Suggestions for a "big and slow" caliber?

9.3mauser said:
A .338 will push a 200 gr. bullet at 3000 fps or close to it, probably a little faster than what you'd get from a .300 WM with the same bullet weight, so where's the difference in trajectory? A 250 gr. will hit 2700+ in a .338, I doubt you'd get that from a .300.
Click to expand...

It’s all in how you look at things I guess.. from my point of view, the 300 wm and the 338 wm are designed for different things... the 300 wm to me is at its best when launching lighter bullets like 150’s at flat trajectories over long ranges......
 
9.3mauser said:
A .338 will push a 200 gr. bullet at 3000 fps or close to it, probably a little faster than what you'd get from a .300 WM with the same bullet weight, so where's the difference in trajectory? A 250 gr. will hit 2700+ in a .338, I doubt you'd get that from a .300.
Click to expand...
Yes, but a 200gr 338 pill has a worse ballistic coefficient, so even if they leave the barrel at the same speed the 30cal will not shed velocity as fast. Irrelevant for the ranges I'm considering, but still a fact.
9.3mauser said:
How heavy is your .270? The Husky 9.3's have pretty skinny barrels. In original configuration with the beechwood stock they tend to run 7 1/4-7 1/2 lbs, sans scope.
Click to expand...

8lbs 3.5oz, that includes 4rds ammo and my sling.
 
Maybe? It was more than good enough for elephant...
How big of hole is needed, if the animal is dead? Anything in 303 can open up to half an inch, or more? .375-.312=.063, which is not a huge number? About 1/16"...
However, if a fella wants a new rifle, and to try something different, he shouldn't really be talked out of it, but rather in to it!

R.
 
Last edited:
Ballistic gack can be manipulated pretty much any which way... Does the 358 kill 32% better than the 303? Sectional density, Ballistic coefficient, and yes, even area comparisons, all for a 200 yard rifle?
The differences in diameter are not enough to discuss, nor would anything else, given same weight bullets, and the desired distances.
All for nought, as the 303 is off of the OP's books!

R.
 
Heavier and faster in the 303 should be a way to increase the lethality of this round on heavy game. Worth a try at least if that's all I had at my disposal. But I prefer to go well beyond using high speed 40+ calibers in order to see the Moose do a boom! flop! when hit. :p
 
Slamfire said:
Or should it be (35 cal / 30.3 cal)^2 = 1.33 ? Nominal bore diameter rather than groove diameter.
Click to expand...

I agree that cross sectional area is good to consider. It's cumbersome to work with though, especially when applied to modern expanding bullets.

My results over the years seem to indicate that with expanding bullets, bullet performance is a far greater variable than bore diameter.

Don't get me wrong, all things equal, a bigger bullet makes a bigger hole. But in the field, no two shots are the same. Most of the wound channels I have seen are conical in nature. Small entrance, lots of bloodshot on the far shoulder whether I get an exit or not. Often this is not apparent until butchering the animal. Might have the bullet sitting just under the hide on the far side, in what looks like a toonie sized hole, but have to cut a 6" circle around the wound to get all the bloodshot out.

Even shooting solids that do not expand - usually they exit, but pick up bone and tissue on the way and make a conical wound channel.

With frangible bullets, same thing, just no exit and WAY bigger cone. I have witnessed exception to this rarely with round nose bullets. This is something I seldom see mentioned, but I have seen entrance wounds that look like exit wounds simply due to the hydraulic response to a bullet expanding.

A small hole directly over the heart will have much faster effect than a big hole through both lungs.

With this in mind, I think most of us can agree that success is contingent on shot placement and bullet performance. Little more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom