Efficient BG Cartridge to do it all.

[Jerry D]

Originally Posted by Buckhead

In my mind to meet the parameters of the original post you would have to take the energy at 350 yards and divide that by the average powder charge to determine the efficiency of payload delivery. Here are the results of some common cartridges and bullet weights.

30-06, 180 gr, - 30.3 ft/lbs per grain of powder
300 WM, 200 gr, - 32.0 ft/lbs per grain of powder
338-06, 210 gr, - 34.0 ft/lbs per grain of powder
338 WM, 210 gr, - 29.6 ft/lbs per grain of powder
35 Whelen, 225 grain - 36.8 ft/lbs per grain of powder
375 H&H, 260 grain - 31.8 ft/lbs per grain of powder

It appears that the 338-06 and 35 Whelen are quite efficient at delivering a heavy payload with the least amount of powder.

I totally agree this is a simple way to compare everyone's favorites. I think the .338 federal will have one of the best numbers when doing it like this. It may be lacking a bit at 350 yards but it will put the hammer down to stop that charging grizzly everyone is worried about up close.

Anyone want to do the above calculations at muzzle velocity.

200gr Federal Trophy Copper? Factory Load
.338 federal 62.5 ft lbs per grain at the muzzle
(2600 fps and 3000 ft lbs with ~48grs of powder)

36.5 ft lbs per grain at 350 yrds with a 200 gr factory load.
(1950 fps and ~1700 ft lbs)

[obsessed1]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Not that it's high on the probable or the concern list , but if you spend enough time in the bush in that country it's only a matter of time until you run into one or two.. In some areas it's a much higher probability than in others. Many years ago (60's) , I was a District Forest Ranger in much of the country S of Valleyview and S of Grande Prairie to the Wilmore and west to the BC border. In those days they were prevalent in areas closer to the Mountains. As you likely know they have expanded their territory extensively of late.

I can tell you this. If and when you do inadvertently bump in to one, depending on the circumstance, practically any gun you are carrying will seem woefully inadequate. If you know it is likely inadequate, well, 'nuff said.
My hunting buddy had one within 20 ft of him two years ago up in the Baytree area. It came in while he was calling Elk. Fortunately, it ended well.
The Boy Scouts said it best .. be prepared for the unlikely.

Lol. A 308 is not inadequate for any hunting situation I have ever been in....btw I have had 3 gbear encounters in my hunting career.

[KegRiver]

To each his own.

What works for me may not be acceptable for my neighbor.

I often do a lot more shooting then I need to. I like to try different things, and enjoy the challenge of a good score on paper.

But if money were an issue I could get by with 5 or so shots per year.

Three to check sighting. One to put down my quarry and one just in case I need a backup shot.

Even at $10.00 per cartridge cost isn't likely to be an issue.

If I can't afford $50.00 for ammo I can't afford the tag.

If I were earning $30.00 or more an hour I could afford more.

So for me anything that will do the job would suffice, from .243 to .50 BMG
That would leave only personal preference as criteria.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by obsessed1

Lol. A 308 is not inadequate for any hunting situation I have ever been in....btw I have had 3 gbear encounters in my hunting career.

Encounters or sightings ?

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Encounters or sightings ?

I’ve had in your face intentional, on the bears part, encounters. I can not imagine a more efficient cartridge for North American game than the 30-06.

[Dean2]

Originally Posted by Buckhead

In my mind to meet the parameters of the original post you would have to take the energy at 350 yards and divide that by the average powder charge to determine the efficiency of payload delivery. Here are the results of some common cartridges and bullet weights.

30-06, 180 gr, - 30.3 ft/lbs per grain of powder
300 WM, 200 gr, - 32.0 ft/lbs per grain of powder
338-06, 210 gr, - 34.0 ft/lbs per grain of powder
338 WM, 210 gr, - 29.6 ft/lbs per grain of powder
35 Whelen, 225 grain - 36.8 ft/lbs per grain of powder
375 H&H, 260 grain - 31.8 ft/lbs per grain of powder

It appears that the 338-06 and 35 Whelen are quite efficient at delivering a heavy payload with the least amount of powder.

460 Weatherby Mag, 116 grains of powder, 500 grain bullet. K at muzzle 7500 Foot Pounds, K at 350 5500 so 64.7 at the muzzle and 47.4 Foot Pounds per grain at 350. In fact I have more K at 350 than any of you left the muzzle with. I win for the most efficient, using this method. I want the gold star.
And no I am not afraid of any Grimsly bears with this round, or locomotives, space aliens or large burrowing attack worms from the movie Tremors.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by chuck

I’ve had in your face intentional, on the bears part, encounters. I can not imagine a more efficient cartridge for North American game than the 30-06.

Nothing wrong with that choice, but I think you're confused on the most efficient part. I believe a 338-06 trumps it in every aspect.

[obsessed1]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Encounters or sightings ?

Encounters. Oddly enough I never had to shoot any of them. In all three instances I was packing a 308 and bear spray. Two happened in thick berry patches where we got closer to each other than would have liked and the bears mock charged. The third I walked into an area with a gut pile again mock charge. All three were south if Gp. None of the bears came closer than about 40 yds before stopping. Lots of noise and prep for a shot with either spray or bullets.....closest encounter was actually a blacky I ended up shooting...3 yds is a bit close for my liking...that was a 30-30 though. The bear wasn't in a hard charge though so it wasn't a " stopping" shot per say....he just aggressive and too close for my liking.....


Just out of curiosity what's your choice of rifle while out hunting?

These days I do pack a 45-70 lots but it's more about platform. I love short levers...

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Nothing wrong with that choice, but I think you're confused on the most efficient part. I believe a 338-06 trumps it in every aspect.

It trumps it in exactly zero aspects. A 30-06 launches a 150 grain bullet over 3000 fps, a 165gr bullet over 2900 FPS and a 200 grain bullet over 2700 FPS and burns powder at a 99% efficiency rate while doing it.

As an efficient hunting cartridge the 338-06 would be one of my last choices. It is hamstrung on so many levels.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by obsessed1

Encounters. Oddly enough I never had to shoot any of them. In all three instances I was packing a 308 and bear spray. Two happened in thick berry patches where we got closer to each other than would have liked and the bears mock charged. The third I walked into an area with a gut pile again mock charge. All three were south if Gp. None of the bears came closer than about 40 yds before stopping. Lots of noise and prep for a shot with either spray or bullets.....closest encounter was actually a blacky I ended up shooting...3 yds is a bit close for my liking...that was a 30-30 though. The bear wasn't in a hard charge though so it wasn't a " stopping" shot per say....he just aggressive and too close for my liking.....


Just out of curiosity what's your choice of rifle while out hunting?

These days I do pack a 45-70 lots but it's more about platform. I love short levers...

I have three BG rifles - a 30-06 stubby, a 338-06, a 35 Whelen Ai and a 9.3x62.
Too many i know, but I use them all. Kinda favor the Whelen though.

[Buckhead]

Originally Posted by Dean2

460 Weatherby Mag, 116 grains of powder, 500 grain bullet. K at muzzle 7500 Foot Pounds, K at 350 5500 so 64.7 at the muzzle and 47.4 Foot Pounds per grain at 350. In fact I have more K at 350 than any of you left the muzzle with. I win for the most efficient, using this method. I want the gold star.
And no I am not afraid of any Grimsly bears with this round, or locomotives, space aliens or large burrowing attack worms from the movie Tremors.

There would be no need for you to be afraid of anything.
I'm just afraid that my shoulder would be twisted around behind my spine after touching off the first round.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by chuck

It trumps it in exactly zero aspects. A 30-06 launches a 150 grain bullet over 3000 fps, a 165gr bullet over 2900 FPS and a 200 grain bullet over 2700 FPS and burns powder at a 99% efficiency rate while doing it.

As an efficient hunting cartridge the 338-06 would be one of my last choices. It is hamstrung on so many levels.

I imagine , from the way you're talking, that it would be your last choice. Carry on with the ham stringing. lol

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Salavee

I imagine , from the way you're talking, that it would be your last choice. Carry on with the ham stringing. lol

What does it do better?

