The most efficient hunting cartridges

BlackRam said:
But this has nothing to do with the efficiency of the cartridge's ability to turn each grain of powder into velocity and energy of the projectile. Recoil is a byproduct of the action, as is heat and noise. These other products of the combustion of gunpowder actually decrease the cartridge's efficiency. It is just physics.
Click to expand...

Most people on this thread understand efficiency in exactly the way you are presenting... the problem is, that is not the conversation that we are having.
 
BlackRam said:
Twisted Sprocket,
This is a good point!
As various powders have different burn rates, the load with a given bullet, is going to burn more or less completely in a given barrel length.
This is why I brought up the point on barrel length. By using the same barrel length when comparing cartridges, you reduce the variables to provide more consistent results in the data obtained. While many smaller and medium length cartidges are chamberred in rifles 22" or 24" barrels, and the magnums are often chambered in rifles with 24" or 26", if we used 24" barrel length as a standard for all cartridges evaluated, the results would be more consistent and meaningful. JMHO. Even the reloading manuals do not do this.

With the availability of QuickLoad to also be able to determine the percentage of powder burned, I believe a more complete picture of the efficiency of the cartridge and load used can be made.
Here also lies another difficulty; various cartridges have various powders that work better based on case capacity and powder column characterisitics.
So,it brings up the question; Do you do efficiency comparisons based on caliber or case families in order to obtain better results? (i.e. .264, .284, .308, .338, .358, etc. or short action cases such as the 308 family compared to the long action cases compared to magnum cases such as 7mm Rem Mag, the WSM's and 375 H&H based families; with a common powder that works well across the caliber or case family).

In my research, I used the caliber family to determine the most efficient case in the rifles I own or have owned, and am interested in. After that I could compare on case families, as the data is there to corelate. As TB found, the short action cases proved more efficient in producing the higher velocities and energies, in each caliber family. Haven't yet finished looking at the case families to conclude a trend. In my research I also looked at drop and retained velocities and energies, but this is more in relation to the projectile than the cartridge, but does add to overall efficiency when comparing various bullet weights in a given cartridge. Another variable to consider! LOL

I have a friend who has QL, and I may have to spend some time there to determine powder burn percentages and add that data to my comparison. The newer versions of QL also have data for the newer powders compared to my older Nosler Manuals, and I may yet find powders that provide better results in each caliber and/or case family. Definitely takes time to complete! LOL

Again, the exercise is not intended to discount any cartridge's effectiveness.
I know many look at the cost of shooting their chosen rifle/cartridge combinations, but this has never been my main concern. Neither is recoil. I am not overly sensitive to it, but do not need to beat my shoulder needlessly in order to provide sustenance for me and my family, or to have fun. I dislike muzzle brakes. If I cannot shoot a rifle well, I am not going to use it or keep it. AndI would rather get closer to my target than use a bigger cartridge. and I too, prefer effective cartridges! I just find it interesting that many of my rifles today are in more efficient cartridges! These are just my preferences.
Click to expand...

It would be very interesting to see the results! And yes time consuming! My limited research has prompted me to sell my two WBY magnums and 25-06 in favour of the good old 308 Winchester, plus I have moved and am no longer close to my brothers reloading equipment so now I want easily available factory ammo and a more versatile cartridge.
 
6.5 Creedmoor 140gr Accubond @ 2855 fps
45.0grs powder
BC .462
Recoil = 15 ft lbs
500y energy = 1230 ft lbs
Ft lb bullet energy per ft lb recoil = 82.0
RL26, 100% powder burn @ 21" of bore travel
Magpro 95% @ 24"
IMR 7828ssc 97% @ 24"
RL22 99% @ 24"
RL17 100% @ 16" of bore travel
RL16 100% @ 18" bore travel


300 Ultra Mag 200gr Accubond @ 3115 fps
91.1grs powder
BC .524
Recoil = 50 ft lbs
500y energy = 2346 ft lbs
Ft lb bullet energy per ft lb recoil = 46.9
RL33 98% powder burn @ 26"
Retumbo 100% @ 17" of bore travel
RL50 98% @ 26"
H1000 100% @ 26"
RL26 100% @ 15" bore travel
Magpro 99% @ 26"

 
todbartell said:
6.5 Creedmoor 140gr Accubond @ 2855 fps
45.0grs powder
BC .462
Recoil = 15 ft lbs
500y energy = 1230 ft lbs
Ft lb bullet energy per ft lb recoil = 82.0
RL26, 100% powder burn @ 21" of bore travel
Magpro 95% @ 24"
IMR 7828ssc 97% @ 24"
RL22 99% @ 24"
RL17 100% @ 16" of bore travel
RL16 100% @ 18" bore travel


300 Ultra Mag 200gr Accubond @ 3115 fps
91.1grs powder
BC .524
Recoil = 50 ft lbs
500y energy = 2346 ft lbs
Ft lb bullet energy per ft lb recoil = 46.9
RL33 98% powder burn @ 26"
Retumbo 100% @ 17" of bore travel
RL50 98% @ 26"
H1000 100% @ 26"
RL26 100% @ 15" bore travel
Magpro 99% @ 26"
Click to expand...

