Better than ballistics would indicate. - 10/27/14
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??
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??