which one is it, I want to compare a 338federal 210gr@2600fps against others like.

Is 'none of the above' an option?

First I must say that I have no idea which one is best. That said, I don't put much store in the so called indexes/charts other than to be for my entertainment or for comparison. I consider them to be somewhat irrelevant and inaccurate in this era of super bullets where a lesser cartridge can accomplish as much or more than was expected previously of more potent rounds. Of course true premium bullets can do the same for these cartridges as well.

Cup and core projectiles are usually treated the same as the supers in these models. If you are comparing like bullets,"apples to apples", then the charts may still have some utility for you.

I have a difficult time wrapping my mind around the concept that a model can attribute a like value in terms of power or knock-down to a light high velocity projectile vs. a heavy slower one without regard to the projectiles construction.

My opinion only. YMMV.

Maybe someone will direct you to a truly useful formula. I'd be interested as well. I like entertainment like the next guy.

This is a question I would like answered as well. We use these charts/equations and other "gak" quite a bit, so why does one not look at the energy numbers? Is this not usefull info? Is there not a number out there (800ft/lbs?) that is considered minimum for effective deadness? Just wonderin'.

R.

Shot placement, is the best!

The problem with 'energy' as a measure is that the velocity is squared - which means lighter faster bullets get much higher scores. For example, if you halved the bullet weight and doubled the velocity the energy would double. This produces results that seem counterintuitive or contrary to 'real world' experience. Other measures are based on 'momentum', where the velocity is not squared. These measure seem 'biased' in the opposite 'direction' (i.e. favours slower, heavier bullets). Yet other measures seek to 'split the difference' by using a power between 1 and 2 for velocity. None of them are entirely satisfactory, as keys in the 'real world' such as shot location, bullet construction and performance (beyond terminal velocity) are often not considered.

I think the whole "killing power" thing is more "mechanical" than anything else;having bogged down in math eons ago,I don't know how you quantify it,but...

Something happens when you go up in velocity,although it takes a big jump to tell the difference; an example might be what a 257 Weatherby does to a woodchuck at 250 yards that a 25/20 doesn't.

Something happens when you go up in bullet weight and bore diameter,although,again, it takes a big jump to see a difference.Even professional hunters in Africa distinguish between "hunting cartridge/bullets" and "stopping" cartridges and bullets.See Ganyana's article on Dangerous Game Cartridges in the recent Rifle magazine.

As cartridges and bullets remain "close" in velocity,weight,and diameter,the differences become a bit obscured.Don't know that the whole process lends itself to quantification by mathematical formula,not reliably anyway.Seems you can't compare anything unless bullet structure is equal across the board.JMHO.

All or nothing.A STW at mach 7 is pretty lethal.

I would be willing to bet that there is not a statistically measureable difference between 100 grain .243 soft point bullets and 210 grain 338 soft point bullets of the same manufacture fired at under 3000 fps hitting the same types and rough body weight of animals in the chest cavity at under 100 yards.

Maybe not perfect, but a formula that I've found has a lot of merit is the Taylor's Knock Out value (TKO). This is arrived at by multiplying

bullet weight (grains) x velosity (FPS) x Caliber (inches) and dividing the total by 7000

The .338 federal load mentioned above works out such: (210 x 2600 x .338) / 7000 = 26.36

Some rounds comparitivly are the:
165gr .30-06 @ 2850 = 20.69
130gr .270 @ 3050 = 15.69
200gr .358 @ 2600 = 26.59

The TKO values seem to some to give excess credit to heavy bullets and large bore size and penalize small bore light bullet rounds.

For instance the 100gr .243 @ 3000fps gives a TKO value of just 10.41 while the .44 Mag with a 240 gr bullet at 1750fps is rated at 25.74 (a higher value than the .30-06 at the muzzle)

This doesn't ring true if one considers such thing as energy alone (as is common), but in the real world it is very close to what I have observed over the years.

Remember, all reasonable rounds are equaly "lethal" when the bullet is placed perfectly (dead is dead and can't be improved on).....but the real value of a particular round is when things go wrong and the animal is NOT hit right.

That's where the TKO values shine. An animal hit too far back tends to get "sick" and stop a lot quicker (if not "pushed") when hit with a heavier slug that penetrates and "punches" it harder.....and the bigger the bullet (diameter) the harder it hits and more it bleeds.....leading to a qicker recovery by the hunter and better trail to follow.

