Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Mule Deer and "Case Shape"

I disagree with your assertion here. I don't think McPherson has any more "dog in the fight" than Mule Deer does. I don't think Mule Deer makes any extra proving WSM's aren't more efficient but he has been running a continuing series of articles on "Reloading Myth's". I'm thinking that's as much of a "dog in the fight" as McPherson may or may not have but I don't really think either is trying to misrepresent or construe anything.............DJ [/quote]

+1

I have not read MD's article, work's interfering with my Barnes and Noble breaks, but I intend to. I do agree that he has publicly leaned to the "no difference" camp.

So here we have two articles, using the same methodology, coming to opposite conclusions. My scientific training compels me to look closely at the two experimental designs and the controls used in the experiment, and that the one with the best work wins. Until we all read both articles and reviewed the data presented, we're just having a "kaffee klatsch". JMO, Dutch.

DJ & Dutch,

Please do not saddle me with an assertion I did not make. I can get in enough trouble all by myself -- without help! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

As far as I am concerned, there is no place in this thread where I intentionally infer McPherson purposely skewed, manipulated, etc., data for his own ends. What I did, was make reference to what DUTCH stated when he wrote "Of course, Mic has a dog in the fight, but the collection process seems well done." I referenced this simply to help make the point that, IN GENERAL, I question test results provided by those who have a stake in the outcome. I know nothing about McPherson or the testing in which he was (is) involved and therefore, am in no position to make ANY judgements concerning him. Sorry for any part I may have had in this misunderstanding!

M. Bell

Certainly, the overall length of the rifle is something else. However, I think you are missing the point of this discussion, or perhaps I am. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

My understanding is that the comparison is between two chambers of near identical capacity, but different shapes. The length of the barrel ahead of the combustion chamber is the same in both instances.

Ted

Actually, I'm really laughin Ten_Sleep, because I missed page 95 altogether! Must have been tackled by a rug rat at that moment or something...

My apologies, I feel like the kid nodding off at the back of the class who got called out on it.

Cope

Kids nod off all the time in the back (and front) of class these days--they don't feel any remorse over it.

A fellow teacher had a kid in the front row drooling on his notepaper because he was sleeping--his response upon waking was not shame but thinking how funny it was.

Cope,

I'm a retired school teacher! I TRIED to teach English (language arts) and reading to seventh graders for more years than I want to remember. Perhaps I subconsciously reverted to my former self and came down on you just a bit too hard! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

No apologies needed! Have a good day with the rug rat.

M. Bell

One point was omitted; For years some gun writers have maintained that each powder has a particular shoulder angle that gives the best results. MD has ruined a lot of gun articles
with a simple test.
Way To Go!

I'll betcha 'ole Ten Sleep is one of those guys that still hunts with such things as 30-06s, 257s, 25-06s 7x57s and maybe even short barreled 338s.

Folks down in his locale don't seem to keep up with the rest of the pack. From what I hear, they still shoot coyotes and praire dogs.

Pray for 'em..........

While I have never been a fan of the short and fats they do often shoot very well and I see no real problem with them either. To me they always seemed a solution in search of a problem and offered little or nothing we didn't already have. Understand I prefer long actions as I find them smoother and long barrels. I never had problems in the woods with a 24" barrel and really like 26" for most magnums. A few ounces one way or the other doesn't mean much to me either. All the above is very subjective and refers to my personal preferences only. I have friends who love short and fat, short barrels, short actions, and count every ounce a rifle weighs. To each his own. If we ever get to the point where need is the really determining factor I suspect we will all end up with a 30-06 in a Mauser action with a 3x9 Leupold and be done with it.

Just got back from ther SHOT Show so am a little late on this.

I made it plain in the .300 H&H/.300 WSM piece that this was just one experiment, with only two cartridges. You cannot extrapolate what might happen with ALL cartridges from such an experiment.

It may well prove that some other short/fat round is indeed more efficient than a longer. slimmer case of the same case capacity and bore size. I would tend to suspect that if this is so, then it would probably happen with rounds smaller than the .300 magnums in the Sisk experiment.

For instance, the PPC case was designed to be the perfect length for the flash of most small rifle primers. This in itself might make it more efficient, and have more effect than case or shoulder shape.

I must also comment on the question somebody had on the lack of 200-grain bullets in the Sisk experiment. No, they were not omitted because they pushed too far into the powder space of either cartridge. In fact, it is mostly a myth that short cartridges suffer more with heavier bullets. A 200-grain Nosler Partition's base takes up just about as much powder space below the neck in a .300 Weatherby or .300 H&H as it does in a .300 WSM.

I have not seen Mic McPherson's piece in RS, but will try to pick up a copy. Wish I knew it was out before SHOT, as we ran into each other there, and per usual mostly just exchanged pleasantries. We could have had an even more interesting talk!

By the way, one of the more interesting things in the Sisk experiment is that loads with Ramshot Hunter shot best in the barrel, whether it was chambered for the H&H or WSM, despite the fact that velocity variations were greater than with the two other powders. After the experiment, Charley installed the barrel (now rechambered in .300 Winchester) on a customer's rifle--and the same thing happened!

John Barsness

MD, Mic's most recent artcle was in Varminthunter, not RS. HTH, Dutch.

Tips are always appreciated around here. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Yeah, and in this case the tip would be...? Both Charlie and I are still trying to figure it out.

JB

I will be buying some Ramshot Hunter & magnum powder. I probably would have never bothered with Ramshot. but whatever shoots best in one rifle seems worth trying in my guns.

There are no guarantees about powders working in various rifles, but I have been using Hunter in cartridges from the .257 Bob on up for a couple of years now, and am starting to try it first in any round where I used to reach for the 4350's or RL-19 instead. Accuracy so far has always been very fine in any round, it burns cleanly and with very little velocity variation (especially in cold temps), and of course since it is a ball powder meters like a dream. Hard to not like it!

JB

Sounds like I need to try it in the 260 Remington.

mathman

Doesn't hurt it's still under $15/lb around here, either. I burn a lot of TAC and Magnum, and it's easy to get used to. FWIW, Dutch.

Looking back at the article, Reloader-19 shot the best groups with the 180 grain bullets in both calibers.

Was there a mistake in printing?

Ramshot Hunter shot the best with the 150 grain TSX.

As a long time shooter of the 300 H&H cartridge, I found John's article quite interesting. Maybe newer ain't necessarily better... just different.

FWIW, I just read MD's article, and think it is rather well done.

Two questions came to mind, as I read the article.

1) was the strain gauge left on, or removed for the re-chamber?
2) what were the case capacities of the two cases (nitpicking, maybe, but "just about the same" is different to an engineer and a farmer making a field repair.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> ).

The experimental results are, well, perplexing to me. Flip flops bigger than possible read errors. Sometimes the H&H put more zip on the bullet, sometimes the WSM. Little correlation between peak pressure increases and velocity. Harrummph! Expectations not met.....

Particularly the reversals in powder performance (if not "noise") is a very important observation (and puts this experiment ahead of Mic McPherson's), but immediately begs the question: WHY? What's so different between RL-19 and H4831?

I do think, no matter what nitpicking is done, the last phrase of the article was absolutely accurate. There is not MUCH difference. Other than an inch or so in overall length, and the 30 fps loss that comes with it.

Really enjoyed the article. FWIW, Dutch.