That’s a huge variation! What made you choose those powders?
 
todbartell said:
6.5 Creedmoor 140gr Accubond @ 2855 fps
45.0grs powder
BC .462
Recoil = 15 ft lbs
500y energy = 1230 ft lbs
Ft lb bullet energy per ft lb recoil = 82.0
RL26, 100% powder burn @ 21" of bore travel
Magpro 95% @ 24"
IMR 7828ssc 97% @ 24"
RL22 99% @ 24"
RL17 100% @ 16" of bore travel
RL16 100% @ 18" bore travel


300 Ultra Mag 200gr Accubond @ 3115 fps
91.1grs powder
BC .524
Recoil = 50 ft lbs
500y energy = 2346 ft lbs
Ft lb bullet energy per ft lb recoil = 46.9
RL33 98% powder burn @ 26"
Retumbo 100% @ 17" of bore travel
RL50 98% @ 26"
H1000 100% @ 26"
RL26 100% @ 15" bore travel
Magpro 99% @ 26"
Click to expand...

Very cool information!
Would love to see same for all of your top 10 list!
 
I have owned a 7 X 57 for years; sold the three 6.5 x 55 s; now looking for another. Interesting how another very old round surpasses the 6.5 Creedmore that has been touted as the ultimate all-round cartridge for everything. The Creed has a slight edge with light bullets; but not enough to justify two rifles.
 
If you want to talk about "Red Herrings", Quickload's "% Burned" needs to be at the top of the list.

Leaving aside how it's been estimated (Quickload does not test each powder, they use their algorithms), it's just not relevant to this discussion and I don't think in any discussion. I can't imagine how it should affect load decisions, since it's well established (since the 1950's, with several further tests confirming it) that the powder that produces the highest MV in a long barrel will produce the highest MV in a shorter barrel.

But in this discussion, what matters concerning "Efficiency" is the quantity of powder used and the MV it produces.
 
todbartell said:
50 BMG recoil in a 8lb rifle? :cool:



I agree somewhat. There's much more important factors in killing game, like shot placement, bullet construction, to a lesser degree caliber. Energy is just a mathematical formula, which does have some merit in comparisons.



Lighter for caliber loads makes the "efficiency" number go down. I did post different bullet weights for some (7-08 140/160, 308 150/165/180, 30-06 150/165/180/200).



I'll use 100 yard specs, more in line with these chamberings. 7lb rifles :

22 Savage High Power, 70gr Hornady @ 2750 fps
26.1grs powder
BC .296
Recoil = 5 ft lbs
100y energy = 946 ft lbs
Ft lb bullet energy per ft lb recoil = 189.2

30-30 Win, 170gr Speer FNSP @ 2060 fps
28.0grs powder
BC .298
Recoil = 9 ft lbs
100y energy = 1254 ft lbs
Ft lb bullet energy per ft lb recoil = 139.3

44-40 Win, 200gr Cast @ 1050 fps
6.6grs powder
BC .170
Recoil = 2 ft lbs
100y energy = 392 ft lbs
Ft lb bullet energy per ft lb recoil = 196.0

44 Mag, 240gr JHP @ 1775 fps
23.1grs powder
BC .205
Recoil = 11 ft lbs
100y energy = 1157 ft lbs
ft lb bullet energy per ft lb recoil = 105.2

45/70 Gvt, 405gr JSP @ 1600 fps
44.2grs powder
BC .280
Recoil = 27 ft lbs
100y energy = 1752 ft lbs
ft lb energy per ft lb recoil = 64.9



7mm-08 Rem 160gr Accubond @ 2675 fps
42.9grs powder
BC .462
Recoil = 16 ft lbs
500y energy = 1207 ft lbs
Ft lb bullet energy per ft lb recoil = 75.4

7x57 160gr Accubond @ 2765 fps (modern rifles)
47.8grs powder
BC .462
Recoil = 18 ft lbs
500y energy = 1304 ft lbs
Ft lb bullet energy per ft lb recoil = 72.4
Click to expand...

thanks, I wasn't really expecting you do do that!
 
Andy said:
If you want to talk about "Red Herrings", Quickload's "% Burned" needs to be at the top of the list.

Leaving aside how it's been estimated (Quickload does not test each powder, they use their algorithms), it's just not relevant to this discussion and I don't think in any discussion. I can't imagine how it should affect load decisions, since it's well established (since the 1950's, with several further tests confirming it) that the powder that produces the highest MV in a long barrel will produce the highest MV in a shorter barrel.

But in this discussion, what matters concerning "Efficiency" is the quantity of powder used and the MV it produces.
Click to expand...

