I had a BAR in 338 for a while, was easier on the shoulder than either of my two bolt action 338's. - dan
Merits of 7mm Rem Mag Vs 338 Win Mag for long range Elk/Moose/Bear cartridge?
- Thread starter Northern Shooter
- Start date
I had a BAR in 338 for a while, was easier on the shoulder than either of my two bolt action 338's. - dan
Yes indeed. - dan
My thinking was bigger temporary cavity/faster bullet upset=faster death, as animals seem to bleed in rather than bleed out through a hole IMO, with a certain threshold at which enough damage was enough damage and returns start to immediately diminish. Say, hit with a 223 is much different than a hit with a 30-06...which is much LESS different than a hit from a 300 magnum...and on.
The bigger meplat makes sense if its a non expanding bullet like a flat hard cast, or if the bullet encounters enough resistance early that by the time it reaches the vitals, it is already expanded and any energy being turned into work of damaging tissue outside of direct bullet path has already occurred.
The bigger meplat makes sense if its a non expanding bullet like a flat hard cast, or if the bullet encounters enough resistance early that by the time it reaches the vitals, it is already expanded and any energy being turned into work of damaging tissue outside of direct bullet path has already occurred.
- Location
- sudbury, ontario
Gun been used is a benelli r1 in 338 wm.....to find a new browning bar is impossible...not in production....this is why my buddy went with a benelli ...
Myself I’m a browning person all the way..great success with the bars in 7mm....and my favourite the 2506 ...as for benelli my dad has one and the accuracy is not very good ....it walks after 3,4 shots
210’s eh well my friend is using barns ttsx in 210’s and I think he’s using variety powder according to barns manual ...Temperature insensible powder
Myself I’m a browning person all the way..great success with the bars in 7mm....and my favourite the 2506 ...as for benelli my dad has one and the accuracy is not very good ....it walks after 3,4 shots
210’s eh well my friend is using barns ttsx in 210’s and I think he’s using variety powder according to barns manual ...Temperature insensible powder
When your expanding bullet expands, it then becomes the diameter of the larger bullet. Start with a larger bullet to begin with and you already have that advantage. - dan
Of course, Dan. That's what I mean about if you hit something substantial enough that the expansion of the bullet (and thus violent damage associated it) has already happened before it gets to the vitals.
If it does happen in the vitals, most of the damage seems to come from jellified/damaged organs of a radius much longer/wider than just bullet diameter, no? That part seems rather secondary to me.
Representation in image:
I admit that a larger, heavier bullet with more energy/speed than a ligher, smaller bullet of like construction is going to do more damage, regardless...but again, past a certain threshold, I kinda figure death takes about the same amount of time, due to diminished returns
Last edited:
BigUglyMan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Scotland
I know it's tongue in cheek, but it's also not wrong.
Of course, Dan. That's what I mean about if you hit something substantial enough that the expansion of the bullet (and thus violent damage associated it) has already happened before it gets to the vitals.
If it does happen in the vitals, most of the damage seems to come from jellified/damaged organs of a radius much longer/wider than just bullet diameter, no? That part seems rather secondary to me.
Representation in image:
I admit that a larger, heavier bullet with more energy/speed than a ligher, smaller bullet of like construction is going to do more damage, regardless...but again, past a certain threshold, I kinda figure death takes about the same amount of time, due to diminished returns
The only tests and data I am aware of that involved death of the test subjects was Hatcher's work on goats. Perhaps start there. - dan
Nah, no modern hunting bullets in em. Doesn't really get into this phenomenon very much at all. Hatcher formula/Tompson-Legarde test was pistol bullets, wasn't it?
Faster, more violently expanding bullets killing things faster than tougher bullets of like construction is a thing I feel pretty safe to say many, many more hunters than just i have observed, showing the diameter of the expaneded bullet is of secondary importance.
Faster, more violently expanding bullets killing things faster than tougher bullets of like construction is a thing I feel pretty safe to say many, many more hunters than just i have observed, showing the diameter of the expaneded bullet is of secondary importance.
Yes the 338 WM is capable to 5-600 yards. It just isn't the rifle I choose when I'm posted up on the riverbank, looking the swamps over waiting for my opportunity. It's the cartridge I want when I go down into the swamps pursuing my targeted species. I like the 338 WM in a shorter barreled, 8'ish pound, handy to carry package. I grab my 300 WM in a 12 lb rifle when I post up and I carry my 338 WM in a 8lb rifle when I'm down chasing. With my bullet choice for my 338 WM I would not shoot at game past 500yrds. With a different bullet you could lengthen that distance easily. Good luck with your new rifle.
Chuck wins. There's some guides around here seen a lot of 7mm stuff too, did they chime in? Where's dogleg and ardent? The got some good 7mm witnessing/doing?
Terminal ballistics discussions always go off the rails, because it's subjective. It bugs me that nearly 1/4 of the way into the 21st century it's still so subjective but we've got the in-flight ballistics sorted out to a couple miles and more now. But as soon as the swimming starts so does the arguing.
I started studying the numbers long ago to get better 'more objective' answers so I could plan things for what I wanted going forward better. I shot a .270 win/wsm lots, 50+ grains of powder burned. The last 5 seasons shooting a slight lighter bullet with only 30 grains of powder behind it and seeing overall shorter recoveries than before. I understand why due to studying the right numbers instead of the wrong ones.
There will be an evolution in terminal ballistics to rival the in-flight ballistics soon. Sectional Density Reduction Rate, Energy Reduction Rate, study of the final bullet through standardized testing and impact velocities, to compare to all the other options. Close to the 'fbi' type testing but for 'big game hunting bullets'.
Currently the most accurate way to objectively compare is SD, Construction, and Impact Velocity...apply the right formula of that for Game Intended and you get far better results and high insurance deep penetrating type set ups that leave most of the 'work potential' in the hillside etc. The head stamp, bullet weight or ft/lbs are not important in predicting outcomes, there's a few other things much higher on the list of importance.
It's quite a range. So in this 7mm vs 338 discussion have people compared the starting SD's, construction types and velocity ranges? I haven't started yet but something tells me heavy for cal, like 160+ grain 7mm's are going to have some pretty awesome numbers to go with that solid reputation that comes with it, the .338 will need some pretty heavy bullets to compete, sounds like a lot of shoulder punishment and inefficiency with the big one. Do both launch the same SD bullet at same velocities? Does one have much higher bc so it will have a distance advantage on impact velocities? Those are the things that matter more than the diameter or head stamp.
Terminal ballistics discussions always go off the rails, because it's subjective. It bugs me that nearly 1/4 of the way into the 21st century it's still so subjective but we've got the in-flight ballistics sorted out to a couple miles and more now. But as soon as the swimming starts so does the arguing.
I started studying the numbers long ago to get better 'more objective' answers so I could plan things for what I wanted going forward better. I shot a .270 win/wsm lots, 50+ grains of powder burned. The last 5 seasons shooting a slight lighter bullet with only 30 grains of powder behind it and seeing overall shorter recoveries than before. I understand why due to studying the right numbers instead of the wrong ones.
There will be an evolution in terminal ballistics to rival the in-flight ballistics soon. Sectional Density Reduction Rate, Energy Reduction Rate, study of the final bullet through standardized testing and impact velocities, to compare to all the other options. Close to the 'fbi' type testing but for 'big game hunting bullets'.
Currently the most accurate way to objectively compare is SD, Construction, and Impact Velocity...apply the right formula of that for Game Intended and you get far better results and high insurance deep penetrating type set ups that leave most of the 'work potential' in the hillside etc. The head stamp, bullet weight or ft/lbs are not important in predicting outcomes, there's a few other things much higher on the list of importance.
It's quite a range. So in this 7mm vs 338 discussion have people compared the starting SD's, construction types and velocity ranges? I haven't started yet but something tells me heavy for cal, like 160+ grain 7mm's are going to have some pretty awesome numbers to go with that solid reputation that comes with it, the .338 will need some pretty heavy bullets to compete, sounds like a lot of shoulder punishment and inefficiency with the big one. Do both launch the same SD bullet at same velocities? Does one have much higher bc so it will have a distance advantage on impact velocities? Those are the things that matter more than the diameter or head stamp.
