Efficient BG Cartridge to do it all.

[Salavee]

I see my little exercise caused some confusion, sorry. lol

What I was getting at was " what common hunting cartridge do you think will deliver the biggest payload (kinetic energy) to the door (a given distance, prior to impact) using the least amount of fuel (powder) to get it there.
What happens after impact is anybody's guess.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by Salavee

I see my little exercise caused some confusion, sorry. lol

What I was getting at was " what common hunting cartridge do you think will deliver the biggest payload (kinetic energy) to the door (a given distance, prior to impact) using the least amount of fuel (powder) to get it there.
What happens after impact is anybody's guess.

oh boy... but are we still talking all game in Alberta? and at the distance of 350 yards?....

[Jerry D]

.338 federal hits like a 7mm or 300 win mag at the muzzle and carrying enough energy if needed at 350 yards but more suited for closer ranges.

If it’s 350 yards all day, then that is a different story.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

oh boy... but are we still talking all game in Alberta? and at the distance of 350 yards?....

from the muzzle, out to 350 yds

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by Salavee

from the muzzle, out to 350 yds

in capable hands then lets just settle on the 45/70....

[dave99]

Originally Posted by Salavee

I see my little exercise caused some confusion, sorry. lol

What I was getting at was " what common hunting cartridge do you think will deliver the biggest payload (kinetic energy) to the door (a given distance, prior to impact) using the least amount of fuel (powder) to get it there.
What happens after impact is anybody's guess.

Given your parameters, I would be hard pressed to recommend anything over the 6.5cm.

With only 41 grains of powder, I’m pushing heavy for caliber 143gr bullets at 2760fps. Those bullets carry kinetic energy remarkably well, owing to a BC above 0.6. Felt recoil is laughable.

At 350yds, the velocity is Approx. 2250fps, and kinetic energy is 1650ft-lbs. That is plenty to flatten any Alberta animal at that range.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by dave99

Given your parameters, I would be hard pressed to recommend anything over the 6.5cm.

With only 41 grains of powder, I’m pushing heavy for caliber 143gr bullets at 2760fps. Those bullets carry kinetic energy remarkably well, owing to a BC above 0.6. Felt recoil is laughable.

At 350yds, the velocity is Approx. 2250fps, and kinetic energy is 1650ft-lbs. That is plenty to flatten any Alberta animal at that range.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bc won’t make a difference with 350 yards

[Buckhead]

The original post referenced mean and tough animals.
I would assume that includes stopping a grizzly charge.
I would not want less than a 30-06 running heavies.
Or my .338 WM if I could have it.

[sns2]

For powder EFFICIENCY I'd likely say a 308.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by sns2

For powder EFFICIENCY I'd likely say a 308.

What I meant was what cartridge delivers the biggest payload while using the least powder to get it there - all the way out from the muzzle to a max of 350 yds . So far the .308 Win and the 45/70 aren't in the running.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by Salavee

What I meant was what cartridge delivers the biggest payload while using the least powder to get it there - all the way out from the muzzle to a max of 350 yds . So far the .308 Win and the 45/70 aren't in the running.

35whelen?

https://www.shootingtimes.com/editor...werhouse/99508

[Dubious]

maybe 6.8 western? is this a game where someone has to pick the cartridge your thinking about salvee?

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Dubious

maybe 6.8 western? is this a game where someone has to pick the cartridge your thinking about salvee?

Not at all. Just curious as to what others thought. The 6.8 Western might be a contender once they have a rifle that's chambered for it.

[Jerry D]

No love for you the .338 federal anyone?

If BC didn’t make a difference then we would still be shooting round that balls that curve like a half inch diameter rainbow.

For 300yrd benchrest flat base bullets hold lots of records but when hunting, high bc bullets help a smaller cartridge hit harder at range than are larger old faithfuls from the past.

1750 ft lbs energy at 350 yards. 3000 ft lbs at the muzzle with 48 grs of powder

62.5 ft lbs per grain at the muzzle
36.5 ft lbs per grain at 350 yards

[Nyksta]

If its between choosing a cartridge with a charge as low as 40 grains or something larger say up to 70 grains of powder, you are splitting hairs between spending $0.30 or up to $0.50 per loaded round. Is approximately $0.20 difference per shot worth choosing one cartridge over another?

