The most efficient hunting cartridges
- Thread starter todbartell
- Start date
- Location
- Saskatchewan
Actually he does list the barrel length as 24”, and 26” for some of the magnums iirc. You do make a good point and should do a thread on that data and see how it compares!
No.
There's still the same amount of recoil, but instead of the blast all being in one direction, it is now in multiple directions.
Neither does the cartridge become more "efficient" if you add weight to your rifle.
In both cases, the recoil directed back to the shooter will be less, but that has nothing to do with the cartridge itself, rather the rifle.
The talk about different pressures is a bit of a Red Herring. I load my 6.5X55, 7X57 and 303 Brit in the 60K psi range, because I shoot them in Mausers and a P14.
What purpose could this discussion possibly have if we are not referring to "felt recoil?" If we are referring to felt recoil then things like Decelerator pads and muzzlebrakes, do come into play... the math remains the same, but the effect is considerably different.
Of course it reduces recoil by taking out part of the propellant momentum out of the equation.
For example for a 308 Win.
Forward momentum:
-----------------------
150gr bullet at 2800fps
45gr powder at 3500fps
If you remove all powder momentum you remove almost 1/4 of the forward momentum : (150gr / (150gr + 45gr)).
Free recoil is proportional to the square of momentum so :
Er (Free recoil energy) ~ (3 / 4) * (3 / 4) = 9 / 16 so you can get an almost 40-45% reduction is recoil!
I am in the camp that relates cartridge efficiency to the volume of powder burned to muzzle velocity which requires the elimination of the most obvious variables such as bore diameter, barrel length, number of grooves, twist rate, bullet weight/shape/bearing surface... IMO, suggesting a relationship between efficiency and recoil without controlling variables, is just marginally more discussion worthy than relating it to stock color
Big bore dinosaur
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- NORT OF COW.TOWN.EH
Mig 25, more so then the 22 hornet..
12 gr isn't that much powder
12 gr isn't that much powder
Therein lies the red herring! LOL
"Felt recoil" is completely subjective and has more to do with the rifle's configuration and the physique of the shooter, and how they feel the ft-lbs of recoil generated by firing of the cartridge in the rifle, and is also subject to the position that the shooter is in at the time they fire the rifle. There is no math that can reliably and concistently calculate felt recoil for every single person out there, as we are all different, and we all perceive felt recoil differently.
As also stated earlier, most people do not "feel" or notice the recoil when shooting at game, as their focus is elsewhere. But they are still subjected and influenced by the recoil in these situations. This is easily seen when you hunt with someone who is shooting a rifle that they are not comfortable with, and is easily duplicated by loading for them at the range. Watch their "flinch" at the bench when you are loading for them and they shoot. When they dry fire the unloaded rifle, they will "flinch" and it is easily seen without the effects of recoil. In the field, their "flinch" will still be there, but is mostly unnoticed as the other people there are more focused on watching the game being shot at.
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.
I think that we all agree that recoil influences one's ability to shoot a rifle well and consistently, and that each person's recoil tolerance level is their own.
And I also believe that we all agree that there are different methods of reducing "felt recoil", some more effective than others. i.e. muzzlebrakes, recoil reducers, recoil pads, different stock configurations, etc.
I also believe that we all agree that the more powder we burn, and the larger the caliber and heavier the projectile, the more actual recoil is going to be produced.
And yes, the weight of the rifle (and even the type of action) is going to be a factor in this equation. Again, physics, and as you stated, the math remains the same for actual recoil generated.
But as Andy pointed out, these have more to do with the rifle than the cartridge's efficiency.
Yes, actual recoil is part of the discussion because TB included it in his data, and it is interesting to know, but the main discussion as per the title of the thread is "efficient hunting cartridges". And as TB stated, he started this thread to initiate discussion. If I am wrong in understanding his intent, then he can let me knnow and I will stand corrected. No offense taken. I have been wrong before. LOL And I continue to learn.
There are a number of people here with extensive experience and knowledge, just as there are many that are asking questions in order to learn. It is all good!
I do believe that you are correct.