The burn rates that TB posted give the indication that it isn’t much of a concern as most of the powders were burned up in under 20” of barrel length.

One thing I noticed is that the 6.5 CM and the 308 produce nearly identical MV and 500 yd energy (140 gr 6.5 vs 165 gr 308) with nearly the same amount of powder, of course the creed will have the flatter trajectory but the “boring, everybody has one” 308 is one heck of cartridge after 65 years!
 
I'm a little puzzled by the whole concept of efficient cartridges. If the point of the exercise is to humanely kill a game animal at a distance, why would I care if the cartridge I chose burned 40 grs of powder or 100? A 6.5X55 is useful in one situation, while a .378 Weatherby in useful in another. The game being hunted and the terrain the game is hunted in is what dictates the choice of cartridge, and the powder charge for a given bullet weight is never a consideration. I personally get more enjoyment from shooting a .300 magnum than I do a .300 Savage. Despite the fact that in even a light rifle the .300 Savage is pleasant to shoot, and despite the fact that it fills a useful niche, it simply lacks the versatility of cartridges with larger powder capacities, which can be handloaded to fill any niche the hunter has in mind.
 
Which is one of the reasons I've not given up on the .308 nor intend to anytime soon.


Twisted Sprocket said:
The burn rates that TB posted give the indication that it isn’t much of a concern as most of the powders were burned up in under 20” of barrel length.

One thing I noticed is that the 6.5 CM and the 308 produce nearly identical MV and 500 yd energy (140 gr 6.5 vs 165 gr 308) with nearly the same amount of powder, of course the creed will have the flatter trajectory but the “boring, everybody has one” 308 is one heck of cartridge after 65 years!
Click to expand...
 
Boomer said:
I'm a little puzzled by the whole concept of efficient cartridges. If the point of the exercise is to humanely kill a game animal at a distance, why would I care if the cartridge I chose burned 40 grs of powder or 100? A 6.5X55 is useful in one situation, while a .378 Weatherby in useful in another. The game being hunted and the terrain the game is hunted in is what dictates the choice of cartridge, and the powder charge for a given bullet weight is never a consideration. I personally get more enjoyment from shooting a .300 magnum than I do a .300 Savage. Despite the fact that in even a light rifle the .300 Savage is pleasant to shoot, and despite the fact that it fills a useful niche, it simply lacks the versatility of cartridges with larger powder capacities, which can be handloaded to fill any niche the hunter has in mind.
Click to expand...

Everyone will have their personal preference, but a 308 will take down almost any North American animal at 1/2 the cost (for ammo) and significantly less recoil than a 300 magnum. Now getting into comparing big game cartridges vs dangerous game cartridges isn’t really a good comparison as they are in completely different categories. If you like magnums that’s fine, no one is knocking them and yes they have their place and can take a broader range of animals but that’s not the point of this thread. As far as taking an animal cleanly, that’s more dependant on shot placement and bullet performance than the cartridge being used (within reason of course).
 
Twisted Sprocket said:
Everyone will have their personal preference, but a 308 will take down almost any North American animal at 1/2 the cost (for ammo) and significantly less recoil than a 300 magnum. Now getting into comparing big game cartridges vs dangerous game cartridges isn’t really a good comparison as they are in completely different categories. If you like magnums that’s fine, no one is knocking them and yes they have their place and can take a broader range of animals but that’s not the point of this thread. As far as taking an animal cleanly, that’s more dependant on shot placement and bullet performance than the cartridge being used (within reason of course).
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. The most expensive component of our ammunition is the brass case followed by the bullet. Since the same bullet can be used on any .30 caliber cartridge, the cost there is equal, and the price difference between commercial the offerings of .308, .30/06, and .300 Winchester brass is fairly minor. The largest difference in the loads is the powder charge, which ranges between 45 and 80 grs, when we load for a 180 gr bullet yet the cost of powder doesn't compare to the cost of the bullet or the brass case.

As an example it costs about $55 for 100 180 gr Nosler ABs, or about .55 ea.
.308 brass cartridge cases cost $46/50 or .92 ea
.300 Winchester cartridge cases cost $78/50 or $1.56 ea
100 LR primers cost $6/100 or .06 ea
powder prices average $40/lb so cost $40/155 rds of .308 or .28 ea.
and $40/87 rounds of .300 or .46/ea

Total cost per round of .308 is $1.81
Total cost per round of .300 Winchester is $2.63 so the difference is closer to 45% than it is 100%.

Whether or not the difference in performance can be appreciated by an individual depends upon the individual, and the prowess you bestow upon the .308 can also be said of the .30/30, which has also taken moose, grizzlies and bison. The terminal performance of the .300 is greater, but the hunter must be able to shoot competently in order to exploit the advantage. Sometimes though a 6 pound .308 carbine is nicer to carry than an 8 pound .300, and that is where the .308 really shines, not in the fact that it burns less powder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom