagine the thickness and diameter of it's bone. With a lighty constructed bullet it will want to open up and expand very quickly upon hitting the first layers of contact ie hide and first few inches of meat. This will cause the bullet to start to fragment losing it's weight and then velocity usually resulting in a shallow and non lethal wound.

What you want is the complete opposite when killing an elk is the goal. You want a controlled expansion bullet that will mushroom over a slower period and hold together to get it to penetrate through all those layers, then the vitals heart, lungs, and create a wound channel resulting in shock, blood loss, and death. Also, if forced to take a shoulder shot you want that penetration to break bone and take out it's running gear so if a second shot is needed it's immobile and allowing for it.

Believe me when I tell you it takes a well constructed bullet for this and not one intended for match shooting.

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1774
Re: 162 A-Max Moly 7MM Remington Magnum

Oh, and one last thing a deer is not an elk! What may work on a deer will often be woefully inaffective on an elk. Elk are much bigger, thicker, tougher, and harder to kill, then a deer. Thumbs up

Edit:

Again, one more thing. You have likely read of the accuracy of those type of bullets are have already found them to be very accurate in your gun. Keep this in mind when it comes to accuracy, when shooting at something as large as an elk with a vital kill zone the size of a basketball you don't need sub minute of angle accuracy from your rifle. Realistically a rifle shooting 1 and one half inch to two inch groups at a 100 yards maybe even three is accurate enough for most shooters range on an elk out to 300 yards. Now that won't work for those long range sniper guys who are now killing animals at over five hundred yards, but again for most it's all that's needed. You only need sub minute of angle accuraccy at a hundred if you are shooting prairie dogs at four hundred. I'd rather have an elk killing bullet that is shooting two inch groups then a one holer that was made for match shooting and won't do the job when the time comes.

exbiologist's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 09/19/2008
Posts: 2399
Re: 162 A-Max Moly 7MM Remington Magnum

Very good point. Elk are not hard to hit.

WesternHunter's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2006
Posts: 2368
Re: 162 A-Max Moly 7MM Remington Magnum

Elk have more muscle/tissue/bone structure than an average sized deer. What the others are saying is that the density of an animals biological mass is definitley a factor where bullet types are concerned. Having said that I will say that many standard jacketed soft point used on deer have been used just as successfully on elk. Seen it many times, have done it myself as well. Admittedly I know nothing about A-Max bullets in particular or their construction, so I won't begin to tell you how they perform on elk. But I will say this: we once recovered a bullet from my buddies elk that he shot with my rifle and reloads and found that he had mistakenly grabbed the wrong box of loads and brought it with him but didn't know that until we recoverd the bullet. It was from my .270 Win and a 130gr Speer spritzer boattail. Yeah a pretty thin jacketed bullet for sure, not the best construction for elk. I load those stricktly for use on antelope. What we discovered was that the damn thing punched right through the vitals, mushroomed completely, and came to a stop at the opposite end shoulder blade. We only knew it was a boattail because all we could see was the boattail beveling at what little base of he bullet was showing. I would not use that experience as an excuse for using that same bullet on elk again. All I'm saying is not bad for a bullet intended for pronghorn and whitetails. Big smile

Offline
Location: kalamazoo, Mi.
Joined: 02/23/2009
Posts: 15
Re: 162 A-Max Moly 7MM Remington Magnum

I appreciate everyones responses as they are definitely helpful as I get ready to venture out this October. I do however want a bullet with some A-- behind it hence why I shoot the 162grain. I have looked, and only the Accubond comes the heaviest in 7mm and it is 160. Would you recommend this bullet and how accurate are these? I do not have experience with them but will try them if it's a better fit for hunting ELK. Additionally......how do you all feel about Moly? I happen to like the moly and the Lubilox offered from combined technology (however those only come as heavy as 150). Will the bullet perform diffently without moly or lubilox? Should I put molly on them if that is what I prefer? Any input you have is helpful.

I do love the A-max and they are "accurate" a 2 1/2'' group at 300 is not uncommon with a good rest. I do realize that the Elk vitals are basketball size, but if i go to the Accubond 160's and have a 2'' group at 100 yards, I would not be happy with that. Right now 100 and 200 are gimmies. I would also like to keep a balistic tip bullet hence the Accubond. Can anybody offer any help?

exbiologist's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 09/19/2008
Posts: 2399
Re: 162 A-Max Moly 7MM Remington Magnum

I've loaded Accubonds for friends in their elk guns. No experience with the 160 7mm, but I've loaded the 200 in a .300 Win Mag and it penetrated lengthwise through a cow, stopping against her ham after taking out a shoulder. But then we lost the next bull he shot with that bullet, but that was more of a placement problem, not the bullet's fault.
Moly coated bullets will have no terminal effects. They don't matter one bit to me.
Here's the one Accubond that we recovered: pretty much perfect. Retained 70% of its weight I believe. I would not ask an AMAX to do that.

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1774
Re: 162 A-Max Moly 7MM Remington Magnum

I am using my 30-06 this year for elk provided I pull my first choice (which I should due to pref. point) and was originally planning on using the Hornday Superformance ammo with the GMX bullet. Well after shooting the 165 gr Nosler ballistic tips in reloads and seeing how accurate they are, I purchased some 165 gr Accubonds which I will be reloading up a batch today. If they give me the same kind of accuracy I got with the ballistic tips they'll be what I'm using for elk this year. Just from reading up on them on the interwebs 80 to 90 percent of the feedback from hunters is excellent on it's performance on elk. And, 80 to 90 percent say they're accurate as hell.

Like Western alluded to people have been killing elk for years when 'lesser' or 'standard' bullets were the norm. The bottom line is if you are throwing a piece of lead at an animal in the neighborhood of 1500 or more fps and especially if it's heading into a vital organ their is a great likely hood you are going to kill it. But, given the type, make, structure, of the bullet you can also have a high likely hood of wounding it. Just as there are tons of stories where guys say they've killed giant bulls with cheap standard factory bullets, believe me theres just as many stories guys will tell you of the opposite. Where deer and elk, hell even antelope, have been lost with solid hits and cheaper ammo or the wrong type of bullet. Not to say that you can shoot an elk with an Accubond, Grand Slam, Partition, or other premium bullet and lose an animal but in my opinion its far less likely provided a good hit is made.

Given the likelyhood of a 300 + yard shot on a bull quartering towards me I'd feel much more secure pulling that trigger knowing I've got a bullet that 99 times out of a 100 will bust and break thru all the hide, muscle, and bone, and kill that bull.

In your case I'd feel very good with the 160 gr Accubond in the 7mm Mag should be very flat shooting and do the job on the animal.

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
7mm Remington Magnum7Magjoe702/25/2009 15:26 pm
Ammo for sale: 375 H-H Magnum & .416 Remington Magnumjhanlon306/24/2008 05:55 am
Which .22 magnum to get?redneckhunter1112/10/2008 15:10 pm
300 WSM barrel lengthOver50707/23/2010 18:19 pm
can you moly coat yer own bullets?crowsfoot209/30/2010 10:10 am