[dave99]

Salavee, now that we have weighed in, what do you think is the most efficient? Which cartridge wins??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Dubious

all you guys who think 300 wm 3006 and 338 are powder efficient cartridges are pretty funny

What makes a “powder efficient cartridge”?

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Salavee

What I meant was what cartridge delivers the biggest payload while using the least powder to get it there - all the way out from the muzzle to a max of 350 yds . So far the .308 Win and the 45/70 aren't in the running.

The 30-06.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Not at all. Just curious as to what others thought. The 6.8 Western might be a contender once they have a rifle that's chambered for it.

Except that many of us already are quite content with shooting what we do, soo unless a person is chasing the proverbial rabbit down the hole or looking for the Holy Grail, they are not about to buy a new cartridge " because it is better" which it won't be. Different , yes, better? nope.
Cat

[Big Lou]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

35whelen?

https://www.shootingtimes.com/editor...werhouse/99508

I was going to chime in with .35 Whelen also. .358 Norma or .350 Rem Mag also being contenders. I have a Whelen and quite like it. 30-06 with heavies like Chuck is playing with is nothing to sneeze at either of a guy wanted a .30 cal offering.

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by Jerry D

No love for you the .338 federal anyone?

If BC didn’t make a difference then we would still be shooting round that balls that curve like a half inch diameter rainbow.

For 300yrd benchrest flat base bullets hold lots of records but when hunting, high bc bullets help a smaller cartridge hit harder at range than are larger old faithfuls from the past.

1750 ft lbs energy at 350 yards. 3000 ft lbs at the muzzle with 48 grs of powder

62.5 ft lbs per grain at the muzzle
36.5 ft lbs per grain at 350 yards

I’m talking about the bc you would gain from using a eldx over a bullet like a partition

I looked at a 338 federal round once, then put it back on the shelf and grabbed a box of 338 rum. Then went and shot a grizzly

[Jerry D]

I do find these threads are quite fun hearing all the opinions. I agree what’s the ops opinion and is there any specific reason the questions was asked?

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by chuck

What makes a “powder efficient cartridge”?

To me, that would be the one that completely burns a 95% + case load density propellant charge within its barrel length.

Yours ?

[Salavee]

[QUOTE=catnthehat;4310360]Except that many of us already are quite content with shooting what we do, soo unless a person is chasing the proverbial rabbit down the hole or looking for the Holy Grail, they are not about to buy a new cartridge " because it is better" which it won't be. Different , yes, better? nope.

Better or worse and more or less become a matter of individual perspective. Better isn't necessarily more and less isn't necessarily better. No rabbit hole or Holy Grail involved. That's different.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Jerry D

I do find these threads are quite fun hearing all the opinions. I agree what’s the ops opinion and is there any specific reason the questions was asked?

No real reason other than what others thought
I spent some time prior to posting the thread on comparing the payload in KE to the amount of powder burnt to a given distance.

Here is what I found (subject to audit).. Its all very general as I divided the initial charge weight by the KE delivered to the longest range indicated at a barrel length of 26 in. Minimum 2100 ft lbs at 300 yds
Here they are:
1) .300 Win Mag (32.4) 6) 9.3x62 (37.7) 10) .308 Win (46.08
2) .338 Fed (33.9) 7) .338 win Mag (38.7)
3) .338-06 (34..4) 8) 375 H&H (38.4)
4) .35 Whelen (34.5 9 ). 30-06 (44.4)

Missed lots of ctdgs so it's meaningles as all get-out but it helped pass another Covid day.

[dave99]

Originally Posted by Salavee

No real reason other than what others thought
I spent some time prior to posting the thread on comparing the payload in KE to the amount of powder burnt to a given distance.

Here is what I found (subject to audit).. Its all very general as I divided the initial charge weight by the KE delivered to the longest range indicated at a barrel length of 26 in. Minimum 2100 ft lbs at 300 yds
Here they are:
1) .300 Win Mag (32.4) 6) 9.3x62 (37.7) 10) .308 Win (46.08
2) .338 Fed (33.9) 7) .338 win Mag (38.7)
3) .338-06 (34..4) 8) 375 H&H (38.4)
4) .35 Whelen (34.5 9 ). 30-06 (44.4)

Missed lots of ctdgs so it's meaningles as all get-out but it helped pass another Covid day.