You will often read things like "a gut shot deer with a .358 is the same as a gut shot deer with a .243 and will travel just as far". While this is true if the animal is pushed, but in practice an undisturbed deer does tend to lay down quicker with the bigger round and bleed out quicker becoming too sick to get away (basically gives up).

While a "gut shot is a gut shot" (just like "dead is dead") there definitly IS a difference in the reaction to the shot with a bigger gun. That's why statements like "DRT" and "hit 'em in the lungs and stuff dies" mean so little when judging a round......they all work when things are perfect....but the TKO is very meaningful when thing go wrong.

By the way, even though it doesn't seem right, the .44 Mag at ranges of 50 yards or so actually IS more effective than the .30-06 in my experience. That "50 yards" distance is important.....the TKO value changes as velosity drops and the .30-06 will soon overtake the slower .44 at longer range and become a better choice. Figure the TKO at the range you intend to use it to get a clear picture.

As to the .338 Fed......it should perform almost exactly like the .358 Win and that's not bad. A great round at it's intended range (250-300 yards or less).

I thought TKO was used for solids.

As I understand it....the TKO "was" originally used to compare solids.

In fact, it was designed to compare solids for use against elephant and the "knock out" value was supposed to be a relative value eqivalent to the time an elephant would be "knocked out" with a round fired into the head, but missed the brain. The higher the value, the longer you supposedly had to place a follow-up shot before the elephant regained his feet and proceeded to stomp the hunter into a bloody pulp.

In practice, I have found that the TKO values of various rounds are very close to what I've observed in the field as far as the reaction of thin-skinned game to expanding bullets.

Once again, I repeat, almost any round will "kill" an animal if the shot is through the lungs, heart or into the nervous system, but there is a definite difference in how the animal reacts to the shot.....particularly if the shot is less than perfect.

Just as when hunting dangerous game......sometimes it is more important to "stop" the animal (and "perfect" DRT shots don't figure into this) than it is to "kill". The TKO values come a close as anything I've seen to predicting the animal's reaction to a particular round.

my experience is in general that they all are very similar regards kiling deer when shot in the same place and you would be hard pressed to make a case for one or the other. The .270Win with 130 grain softpoints "seems" a little better to me, but that could be my imagination.

Velocity junkie.......

No idea... my POV is pick a cartridge/rifle combo you like and get on with it. The bulk of BG cartridges are more alike than different and all work if actually used and pointed correctly.

Velocity is what matters most to me. So long as there is adequate velocity to properly expand XYZ bullet at the distances I'm likely to shoot then all is golden.

It occurs to me that the results may be more "valid", or at least somewhat more correlated, if we had multiple indices based on shot placement and game species. For instance: Comparing a 243/100 against a 30-06/180 placing all bullets from both in the ribcage of a whitetail deer, or; Comparing a 243/100 against a 30-06/180 placing all bullets from both in the center of the shoulder of a whitetail deer.

The same caliber/bullet combinations would likely produce yet different results if the game were elk or woodchuck. Since the quantity of literal combinations is too numerous to make testing feasible, maybe we could reduce the game species variable to a small number of classes, such as small game (ground squirels to woodchucks), medium game (coues deer to caribou), large game (elk to moose and bison), and large dangerous game.

I would love to do this testing. I anyone wants to hire me and finance the necessary gear and accomodations, I would probably do it.

-

I have noticed that the 30-06,35 Remington,and 44 mag all seem to perform very much alike on deer and hogs. They are all quick killers and the wound channels were pretty much identical.

This made no sense to me because their kinetic energy varies a lot. When I discovered that they had similar TKO,it made more sense.

There are two ways to get there, you can make bullets go faster,or you can make them bigger.

Based on what I've seen with a 350 Rem Mag,I'll bet your 338 Federal will be a great killer at most any reasonable range.

A lot of varibles comed into play here and that is why it is a never ending discussion..At 100 yards there is little if any difference from the 30-30 to the 300 magnums and the results are the same if properly constructed bullets for each are placed in a vital zone...You will probably start seeing a difference at the .375 H&H in my opinnion, but only then on the larger stuff.

The bottom line is placing a proper bullet in the right spot, but like most things, one needs to add a little common since to this scenario and too often that's not done on the internet hunting blogs.

What won't that kill? (Aside from Elephantopottamuses)

BMT

By using velocity, rather than velocity squared, AND multiplying by 'caliber', the small-caliber high-velocity rounds are 'double penalized'. For example, a .257 Weatherby Mag shooting a 100 grain bullet at 3600 fps would only score 13.22. A 22-250 shooting a 60 grain bullet at 3600 fps would score a lowly 6.91. There's another thread on .22 centrefire for hunting deer. While not my first choice, some have experienced success with it. Any relatively 'simple' formula is necessarily going to be missing important 'pieces of the puzzle'.

It kills just like coming out of a Win Mag, just 150 yds further or so than your Federal is shooting, still dead out most normal ranges game is taken.

I agree with Texas and seen those TKO values from long ago.

7STW, I think PO Ackley praised the 220 swift for a fast, maybe his fastest deer killer 'DRT' and also the 17 Rem it seems, was it Burros he shot many, or someone did? Skimmed those volumes a decade or two ago.

Simply more ways than one to skin a cat, The 'Elmer Keith Way' w/high TKO bullets, minimal meat damage, and the 'Roy Weatherby Way', sometimes instant Deerburger like my first deer, 30 yds, 145 BTSP/7Mag, on shoulder DESTROYED! Never seen so much deer meat destroyed, large 8-pt buck, still got 74 lbs of weighed meat from what was left! Damn thing even jumped 3-4 leaps before down! Never again wanted to invoke that kind of damage on a deer.....and now avoid shoulders as well where possible.

Dropped back to a 160 BTSP, at 2800 range, father in law shot a few deer in TX around 200 yds, no problems.

I agree on the comment, a 338F is right there next to a fine 358.

You guys are my kind of people!

Perhaps my statistical sample is too small; I'll say that out front. Having killed 6-8 deer with a 7mm-08 and 6 with a .358, the .358 is considerably more decisive about the whole thing. No breaking of bone required... no TSX required... just shoot them in the vitals and that's it.

I'm trying to think of a way to express it properly, and running into the usual suspects here. Different bullet types, and every deer you kill is of course an event unto itself... etc. The best way I can describe it is that the deer I've shot with my .358, except one, just really gave up and admitted they were dead noticably sooner than with the 7mm-08.

A big ol' hole is a good thing. As long as you have the horsepower to drive the bullet nice and deep, it's hard for me to see a downside to frontal area in a bullet...

This is the one deer that didn't just fall over and die when I shot him with a .358. As you can see he was well hit and the bullet did some damage, to say the least. This young buck ran over 200 yards after this shot! I was astounded. He was jacked up on adrenaline when I shot him... another of those variables that makes this question a tough one... that said, I NEVER got exits like this from my trusty 7mm-08.

A zebra's heart would round this thread out.

It'll prolly come nite's still young.

All I ever got from 7/08's were carcasses......WHAT is the big deal with exits...I mean..does it really matter??? If I get them fine,but if I don't who cares?It has nothing to do with killing effectiveness of a load..mostly urban myth.

Where does this "exit" business come from? I mean, all the important stuff is wrecked before the exits happen.....the stuff you need to destroy is INSIDE the deer,not outside.....no?

We need a new lethality index.......The Exit Lethal Factor....can we reduce this to a formula???

Bob I can't remember the last time I pulled a bullet from a animal.Always a pass through.

TFF. Ain't that the truth. I need to make a deal with JWP, I'll never post this poor little dink again, if he never posts that damn zebra heart!

Bob, I never lost a deer with 7-08, but I did have a couple of what Dober calls rodeo's. Could be the bullet I was using (150 NP; it's what the rifle liked and who was I to argue?)...

I'm turning my other 7-08 from safe queen to lean mean killin' machine so maybe I'll get some more data points with other bullets. I'm thinking 140 AB, or if I get REALLY wild... the 120 BT.

thanks for all your comments. The real drive here is to compare my wifes 280 Remungton Mt rifle, 175gr hornaday @2650fps against the 338 Federal, I can get a Sako 85 at reduced price as they are unpopular around here. trade the remington off on a sako

Well that complicates matters <g>....

she needs convincing

Hmmmmm....guess it comes down to what you want to convince her to choose. Could make a pretty good argument for either rifle as far as "lethality", but remember "figures don't lie, but liers do figure sometimes". The difference is how you juggle the numbers.

I believe you will find the .338 Fed. will be a just a bit more dramatic in "lethality" at close range (under 200 yards or so). This is not too surprizing when the TKO values at the muzzle are compared (26.26 for the .338 and 18.82 for the .280).....not a tremendous difference, but noticable.

However, due to the better ballistic coeffecient of the heavy-for-caliber .284" bullet (as compared to the relatively light 210 gr. .338) this "edge" will disappear as range increases. Remember, the TKO value drops as velosity does.

The .280 also has the advantage of using much lighter and faster bullets to increase effective range, while the .338 is already using a light-for-caliber bullet at near-max speed.

Soooooo..... if you really want the .338 Fed., then argue with the wife that it hits harder and is more lethal at "normal" hunting ranges (most animals are killed well inside 300 yards).

Or......if what you are aiming for is a new .280, then argue that the .338 is only "slightly" better (26.36-vs-18.82 TKO) at close range, but at longer distance (where a trophy "might" appear) the .280 is more "deadly" and is easier to hit with due to better trajectory.....while the "slow" .338 basically limits you to shots under 300 yards.

While both arguments are "true" according to the statistics, both are slanted to favor the rifle of choice. Seems to me you can't lose this one no matter which way you argue.

Don't pass up this opportunity......it's damn seldom that a man will find himself in a "can't lose" situation when dealing with women!!!

Makes me think of the Scandinavian study thats shows almost no difference between cartridges ranging from the 6.5X55 to the .375H&H in the number of shots required or the distance traveled by thousands of moose (European elk) shot by hunters.

did somebody say zebra?

If you believe the 'TKO' metric cited provides a useful basis upon which to base a decision, then you might want to consider some other options. While the highest value quoted previously was I believe under 27 for the .358, a .50 cal muzzle loader scores over 40 while a 1 ounce 12 gauge slug over a 3 inch shell rates over 80! So there's your answers - 3 inch 12 gauge slug gun tops just about any centrefire rifle.

Mike: Sure I understand it happens; I get them,too.But it's getting hungup on them as an element of bullet effectiveness that confuses me,because it really makes no difference whether it passes through or stays inside.

I'm wondering here who wants the 338 Federal; Furprick or his wife?LOL! The differences between the two cartridges will not show on a lethality index of any sort,if you use good bullets in both.

I'll side with the wife and keep the 280.

If she likes the 280 I would let her keep it. Isnt the Sako 85 a bit heavier of a rifle than the Rem mtn. rifle? The 280 seems more versatile to me as well.

Maybe it does for some applications,when I hunted Alberta their grizzly response team used Remington 870s with 12 gauge slugs(Brennekes,I think)to go after bears that were known to be dangerous. I remember pictures of a very large boar that they killed with that load,there are worse choices for big bears and cats than a good slug load.

So this thread has gone on for 4 pages now. All the old arguments and formulas have come up--and apparently nobody has noticed that NONE of the gun writers has posted.

It took me longer to quit believing in formulas on this subject than it took me to quit believing in Santa Claus. That's because I received irrefuatble evidence that Santa Claus didn't exist long before I could observe lots of big game being taken with various cartridges. In general, there isn't enough difference between what we consider "general" big game cartridges to argue over.

Finally Furprick admitted the real question: How can he talk his wife into trading off her favorite .280 for a .338 Federal?

Having a wife who hunts, and not believing in Santa Claus, I vote for the .280.

Formulas don't seem to help me much..maybe I'm just not smart enuf' to make sense of em...While my experience pales before many who post here, I'm not exactly a beginner. I killed my first deer 60 years ago and in the intervening years I've killed another 200+ ungulates of various sorts...from little Texas whitetails to a really big ole Livingston Eland..If I counted right, I've done it with at least 14 different cartridges..and only God knows how many different kinds of bullets at who knows how many different velocities...My formula is the same [or close] to Mrs. Barness...shoot em' in the front third with any reasonable cartridge for the task and go gut em'
jmr

Bobin, I think you are right, his wife wants more frontal diameter....lol, just kidding. Ok, Both get the job done, if the 338 fits her better go for it, its a great round in it's design envelope, a sensible big game round to 300 yds or so.

Jeff, I agree with you and Elmer, larger bores do not need premiums, but to your point...I had a 338/06, dropped 3 deer, 1 at 25 yds, raking shot busting shoulder stopping under hide, 120 gr left IIRC of 200 ballistic tip, 3 jumps down, another large buck, similar size, 200 yds, shoulder/neck junction-looked like a silhouette target-just pushed over, never moved, BUT a small buck appeared one morning, around 40 yds, I thought it was a large doe around 70 yds and wanted to neck shoot it, but also wanted to see performance on a body shot. Let lead fly, deer turned and ran right toward the stand I was in, a hole similar to the pic you had, and blood was just POURING out the hole every heartbeat - you could see as it ran by....I was shocked. Made it around 100 yds. Lung shot, broadside. Now, turned out, never hunted that stand, early in am, my range estimation was not right/depth perception, etc. as it was the first time hunting that terrain, and in very early dawn light.

