Long Range Hunting Online Magazine


Go Back   Long Range Hunting Online Magazine > Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment > Rifles, Bullets, Barrels and Ballistics


Reply

Bullets, Ballistics, and Theories Discussion Thread

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #8  
Old 05-29-2013, 03:54 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Alabama
Posts: 4,510
Re: Bullets, Ballistics, and Theories Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broz View Post
No, nothing personal at all. But I don't choose to be part of it. Why?? and this is not personal either. But I feel this "debate" will be mainly discussed by people that probably have not shot much past 1000 let alone 1500. And for sure by many that have never shot both a 7mm @ 3150 plus and a 338 @ 2800 side by side at or past 1500 yards over and over. I have and I know how it really is so I need not be a part of any debate other than what I have already stated.

I am a 7mm fan for where they shine. If you doubt that look up my 7mm-300 thread and see what I did there. I have built and owned 3 of them. But all the hype and theory in the world is not going to get a good 7mm to hit with the authority of a good 338 past 1000. Thus like I said, you probably just need to see it in the field.

Jeff
Your input is greatly appreciated. Thanks for the honesty.
__________________
"I'm just a peckerwood who lives in the hills with too many guns..." - Bob Lee Swagger

"Give me a minute...I'm good. Give me an hour...I'm great. Give me 6 months...And I'm unbeatable." - Col. Hannibal Smith

Ignore everything I say, because I have a reading comprehension and memory problem...

Quote:
Originally Posted by WildRose View Post
The 284 is to the STW what a tricycle is to a Ninja.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-29-2013, 05:59 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The rifle range, or archery range or behind the computer in Alaska
Posts: 3,418
Re: Bullets, Ballistics, and Theories Discussion Thread

I would say that hathcock's targets were of the very thin skinned, light boned and low muscle density variety. Comparing his calibers to target relationship can't be compared to say elk at 1000-1500 yards. I'm a smaller caliber kind of guy (6.5-30 cals) but I see the value of a big 338 for 1000-1500 yard elk or moose hunting. These need raw energy and deep penatration. Not that the 7mms aren't capable of that but with big boned animals at great distances, large heavy bullets win in my opinion.

IMHO, bullet weight for equal weight and equal form factors, smaller calibers win in the BC department but larger calibers always have higher BC potential. Start with a 22 caliber and work all the way up to a 50 caliber. Bigger has higher potential. Now the trade off here is recoil. That's what makes 7mm to 30 cal are so popular. They offer a decent balance between recoil and down range energy. That said, you still need to match the caliber/bullet to the game/ranges you're hunting. Better yet you should pick a caliber you feel comfortable with. Do I believe 7mms are king? No. Do they have their place? Absolutely.

Is a bigger 338 better than a big 7mm? That's subjective. Better in what category? 338s have better bore life and hit really hard and make a darn good sized hole. 7mms are easier on the shoulder and are cheaper to reload for typically. I have up on 338s simply because I rarely have opportunities at elk or moose at beyond 1000 yards and I don't want the recoil. I have settled on the 300 win mag running 210s which works just fine for what I need. 1500'pounds at 1k with minimal drift and more mass plus a bigger hole for the larger tougher game I hunt. I know hunting grizzly/brown bears I'm more comfortable with bigger calibers.

Not trying to knock your 7mms, just sharing my thoughts as to why everything is a trade off.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broz View Post
Please just answer one very simple question. Why would anyone shooting long range load a low BC , low SD 168 gr offering in a 300 win???????

My answer to this is. The only reason is to make the 7 RM look good. There is no other reason.

Jeff.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-29-2013, 06:10 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Northern Id.
Posts: 3,103
Re: Bullets, Ballistics, and Theories Discussion Thread

I'll offer my thoughts concerning what I think one of the main factors is and let everyone decide in their own mind what is the best cartridge. No matter what you are shooting, the bullet is the killing factor which really eliminates most of what is out there. This is ONE of the many reasons to go large bore as you are mostly dealing with frontal area doing the damage with little "or no" expansion. Having said that, if you can retain enough velocity with a smaller bullet to cause it to expand, it may actually perform better than a larger bullet that doesn't. In other words, I give more importance to a bullet that will penetrate sufficiently and tear up tissue rather than delivering a ton of energy with no expansion. This is why I exclusively use my own bullets for really long range use. They will expand well down to around 1300' and are basically heavy for bore, high b.c., tipped varmint bullets! Anyone using most off the shelf, long range bullets, and trying to kill something at 1500 yards is asking for trouble. IMO......Rich
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-29-2013, 07:24 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Alabama
Posts: 4,510
Re: Bullets, Ballistics, and Theories Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Eichele View Post
I would say that hathcock's targets were of the very thin skinned, light boned and low muscle density variety. Comparing his calibers to target relationship can't be compared to say elk at 1000-1500 yards. I'm a smaller caliber kind of guy (6.5-30 cals) but I see the value of a big 338 for 1000-1500 yard elk or moose hunting. These need raw energy and deep penatration. Not that the 7mms aren't capable of that but with big boned animals at great distances, large heavy bullets win in my opinion.

IMHO, bullet weight for equal weight and equal form factors, smaller calibers win in the BC department but larger calibers always have higher BC potential. Start with a 22 caliber and work all the way up to a 50 caliber. Bigger has higher potential. Now the trade off here is recoil. That's what makes 7mm to 30 cal are so popular. They offer a decent balance between recoil and down range energy. That said, you still need to match the caliber/bullet to the game/ranges you're hunting. Better yet you should pick a caliber you feel comfortable with. Do I believe 7mms are king? No. Do they have their place? Absolutely.

Is a bigger 338 better than a big 7mm? That's subjective. Better in what category? 338s have better bore life and hit really hard and make a darn good sized hole. 7mms are easier on the shoulder and are cheaper to reload for typically. I have up on 338s simply because I rarely have opportunities at elk or moose at beyond 1000 yards and I don't want the recoil. I have settled on the 300 win mag running 210s which works just fine for what I need. 1500'pounds at 1k with minimal drift and more mass plus a bigger hole for the larger tougher game I hunt. I know hunting grizzly/brown bears I'm more comfortable with bigger calibers.

Not trying to knock your 7mms, just sharing my thoughts as to why everything is a trade off.
Michael, thank you for your input. I wasn't trying to say anything was better than another, I was trying to subjectively figure out why it is deemed "necessary" for the larger calibers when what was possible 20 years ago with smaller calibers.

Your opinion was excellent and I agree completely, everything has its place. I was simply comparing the 7mm's to the .338's ONLY because that had been brought up on here before, but we never truly got into the meat & taters of WHY? I agree with everything you said. I understand the basic reasons why people choose them, but was curious to the ballistic aide of things.....I would love to see a ballistics gel test with both calibers side x side at that distance. I think that would be cool to see the differences of the 2 terminally at 1500 yards.
__________________
"I'm just a peckerwood who lives in the hills with too many guns..." - Bob Lee Swagger

"Give me a minute...I'm good. Give me an hour...I'm great. Give me 6 months...And I'm unbeatable." - Col. Hannibal Smith

Ignore everything I say, because I have a reading comprehension and memory problem...

Quote:
Originally Posted by WildRose View Post
The 284 is to the STW what a tricycle is to a Ninja.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-29-2013, 07:28 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Alabama
Posts: 4,510
Re: Bullets, Ballistics, and Theories Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkaholic View Post
I'll offer my thoughts concerning what I think one of the main factors is and let everyone decide in their own mind what is the best cartridge. No matter what you are shooting, the bullet is the killing factor which really eliminates most of what is out there. This is ONE of the many reasons to go large bore as you are mostly dealing with frontal area doing the damage with little "or no" expansion. Having said that, if you can retain enough velocity with a smaller bullet to cause it to expand, it may actually perform better than a larger bullet that doesn't. In other words, I give more importance to a bullet that will penetrate sufficiently and tear up tissue rather than delivering a ton of energy with no expansion. This is why I exclusively use my own bullets for really long range use. They will expand well down to around 1300' and are basically heavy for bore, high b.c., tipped varmint bullets! Anyone using most off the shelf, long range bullets, and trying to kill something at 1500 yards is asking for trouble. IMO......Rich
Thanks for the input.....This is what I was posting this as, but people will take it as I am saying THIS vs THAT. I am trying to figure out people's opinions as to why they chose what they did.

Thanks again for posting.
__________________
"I'm just a peckerwood who lives in the hills with too many guns..." - Bob Lee Swagger

"Give me a minute...I'm good. Give me an hour...I'm great. Give me 6 months...And I'm unbeatable." - Col. Hannibal Smith

Ignore everything I say, because I have a reading comprehension and memory problem...

Quote:
Originally Posted by WildRose View Post
The 284 is to the STW what a tricycle is to a Ninja.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-29-2013, 10:29 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: SW Montana
Posts: 4,256
Re: Bullets, Ballistics, and Theories Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by MudRunner2005 View Post

I think the larger bores with the heavier bullets might carry the energy farther out, but they also move slightly slower from the get-go, and with a much larger overall mass and more bulbous shape, would lose velocity a great deal faster, which is why you need so much powder and a such a large case capacity for them to be efficient at such long ranges......

Wouldn't a faster moving bullet that weighs less, and has a more aerodynamic profile, follow a better trajectory to the same target at the same distance, which in turn, even though it is a lighter bullet, will expel the same amount of energy, based on the higher velocity it maintains as it reaches the intended target, as compared to a larger, slower moving projectile with a rapidly decreasing velocity?


These are just thoughts I have, and I would love to hear everyone's opinion on them.
Your missing a couple very key parts to the picture, taking the 300 OTM at 2800fps and a 180 VLD at 3150 fps and comparing them at 1500 yards you'll see that the 300 gr bullet beats the smaller bullet in windage which will grow with more range. The bigger bullet carries weight which wins when you get out where velocity has bleed of, the sectional density for the 338 is much larger than the 180 and with that and the weight you get almost double the momentum which is what drives these big bullets through game animals and causes destruction at much farther ranges.

I have no love for the 7mm, but I dig my 270's which with the excellent bullets we have now days lets me run ballistically right with any 7mm of equal case capacity, I'll shoot an elk at 1000 yards with good conditions so fast it would make your head spin but if conditions kick up or the range gets out past a grand the 338 comes out, not so much because I don't think I can kill something past that with my 270 but the 338 give me a much larger window of error and it will give you much more feed back from the shot than a smaller cal will which lets you make decisions easier after the shot.

Another advantage the bigger rifles have is barrel life, a hopped up 7mm will have the throat changing in it and you have to stay with it to keep the ELR accuracy and consistency, the 338's tend to stay very consistent and change slower, you can focus on improving yourself and skills instead of chasing your load or finessing your rifle. The 338 give you numerous small edges that all stack up as the range grows, it's not about who whipping the most lead out there but getting every advantage you possibly can because you need it.

I'm by nature a small cal guy and I've argued the points your trying to but when you get behind the rifle and put the rounds down range with guys like Broz you flat get schooled, not by an attitude of my gun is bigger than yours but by the fact that they also have been down the same road and have the experience to know what tools to use to give them every edge they can.
__________________
High Fence, Low Fence, Stuck in the Fence, if I can Tag it and Eat it, it's Hunting!
"Pain is weakness leaving your body"
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-29-2013, 10:35 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Alabama
Posts: 4,510
Re: Bullets, Ballistics, and Theories Discussion Thread

You aren't understanding....I don't care what caliber vs what caliber.....That was merely an example.

I'm asking someone to read my theory and discuss why it is or is not plausible and possible. I mentioned all of it just to digress to my theory.

Also, bigger bullets, while heavier and harder to move from wind drift, also posses a larger cross-section which would make them more succeptible to wind or rain or moisture in the atmosphere. Isn't that also correct?
__________________
"I'm just a peckerwood who lives in the hills with too many guns..." - Bob Lee Swagger

"Give me a minute...I'm good. Give me an hour...I'm great. Give me 6 months...And I'm unbeatable." - Col. Hannibal Smith

Ignore everything I say, because I have a reading comprehension and memory problem...

Quote:
Originally Posted by WildRose View Post
The 284 is to the STW what a tricycle is to a Ninja.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Current Poll
Do you watch outdoor shows live or by recording them?
Always recorded - 14.09%
102 Votes
Mostly recorded - 24.31%
176 Votes
Sometimes recorded - 13.40%
97 Votes
Rarely or never recorded - 48.20%
349 Votes
Total Votes: 724
You may not vote on this poll.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Management Powered by vBadvanced CMPS
All content ©2010-2014 Long Range Hunting, LLC