bolt action guys... interested in more efficient cartridges???

[jimbob86]

Really? Barely enough to take a deer. If you want to knock a moose off you better be close enough to pump about 8 or those 30-30 thingies into it! At 150 yards you could stop one of the bullets with a piece of paper.

????



Maybe if the piece of paper was ....say 50 yards x 50 yards, and was tightly folded several hundred times......


I've seen several pass throughs on whitetail with my daughter's 30-30 .... the only bullet we have recovered from a deer taken with that rifle was the one that shattered both hocks and stopped under the hide of the far one ..... deer was on a full gallop at over 100 yards away ..... she did not lead him enough, but got the job done.

I'd not even hesitate to take her 30A after moose, with a 170gr Partition over 34grains of RL15 .....

 

[JerryM]

I have always been interested in performance, and don't care a whit about efficiency.
Jerry

 

[reynolds357]

The .22lr is real efficient.

 

[Bart B.]

Cartridge efficiency? Let's see what ratios might be used....

Grains of powder per 100 foot-pounds of muzzle energy?

Grains of powder per 1000 fps of muzzle velocity?

Grains of bullet divided by grains of powder times 1000 foot pounds of bullet energy?

Something else math-formulated by another thing?

We all gotta agree what defines "efficiency" first. There's lots of ways; what's the best?

It's like fuel economy in vehicles. Doesn't the expression have to use a monetary unit someplace to represent some economic feature? Pennys per mile the gas costs? Miles per dollar's worth of gas?

 

[steveNChunter]

When you think about the money you have invested in your rifles, reloading/cleaning supplies, hunting gear, an ATV, license/tags, gun safe, etc. It really makes saving ~10 gr of powder per round a non-issue, doesn't it?

Lets do the math. There are 7,000 grains in a pound. Lets generously estimate a pound of powder at 25 dollars. 25 divided by 7,000 is 0.003571428571429. So if you are using 10 less grains of powder per round you would take that big long number and multiply it by 10. That adds up to 0.035... So you save about 3.5 cents a round. So you save $3.50 on 100 rounds. Factor in the cost of bullets, brass, primers, and consider the velocity loss, and it seems to me it's worth the extra 3.5 cents to shoot a "non-efficient cartridge".

 

[taylorce1]

Powder isn't the only thing being consumed. Lets go extremes here since that's what we seem to be talking about. Lets compare a .250 Savage to a .257 Weaterby. It takes 40.5 grains of H4350 to propel a 100 gran bullets at 2900 fps, and it takes 63 grains of powder to propel a 100 grain bullet to 3500 fps. By your math that is a difference of 23 grains or .0805 cents per round or if we go up to 100 rounds $8.05 cents difference.

With a .250 Savage I can run regular cup and core bullets for around $20 per 100. With a .257 Roy I'd better use something like a TSX in a 100 grain bullet so I'm looking at around $65 per 100 bullets. So now I'm $45 per hundred more for bullets or $0.45 per bullet.

Now lets look at brass, .250 Savage is $32 per 50 rounds or $0.64 cents a cartridge. .257 Weatherby brass is $53 per 50 rounds or $1.06 per cartridge. So now we can figure on average eight reloads per .250 case and five reloads per .257 Wby Mag case.


Whip out the handy dandy reloading calculator and you're looking at roughly $9.40 per 20 rounds of the .250 Savage. The Weatherby will cost you $22.64 per 20 rounds. More than twice the cost of a .250 Savage to reload. Multiply that all by 8 or 5 and what do you get? A little over $85 per 100 40 rounds for the Savage vs. $113 for 100 rounds of the Weatherby. So you have a net savings of $28 and get to shoot 40 more times vs. what you get out of the Weatherby.

 

[steveNChunter]

Taylorce1- I understand the point you're making but your comparison goes way beyond comparing cartridge efficiency. Comparing the price of brass for a Weatherby caliber vs. almost anything will show the Weatherby brass being much more expensive. Run those numbers again with the .250 savage vs. a .25-06 (another "inefficient" cartridge). With both using a standard cup and core bullet (I've taken several deer with 100 gr cup & core's in a .25-06 at ~3300 fps, they will do the job) and lets say IMR-4350 powder. I know the .25-06 max load will be about 53 gr depending on the rifle. I don't know about the .250, probably around 40 gr? You will see much less difference in cost per 100 as the powder is going to be the only major difference in cost. Your last post is comparing apples to oranges. Bullet efficiency and the price of Weatherby brass are different topics entirely.