[antmai]

I will be the one who brings it up.
9mm.
Less than 5.5 grains of powder a case. It will kill a t-rex, you just need to get close enough to do it. Forget that shooting from one mountain to the next stuff. Get out and stalk!

[Dean2]

Originally Posted by chuck

It trumps it in exactly zero aspects. A 30-06 launches a 150 grain bullet over 3000 fps, a 165gr bullet over 2900 FPS and a 200 grain bullet over 2700 FPS and burns powder at a 99% efficiency rate while doing it.

As an efficient hunting cartridge the 338-06 would be one of my last choices. It is hamstrung on so many levels.

Not sure I quite follow this one. 338-06 will launch a 160 at 3150 fps, a 200 grain at almost 2900 fps and a 250 grain bullet at 2600 fps with 58 grains of powder. A 220 grain out of the 30-06 will be doing max 2500 fps, also using 59 grains oof powder, so 30 grains lighter and 100 fps slower. Don't really see much hamstringing in a 338-06, especially with the heavier bullets.

[Jerry D]

Isn’t it amazing how well they made cartridges 100+ yrs ago.

.30-06 and 6.5x55. I have them both and love them both. Took a nice cow moose with mine on my 1st moose hunt and the groups hunt as well exploring and scouting a brand new area that my friends grandfather used to hunt that he pointed us to on a map. We had a cow tag and she came out of the swamp with 2 bulls!

Was shooting a max load imr4350 pushing 180gr accubonds through my stainless abolt. It hammers a 6” gong at 200 yards with a 1.75-6x32 vx3 scope at the range. That’s enough hunting accuracy for me and enough recoil too!

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Dean2

Not sure I quite follow this one. 338-06 will launch a 160 at 3150 fps, a 200 grain at almost 2900 fps and a 250 grain bullet at 2600 fps with 58 grains of powder. A 220 grain out of the 30-06 will be doing max 2500 fps, also using 59 grains oof powder, so 30 grains lighter and 100 fps slower. Don't really see much hamstringing in a 338-06, especially with the heavier bullets.

It does, but with less bullet, brass and factory options. I just don’t know what makes it it a more efficient option. I think it has a niche. But If it’s such a great option, why is it so obscure?

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by chuck

It does, but with less bullet, brass and factory options. I just don’t know what makes it it a more efficient option. If it’s such a great option, why is it so obscure?

It really needs only one or two bullets for my use- a 210 NP or a Woodleigh 225 PP.
It's obscure because there are simply so many people like you that haven't used it and give it the "shortcoming reviews" On the other hand there are plenty that have used it and have nothing but praise for it.

[Pathfinder76]

Answering a readers inquiry one time Jim Carmichel stated.

"My first suggestion is to forget the so-called .338/06 caliber. If I were to list the all-time dumbest calibers, this one would make the top ten."

[Ariu]

What does "powder efficient" mean?

The powder is the "fuel" which get burned and drives the bullet forward. The energy created by the powder is dependent not only by the amount of powder but also on burning characteristics of the powder, cartridge fill level, barrel length and other factors.
Now, how well this energy is transferred to the bullet is another equation and depends on bullet type (mono vs A frame vs lead core), bullet shape (flat vs BT), neck tension, barrel quality....

Lets say that someone combined and solved these equations taking in account all the possible factors. And lets assume the magical cartridge is a 300WSM loaded with 165gn SST in front of 65gn IMR 4350 driving the bullet at 3000fps. The barrel is a 24" hand lapped barrel.

Are these results valid for my rifle? What if my rifle does not shot well this bullet at 3000fps but at 3100fps? Can I add some more powder??
What if I have to take long shots on big animals? Can I use a 300RUM with a 180gn bullet?

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by chuck

Answering a readers inquiry one time Jim Carmichel stated.

"My first suggestion is to forget the so-called .338/06 caliber. If I were to list the all-time dumbest calibers, this one would make the top ten."

