No one commenting on the use of the "evil" black stuff?

Interesting...

Or not.

R.

No one commenting on the use of the "evil" black stuff?

Interesting...

Or not.

R.

Well I guess it would help if we knew exactly what type of comment it is Jimmy is looking for. At times its hard to decipher his riddles and what he means by them. Like,, I really don't know what the title of the post has to do with the comment in it, in relation to the pictures ??

Don't get me wrong I enjoy jimmies input and he is obviously a knowable fellow when it comes to firearms but perhaps he would get more input if we had the slightest clue what it was he was talking about half the time lol..

Now that I know kind of where this is going..


I started shooting moly some what quite a few years back when Winchester first came out with their factor loads in the stuff. I believe they sold them in their extreme line,, I think it was moly,, it was some kind of black coating. But even out of a factory load there was a noticeable difference in performance.  I shot a moose with my little .270 the first year I had them and in all honesty I have never seen a .270 with the impact and damage that little bullet did that year. The animal was facing me at about 150 yards and I shot him in the chest just under his nose as he faced me,, the bullet traveled through the vitals came out the rib cage just before the diaphragm and traveled down through the spine about a foot and exited just above the rear hips.. That animal was dead before it hit the ground and didn't even flinch,, done, done, done..

It must have been the moly...


R.

Well I guess one could never truly know.. But I do know this that after shooting up to that time probably close to 15 moose with that gun and maybe 10 deer and a few bear a person does have a bit of an idea of the typical damage to expect and when the result from one particular product is significantly more I would take that as a result of that product.. But what would I know..

Nice way to encourage conversation though,, good job Rman.

Now that I know kind of where this is going..


I started shooting moly some what quite a few years back when Winchester first came out with their factor loads in the stuff. I believe they sold them in their extreme line,, I think it was moly,, it was some kind of black coating. But even out of a factory load there was a noticeable difference in performance.  I shot a moose with my little .270 the first year I had them and in all honesty I have never seen a .270 with the impact and damage that little bullet did that year. The animal was facing me at about 150 yards and I shot him in the chest just under his nose as he faced me,, the bullet traveled through the vitals came out the rib cage just before the diaphragm and traveled down through the spine about a foot and exited just above the rear hips.. That animal was dead before it hit the ground and didn't even flinch,, done, done, done..

I wonder if that ammo was Winchester Fail Safe? 
My Old farrier from Caroline swore buy that stuff he shot a 270 as well.         

I wonder if that ammo was Winchester Fail Safe? 
My Old farrier from Caroline swore buy that stuff he shot a 270 as well.       

Yah,, it could have been jimmy,, it's been a while now.. I do understand that the extra energy these shells showed was not entirely do to the moly coating it was large in part to the different powder load Winchester used in these as well. At the time they were advertising them to be very close to the numbers as some lower end 7 mag loads.. Of course I have no real proof of this just what they claimed. But I do know that what ever the combination was it was pretty wicked and the moly didn't hurt the performance that's for sure.