Most efficient Mag. Caliber Cartridge?

Hit-em · August 13, 2001, 07:15 PM

My buddy & I were talking the other day about what is the most efficient Mag. Caliber Cartridge for a new rifle. I was thinking it would be the shorter new mag's that Win, Rem & Lazzerodi have out there. The knock I've been hearing on these is that there's problems in feeding these short stubby cartridges.

I'm curious as to what the opinions are in regards to efficiency on the Mags. I know in general a Magnum is not known for their efficiency, but if you had to choose one what would it be.

Thanks,
Hit-em

**Mike Irwin** · August 13, 2001, 08:12 PM

An all-around magnum, for general (non dangerous) hunting would lead me right to either the 7mm or .300 Win. Mags.

If I thought I might go to heavier game, such as moose or elk, while the .300 and 7mm would handle them nicely I might splurge and go straight up to .338 Win. mag.

If I thought I might some day have a chance at bear in the North, .375 H&H.

snuffy · August 15, 2001, 10:40 AM

Just got the pettersons rifle shooter mag, Jon Sundra did a write up on the rem SAUM,(short action ultra mag). It has less powder capacity than the WSM, 7.5%. My WSM Browning uses around 10 grains less powder than a winny mag. to achive the same velocity. That is what I call efficiency! It is showing that it is also capable of fine accuracy. I'm convinced it will serve me well for it's intended purpose.

Southla1 · August 15, 2001, 11:15 AM

The 7MM Rem Mag. is pretty efficient plus it will suffice for all North American game except perhaps the big bears. Even for those I guess it could do in a pinch, but I sure don't want to get pinched that way! As far as the efficency goes it moves the 175 grain bullets faster than the 30-06 can and does it with about 10-15 grains more powder. However...........to get right down to it the old 30-06 is good for anything except the big bears and in a pinch................

Chris McDermott · August 15, 2001, 02:49 PM

I have never really considered any magnum cartridge efficient. If you look at how much velocity gain there is, and then how much extra powder it took to get it, they aren't efficient at all. Compare the new 300WSM and the 30-378 to a 308 and you aren't getting very much extra speed for all of that extra powder you are using. 300 WSM uses 50% more powder, for 12% more velocity. 30-378 uses 125% more powder, to gain 25% more velocity (this is for the 168gr Sierra Matchkings). Yes as cartridge size goes up the powder changes (gets slower), but you still use MUCH more. This isn't efficiency in my book.

What I do like about the magnum cartridges is the ability to handle much heavier bullets. 200 & 220 grain bullets are marginal in a 308, but work well in the 300 mags. Wonder what a 250gr would do in a 30-378 (yes it would need some kind of relief in the waist to reduce bore friction)?

Art Eatman · August 15, 2001, 03:32 PM

If you're talking efficiency from the standpoint of powder charge vs. muzzle veelocity, the new short magnums apparently win out. Same MV, less powder. So, shorter action; a bit better accuracy potential.

Killing efficiency? This side of the Big Brown Brer Bear, most any of the .30s will work. So will the 7mm Rem Mag or the .338s.

About the only Maggie gain over a .308 or '06 for most big game is the added range. Of course, you're then getting into how good a rifleman you are, since a bad hit is still a bad hit, regardless of how big the boom.

, Art

Hit-em · August 18, 2001, 08:08 AM

As I mentioned in my original post I know that a Magnum cartridge would not be considered a efficient in regards to rate of return, but if you had to choose one which would it be.

After much consideration, when I look at rate of return in regards to versatility, velocity & inherent eficiency. I've decided to have a rifle buildt in the new Win. Short Mag. I get the velocity of a 300 Win. Mag in a short action. It burns less powder(there for more efficient) & cases will be available for reloading. I can load anything from 150-200 grn bullets which pretty covers everything that I'm going to hunt.

Now I've got to figure who to have build me a rifle. I've decided to have a light weight rifle buildt for Mtn. Hunting . I'm looking at Mel Forbes Ultralight or Prairie Gun Works Titatium Lightweight, if anyone has any suggestions I'd appreciate the input.

Thanks,
Hit-em

Jerry Stordahl · August 19, 2001, 09:09 AM

Hitem: I suggest George Gardner of G.A Precision. In fact he recently had a newly built .300 WSM for sale on the emporium over at www.snipercountry.com. Contact him at [email protected]. He carries an excellent reputation for craftsmanship and quality with the shooters frequenting that site.

Spectre · August 19, 2001, 03:49 PM

If you want a hunting rifle, you might consider the .35 Whelen. The Whelen is not considered a "magnum" cartridge, but throws a pretty heavy bullet [200 to 250 grains] at a decent clip. It is ballistically identical to the .350 Rem Mag. From the Reload Bench website:

With 3500 foot/pounds of energy, the .35 Whelen is more powerful than the .30-06, and quite capable of taking all North American big game. For deer size game, bullets weighing 200 to 250 grains are the best choices. With the possible exception the Nosler 225 grain Partition, heavier bullets are better choices for larger game. For elk, moose, and bear, the Speer and Barnes 250 grain spitzers at 2500 fps deliver a ton of energy at 300 yards. When zeroed three inches high at 100 yards, both have a point blank range of about325 yards on a bull elk's vital area.

August 13, 2001, 07:15 PM	#1
Hit-em Member Join Date: December 30, 1999 Location: Holly,Mich,USA Posts: 23	Most efficient Mag. Caliber Cartridge? My buddy & I were talking the other day about what is the most efficient Mag. Caliber Cartridge for a new rifle. I was thinking it would be the shorter new mag's that Win, Rem & Lazzerodi have out there. The knock I've been hearing on these is that there's problems in feeding these short stubby cartridges. I'm curious as to what the opinions are in regards to efficiency on the Mags. I know in general a Magnum is not known for their efficiency, but if you had to choose one what would it be. Thanks, Hit-em

August 13, 2001, 08:12 PM	#2
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,390	An all-around magnum, for general (non dangerous) hunting would lead me right to either the 7mm or .300 Win. Mags. If I thought I might go to heavier game, such as moose or elk, while the .300 and 7mm would handle them nicely I might splurge and go straight up to .338 Win. mag. If I thought I might some day have a chance at bear in the North, .375 H&H. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

August 15, 2001, 10:40 AM	#3
snuffy Senior Member Join Date: May 20, 2001 Location: Oshkosh wi. Posts: 3,055	most efficient? Just got the pettersons rifle shooter mag, Jon Sundra did a write up on the rem SAUM,(short action ultra mag). It has less powder capacity than the WSM, 7.5%. My WSM Browning uses around 10 grains less powder than a winny mag. to achive the same velocity. That is what I call efficiency! It is showing that it is also capable of fine accuracy. I'm convinced it will serve me well for it's intended purpose. __________________ The more people I meet, the more I love my dog They're going to get their butts kicked over there this election. How come people can't spell and use words correctly?

August 19, 2001, 09:09 AM	#8
Jerry Stordahl Member Join Date: July 9, 2000 Location: Halstad, MN USA Posts: 96	Hitem: I suggest George Gardner of G.A Precision. In fact he recently had a newly built .300 WSM for sale on the emporium over at www.snipercountry.com. Contact him at [email protected]. He carries an excellent reputation for craftsmanship and quality with the shooters frequenting that site. __________________ NRA Life Member

August 15, 2001, 11:15 AM	#4
Southla1 Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 19, 2000 Location: Jeanerette, La. Near the Posts: 1,999	The 7MM Rem Mag. is pretty efficient plus it will suffice for all North American game except perhaps the big bears. Even for those I guess it could do in a pinch, but I sure don't want to get pinched that way! As far as the efficency goes it moves the 175 grain bullets faster than the 30-06 can and does it with about 10-15 grains more powder. However...........to get right down to it the old 30-06 is good for anything except the big bears and in a pinch................

August 15, 2001, 02:49 PM	#5
Chris McDermott Senior Member Join Date: March 30, 2000 Posts: 245	I have never really considered any magnum cartridge efficient. If you look at how much velocity gain there is, and then how much extra powder it took to get it, they aren't efficient at all. Compare the new 300WSM and the 30-378 to a 308 and you aren't getting very much extra speed for all of that extra powder you are using. 300 WSM uses 50% more powder, for 12% more velocity. 30-378 uses 125% more powder, to gain 25% more velocity (this is for the 168gr Sierra Matchkings). Yes as cartridge size goes up the powder changes (gets slower), but you still use MUCH more. This isn't efficiency in my book. What I do like about the magnum cartridges is the ability to handle much heavier bullets. 200 & 220 grain bullets are marginal in a 308, but work well in the 300 mags. Wonder what a 250gr would do in a 30-378 (yes it would need some kind of relief in the waist to reduce bore friction)?

August 15, 2001, 03:32 PM	#6
Art Eatman Staff in Memoriam Join Date: November 13, 1998 Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA Posts: 24,798	If you're talking efficiency from the standpoint of powder charge vs. muzzle veelocity, the new short magnums apparently win out. Same MV, less powder. So, shorter action; a bit better accuracy potential. Killing efficiency? This side of the Big Brown Brer Bear, most any of the .30s will work. So will the 7mm Rem Mag or the .338s. About the only Maggie gain over a .308 or '06 for most big game is the added range. Of course, you're then getting into how good a rifleman you are, since a bad hit is still a bad hit, regardless of how big the boom. , Art

August 18, 2001, 08:08 AM	#7
Hit-em Member Join Date: December 30, 1999 Location: Holly,Mich,USA Posts: 23	As I mentioned in my original post I know that a Magnum cartridge would not be considered a efficient in regards to rate of return, but if you had to choose one which would it be. After much consideration, when I look at rate of return in regards to versatility, velocity & inherent eficiency. I've decided to have a rifle buildt in the new Win. Short Mag. I get the velocity of a 300 Win. Mag in a short action. It burns less powder(there for more efficient) & cases will be available for reloading. I can load anything from 150-200 grn bullets which pretty covers everything that I'm going to hunt. Now I've got to figure who to have build me a rifle. I've decided to have a light weight rifle buildt for Mtn. Hunting . I'm looking at Mel Forbes Ultralight or Prairie Gun Works Titatium Lightweight, if anyone has any suggestions I'd appreciate the input. Thanks, Hit-em

August 19, 2001, 03:49 PM	#9
Spectre Staff Alumnus Join Date: October 23, 1998 Location: ATL Posts: 3,277	If you want a hunting rifle, you might consider the .35 Whelen. The Whelen is not considered a "magnum" cartridge, but throws a pretty heavy bullet [200 to 250 grains] at a decent clip. It is ballistically identical to the .350 Rem Mag. From the Reload Bench website: With 3500 foot/pounds of energy, the .35 Whelen is more powerful than the .30-06, and quite capable of taking all North American big game. For deer size game, bullets weighing 200 to 250 grains are the best choices. With the possible exception the Nosler 225 grain Partition, heavier bullets are better choices for larger game. For elk, moose, and bear, the Speer and Barnes 250 grain spitzers at 2500 fps deliver a ton of energy at 300 yards. When zeroed three inches high at 100 yards, both have a point blank range of about325 yards on a bull elk's vital area.