Oh Yeah ,Jim Carmichael . I remember him. When it come to Egotistical and Dumb , he's in the top ten, closer to the top.

Suggest you try a .338-06 and report back to Jim.

[270person]

Originally Posted by obsessed1

What cartridge do you use to hunt the north west alberta forests? I've never been under gunned carrying a 308 in my neck of the woods.
In alberta we can't hunt g bears so I don't really care what G bear hunters recommend for hunting them.

35 Whelen. Nobody said anything about hunting them, just best recommends to kill one, hunting or in defense. 308 and 7-08 won't be on that list.

[Buckhead]

Originally Posted by chuck

Answering a readers inquiry one time Jim Carmichel stated.

"My first suggestion is to forget the so-called .338/06 caliber. If I were to list the all-time dumbest calibers, this one would make the top ten."

I'm pretty sure Elmer Keith thought it was pretty decent. It all started with the 333 OKH.
You remember Elmer Keith. The man who used to tell Jack OConnor he was full of it.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Ariu

What does "powder efficient" mean?

The powder is the "fuel" which get burned and drives the bullet forward. The energy created by the powder is dependent not only by the amount of powder but also on burning characteristics of the powder, cartridge fill level, barrel length and other factors.
Now, how well this energy is transferred to the bullet is another equation and depends on bullet type (mono vs A frame vs lead core), bullet shape (flat vs BT), neck tension, barrel quality....

Lets say that someone combined and solved these equations taking in account all the possible factors. And lets assume the magical cartridge is a 300WSM loaded with 165gn SST in front of 65gn IMR 4350 driving the bullet at 3000fps. The barrel is a 24" hand lapped barrel.

Are these results valid for my rifle? What if my rifle does not shot well this bullet at 3000fps but at 3100fps? Can I add some more powder??
What if I have to take long shots on big animals? Can I use a 300RUM with a 180gn bullet?

From my experience, powder burn rates vary a bit depending on cartridge geometry, case volume and of course temperature. Your cartridge chamber may vary a bit in dimension as would your barrel. What I have found is that no two "identical" rifles will show identical internal ballistic results with "identical" loads under similar conditions. Often they may be close enough, but each one will be different in one respect or another. Do what you have to do to get the result(s) you want. Same with changing bullets.

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by Dean2

460 Weatherby Mag, 116 grains of powder, 500 grain bullet. K at muzzle 7500 Foot Pounds, K at 350 5500 so 64.7 at the muzzle and 47.4 Foot Pounds per grain at 350. In fact I have more K at 350 than any of you left the muzzle with. I win for the most efficient, using this method. I want the gold star.
And no I am not afraid of any Grimsly bears with this round, or locomotives, space aliens or large burrowing attack worms from the movie Tremors.

I don’t think newly prohibited cartridges are allowed in this contest
😉

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Buckhead

I'm pretty sure Elmer Keith thought it was pretty decent. It all started with the 333 OKH.
You remember Elmer Keith. The man who used to tell Jack OConnor he was full of it.

I know of Elmer Keith. Yes. I’ve read much of what he wrote, and most of what O’Connor wrote. History has proven who might have had the right idea.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Oh Yeah ,Jim Carmichael . I remember him. When it come to Egotistical and Dumb , he's in the top ten, closer to the top.

Suggest you try a .338-06 and report back to Jim.

Jim Carmichel is dumb? What has led you to that conclusion?

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by chuck

Jim Carmichel is dumb? What has led you to that conclusion?

Compared to myself, he's smart. When compared to many other gunwriters of the day, like Elmer Keith, he was dumber than a sack of hammers. My opinion.

[Mr.Crumbz]

9.3x62mm or 35 Whelen

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Compared to myself, he's smart. When compared to many other gunwriters of the day, like Elmer Keith, he was dumber than a sack of hammers. My opinion.

Elmer Keith and Jim Carmichel were not writers of the same day. But if they were, Carmichel would have mopped the floor with Keith. O’Connor did. Handily.

Look, the 338-06 has its place. But as a cartridge to efficiently hunt Alberta’s game as a one gun hunter I just don’t see it at all. Nor would I recommend it as such.