Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
wanting to build a "mountain rifle"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jordan Smith" data-source="post: 662655" data-attributes="member: 44423"><p>I agree with what you're saying, for the most part. The part that I quoted is where I start to question the logic, here. I think there are way too many other variables to be able to predict the animal's reaction to the shot, based solely on bullet diameter. A much more significant variable, is bullet performance. Bullet performance is obviously affected by bullet design and impact velocity. It's also important to note that one of those variables is the individual animal's reaction to a hit. Different animals react differently to an identical bullet wound, which adds another layer of complication to the comparison between one bullet diameter/weight and another. </p><p></p><p>I would suggest that a 7mm 180gr VLD that impacts the diaphragm area at 2200 fps will do a bunch more damage, and have a more noticeable effect on the animal, than a .338 300gr bullet of similar design that impacts at 1600-1700fps and doesn't expand nearly as violently.</p><p></p><p>As a general trend, and assuming all else is equal, I would concur that the .338 will do more damage. BUT, all else is rarely equal, and there are many, many variables at play when a bullet impacts a big-game animal. It would be unrealistic to single out one variable (that being bullet diameter) and say that the results will always be directly proportional to that variable.</p><p></p><p>For a general purpose mountain rifle that could potentially be used at short range or long, where a guy might not always be able to put on hearing protection before the shot, he might not want to use a brake. If he thinks the rifle might get carried up a mountain after sheep or high-elevation MD or elk, he might opt for an 8 lbs rifle instead of one that weighs 12 lbs. As an all-around rifle, he may not want to deal with the price of .338 bullets and 100gr of powder per shot for practising, nor the muzzle blast that accompanies such a large powder charge. If you can deal with a 12 lbs rifle with a brake, and the cost of .338 components, then why not go with a .338 or some flavour. But if you're looking for a rifle that is more general purpose and can pull off the long-range shots when needed, I don't think you can go wrong with an 8 lbs rifle in a 7mm of some sort. If this were a dedicated 1200+ yard rifle, things would be different.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jordan Smith, post: 662655, member: 44423"] I agree with what you're saying, for the most part. The part that I quoted is where I start to question the logic, here. I think there are way too many other variables to be able to predict the animal's reaction to the shot, based solely on bullet diameter. A much more significant variable, is bullet performance. Bullet performance is obviously affected by bullet design and impact velocity. It's also important to note that one of those variables is the individual animal's reaction to a hit. Different animals react differently to an identical bullet wound, which adds another layer of complication to the comparison between one bullet diameter/weight and another. I would suggest that a 7mm 180gr VLD that impacts the diaphragm area at 2200 fps will do a bunch more damage, and have a more noticeable effect on the animal, than a .338 300gr bullet of similar design that impacts at 1600-1700fps and doesn't expand nearly as violently. As a general trend, and assuming all else is equal, I would concur that the .338 will do more damage. BUT, all else is rarely equal, and there are many, many variables at play when a bullet impacts a big-game animal. It would be unrealistic to single out one variable (that being bullet diameter) and say that the results will always be directly proportional to that variable. For a general purpose mountain rifle that could potentially be used at short range or long, where a guy might not always be able to put on hearing protection before the shot, he might not want to use a brake. If he thinks the rifle might get carried up a mountain after sheep or high-elevation MD or elk, he might opt for an 8 lbs rifle instead of one that weighs 12 lbs. As an all-around rifle, he may not want to deal with the price of .338 bullets and 100gr of powder per shot for practising, nor the muzzle blast that accompanies such a large powder charge. If you can deal with a 12 lbs rifle with a brake, and the cost of .338 components, then why not go with a .338 or some flavour. But if you're looking for a rifle that is more general purpose and can pull off the long-range shots when needed, I don't think you can go wrong with an 8 lbs rifle in a 7mm of some sort. If this were a dedicated 1200+ yard rifle, things would be different. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
wanting to build a "mountain rifle"
Top