To provide a more apples to apples comparison to determine efficiency more accurately, across all of the cartridges tested, all of the data should be performed on barrels of equal length so as to not influence final numbers via inconsistent velocities. And this in turn influences the data on energy produced.
Having QuickLoad and its ability to provide data on percentage of powder burned would greatly aid in this, but unfortunately, I do not have QL.
- Location
- Saskatchewan
I may be out to lunch but I would suspect the the efficiency you speak of would follow fairly closely to what TB posted. His top 10 cartridges (thinking on the fly here so I may be wrong) probably already produce the best velocity/energy per grain of powder used out of a given rifle, I/someone should look into that further. As far as the efficiency of burning as much of the powder charge as possible would be for dependant on the individual rifle and load combo would it not?
The topic at hand is pretty clear - not sure there's much room for misinterpretation.
Of course there are other ways of defining efficiency. It's not a case of your definition vs my definition, there are multiple definitions. You could define efficiency by every variable there is in a cartridge - powder vs energy, powder vs velocity, etc etc etc.
Powder burned vs energy generated is probably the most common meaning of the term, you're absolutely right in that regard. But we're not discussing WHAT the definition of cartridge efficiency is, we're discussing it WITHIN the stipulation above.
In the context of hunting, energy generated per grain of propellant is nearly irrelevant. It contributes some to recoil, and if you load then there's the question of cost, but both of those are pretty insignificant considerations compared to "do I have sufficient terminal effect?"
Let's take the least efficient cartridge per TBs criteria, the 375 Ruger / 300 gr load. It's actually highly efficient by the internal ballistics definition, at 61.9 lbs ft per grain of propellant. Now take the .45-70-535 load I posted; it's highly inefficient at 26.5 lbs ft per grain burned. Just those data points don't really give us any information in isolation though. All they are is a single data point. TB's idea synthesizes internal, external and terminal ballistic data to give useful information. It's a product of internal energy efficiency and BC, rather than just one or the other on it's own.
Let's compare two cartridges that are nearly identical in external and terminal ballistics: the .375 H&H Mag is slightly more efficient in terms of internal ballistics compared to the .375 Ruger with both launching a 300 gr bullet at about 2600 fps. Ok... so what? What do you do with that? Internal efficiency isn't the consideration between the two when selecting a hunting arm, it's that the .375 Ruger fits in a standard action length. I don't know how powder efficiency on it's own would be a factor in selecting a cartridge for hunting.
Last edited:
They don't. Actually, the least efficient cartridge by his metric is very very high in internal ballistic efficiency. The. 375 Ruger produces 61.9 lbs ft per grain, compared to the most efficient by his metric the 6.5 CM which produces 56.3 lbs ft per grain.
The .45-70-535 load I posted is horrendously inefficient at 26.5 lbs ft per grain, but relatively efficient by TBs metric. That's because it's a black powder load and BP is tremendously inefficient compared to smokeless powder. However it still compares well in terms of energy delivered on either end to modern smokeless loads.
Now, if you're talking fps per grain, the reverse is true where smaller cases are more efficient than larger. Gross over simplification but we'll go with it. In that case, the 6.5 CM makes 63.4 fps per grain and the .375 Ruger makes 35.4 fps per grain. This comparison is only really useful for cartridges that are direct rivals though, like 6.5x55 vs 6.5 CM or .375 H&H vs .375 Ruger. To compare across widely different cartridges it doesn't tell you anything useful.
Last edited:
- Location
- Saskatchewan
Thinking about it more it seems there’s too many variables or ways to measure efficiency, you used energy, how about velocity? How do they perform at distance (bullet choice can influence that a lot)? And then category, a 300 WM and a 375 H&H are in a completely different category with different intended game animals. It does make interesting food for thought none the less.
Now, that there is funny. Lots of times, true stuff is funny.
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.
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.
Absolutely! There's endless definitions of efficiency - that's my whole point; you have to agree on what you're talking about to have a meaningful comparison. Is it recoil vs energy, fps vs powder, energy vs powder, etc etc etc.
Otherwise you're just talking at cross purposes.