yes, I see more drt's and shorter recoveries from cup and core more rapid expansion design at moderate velocities than I do from tougher delayed controlled expansion bullets at most velocities, but prefer and wait for the typical broadside kill zone shots regardless
the relations works along these lines, if you have softer bullets of a certain SD...the faster you drive them the faster they lose their SD after impact which is shallower penetration, so a 55 gr v-max from a .243 at 3900 fps is great for coyotes but lousy for big game, yet put a 100 gr partition in the same .243 and all big game is easily killed to 300 yards, you have to get the formula right
you either need to really 'up' your SD if you're going to drive things faster so enough bullet/sd remains to get adequate penetration for game intended...or slow it way down so it stays together to get necessary penetration, or for lower sd bullets...they need to get really tough (mono's) to keep together to ensure adequate penetration
the two spectrums of more rapid controlled expansion to delayed controlled expansion perform differently in the animals, less internal seems to happen with the delayed expansion, the best of all worlds is to have the more rapid expansion construction but a long enough higher sd bullet so the front half of the bullet can really open up to do great work and there remains plenty on the arse end(retained sd) to ensure adequate penetration for game intended, the partition was brilliant for it's time, it basically combined two bullets in one so you got the performance of both camps in one bullet, you can replicate that with some of the newer bullets that have much higher sd's above .275 and closer to .3...still have to mind the velocity range for game intended and expected penetration depths but I'll take a 140 gr 6.5 eld-m at moderate velocities formula over almost anything, easier to shoot well also as placement trumps displacement anyway
so for deer size game to elk size game you need another half point of sd as a starting point basis for example, so starting somewhere around .2 sd is good rot for deer size game, starting somewhere around .25 is better rot for elk/moose size game...on the minimum ends, the higher you go the better, and if you can blend expansion and penetration well with the cartridge for the construction...there's magic to be found in getting it right and you don't need to burn too much powder to do it, the head stamp has nothing to do with it, the 'energy' has nothing to do with it
find .25 or higher sd mild construction high bc bullets and land them between 2400 and 1800 fps on animals and you'll get your 20-24" penetration while doing awesome internal work, that is a good formula, a 168 gr .308 equivalent, in 6.5 that's 123 gr, in 7mm that's just over 140 grain, in .338 it's 200 gr....if you speed those up too much like with 7 rem mag, or the fast 6.5's or fast 300's, the penetration drops or you need tougher bullet choice to handle the higher impact speeds, OR, higher sd, so heavier for cal bullets, aim for closer to .3 sd.....which in 7mm is about 170 gr, in .338 it's about 240 gr, in 6.5 it's about 147 gr....anything in the .275 to .28 sd range also a step up to handle the higher speeds
you can go all over the spectrum, you can try and push a sledge hammer through the critter that weighs the same as a spear, both at the same speed, the spear has infinitely better SD so it's going through the critter and will kill more reliably, the sledge hammer may just bust something and leave you bruised up but still alive, what we try to do with all this subjective talk is land somewhere in the middle, these lower .2 SD pills are like the sledge hammer vs the .25, .28, .30+ type pills which become more and more the spear, speed and construction have to be considered and matched well 'for game intended', the bigger the game the more attention to the formula you need to pay.....softer 140's from a 7 rem mag are too fast to count on 24" type penetrations on buffalo (thread in hunting section) for example, step up to 160's or higher and that would likely have been a different story but sounded like with most cases just wasn't fully aware where the vitals were on the buff. and hit shoulders...either way, 160-180 for buff shoulders of appropriate contraction for 'break them down' shooting would have blown away the 140 squishy option at warp speed...poor relationship choice there, but slow that same 140 down in a 7-08 and you'll get way better than expected performance
in the old days of headstamps rule, chucking bigger chunks of lead helped keep sd up as it slowed them down in a cup and core era so two fold kept penetration up, kept more sd as it went, modern bullet construction gives us lots more flexibility to play within this sledgehammer to spear range for what we chase, I definitely play at the minimum end of it but there are others who go even further (.223 with 77 tmk's)
so along with all the subjective experiences that come with these threads....start crunching numbers, you'll see a pattern as to why some things seem to be over achievers compared to others, it's because they've got the right numbers (the right formula), not the right head stamp or diameter...
I just looked up some sectional density figures for comparison.
A 160gr 7mm has a SD of .283 @ 2950 fps.
A 175gr 7mm has a SD of .310 at 2860 fps
A 225gr 338 has a SD of .281 @ 2800 fps
A 250gr 338 has a SD of 313 @ 2665 fps
The SD's are very similar at these bullet weights.
- Location
- Western Manitoba
Your discussion about bullet weights go back a few years - I think like 1950's / 1960's or so was articles in magazines like Outdoor Life, Guns and Ammo and Rifle - Jack O'Connor usually associated with 130 grain 270 Win; Elmer Keith usually associated much heavier and slower bullets - like from his 333 OKH wildcat. I think when Winchester first introduced ammo for .338 Win Mag, one choice was 300 grain - old Elmer Keith severely lamented when that was no longer available. But I think both O'Connor and Keith sold a lot of articles - arguing back and forth in magazines - I do not know - would not surprise me that they had occasional chuckle together over beer. From what I had read - BOTH guys had taken a lot of game, with many cartridges.
