Another way to help decide which cartridge to use.

[Orange Dust]

Another thing that does not show up in this is Rotational Energy. A bullet does not shed this energy at anywhere near the rate it sheds its forward energy. This never shows up in any common ballistics data, but it does exist, and shows up in wound channels for a long ways. I've always believed this is why bullets that have a high sectional density (long for caliber) started above 3000fps, in a fast twist gun, create effective wounds further than they should on paper. This exists, and explains why heavy 6.5 and 7MM bullets kill not only better, but further than they should.

 

[Canhunter35]

Another thing that does not show up in this is Rotational Energy. A bullet does not shed this energy at anywhere near the rate it sheds its forward energy. This never shows up in any common ballistics data, but it does exist, and shows up in wound channels for a long ways. I've always believed this is why bullets that have a high sectional density (long for caliber) started above 3000fps, in a fast twist gun, create effective wounds further than they should on paper. This exists, and explains why heavy 6.5 and 7MM bullets kill not only better, but further than they should.

RockyMtnMT has also stated this on many threads that marginally stabilized bullets perform poorly on game vs a well stabilized bullet.
Makes perfect sense.
This is part of the reason I think a person should decide on the bullet then choose a cartridge that will launch the bullet as desired

 

[Orange Dust]

RockyMtnMT has also stated this on many threads that marginally stabilized bullets perform poorly on game vs a well stabilized bullet.
Makes perfect sense.
This is part of the reason I think a person should decide on the bullet then choose a cartridge that will launch the bullet as desired

Very true. Everything else being equal, an over stabilized bullet will create a wider, shorter channel, and a under stabilized one will create a longer, narrower one, unless it tumbles.

 

[trhall]

Hello all, I am a very infrequent poster but I do read these forums a lot.

I see many posts about choosing "the right" cartridge. Most of the evaluations grade cartridges based upon recoil vs. velocity, and sometimes recoil vs. energy. You see a lot of statements to the effect that 300 WM is always better than 30-06, or 308Win; and you see these in every caliber that has multiple cartridge choices. But in the field, a 30-06, placed closer to the target, hits harder than a 300 WM, placed farther from the target, firing the same bullet.

I'd like to offer a different way of comparing cartridges. It is not meant to be the end-all method for choosing a cartridge, but provides a different way of looking at the plethora of cartridges out there.

In the Army we used to talk about "setback" - that is, distance from the target. A 5.56 NATO does not have as much potential effective setback as a 7.62x54, for example.

Also, many outdoors writers have spoken of a minimum impact energy for various game, measured in ft-lbs of energy at impact. I have seen the minimum ft-lbs for elk quoted as 2000 ft-lbs. I will use that figure to determine a maximum engagement range.

I'll also use the "energy at range" numbers Hornady publishes for their ammo offerings, not because they are accurate (though they are usually pretty close), but because the data came from tests done by the same people with the same equipment and methodolgy, same barrel lengths, at similar temperatures and barometric pressures, and so will show relative numbers across all the tested cartridges. Of course, your actual numbers will vary from manufacturer's numbers.

The same bullet, fired from different cartridges, will have different setbacks to exceed this 2000 ft-lbs minimum energy. For example, using Hornady's numbers from their website, a 300 Win Mag shooting Hornady's 200 grain ELD-X cartridge will carry 2000 ft-lbs of energy to about 510 yards; Hornady's 30-06 in their 178 grain ELD-X carries 2000 ft-lbs to just past 300 yards. So going from a 30-06 to a 300 WM, shooting a very similar bullet, allows you almost 200 yards more setback to achieve the same impact energy with the same bullet. In other words, in this case, you have to be 190 yards closer with the 30-06 to achieve the same energy on target; and your max ethical range is 190 yards less with the 30-06, using the same bullet.

And of course sectional density plays a great part in killing effectively, so I have tried to go with the heaviest weight / highest sectional density bullets offered, and I left out the lighter deer and varmint loads.

Also, I am not suggesting that any particular bullet is wise for taking elk, I am just using the popular energy figure for an elk as a marker for comparison.

So here are some comparisons, by caliber, taken from the Hornady website. Note the ELD-X bullets are designed for long range hunting. I was surprised at how close many of these cartridges were to each other.

Max range while retaining at least 2000 ft-lbs of energy:

.257 cal. 117 grain SST
25-06 : 125 yds
.257 Rob +P: 90 yds

.257 cal. 110 gr. ELD-X
257 Weatherby: 175yds
25-06 Rem: 130 yds

6.5 mm 143 grain ELD-X
6.5 Creedmoor: 110 yards
6.5x55 Swede: 120 yards
6.5 PRC : 300 yards

.277 cal 145 gr. ELD-X
270 Win : 300 yds
270 WSM : 340 yds

.277 cal 130 gr. GMX (copper)
270 Win: 205 yds
270 WSM: 270 yds

.284 cal. 150 gr. ELD-X
7mm-08: 200 yds
280 Rem.: 300 yds

.284 cal. 150 gr. GMX (copper)
7mm WSM: 310 yds
7mm Rem Mag: 290 yds

.284 cal. 162 gr. ELD-X
280 AI: 300 yds
7mm WSM: 430 yds
7mm Rem. Mag: 400 yds
7mm STW: 480 yds
28 Nosler: 575 yds

.308 cal. 165 gr. Interbond Superformance
.308 Win: 250 yds
30-06 : 310 yds

.308 cal. 165 gr. GMX (copper) superformance
308 Win. : 210 yds
30-06 : 300 yds
300 RCM : 380 yds
300 WSM: 420 yds
300 WM : 440 yds

.308 cal. 178 gr. ELD-X
308 Win : 210 yds
30-06: 310 yds
300 RCM: 390 yds

.308 cal. 180 gr. Interbond Superformance
30-06: 310 yds
300 WM: 450 yds

.308 cal. 180 gr. GMX (copper) superformance
30-06: 330 yds
300 WSM : 380 yds (not superformance)
300 WM : 450 yds

.308 cal. 200 gr. ELD-X
300 WSM: 475 yds
300 WM: 510 yds
300 Wby: 550 yds

.308 cal. 212 grain ELD-X
300 PRC: 600+ yds

.308 cal. 220 grain ELD-X
300 RUM: 625 yds

.338 cal. 200 gr. SST
338 WM: 475 yds
338 RCM: 425 yds

.338 cal. 225 gr. SST
338 WM: 510 yds
338 RCM: 450 yds

.338 cal. 230 gr. ELD-X
338 WM: 580 yds

I have to disagree with your premise that the minimum energy for elk is 2,000 f/p. For many years 1300 has been widely accepted among long range hunters for elk. Your setback calulations pretty much back that up as you are coming up with max ranges less than 500 yards.

 

[trhall]

Orangedust, couldn't agree with you more. I love the 300 wm with the 215 berger, not because I think that is takes a .30 cal to kill elk. In fact I've killed quite a few with a .270, but at ranges under 500 yards. I love the 300 wm / 215 berger combo because of the margin for exact shot placement that it gives me. If I'm off a little bit on my wind call and hit the lower shoulder instead of the crease even at 1,000 yards I've still got over 1900 f/p of energy! Have I killed one that far? Not yet, but I practice out in the field at ranges up to and exceeding that ll the time so that some day if the right opportunity presents itself I know I can.
In my life I have personally killed more than 30 elk with everything from a Muzzle loader, to a 30-30, to what I have used for more than half of them, the 300 wm / 215 berger. The last bull I killed with a muzzle loader at 200 yards never took a step. It was a perfect hit in the crease and straight through both lungs. He stood for about 30 seconds and tipped over. Now would I claim that based on that the Muzzle Loader is the perfect elk rifle? I don't think so. But I would say that trying to say 2,000 F/p is the minimum for elk is insane.
When it comes to elk choose the largest caliber you can be proficient with, be "ethical" with your shot placement, and practice enough under field shooting conditions to KNOW your limitations under all conditions, distance, wind, shooting postiion, etc..... Finally, understand what the limitations are of your chosen caliber/catridge/bullet combo and max "ethical" killing range for it with a less than perfect shot placement.

 

[DDB TX]

Good grief. How many times must I say that I am not saying 2000 ft-lbs is "the standard"? What is this now, the 4th time in this thread? 2000 ft-lbs was just used as marker to show relative energies of a bunch of cartridges and bullets at range. People, I started this as a look at relative energies of one manufacturer's cartridges, because it shows some interesting and unanticipated results comparing a bunch of popular cartridges downrange. It has become a P&$%#ing contest about ethical hunting energies, "the only right" way to choose a rifle and bullet, sermons about practice, arguments about bullet construction, twist, and much more. Holy hijack fest, batman!

 

[Orange Dust]

Good grief. How many times must I say that I am not saying 2000 ft-lbs is "the standard"? What is this now, the 4th time in this thread? 2000 ft-lbs was just used as marker to show relative energies of a bunch of cartridges and bullets at range. People, I started this as a look at relative energies of one manufacturer's cartridges, because it shows some interesting and unanticipated results comparing a bunch of popular cartridges downrange. It has become a P&$%#ing contest about ethical hunting energies, "the only right" way to choose a rifle and bullet, sermons about practice, arguments about bullet construction, twist, and much more. Holy hijack fest, batman!

Don't think anyone is starting a P contest or hijacking your thread. What you wrote is a valid comparison, but only to a point. The Military uses FMJ bullets for the most part, or used to. The bullets we use do not necessarily follow those models. While first shot hit probability is valid, energy at target notso much. Different bullets use that energy in different ways. This is why many bullet/cartridge combinations will humanely kill further than they should on paper. Ain't external ballistics fun everybody???

 

[WiscGunner]

I personally enjoy the discussion of terminal ballistics and the comparisons made with today's data. I think as many have pointed out bullet construction is crucial so it is imperative to compare calibers or cartridges using the same bullet design.

I personally run comparisons through BallisticARC where I can preset markers for velocity and energy. This allows easy comparison of bullets and cartridges based upon 1800fps (or what ever the particular bullet requires) and 1200ft/lb (or what ever energy you feel is sufficient).

