That's basically Weatherby's sales pitch in a nut shell. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. Bullets are much better now though, so there's that. - dan
Merits of 7mm Rem Mag Vs 338 Win Mag for long range Elk/Moose/Bear cartridge?
- Thread starter Northern Shooter
- Start date
That's basically Weatherby's sales pitch in a nut shell. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. Bullets are much better now though, so there's that. - dan
They sure have! But back then it also provided inspiration for creating the Partition, which kills so well because the front half is super soft and essentually blows up, while the other half drives on
Lots of great choices for sure but the concept is still alive and well. No one recommends A-Frames for deer
yes, it means very little without some ability to see the future...in the case and your example, the barnes finished bullet will have retained all it's weight except maybe the plastic tip, where the BT...depending on the cartridge behind it...7-08 vs 7 rem mag...will lose maybe 60% of it's weight if from a 7 rem mag on a 150 yard shot....so yes, wildly different performance because the finished sd is wildly different, the internal work will show that difference typically as well, slow that 150 bt down from a 7-08 however and a 300 yard shot and it will do very good work in most big game, the barnes at the same distance will just pencil through by comparison, we don't measure and objectify why, we actually want sd reduction, how much of it we want we're not sure and just smash the keyboards dancing all around the subject
we are simply not measuring the finished bullet yet so all we have to visualize this is the starting SD and the construction type which is on a scale from rapid controlled expansion to delayed controlled expansion and your impact velocities varying that expansion and sd
and that is why we have so many of these discussions, it isn't standardized to measure 'the change' in the bullet from hide to hide...or in the gel....it's this 'change' and the numbers that will go with it....will help these discussions add objective information instead of what we've always done
and this 'change' in the bullet I'm talking about needs to coincide with how deep it penetrates, obviously
so once people could see the bullets they already know the performance of subjectively...in objective format....as compared to all other options and NEW options....far better decision making can be made on what will work well for what application
so we have a long ways to go, but no one is looking at the finished bullets and how far they go, they have a measurable sd at the end of the journey, they have a journey distance, that rate of sd reduction can be measured over that distance...no one is doing it yet, but we need to
and once we do, hornady hopefully goes through the wall first and gets bloody as it seems to be the one to do so most lately but once we do, then the manufacturers will also have the ability to develop bullets to do more of what we want, I believe if standardized we would start to see holes or gaps in performance all over the caliber ranges and whatever blends of open/stay together we like (75/25, 50/50, etc.) and for example if we liked a 50/50 open/stay together performance but wanted say 36" penetration vs 22" penetration...you could figure out which bullets and cartridges to get there...and if it didn't exist yet and we were asking for it...manufacturers could figure out how to get it to us, it's the future in development imo
just spitballing the possibilities of what the future would like like for all of us, manufacturers included if the terminal end of this was as objective as the in-flight...bullet doesn't change in-flight...easy to figure out and that's why we have in-flight ballistics all sorted out to levels way beyond the terminal end, looking at solids does the same for the terminal end...it's how we know you need over .3 sd at x velocity to play in Africa, but in North America we use variable SD bullets and don't measure any of it so we can understand the differences between all our choices and what it means for on game performance
instead we just go 'throw a 180 out of a 30 and you're good'
Last edited:
nicely laid out, you could add the .30 cal equivalents in there (308/300 wm), or the 6.5's and a lot of dots connect on all this, generally at the same time if you throw 'recoil energy' into the compare things start really adding up on which side of the rifle is delivering the most punishment, you can narrow down distance potentials from those options from there and so on...
Or maybe pragmatically because hunting and killing critters does not have to involve rocket science even though some think it does
Cat
For common 30cal weights, see below:
150 grain .308 has a SD of .226
180 grain .308 has a SD of .271
220 grain .308 has a SD of .331
So the more common 150-180 range of 30 cals don't have all that great SD's but once you get up into the heavies with a 30.06/300WM it has comparable SD to the .416 calibers.
Truer words never spoken! Just think most of it is in our heads, and not really much changes when the different cartridges are applied to game...not a lot of practical difference made as long as its suited to the task at hand.
Lotsa ways to skin the cat and not much variety in end result, is what i'm drivin at.
OP can pick any from the double handful of chamberings mentioned in this thread, shoot his moose or elk with it, and the result is it dies post haste with no practical difference made. What someone prefers is entirely up to them and more power to them. Or less. Yknow, whatever!
Or the 300 WBee or the 300 PRC. Good balance between the 7 RM and 338 WM although some 300 Mags seem to recoil harder than a couple of 338 WM s I’ve shot . RJ
How about is there anything better the 7RM does vs the .30-06?
Not in my opinion!
There is no difference between any chambering. 100 grains of bullet weight and .05 of an inch make no difference.
The 55 grain 223 is essentially a 7 mag 150, think of the savings. Nothing anyone here shoots will know the difference
The 55 grain 223 is essentially a 7 mag 150, think of the savings. Nothing anyone here shoots will know the difference
BigUglyMan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Scotland
Is it April 1st already or have you got a leaky gas line at your house?
- Location
- Western Manitoba
Perhaps late 1980's I got a "pre-owned push feed" Model 70 Winchester in 338 Win Mag - was not really a "choice" - was the only one that I could find - I carried that one many miles of swamp and bush. It has a Leupold M8-6x36 scope on it, now. I did get two elk with it though, but I got my first elk with 165 grain 308 Win - so did our son, 25 or 30 years later. I have not used the 338 Win Mag for hunting, since I got a Husqvarna Model 649 - a Mauser 98 in 9.3x62. Most all of my deer hunting was initially 165 grain 308 Win, and then about 10 or 15 years with 150 grain 7x57. Seemed to work fine for many dozen Saskatchewan deer. A few years ago, I got a 243 Win for our grandson to start deer hunting - same cartridge that our son started with, and that my wife used. It worked fine - we have taken a few deer with it as well - and that was likely about the hunters / shooters using it, not the cartridge.
Last edited:
