Home
OK, we all know it happens when a certain round performs all out of perportion to what would be exspected by reading the ballistics tables. Some rounds are just more than what yopu'd exspect.

For me it starts with the .250-3000. I know it's barely more than a .243 balistically, but the performance is dramatically different. There is no way the .250 is equal to the .243....it's so much more....and I'd actually place it as side-by-side with the .270. At long range (300+ yards) the .25-06 and .270 start to show their stuff, but at under 200 yards the .250 is just as good or better. Can't explain it with balistics, but it's there.

The .35 Remington is another that stands above it's ballistics profile. In energy and other measures it is only slightly more powerful than the .30-30.....but the results are so much more.

Probably most apparent is the .44 Magnum (in a rifle). I've never seen a round hit harder and give more reaction to the shot than a .44 magnum at under 100 yards. Maybe some other rounds do as well (I'm thinking .45-70) but not by much. Energy figures say no....but in-the-field results are different.

Has anyone else noticed this trend??


300 Savage has been that way for me. At normal deer hunting ranges (under 300 yards), it's performed far better than I expected it to.
223
Originally Posted by Steelhead
223
+1.
Bullets.


What were the bullets used in the 250 and 243 to make your comparisons?
.223....didn't exspect much.....and got what I exspected.
Bullets???? If a cartridge needs "magic: bullets to perform.....it's not much of a cartridge.
I've used the .25-20 on deer and found it more effective than the .223.....didn't exspect much from either and got what I exspected.
Dead deer in both cases.....deer just aren't that tough
.300 H&H
.300 Savage is a good example.....not much different than a .308 and maybe better with 180 grain bullets.
CB Shorts.
No, I've not noticed any magic, inexplicable, para-normal trend. Bullets tend to kill stuff right quick when they hit the proper spot on a critter and expand.

Originally Posted by TexasRick
Bullets???? If a cartridge needs "magic: bullets to perform.....it's not much of a cartridge.


That explains a lot. [/thread]

Originally Posted by DigitalDan
CB Shorts.


The Bermuda version hits harder
257 Weatherby with 100 TSX at 3700 fps always amazes me on game. When Roy said speed kills, I believe he was right on.
Whatever it is you've been smoking when you go hunting you need to stop it. Admittedly that's some funny schit though.
The little 250 kills all out of proportion to it's size. I've had/have both the regular version and the Ackley version. The 90-115gr bullets are a death ray on deer and out to as far as a man can hold his gun still. powdr
The little 250 kills all out of proportion to it's size. I've had/have both the regular version and the Ackley version. The 90-115gr bullets are a death ray on deer and out to as far as a man can hold his gun still. powdr
Originally Posted by TexasRick


Probably most apparent is the .44 Magnum (in a rifle). I've never seen a round hit harder and give more reaction to the shot than a .44 magnum at under 100 yards. Maybe some other rounds do as well (I'm thinking .45-70) but not by much. Energy figures say no....but in-the-field results are different.

Has anyone else noticed this trend??




I will have to admit, I haven't seen this trend and would suspect anyone that has shot more than a handgun cartridge at 100 yards, would not notice this trend either...
Originally Posted by Jordan Smith
No, I've not noticed any magic, inexplicable, para-normal trend. Bullets tend to kill stuff right quick when they hit the proper spot on a critter and expand.

Originally Posted by TexasRick
Bullets???? If a cartridge needs "magic: bullets to perform.....it's not much of a cartridge.


That explains a lot. [/thread]





No, no, no Jordan! Can't you see that it's about majic and not with how the bullets are constructed and where they go!

Sheesh....

wink
I will say that when I first became interested in guns as a young boy, I drank the Kool-aid and believed that there was some mystical power inherent in certain chamberings. In the decades since, I've realized that the only actual trend is this- when bullets expand in vital organs, things die. When they don't, things don't die as quickly or as easily. That is all.

Sorry Form, but you can't sell me that Kool-aid anymore! grin
Originally Posted by TexasRick
Some rounds are just more than what yopu'd exspect.

For me it starts with the .250-3000. I know it's barely more than a .243 balistically, but the performance is dramatically different. There is no way the .250 is equal to the .243....it's so much more....and I'd actually place it as side-by-side with the .270. At long range (300+ yards) the .25-06 and .270 start to show their stuff, but at under 200 yards the .250 is just as good or better. Can't explain it with balistics, but it's there.


From what I've seen while hunting deer with family and friends is that there's NO DIFFERENCE in how well any of the cartridges you mention kill. They are all light recoiling and accurate with reasonably flat trajectories. They encourage good shooting through their mellow manners. Bullets in .24 - .27 cal are largely designed with deer sized game in mind. It's no surprise to me that you're so happy with your .250, it's a cool little cartridge! So is the .243, the 6mm Rem, the .257 Roberts, etc...

No, I've noticed no particular magic associated with any particular member of that tribe. They all do well.

Enjoy your favorite cartridge. That's GREAT!

Regards, Guy
The 9.3x62 performs some big jobs for an '06 sized action and bolt face. It does .375 work in three pounds less gun and five in the magazine. For 95% of my hunting it can't be beat.
The working man's magnum aka .425 Westley Richards.
sleep sleep sleep whistle
Theres no magic. It's bullet construction, velocity level, and bore diameter.

But great bullets can make a cartridge perform out of its class.
Bore diameter I think gets overlooked in many such discussions. Holes kill game animals. Bigger holes might just do that a little more effectively. Larger diameter bullets can help there.
Originally Posted by bobnob17
Bore diameter I think gets overlooked in many such discussions. Holes kill game animals. Bigger holes might just do that a little more effectively. Larger diameter bullets can help there.


They certainly do not do less damage.
Originally Posted by TexasRick
.223....didn't exspect much.....and got what I exspected.


I'll bet your parents (brother/sister) got EXACTLY what they expected. I [bleep] retard.
Yes the .223, .22-250 and the .220 Swift with premium big game bullets.
Originally Posted by bobnob17
Bore diameter I think gets overlooked in many such discussions. Holes kill game animals. Bigger holes might just do that a little more effectively. Larger diameter bullets can help there.
Bore diameter don't count for schit when it comes to killing deer. If it did my .50 Hawken would put them down quicker than my .243, my .35 and .44 woulda been more effectice than my .30-30 and so on. It simply ain't so. Put a bullet from any of them through shoulders/spine/brain and they hit the ground right now. Poke one through the lungs and they generally run 40 yards or so before they fall over. No magic, no voo-doo no crazy ballistic theory. Just the truth,the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The end.
Never understood how someone can say an extra mm or 10 grains or 100 fps makes a difference. If I am going to make a step up its going to be much, much bigger or faster. If my .270 does not work I would be reaching for the Whelen, not a .280,.308 etc.
Originally Posted by Jordan Smith
I will say that when I first became interested in guns as a young boy, I drank the Kool-aid and believed that there was some mystical power inherent in certain chamberings. In the decades since, I've realized that the only actual trend is this- when bullets expand in vital organs, things die. When they don't, things don't die as quickly or as easily. That is all.


Trendsetter. grin
I hunt with cartridges that are definitely overkill, only because I like them, not because I think I need them.
True. If it was just "need", a decent-shooting 6.5mm-7mm that made 2,800fps+/- would pretty much handle everything for me.
Originally Posted by JPro
True. If it was just "need", a decent-shooting 6.5mm-7mm that made 2,800fps+/- would pretty much handle everything for me.


You just described a 140 grain bullet out of a 6.5 Swede, and yes they do seem to do better than the numbers indicate.
Originally Posted by SKane
Originally Posted by Jordan Smith
I will say that when I first became interested in guns as a young boy, I drank the Kool-aid and believed that there was some mystical power inherent in certain chamberings. In the decades since, I've realized that the only actual trend is this- when bullets expand in vital organs, things die. When they don't, things don't die as quickly or as easily. That is all.


Trendsetter. grin


Hah! Nice bull, BTW! Congrats!
.257 Roberts, .35 Whelen
© 24hourcampfire