Ballistic charts and numbers can only do so much , and are completly useless if a person has a rifle chambered in the wrong cartridge or an appropriate cartridge in the wrong rifle. Either of which the shooter cannot shoot with .
One must look at what rifle he/she can shoot accurately first and foremost , and the only way to do that is to shoot as many of them as pissible from a position tjat they are going to use them.
Shooting a 7 mag in a 8 pound rifle offhand is doable for many. Off a bench rest at the range it can be brutal.
Shooting a heavy rifle off the bench is doable for many, but shooting a 12 pound rifle offhand is not .
Then you have the whole muzzle brake thing which cancels out a lot of recoil issues and adds noise and muzzle blast issues as well.
I am not saying a person should choose one over the other, what I am saying is they should choose the rifle they want to hunt with first then fit the appropriate cartridge to it.
Cat
One must look at what rifle he/she can shoot accurately first and foremost , and the only way to do that is to shoot as many of them as pissible from a position tjat they are going to use them.
Shooting a 7 mag in a 8 pound rifle offhand is doable for many. Off a bench rest at the range it can be brutal.
Shooting a heavy rifle off the bench is doable for many, but shooting a 12 pound rifle offhand is not .
Then you have the whole muzzle brake thing which cancels out a lot of recoil issues and adds noise and muzzle blast issues as well.
I am not saying a person should choose one over the other, what I am saying is they should choose the rifle they want to hunt with first then fit the appropriate cartridge to it.
Cat
Last edited:
I’m of the opinion, that unless we are speaking of solids, SD means very little. A 150 gr 7mm Barnes TSX has identical SD to the 150 BT. They will penetrate very differently. Mass, momentum, speed, construction etc all play a role.
Neither was wrong, that's for sure!
Always kinda wondered if that whole "we hate each other" wasn't really something akin to professional wrestling as well.
Word.
Blakeyboy's comment about "how much SD is left after expansion" was pretty apt. Takes rather a lot of that into account.
- Location
- Western Manitoba
I think there was a time where 338 Win Mag was more thought of as a "heavy hammer" versus a "long range" thing. I know I had a couple boxes of .338" 285 grain Round Nose - were by Speer. Was some reloading circles where that was considered what the .338 Win Mag was about - to really hit hard at "normal" hunting ranges. I have boxes of .338" bullets in 200 grain Ballistic Tip, 225 grain Accubond and 250 grain Partition - the only ones that I have that are loaded up and that the rifle is sighted for are the 225 grain Accubond - although in the past I have decent loads for both of the other bullet weights that I could duplicate in short order. If I want more "smack" on impact, for various reasons, I tend to go with my 9.3x62 - 250 grain from it is within like 20 fps of 250 grain in 338 Win Mag - then is 9.3 mm 286 Partition and 9.3 mm 320 grain Woodleigh - not sure if weights like that even available for 338 Win Mag, any more. But my own thinking is that somewhere between 300 Win Mag and 338 Win Mag, got shifted to want really large smack on something not too far away - even bigger like the 458 Win Mag sort of 75 yards and less, I think. Does not mean they can not kill a 600 yard moose - likely not the "best" to pick for that purpose, though. But sometimes, is the only rifle that you own - so you make do - and try to convince everyone else how much better what you use, is.
As far as using a semi - I have not used a center-fire semi-auto for hunting - was all with falling block single shot, or bolt action rifles. An acquaintance some years ago had a BAR in 338 Win Mag - about mostly for show I think - he did not shoot it much - almost as if he was a bit scared of it - is a hard thing to place 3 or 4 quick hits at 100 yards on 6 inch target, from an unsupported hunting position - and that gets much worse after you have walked a few miles or climbed half a mountain for that shot - or worse, ran the last 200 yards before shooting - Very different experience than calm, cool and collected shooting from sand bags at a shooting range. I am not convinced that a semi-auto is needed to do that - where ONLY "good hits" count. I took many dozens head of big game with a Ruger No. 1 - all were deer - not sure that I could be convinced there is a need or advantage to a semi-auto - unless that was the only one that you had to use.
Last edited:
