Merits of 7mm Rem Mag Vs 338 Win Mag for long range Elk/Moose/Bear cartridge?
- Thread starter Northern Shooter
- Start date
Keep those gaslights coming lol
The jealous type with no humility. Yes it was a joke, just like you, trying to wade into this part of the discussion that’s way over your head and beat your chest because you don’t like me or that’s just your game or both. That’s a you problem lol. Can’t even partially grasp what I’m talking about or straight up didn’t read this part of the discussion at all. This thread isn’t for you bud. Jumping around like a clown twirling your turret lol. Actually stick around, you’re fun.
Last edited:
Gaslight
You really need to read about how bullets are developed. Do you really believe that makers don't do exactly what you think you have "discovered" above?
Everything you cited above, has been done for decades. It's why Joel has so many bullets to choose from.
The Gel is standardized... There are already two impact velocities given, Prototypes get shot into gel, and into animals, extensively, and finished bullets studied. The rate of spin is already considered.
You're so anxious to be the KoolAid Man through the wall first... that you're really last. Your imagination gets the best of you... are you now thinking bullets are developed by some dude in a basement squeezing lead into a casing, and the rest is just marketing?
R.
So another variable to toss into your variable SD, what about rate of twist?
I could be wrong but for example lets use a 30 cal tsx... (I' just picking numbers, nothing calculated).
Same bullet impact speed, but fired from different ROT barrels, I would be lead to believe the faster twist (1 in 10)would expand more/quicker(centrifical force), therefore penetrating less than the same bullet fired from the slower twist(1 in 15)? It would be spinning 1/3 faster....
Yes? No?
I could be wrong but for example lets use a 30 cal tsx... (I' just picking numbers, nothing calculated).
Same bullet impact speed, but fired from different ROT barrels, I would be lead to believe the faster twist (1 in 10)would expand more/quicker(centrifical force), therefore penetrating less than the same bullet fired from the slower twist(1 in 15)? It would be spinning 1/3 faster....
Yes? No?
It will be disagreed with... but no. At least not enough to matter/measure.
Penetration has more to do with the impact speed, bullet weight, and design. The ideal bullet rpm, based on shape, is for flight stability.
Stay tuned for the long answer/opinion...
R.
Last edited:
I get the stability part, but thats why I specifically chose a tsx, would faster rpm and centrifical force not cause the petals to spread more, creating a wider nose?
I would also think a regular cup and core would not react the same as the mono?
I'm also sure this qualifies as overthinking it a bit. LOL. Just for arguments sake.
Totally understand... but still no (sort of).
The expansion is at the cost of forward movement, which is speed. The centrifugal movement (RPM) is also a derivative of the speed. There is no component in the energy calculation for the RPM, as it is, in this case, considered part of the velocity. The energy would be indicative of the penetration. That is the math answer.
The only way to know would be to test it, in gel. Would there be an inch or two difference? More, less? It is entirely possible, however going back to previous comments, if there were a significant increase in penetration, due to an increase in RPM, then makers would be calling for significant increases in twist rates. The rub is, this would come at the cost of stability.
The practical answer is to take quick look at Chuck's bullet collection, as well at the bullet itself, as the design/construction only allows for so much expansion...The same would apply to cup and core, as the bullet and construction only allows for so much expansion. This is why the SD of a recovered bullet doesn't really add anything to a penetration/performance conversation.
R.
Last edited:
With due respect, Chuck, Bell cared about expansion... or lack thereof, in order to achieve penetration. The SD comes by way of the bullet design/construction first, not the other way around.
Bullet construction and impact velocity will be all you need to worry about in any country.
R.
At this point, there is little to no justification for carrying on about it at all. Facts are facts. Spewing nonsense and backing it with opinion and imagination does nothing to contribute...anything. 10 of same bullets pulled from the same media will have the same SD. That doesn't really tell anyone anything that they didn't already know when the bullet was in the barrel.
R.
R.
Last edited:
Sure...
10 of the same bullets pulled from 10 different animals, all with different SD's.
10 different bullets from 10 different animals, all with different SD's.
You're only comparing different SD's to different SD's, because nothing is constant. Still doesn't tell you anything different than you knew before you started.
You can tell more about bullet performance just by looking, without introducing another variable, which in this case, is the SD measurement, to arrive at your opinion with regards to what works "the best".
Especially when the only fact that matters is... dead is dead. If it gets beyond that... then it gets fairly subjective, with some factual info thrown in. Faster dead? Least steps before dead? Most of that will have to do with bullet construction, speed, diameter, weight... you know... the constants that give everyone a warm fuzzy about their choices. The variable is always placement.
Everyone is entitled to make things as easy or as complicated as they wish... they just shouldn't feel bad that their opinions aren't taken as facts, no matter how lengthy the spew.
R.
10 of the same bullets pulled from 10 different animals, all with different SD's.
10 different bullets from 10 different animals, all with different SD's.
You're only comparing different SD's to different SD's, because nothing is constant. Still doesn't tell you anything different than you knew before you started.
You can tell more about bullet performance just by looking, without introducing another variable, which in this case, is the SD measurement, to arrive at your opinion with regards to what works "the best".
Especially when the only fact that matters is... dead is dead. If it gets beyond that... then it gets fairly subjective, with some factual info thrown in. Faster dead? Least steps before dead? Most of that will have to do with bullet construction, speed, diameter, weight... you know... the constants that give everyone a warm fuzzy about their choices. The variable is always placement.
Everyone is entitled to make things as easy or as complicated as they wish... they just shouldn't feel bad that their opinions aren't taken as facts, no matter how lengthy the spew.
R.
They only give you starting sd and pics of expansion at a couple velocity points. They do not give you the finished sd at either nor the penetration differences of either.
If they did you would end up with sdrr and err per inch. Which is only useful info if you can compare it to everything else. Most importantly the knowns...the good stuff we’ve always relied on. Then you could see how everything else stacks up to what you like from personal experience. Way less threads like this!
And...we could see if there were gaps and room for development from there. Ignoring the final bullet and what happens between start to finish is stupid af imo. We’ve got a century or more of subjective opinions, it’s 2023 lol.
No disagreement here, the points I’m trying to make here is that we’re ignoring the final bullet and the travel it takes to that place and once someone starts studying it maybe speed or rotation becomes a useful measure to predict on game performance? Great questions and forethought imo.
The lessons learned in Africa are so valuable. Like most things when you find the limits by trial and error you can then look harder at that and put some numbers to it. In this instance for the largest dangerous game we can chase we know you need at least ~.3 sd solids impacting ~2200 fps or higher. We know that ~.3 sd variable sd bullets aren’t enough. We know the 700 nitro is not enough, but the 6.5x54 man licker is (good one Siri), we know ft/lbs mean nothing. Thank you Africa, Bell, Boddington, O’Conner and several others for these valuable lessons.
Our game is not nearly as sensitive to outer limits although you will find them if you use the 55 gr v-max load for .243 on big game instead of the 100 gr partition. Objective info to explain that difference is where we need to get. Not ‘it’s a varmint bullet vs big game bullet duh’ lol.
At 2023 that’s not good enough. We can and should be doing much better than that. We can chuck bullets into milk jugs at 2 miles now but can’t explain terminal ballistics objectively yet? Yeah...we’re late to the party here.
Last edited:
Was trying to point out some of that objective difference between the 338 vs 7 rem mag as people presented examples here. You can have lightning options from either but attributing that to the diameter or headstamp aren’t the reasons why. I’d be all over the 7 for the op asks as a 400 yard elk bear smasher. Higher sd, bc, and velocity let’s a guy use squishier bullets to do more of that internal wow and that would be my pick, heavy for cal eld-m would be deadly af.
