The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: Bolt, Lever, and Pump Action

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 31, 2013, 12:03 AM   #26
taylorce1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2005
Location: On the Santa Fe Trail
Posts: 5,435
Powder isn't the only thing being consumed. Lets go extremes here since that's what we seem to be talking about. Lets compare a .250 Savage to a .257 Weaterby. It takes 40.5 grains of H4350 to propel a 100 gran bullets at 2900 fps, and it takes 63 grains of powder to propel a 100 grain bullet to 3500 fps. By your math that is a difference of 23 grains or .0805 cents per round or if we go up to 100 rounds $8.05 cents difference.

With a .250 Savage I can run regular cup and core bullets for around $20 per 100. With a .257 Roy I'd better use something like a TSX in a 100 grain bullet so I'm looking at around $65 per 100 bullets. So now I'm $45 per hundred more for bullets or $0.45 per bullet.

Now lets look at brass, .250 Savage is $32 per 50 rounds or $0.64 cents a cartridge. .257 Weatherby brass is $53 per 50 rounds or $1.06 per cartridge. So now we can figure on average eight reloads per .250 case and five reloads per .257 Wby Mag case.


Whip out the handy dandy reloading calculator and you're looking at roughly $9.40 per 20 rounds of the .250 Savage. The Weatherby will cost you $22.64 per 20 rounds. More than twice the cost of a .250 Savage to reload. Multiply that all by 8 or 5 and what do you get? A little over $85 per 100 40 rounds for the Savage vs. $113 for 100 rounds of the Weatherby. So you have a net savings of $28 and get to shoot 40 more times vs. what you get out of the Weatherby.
__________________
NRA Life Member
The Truth About Guns
taylorce1 is offline  
Old August 31, 2013, 08:26 AM   #27
steveNChunter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2012
Location: Southern Appalachian Mtns
Posts: 1,284
Taylorce1- I understand the point you're making but your comparison goes way beyond comparing cartridge efficiency. Comparing the price of brass for a Weatherby caliber vs. almost anything will show the Weatherby brass being much more expensive. Run those numbers again with the .250 savage vs. a .25-06 (another "inefficient" cartridge). With both using a standard cup and core bullet (I've taken several deer with 100 gr cup & core's in a .25-06 at ~3300 fps, they will do the job) and lets say IMR-4350 powder. I know the .25-06 max load will be about 53 gr depending on the rifle. I don't know about the .250, probably around 40 gr? You will see much less difference in cost per 100 as the powder is going to be the only major difference in cost. Your last post is comparing apples to oranges. Bullet efficiency and the price of Weatherby brass are different topics entirely.
__________________
I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it. - Clint Eastwood

Last edited by steveNChunter; August 31, 2013 at 08:33 AM.
steveNChunter is offline  
Old August 31, 2013, 10:20 AM   #28
Jimro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2006
Posts: 5,461
I think the "efficient cartridge" crowd will always have their favorites. I think the new "favorite" is the 300 Blackout.

At least in terms of grains of powder pushing grains of bullet at X velocity definition of efficiency. Generally as cartridges get closer to "straight wall" they get "more efficient" this way. Which is why the 358 Win is more "efficient" than the 308 Win, in terms of turning chemical energy into kinetic energy.

Doesn't stop me from owning a couple 308's and not a single 358.

Jimro
__________________
"Gorsh" said Goofy as secondary explosions racked the beaten zone, "Did I do that?"

http://randomthoughtsandguns.blogspot.com/
Jimro is offline  
Old August 31, 2013, 11:52 AM   #29
taylorce1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2005
Location: On the Santa Fe Trail
Posts: 5,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveNChunter
Your last post is comparing apples to oranges. Bullet efficiency and the price of Weatherby brass are different topics entirely.
First off I said I was taking it to the extreme, and I left out a lot in that post but it wasn't an apples to oranges. Efficiency means more than just the amount of powder burned, you need to think of efficiency as total cost of ownership. If all things were equal in price, brass, bullets, and primers, and the only difference was the amount of powder burned the .257 Weatherby would still be far more expensive to own and maintain. Why, because the erosion of the barrel would be far greater than the roughly the $8 per 100 difference in powder being burned.

If you shot both cartridges exactly the same, I'd wager you'd have to replace two barrels at minimum in the Weatherby vs. Savage. So since I'd shoot the Savage on average more than the .257 Weatherby, that $8 per hundred I'd save would add up to a new barrel or rifle much quicker. Plus a person would shoot more and hone their skills better with the .250 Savage.

I'm not saying the larger magnums don't have their place, and that I don't use them. I'll say this though they don't get shot a whole lot and they spend most of the time gathering dust in the back of my safe. Because, for what I mostly shoot the big boys simply aren't needed.
__________________
NRA Life Member
The Truth About Guns
taylorce1 is offline  
Old August 31, 2013, 11:22 PM   #30
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 2,238
I guess about as "efficient" as I plan on getting is the 6.5 Creedmoor. Most of the time I am still going to be using a 7 or .270 WSM. ON occasion I will be using my 7 Rum or my .30-378 WBY. To me, "efficiency" is marked by how few steps I have to walk to find what I shot. 0 steps is highly efficient. 200, not efficient at all.
reynolds357 is offline  
Old September 1, 2013, 12:05 AM   #31
taylorce1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2005
Location: On the Santa Fe Trail
Posts: 5,435
Yes, but killing game has never been about how much powder you're burning. You can easily have an animal run after being shot with your .30-378 if the bullet fails to hit anythingi vital. Killing game efficiently has always been first and foremost putting the bullet where it belongs.
__________________
NRA Life Member
The Truth About Guns
taylorce1 is offline  
Old September 1, 2013, 12:12 AM   #32
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 2,238
I agree. Having said that, I have shot a lot of big game over the years. The shock wave tissue damage seen in the wounds from the ultra velocity rifles makes for much faster stops than the double diameter of projectile holes left by the slower cartridges. I have shot a pile of deer with my .30-30 Winchester. Heart shots usually run at least 50 yards. Lung shots, 200 to 300 yards is not uncommon. Heart shots from the .257 WBY are dead in tracks. Lung shots? 50 yards at most. When you "autopsy" the deer, the amount of damage done becomes most obvious. At slow velocity, you have a clean wound channel. Hyper velocity yields a big pile of gelatin looking mess that used to be tissue.
The 7 Rum has field dressed white tails for me a few times. The amount of tissue damage is massive. The down side of that is that a hit in the wrong place destroys so much meat that you lost 1/3 of your animal.

Last edited by reynolds357; September 1, 2013 at 12:29 AM.
reynolds357 is offline  
Old September 1, 2013, 07:41 AM   #33
steveNChunter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2012
Location: Southern Appalachian Mtns
Posts: 1,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by reynolds357
To me, "efficiency" is marked by how few steps I have to walk to find what I shot. 0 steps is highly efficient. 200, not efficient at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by taylorce1
Killing game efficiently has always been first and foremost putting the bullet where it belongs.
I agree with both of these, and I believe the best way to a DRT shot is a light, tough bullet at high velocity. I'm about to do some experimenting this coming season with 80 gr Barnes TSX's in a .25-06 and 6mm rem. The .224 TSX bullets seem to be making some impressive kills as well, if my .220 swift had a little faster twist rate I'd be loading them for it and taking it deer hunting.
__________________
I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it. - Clint Eastwood

Last edited by steveNChunter; September 1, 2013 at 11:14 AM.
steveNChunter is offline  
Old September 2, 2013, 01:16 AM   #34
tahoe2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 13, 2011
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 518
I use silly old cartridges, like 7x57 Mauser, 30-30, 300 Savage, and 8x57 Mauser.
They seem pretty efficient for the ranges I hunt at, all the animals I had in my sights were DRT.
tahoe2 is offline  
Old September 2, 2013, 07:55 AM   #35
std7mag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 23, 2013
Location: Central Pennsyltucky...
Posts: 314
Hmmm, to me the "efficient" cartridges mean smaller casing pushing a smaller bullet.
Great if your biggest threat is a prairie dog.
Not so great if you live in bear or big cat country!

As for my own experiences, I have had 1 deer run about 30 yrds after being shot with the 30-30. Numerous deer shot with my 30-06, and not one have taken a single step after being hit.

That being said, I don't just take my 06 out at deer season. I practice with it all year long. Ground hogs make good practice during the summer months
While at the range I like to shoot bowling pins, and sometimes golf balls, just to make things interesting.

Have just moved up to the 7mm Rem Mag and love the heck out of this gun/cartridge combo so far!!!

However at $30 a box for the cheapest thing I can find for it, I've been pushed into reloading.

Working up loads for Reloader 25, with the Sierra 160gr. HPBT Gameking.

OH, as for cheap and efficient... for my short range deer gun I use a NEF 20gauge with slugs... Cheap gun, light, fast handling, cheap ammo, and a plenty big enough hole...
std7mag is offline  
Old September 2, 2013, 08:03 AM   #36
dahermit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near Ohio, Indiana.
Posts: 3,505
Quote:
Not so great if you live in bear or big cat country!
Seems that almost all of us do not live in Brown bear country; that is what you meant(not black bears) wasn't it? And as for "big" cats, they seem to be easily shot out of trees with 30-30's or any little "efficient" cartridge.

To me an "efficient" cartridge is one that has a case volume that does not leave as much, little, or no empty space in most loads. Therefore, I consider the .308 more efficient than the 30-06, the 7MM-08 more efficient than the 7x57, the .260 Rem. more efficient than the 6.5 Swed. Given that they are mostly used as deer rifles, not as often for bigger stuff, the lightest hunting/game (not varmint), bullet is the common choice. Which such considerations, the extra length of the classics, requiring longer actions, combined with the (usually), empty air space in most loadings, make them less efficient. Just my opinion...just how I see it.
__________________
Sometimes you get what you pay for, sometimes you only pay more for what you get.
Three shots are not a "group"...they are a "few".

If the Bible is the literal, infallible, unerring word of God...where are all those witches I am supposed to kill?

Last edited by dahermit; September 2, 2013 at 08:15 AM.
dahermit is offline  
Old September 2, 2013, 08:18 AM   #37
dahermit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near Ohio, Indiana.
Posts: 3,505
Quote:
I use silly old cartridges, like 7x57 Mauser, 30-30, 300 Savage, and 8x57 Mauser.
Short length, near 100% loading density; what is inefficient about the .300 Savage?
__________________
Sometimes you get what you pay for, sometimes you only pay more for what you get.
Three shots are not a "group"...they are a "few".

If the Bible is the literal, infallible, unerring word of God...where are all those witches I am supposed to kill?
dahermit is offline  
Old September 2, 2013, 11:09 AM   #38
taylorce1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2005
Location: On the Santa Fe Trail
Posts: 5,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by std7mag
Not so great if you live in bear or big cat country!
The internet has perpetuated a myth that you need seriously large magnums to kill brown and grizzly bear. A lot of these big animals were killed before the magnums came along with old black powder muzzle loaders and cartridges. There was a story a few years back out of Alaska of a guy killing a brown bear sow with a .220 Swift, it was the only rifle he had and his buddy who was being mauled by the bear was glad that he had it.

Big cats in the States is the mountain lion. The guys that hunt these on a regular basis often take them with pistols and .22 Hornets after they have been bayed up by dogs. Mountain lion are a thin skinned game animal and anything capable of taking out a coyote to deer is certainly capable of killing a lion. Another thing is if a mountain lion decides to attack you, they are an ambush preadator and you'll rarely have time if any to bring any weapon to bear on them.
__________________
NRA Life Member
The Truth About Guns
taylorce1 is offline  
Old September 2, 2013, 04:21 PM   #39
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 2,238
When you discuss loading density, it seems that when a cartridge is developed that needs a different powder, the powder companies catch up eventually. We are compressing cartridges today that we could not load over 88% when their first wildcat versions rolled out. As time passes, over bore cartridges get more and more efficient.
reynolds357 is offline  
Old September 3, 2013, 06:07 AM   #40
Magnum Wheel Man
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2006
Location: Southern Minnesota
Posts: 8,195
Quote:
The shock wave tissue damage seen in the wounds from the ultra velocity rifles makes for much faster stops than the double diameter of projectile holes left by the slower cartridges. I have shot a pile of deer with my .30-30 Winchester. Heart shots usually run at least 50 yards. Lung shots, 200 to 300 yards is not uncommon. Heart shots from the .257 WBY are dead in tracks. Lung shots? 50 yards at most. When you "autopsy" the deer, the amount of damage done becomes most obvious. At slow velocity, you have a clean wound channel. Hyper velocity yields a big pile of gelatin looking mess that used to be tissue.
I agree with the hydrostatic shock part... but I am a bigger bullet guy... whish I had the "my 1st couple years at deer my FIL's deer camp" thing permanently saved I did all the field dressing of the deer the 1st couple years... I suppose they wanted to make sure I knew how I used the time to study wound tracks, so I'm very familiar with the hydrostatic shock... I also found that when I switched to 45-70 from .243, that I actually had less "blood shot" ( bruising around the wound channel ) with the 45-70... & I'd say the 45-70 planted deer every bit as good, & likely better ( the reason I switched ) than the .243
__________________
In life you either make dust or eat dust...
Magnum Wheel Man is offline  
Old September 3, 2013, 09:39 AM   #41
skoro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 30, 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,698
bolt action guys... interested in more efficient cartridges???

Me?

Not so much.

My centerfire rifle calibers are 223, 243 and 30-06. Covers all my bases very nicely, I think. I understand the urge for some shooters to have the latest new boutique calibers. But they just don't do anything the old reliables can't do just about as well, in my book.
skoro is offline  
Old September 3, 2013, 10:21 AM   #42
Magnum Wheel Man
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2006
Location: Southern Minnesota
Posts: 8,195
one thing I noticed... the barrel sure gets hotter with a 25-06, than it does with the more "efficient" cartridges... ( had my 25-06 out this weekend )
__________________
In life you either make dust or eat dust...

Last edited by Magnum Wheel Man; September 3, 2013 at 12:54 PM.
Magnum Wheel Man is offline  
Old September 3, 2013, 11:04 AM   #43
AssaultTortoise
Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2012
Posts: 36
Might be a little off topic

This is a little off topic but I have wondered if anyone has gone through and done a thermodynamic efficiency table for any cartridges. I was thinking you could get the Pressure/volume curves and find the work energy performed by the expanding gasses in the barrel. Then get the muzzle energy from muzzle velocity and bullet mass to get a general thermodynamic efficiency from the two. Say a 30/06 with a muzzle energy of 3800J and you calculated the P/V integral at say 5000J you would have and efficiency of 76% the rest being lost by heat absorption and other means. Granted this would only be usable in internal ballistic comparisons. You could also potentially calculate barrel heating if you had the mass and heat capacity of the barrel metal.
AssaultTortoise is offline  
Old September 3, 2013, 09:49 PM   #44
iraiam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2012
Location: Lakewood, CO
Posts: 872
Define efficiency?

based on the improved efficiency, I did try a couple short magnum rifles, but was less than impressed. In the end I got rid of the short magnum rifles and stuck with the oldies but goodies. .223 .243, 270,308, 30-06, 338.
__________________
NRA Lifetime Member Since 1999

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." George Mason
iraiam is offline  
Old September 4, 2013, 02:19 PM   #45
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 2,238
I like Winchester's line of short mags. I have all of them except the .325, and I plan on building one of those in the near future.
reynolds357 is offline  
Old September 4, 2013, 02:35 PM   #46
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
The internet has perpetuated a myth that you need seriously large magnums to kill brown and grizzly bear. A lot of these big animals were killed before the magnums came along with old black powder muzzle loaders and cartridges. There was a story a few years back out of Alaska of a guy killing a brown bear sow with a .220 Swift, it was the only rifle he had and his buddy who was being mauled by the bear was glad that he had it.
Lots of things may or may not kill a brown/grizzly bear. But the more you reduce the power of the cartridge and weight/diameter of the pill, the more you reduce your margin of error - against an animal more than capable of snacking on you should it feel the urge.

I for one would prefer not to take any more chances against deadly game than absolutely necessary, and that means were I ever to find myself in big (not black) bear country, you can bet I'll have a heavy, slamming rifle in hand. Something along the lines of a .375 H&H or bigger.
csmsss is offline  
Old September 4, 2013, 03:13 PM   #47
taylorce1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2005
Location: On the Santa Fe Trail
Posts: 5,435
Bet you'll never guess what cartridge all these game animals were killed with.

__________________
NRA Life Member
The Truth About Guns
taylorce1 is offline  
Old September 4, 2013, 07:39 PM   #48
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 2,238
I would guess either .30-30 Win or .30-40 Kraig.
Looking at the Rifle, its probably older than those two cartridges.

Last edited by reynolds357; September 4, 2013 at 08:33 PM.
reynolds357 is offline  
Old September 4, 2013, 08:35 PM   #49
steveNChunter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2012
Location: Southern Appalachian Mtns
Posts: 1,284
I'll take a wild off-the-wall guess and say .38-55 Winchester.

Either that or .22 short, long, or long rifle
__________________
I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it. - Clint Eastwood
steveNChunter is offline  
Old September 4, 2013, 09:01 PM   #50
taylorce1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2005
Location: On the Santa Fe Trail
Posts: 5,435
As Paul Harvey would say "Here is the rest of the story."

Quote:
Hunting With The Old Ones


All this talk about the old Savage rifles, and rarely do we hear about what they were used for. For as far back as Savage started to sell the Model 1899 and other models, they were advertised beyond their actual use. Ads of the 1895s with kills of such animals as Lions and elephants were amazing to the general hunting population. Even when the 22 H.P. was introduced awe inspiring commercialism was Savages mainstay with ads of the little Imp taking leopards in Africa. In this day and age we would do a serious double take if someone asked you to go around the world and challenge the big five with nothing but a small 20 carbine model 1899H. With all the new offerings available to the hunters of this day it would be suicide to do so, but yet it seems like the old boys club were either a lot braver or down right crazy back then. Could you picture yourself standing in front of a charging lion with a small 22 caliber pill being throw from this small rifle and drop it? Not this guy.


J.W. French shown with his trusted Savage Model 1899 T/D chambered in .250-3000 Savage.



It brings back a funny memory of the time I first took my model 23B in 25-20 to the range. A group of modern day magnum junkies were shooting at the benches beside me and laughed at the small round every time I pulled the trigger. They asked what I was shooting and had another chuckle when the found they were 86 grain pills and sounded like a pistol round. Their faces sure dropped when I explained to them that it was the same round the Jordan buck was taken with, so just because its old doesn't mean its useless.

A friend of mine recently found some old boxes from an estate and sent me a note due to my Savage infatuation, seems it was all about a man named J.W. French. I was totally amazed at the literature and photos that were in this treasure trove of Savage history, as all he used was an old model 1899 T/D in 250-3000. He was the man of men when it came to being a lone mountain man, going out for weeks on end with his camp kit and the old (then new) rifle. It was used so much that Ive got a factory letter from 1921 regarding a total overhaul on the rifle, including a new barrel and stock set as well as a good cleaning. He took countless Rocky Mountain game species and in one hunt stalked and killed nine grizzlies with this little rifle that shot 87 grain bullets at that time. Somewhere during his years he was sworn in a made a special constable and given a badge without salary for the Game Conservation Board of British Columbia.


J.W. French's Model 1899 T/D in .250-3000 Savage and a freshly harvested bull Moose in British Columbia.



With today's long list of magnum cartridges and flashy new models from Savage, there just isn't a large interest in hunting with older models such as the Model 99, 1920, 40 and 45 centerfire rifles. Fortunately we can rest assured that somewhere they are sitting in a dusty corner just waiting for the opportunity to hit the field again and prove once again that they are more than capable. The vicious rumor of the Winchester 94 30-30 taking the most deer in its history may be true, but there's little question that the Savage Model 99 was and still is a close second.

Submitted by Joe Koprash
__________________
NRA Life Member
The Truth About Guns
taylorce1 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13985 seconds with 8 queries