The deer, a button buck, weighed a mere 55 lbs on the scale! I think it never absorbed the bulk of the energy from the bullet. I really believe had I brought my TC Carbine in 6mm TCU w/85 Sierra BTHP, that deer would have dropped very fast.

BUT on those larger bucks, 140-160lbs, the 338 bullet dumped them fast. I guess there are no absolutes as we all know.

My last deer DRT with a 130 gr accubond, 250 paces, lung shot, via 6.5x55. Range member told me recently a tactical shooter using a 6.5x47 w/130 Berger VLD dumped a 286 lb buck in tracks, right behind shoulder, in 200ish yd range IIRC.

I do like/appreciate larger mid bore rounds, but with good bullets and shot placement smaller bores get it done.

Re: 280, my hunting buddy I routinely hunt with has a 700 custom shop rifle, uses 139 SST lite mag most times and his animals drop fast usually, but the meat damage often leaves something to be desired. Personally I like the 7/08 in a 7mm, and a 140 Accubond seems a top choice on deer. He could use another bullet with less devastation.

Comparing a 175 partition in a 280, I'll assume it's for larger game i.e. Elk, or perhaps for closer range deer to avoid high speed bullets causing excess meat damage. I'd flip a coin on killing effect to 300 yds on say elk. A 185 x bullet, or 210 partition should both do great in a 338 Federal with adequate shot placement.

If you had to shoot 400 yds, a 280, with perhaps a flatter lighter bullet like a 150-160 partition would minimize range error estimations and might enhance shot placement in field. One must determine THEIR max range per shooting ability, and their rifle/load combo, as well as the type of hunting they intend, if contemplating cartridge choice.

I think the OP wants to give the 338 Federal a whirl out of curiousity and needs a reason to justify....

7mm 145 grain implies Speer, and their BTSPs are not Hot Cors and are swaged with a softer core alloy.

30 yds. and 7Mag implies high impact speed.

Soft bullet + high impact speed = splat.

Then frontal area can vary too.....sometimes bullets with a different rep can surprise you. Part and TSX:

JB,

Sorry,

Did not even notice this was the gunwriters area,usually I refrain from pontification in that forum,at least until an actual writer has answered.

I'm sure 12 gauge slugs do have their uses. However, any 'index' which assigns a 'rating' of 13.2 to the .257 Weatherby Mag, 37.6 to the .375 H&H Mag and 80.2 to 12 gauge slugs isn't useful for 'overall' comparison IMHO (and perhaps this particular one - TKO - was never intended for overall comparisons).

RD,

My post wasn't directed at anybody for "jumping in." We established long ago that anybody could post on the ATG forum.

My point was that none of the gun writers apparently found this subject important enough to post about, probably because most (like me) have found in the long run that none of the formulas are particularly valid.

In the old days such formulas mostly gave gun writers some new BS to put into print. Nowadays they mostly serve to keep Internet chat rooms active. None has much bearing on reality.

About the only thing I've observed in the field is that sometimes fatter, heaver bullets will kill animals quicker--and sometimes they don't. Trying to quantify something that has so many variables is much applying a formula to the way food tastes.

It is always amazing to me how many people quote Taylor's TKO formula without knowing that it only applied to solids and head-shot elephants--and also that most African PH's of today think it's BS. Or at least none that I've ever become acqainted with have thought much of it, including Finn Aagaard.

RD, the "stopping power" thing and slugs...not antecdotal but I saw a small doe a fellow had shot thru the butt sideways with a 12 guage slug and it made a neat 1 inch or so hole you could actually see thru!! antecdotal was a story about the police shooting thru the back of a van thru a seat and thru a criminal of some type with a 12 guage slug and they could see light thru him when he got out of the car to run a few yards before he expired....that one is a stretch maybe after 4 pages and Mr. Barnes comment which makes perfect sense I guess the horse is dead and hopefully the Remington stays! ...just for the record however on lethality this in the news from my neck of the woods...

Police shot Devin Grant at least 16 times following a chase from Atlanta to Douglasville last week.

And Grant is alive and doing well.
His body was riddled with bullets --- in his neck, back, arms and leg, said Dr. Raymond Cava, a Grady Memorial Hospital surgeon. When it was over, he had been hit so many times that he had 24 entry and exit wounds.

