bolt action guys... interested in more efficient cartridges??? - Page 3

tahoe2 · September 4, 2013, 09:11 PM

I'm guessin 250-3000 or 300 Savage

ThomasT · September 4, 2013, 09:22 PM

Hey Taylorce1 it just once again proves the old saying; "its the indian, not the arrow". That was a good story. I remember a Jack O'Conner story where he ran across his friend Charlie Ren while hunting sheep (or mountain goats). Jack asked about the worn out looking winchester 30-30 he was carrying. Charlie said something like, "hell, you can knock them over with anything, its finding them thats so damn hard".

Learn to hunt and shoot and you can do a lot of work with a small, assumed weak round. Don't know how to hunt, better buy a bigger gun.

I am rereading Finn Aagaards Selected Works from Wolfe publishing for about the 6th time right now. In one story Finn used a 22 hornet to shoot some large plains animals. His ammo was loaded with bullets that had tougher jackets than the normally loaded varmint style bullets normally found in american loads. Better bullets let him make some impressive kills on african game.

John Barsness wrote an article in Rifle Magazine on effecient rounds in 2002. I would recommend that folks get a copy from Wolfe Publishing. It will put this topic in good perspective.

Geo_Erudite · September 5, 2013, 11:19 AM

This is a formula I have been working on to explain cartridge efficiency (not a complete finished product):

This formula gives you a 1 to 10 scale for cartridge efficiency, with 1 being least efficient and 10 being the most efficient. Here are the results of some common cartridges (table on left shows most efficient on top to least efficient on bottom; graph just showing efficiency vs caliber).

It's not perfect, but it is a start.

steveNChunter · September 5, 2013, 02:12 PM

There are some cartridges that have been deemed very inefficient pretty high on that list. I'm not arguing with your formula I just think its interesting as it goes against what some have said in this thread. I never knew I had such efficient rifles

I like the results

Geo_Erudite · September 5, 2013, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveNChunter

There are some cartridges that have been deemed very inefficient pretty high on that list. I'm not arguing with your formula I just think its interesting as it goes against what some have said in this thread. I never knew I had such efficient rifles.

I like the results

I think you read the table wrong, so to make it easier. I put them in order from most (top of table) to least (bottom of table). I think it gels well with what people have been saying in this thread.

steveNChunter · September 5, 2013, 06:00 PM

No I think I'm reading it right. I'm referring to cartridges like the .25-06, 6mm rem, .240 wby mag, and .270 win being in the top half of the list. Not many people would consider those to be very efficient cartridges.

But the bottom half of the list is mostly magnums, so I guess that's not saying a whole lot

reynolds357 · September 5, 2013, 08:41 PM

Geo, I don't really agree with the methodology of the formula. For all practical purposes, it is not taking bullet dia. into account. In theory, I could take a 300 Win mag and neck it down to .22 cal, and your forumula would give it almost identical numbers to its parent.(saving the slight change in water capacity due to necking)

Geo_Erudite · September 6, 2013, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reynolds357

Geo, I don't really agree with the methodology of the formula. For all practical purposes, it is not taking bullet dia. into account. In theory, I could take a 300 Win mag and neck it down to .22 cal, and your forumula would give it almost identical numbers to its parent.(saving the slight change in water capacity due to necking)

Yeah, I should of thought of that, so I worked out a new equation:

Which results in a new table (Same applies, most efficient on top and least efficient on the bottom):

September 5, 2013, 11:19 AM	#53
Geo_Erudite Senior Member Join Date: January 26, 2013 Location: SE WI Posts: 158	This is a formula I have been working on to explain cartridge efficiency (not a complete finished product): This formula gives you a 1 to 10 scale for cartridge efficiency, with 1 being least efficient and 10 being the most efficient. Here are the results of some common cartridges (table on left shows most efficient on top to least efficient on bottom; graph just showing efficiency vs caliber). It's not perfect, but it is a start. Last edited by Geo_Erudite; September 5, 2013 at 03:55 PM.

September 5, 2013, 02:12 PM	#54
steveNChunter Senior Member Join Date: December 14, 2012 Location: Southern Appalachian Mtns Posts: 1,520	There are some cartridges that have been deemed very inefficient pretty high on that list. I'm not arguing with your formula I just think its interesting as it goes against what some have said in this thread. I never knew I had such efficient rifles I like the results __________________ DEO VINDICE

September 5, 2013, 06:00 PM	#56
steveNChunter Senior Member Join Date: December 14, 2012 Location: Southern Appalachian Mtns Posts: 1,520	No I think I'm reading it right. I'm referring to cartridges like the .25-06, 6mm rem, .240 wby mag, and .270 win being in the top half of the list. Not many people would consider those to be very efficient cartridges. But the bottom half of the list is mostly magnums, so I guess that's not saying a whole lot __________________ DEO VINDICE

September 4, 2013, 09:11 PM	#51
tahoe2 Senior Member Join Date: August 13, 2011 Location: Seattle area Posts: 661	I'm guessin 250-3000 or 300 Savage

September 4, 2013, 09:22 PM	#52
ThomasT Senior Member Join Date: January 22, 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 2,753	Hey Taylorce1 it just once again proves the old saying; "its the indian, not the arrow". That was a good story. I remember a Jack O'Conner story where he ran across his friend Charlie Ren while hunting sheep (or mountain goats). Jack asked about the worn out looking winchester 30-30 he was carrying. Charlie said something like, "hell, you can knock them over with anything, its finding them thats so damn hard". Learn to hunt and shoot and you can do a lot of work with a small, assumed weak round. Don't know how to hunt, better buy a bigger gun. I am rereading Finn Aagaards Selected Works from Wolfe publishing for about the 6th time right now. In one story Finn used a 22 hornet to shoot some large plains animals. His ammo was loaded with bullets that had tougher jackets than the normally loaded varmint style bullets normally found in american loads. Better bullets let him make some impressive kills on african game. John Barsness wrote an article in Rifle Magazine on effecient rounds in 2002. I would recommend that folks get a copy from Wolfe Publishing. It will put this topic in good perspective.

September 5, 2013, 08:41 PM	#57
reynolds357 Senior Member Join Date: December 10, 2012 Posts: 6,165	Geo, I don't really agree with the methodology of the formula. For all practical purposes, it is not taking bullet dia. into account. In theory, I could take a 300 Win mag and neck it down to .22 cal, and your forumula would give it almost identical numbers to its parent.(saving the slight change in water capacity due to necking)