One thing that I think is often lacking in these discussion is the diameter factor related to energy/velocity. I created a table that, though not scientific nor definitive, gives a rough comparison based upon diameter. So many people through around the 1000ft/lb number for whitetail and 1200ft/lb for elk I used this number as the base. As most of the time these numbers seem to be correlated to .30 cartidges, I used the .308 diameter as the base line. ASSUMING all bullets of equal construction and performance, a larger diameter will dump more of its energy into the target than a smaller diameter bullet.

Diameter correlations:
6mm - 1524ft/lbs
6.5mm - 1406ft/lbs
7mm - 1306ft/lbs
.308 - 1200ft/lbs
8mm - 1143ft/lbs
.33 - 1065ft/lbs
.375 - 960ft/lbs
.458 - 786ft/lbs

This is obviously on a relationship of energy to diameter and I am by no means says this is correct thinking or definitive but with all things equal gives a comparison based solely on diameter. I then can pick a desired bullet and run the numbers for minimum expansion velocity and minimum correlated energy related to the minimum energy recommendation for .30caliber.

143 Eld-x from 6.5 Creedmoor @ 2750ft/s is limited by this philosophy to 440yrds when it reaches 1406ft/lbs but still has 2104ft/sec velocity. 673.5 yrds when it reached 1800ft/s.

7mm 175 Eld-x @ 3000ft/s is limited by this philosophy to 918yrds where it reaches 1306ft/lbs (equivalent to .30cal 1200ft/lbs) and still has 1833 ft/s velocity.

Then again, in the back of my mind a .357 magnum 142gr with a muzzle velocity of 1420 has a muzzle energy of 650ft/lbs and I don't thinks anyone would say a .357 at point blank range wouldn't do the job.

Using this way along with 1800ft/sec gives me a fuller guestimate for me when trying to stay ethical at distance. There are too many variable to make it a scientific certainty but we can educate ourselves to make the best shot with the most probability in our favor.

 

[lancetkenyon]

My personal criteria for remaining velocity is 1800fps on pretty much all bullets.

As for energy, I like 1500ft/lbs for elk/bear, and 1000ft/lbs for deer/antelope, and down. Those thresholds have worked very well for me. That being said, with the exception of coyotes, the longest shot I have personally taken is 662 yards on a big bull elk. My daughter had a 637 on a great muley buck, and my cousin had an 882 on a good bull. Most others in my family have been sub-500, and to be honest, mostly sub-200.

 

[Orange Dust]

I personally enjoy the discussion of terminal ballistics and the comparisons made with today's data. I think as many have pointed out bullet construction is crucial so it is imperative to compare calibers or cartridges using the same bullet design.

I personally run comparisons through BallisticARC where I can preset markers for velocity and energy. This allows easy comparison of bullets and cartridges based upon 1800fps (or what ever the particular bullet requires) and 1200ft/lb (or what ever energy you feel is sufficient).

One thing that I think is often lacking in these discussion is the diameter factor related to energy/velocity. I created a table that, though not scientific nor definitive, gives a rough comparison based upon diameter. So many people through around the 1000ft/lb number for whitetail and 1200ft/lb for elk I used this number as the base. As most of the time these numbers seem to be correlated to .30 cartidges, I used the .308 diameter as the base line. ASSUMING all bullets of equal construction and performance, a larger diameter will dump more of its energy into the target than a smaller diameter bullet.

Diameter correlations:
6mm - 1524ft/lbs
6.5mm - 1406ft/lbs
7mm - 1306ft/lbs
.308 - 1200ft/lbs
8mm - 1143ft/lbs
.33 - 1065ft/lbs
.375 - 960ft/lbs
.458 - 786ft/lbs

This is obviously on a relationship of energy to diameter and I am by no means says this is correct thinking or definitive but with all things equal gives a comparison based solely on diameter. I then can pick a desired bullet and run the numbers for minimum expansion velocity and minimum correlated energy related to the minimum energy recommendation for .30caliber.

143 Eld-x from 6.5 Creedmoor @ 2750ft/s is limited by this philosophy to 440yrds when it reaches 1406ft/lbs but still has 2104ft/sec velocity. 673.5 yrds when it reached 1800ft/s.

7mm 175 Eld-x @ 3000ft/s is limited by this philosophy to 918yrds where it reaches 1306ft/lbs (equivalent to .30cal 1200ft/lbs) and still has 1833 ft/s velocity.

Then again, in the back of my mind a .357 magnum 142gr with a muzzle velocity of 1420 has a muzzle energy of 650ft/lbs and I don't thinks anyone would say a .357 at point blank range wouldn't do the job.

Using this way along with 1800ft/sec gives me a fuller guestimate for me when trying to stay ethical at distance. There are too many variable to make it a scientific certainty but we can educate ourselves to make the best shot with the most probability in our favor.

I love this. Kinda adds the old Taylor stuff in. If there was some way to figure in remaining sectional density after expansion and average frontal area during the trip through the animal it would be perfect. Surely there is a ballistision here that can figure all this out. Above my pay grade. I do think 30 call is the perfect baseline to compare