 

[Jimro]

I think the "efficient cartridge" crowd will always have their favorites. I think the new "favorite" is the 300 Blackout.

At least in terms of grains of powder pushing grains of bullet at X velocity definition of efficiency. Generally as cartridges get closer to "straight wall" they get "more efficient" this way. Which is why the 358 Win is more "efficient" than the 308 Win, in terms of turning chemical energy into kinetic energy.

Doesn't stop me from owning a couple 308's and not a single 358.

Jimro

 

[taylorce1]

Your last post is comparing apples to oranges. Bullet efficiency and the price of Weatherby brass are different topics entirely.

First off I said I was taking it to the extreme, and I left out a lot in that post but it wasn't an apples to oranges. Efficiency means more than just the amount of powder burned, you need to think of efficiency as total cost of ownership. If all things were equal in price, brass, bullets, and primers, and the only difference was the amount of powder burned the .257 Weatherby would still be far more expensive to own and maintain. Why, because the erosion of the barrel would be far greater than the roughly the $8 per 100 difference in powder being burned.

If you shot both cartridges exactly the same, I'd wager you'd have to replace two barrels at minimum in the Weatherby vs. Savage. So since I'd shoot the Savage on average more than the .257 Weatherby, that $8 per hundred I'd save would add up to a new barrel or rifle much quicker. Plus a person would shoot more and hone their skills better with the .250 Savage.

I'm not saying the larger magnums don't have their place, and that I don't use them. I'll say this though they don't get shot a whole lot and they spend most of the time gathering dust in the back of my safe. Because, for what I mostly shoot the big boys simply aren't needed.

 

[reynolds357]

I guess about as "efficient" as I plan on getting is the 6.5 Creedmoor. Most of the time I am still going to be using a 7 or .270 WSM. ON occasion I will be using my 7 Rum or my .30-378 WBY. To me, "efficiency" is marked by how few steps I have to walk to find what I shot. 0 steps is highly efficient. 200, not efficient at all.

 

[taylorce1]

Yes, but killing game has never been about how much powder you're burning. You can easily have an animal run after being shot with your .30-378 if the bullet fails to hit anythingi vital. Killing game efficiently has always been first and foremost putting the bullet where it belongs.

 

[reynolds357]

I agree. Having said that, I have shot a lot of big game over the years. The shock wave tissue damage seen in the wounds from the ultra velocity rifles makes for much faster stops than the double diameter of projectile holes left by the slower cartridges. I have shot a pile of deer with my .30-30 Winchester. Heart shots usually run at least 50 yards. Lung shots, 200 to 300 yards is not uncommon. Heart shots from the .257 WBY are dead in tracks. Lung shots? 50 yards at most. When you "autopsy" the deer, the amount of damage done becomes most obvious. At slow velocity, you have a clean wound channel. Hyper velocity yields a big pile of gelatin looking mess that used to be tissue.
The 7 Rum has field dressed white tails for me a few times. The amount of tissue damage is massive. The down side of that is that a hit in the wrong place destroys so much meat that you lost 1/3 of your animal.

 

[steveNChunter]

Originally Posted by reynolds357
To me, "efficiency" is marked by how few steps I have to walk to find what I shot. 0 steps is highly efficient. 200, not efficient at all.

Originally Posted by taylorce1
Killing game efficiently has always been first and foremost putting the bullet where it belongs.

I agree with both of these, and I believe the best way to a DRT shot is a light, tough bullet at high velocity. I'm about to do some experimenting this coming season with 80 gr Barnes TSX's in a .25-06 and 6mm rem. The .224 TSX bullets seem to be making some impressive kills as well, if my .220 swift had a little faster twist rate I'd be loading them for it and taking it deer hunting.

 

[tahoe2]

I use silly old cartridges, like 7x57 Mauser, 30-30, 300 Savage, and 8x57 Mauser.
They seem pretty efficient for the ranges I hunt at, all the animals I had in my sights were DRT.

 

[std7mag]

Hmmm, to me the "efficient" cartridges mean smaller casing pushing a smaller bullet.
Great if your biggest threat is a prairie dog.
Not so great if you live in bear or big cat country!

As for my own experiences, I have had 1 deer run about 30 yrds after being shot with the 30-30. Numerous deer shot with my 30-06, and not one have taken a single step after being hit.

That being said, I don't just take my 06 out at deer season. I practice with it all year long. Ground hogs make good practice during the summer months
While at the range I like to shoot bowling pins, and sometimes golf balls, just to make things interesting.

Have just moved up to the 7mm Rem Mag and love the heck out of this gun/cartridge combo so far!!!

However at $30 a box for the cheapest thing I can find for it, I've been pushed into reloading.

Working up loads for Reloader 25, with the Sierra 160gr. HPBT Gameking.

OH, as for cheap and efficient... for my short range deer gun I use a NEF 20gauge with slugs... Cheap gun, light, fast handling, cheap ammo, and a plenty big enough hole...

 

[dahermit]

Not so great if you live in bear or big cat country!

Seems that almost all of us do not live in Brown bear country; that is what you meant(not black bears) wasn't it? And as for "big" cats, they seem to be easily shot out of trees with 30-30's or any little "efficient" cartridge.

To me an "efficient" cartridge is one that has a case volume that does not leave as much, little, or no empty space in most loads. Therefore, I consider the .308 more efficient than the 30-06, the 7MM-08 more efficient than the 7x57, the .260 Rem. more efficient than the 6.5 Swed. Given that they are mostly used as deer rifles, not as often for bigger stuff, the lightest hunting/game (not varmint), bullet is the common choice. Which such considerations, the extra length of the classics, requiring longer actions, combined with the (usually), empty air space in most loadings, make them less efficient. Just my opinion...just how I see it.

 

[dahermit]

I use silly old cartridges, like 7x57 Mauser, 30-30, 300 Savage, and 8x57 Mauser.

Short length, near 100% loading density; what is inefficient about the .300 Savage?

 

[taylorce1]

Not so great if you live in bear or big cat country!

The internet has perpetuated a myth that you need seriously large magnums to kill brown and grizzly bear. A lot of these big animals were killed before the magnums came along with old black powder muzzle loaders and cartridges. There was a story a few years back out of Alaska of a guy killing a brown bear sow with a .220 Swift, it was the only rifle he had and his buddy who was being mauled by the bear was glad that he had it.

Big cats in the States is the mountain lion. The guys that hunt these on a regular basis often take them with pistols and .22 Hornets after they have been bayed up by dogs. Mountain lion are a thin skinned game animal and anything capable of taking out a coyote to deer is certainly capable of killing a lion. Another thing is if a mountain lion decides to attack you, they are an ambush preadator and you'll rarely have time if any to bring any weapon to bear on them.

 

[reynolds357]

When you discuss loading density, it seems that when a cartridge is developed that needs a different powder, the powder companies catch up eventually. We are compressing cartridges today that we could not load over 88% when their first wildcat versions rolled out. As time passes, over bore cartridges get more and more efficient.

 

[Magnum Wheel Man]

The shock wave tissue damage seen in the wounds from the ultra velocity rifles makes for much faster stops than the double diameter of projectile holes left by the slower cartridges. I have shot a pile of deer with my .30-30 Winchester. Heart shots usually run at least 50 yards. Lung shots, 200 to 300 yards is not uncommon. Heart shots from the .257 WBY are dead in tracks. Lung shots? 50 yards at most. When you "autopsy" the deer, the amount of damage done becomes most obvious. At slow velocity, you have a clean wound channel. Hyper velocity yields a big pile of gelatin looking mess that used to be tissue.

I agree with the hydrostatic shock part... but I am a bigger bullet guy... whish I had the "my 1st couple years at deer my FIL's deer camp" thing permanently saved I did all the field dressing of the deer the 1st couple years... I suppose they wanted to make sure I knew how I used the time to study wound tracks, so I'm very familiar with the hydrostatic shock... I also found that when I switched to 45-70 from .243, that I actually had less "blood shot" ( bruising around the wound channel ) with the 45-70... & I'd say the 45-70 planted deer every bit as good, & likely better ( the reason I switched ) than the .243