I am both interested and confused by your method. Keep in mind that I really don’t know much about this stuff... :

Dividing KE at a fixed distance by the initial charge weight and comparing different cartridges this way looks like an interesting way to quantify efficiency.

The higher the quotient of KE / powder weight, the more efficient the cartridge is with respect to creating KE from powder burn. (Assuming that the combustion of powder x and powder y release equivalent energy- which I believe is probably false).

For one of my rifles 6.5cm with 24” barrel, 41.0 grains delivers 1752 ft-lbs at 300 yds. 1752/41 = 42.7. My best 30.06 load gets me 2130/57 = 37.3. So relatively poor compared to the 6.5cm.

According to your math, the number one performer in terms of efficiency is the .300 Win at 32.4.

Wouldn’t the lower values mean that the cartridge is inefficient at creating KE through powder burn? In other words, wouldn’t the 308 be your most efficient, followed by 30.06? With the .300 Win being least efficient?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stinky Coyote]

Highest bc, with min .25 sd preferably closer to .3 sd with mid to delayed controlled expansion construction, at moderate enough launch velocity to keep your barrel length requirements minimal such that you maintain your predetermined minimum impact velocity at 350 yards will be the top choice.

I’d probably want .3 sd, over 160gr, 7mm min landing at 2200 at 350 should do the trick. The higher the bc, the less powder needed and barrel length. Faster it goes faster it slows down too so moderate launch velocity gets a little more out of the powder also...drag is exponential.

Haven’t run a calculator but a 280 should do well, maybe even 7-08.

[Dean2]

Dav99 u are correct. Most guys already knew the 308 would be among the most efficient but that wasn't actually the original question. It is what it has morphed into, which is just fine. I am sure we could do this calc for a whole bunch more cartridges.and it is an interesting intellectual exercise but long and short it matters not at all in the real world of hunting.

[wannabe]

Originally Posted by Salavee

I see my little exercise caused some confusion, sorry. lol

What I was getting at was " what common hunting cartridge do you think will deliver the biggest payload (kinetic energy) to the door (a given distance, prior to impact) using the least amount of fuel (powder) to get it there.
What happens after impact is anybody's guess.

300wsm all day every day.

I found a great deal on a 325wsm and went that route. It's pretty similar to 300wsm.
Impressive to say the least. 200gr accubond with 65gr of r17 going 2900fps.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by dave99

I am both interested and confused by your method. Keep in mind that I really don’t know much about this stuff... :

Dividing KE at a fixed distance by the initial charge weight and comparing different cartridges this way looks like an interesting way to quantify efficiency.

The higher the quotient of KE / powder weight, the more efficient the cartridge is with respect to creating KE from powder burn. (Assuming that the combustion of powder x and powder y release equivalent energy- which I believe is probably false).

For one of my rifles 6.5cm with 24” barrel, 41.0 grains delivers 1752 ft-lbs at 300 yds. 1752/41 = 42.7. My best 30.06 load gets me 2130/57 = 37.3. So relatively poor compared to the 6.5cm.

According to your math, the number one performer in terms of efficiency is the .300 Win at 32.4.

Wouldn’t the lower values mean that the cartridge is inefficient at creating KE through powder burn? In other words, wouldn’t the 308 be your most efficient, followed by 30.06? With the .300 Win being least efficient?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

KE is a result of weight and motion or velocity. so the 300 Win mag wins. It delivers much more energy to its destination than a .308 or a 30-06.
A 30-06 is efficient , until it has to go to work and deliver a substantially greater amount of energy,- then the 300 Win takes over. The .308 Win even more lacking than the -06. The governing body's are Chamber pressure and case capacities. A smaller amount of powder used in a small cartridge case does not necessarily make it efficient when it comes delivering High energy bullets. They get super high velocity with their lighter bullets, but not much energy. Hope this makes sense. lol