"He's going to live," Cava said. "I think he's extremely lucky

Along those sage lines I might add that anyone who does use that formula has a caliber/cartridge agenda.

jimmyp, I have dusted more than one deer with said slugs and despite being quite hellish up close have had deer walk off as if unhit (they were "dead"). Seen them take 338's/250's too and have had one drop without a twitch with a 22LR with the same placement. I've heard them called tough and easy to kill; all you can do is wreck the vitals.

I have a copy of Taylor's book and must say that I have not missed enough elephant brains to comment on how well TKO values hold up on various and sundry pachyderms.

I also realize that all of the methods to calculate lethality have their limits. Calculate the TKO value of a typical bowling ball before it hits the pins when you have the time,or the kinetic energy of a very tiny particle as it approaches the speed of light. Neither are likely to kill anything but both have very impressive 'values'.

Roy Weatherby and Elmer Keith were both right and wrong depending upon the circumstances,come to think of it,that pretty much remains the case with all of us.

As one of the loonier gun nuts about,I reserve the right to like my 35 Whelen and my 257 Weatherby because.....

Well just because.

Well.....Yeah!

just goes to show every experience is unique!

I never comment (in the field) on what a man hunts with as I have been just as big a dummy as most everyone at one time or another we all have then furthermore its none of my business! So Slugs, 22's, slingshots take your pick! I never even smile when I see them prying on their 7400 bolts with a screwdriver or sighting in at 10 yards. Does this not harken back to the days of the 7 x 57 pitted against the 45-70 down south of the Florida coast a bit?

thanks all for your input. Her 280 is tuned so has a nice trigger and i load for low muzzle blast and accuracy, that's why the 175 horn and 51.5 gr of imr 4350. she has had this rifle for 19 yrs and will not part with it ...nor her old High Standard pistol, go figure.

Gee! Stuff that works. Whaddaya know....

You would never guess it, but this one ran almost 200 yards (yep, it was "dead"). Dad used a Brenneke 1 1/8oz. Mag slug at less than 10 yds. Yes, the exit is just as large on the other side.

Exactly one month ago to the day. Doesn't happen all the time, but it does happen, despite being a solid and having Taylor's KO blessing!

Mathman, good eye, back then loading a load PLANNING to duplicate 280 ballistics, but later, Speer revised their manual, as what I attempted THEN to download for what killed my buck, was a top end load, and yes, BTSP, fragile meant as Speer said to open well at long range. Suffice to say, I did catch the bullet/velocity was not ideal for where I ended up hunting, but it did the job, so no suffering animal, some lost meat, and a learning experience as each hunt and animal taken teaches me more.

On that hunt, a GS 160 would have been about right I think. Different slugs have different purposes they were designed to work best for, and it helps to know ahead of time.

Steve: Nice rifle

Been reading this stuff for years and still no definitive answer? Maybe Elmer had more going on than a big hat and flamboyance.
How can big holes not be better? Not always needed, but always better, within trajectory and recoil limitations. Take it to the extreme and it becomes obvious. I think...

Here's my new formula.


Muzzle Thump

MT= (SD/KE x 10,000) / Gf x Bf

Where:
SD = Sectional Density of the bullet you're using
KE = Kenetic Energy of the bullet
Game Factor (weight range) Gf: 4.0= 500-1000#, 3.0= 200-499#, 2.0= 50-199#, 1.0= 1-49#
Bullet Factor Bf: 1.0= TSX, FS, 2.0= A Frame, NP, 3.0 = C&C, BT, 4.0 = Varmint

A friend of mine has a son who probably would just grin if he took the time to read this stuff. Wastes his time in the woods and on the water rather than the internet. His house is starting to become a tribute to deer with the racks on his walls. I call him the natural. Big, strong, sees things the rest of us pass by, smart, not afraid of getting back in, excellent tracking skills and has been bumming around in the woods "studying" wildlife since a child. Unless he knows and likes you, don't look for a lot of conversation. Went to Maine and shot a moose the first time. Did the entire hunt on his own, from finding, shooting and getting it out.

The only thing that limits how fast a 700 can shoot is him and he can make it go. Not the best bench shot, but he practices at all ranges and knows where that rifle shoots. He looks at the damage a bullet does, but does not worry about what it looks like or take pictures of it after the fact. Doesn't worry about getting a perfect broadside shot. Front to back, back to front, side to side, quarter to quarter it's all the same. Unless they drop right now and stay there they will have additional holes placed in whatever opportunity is presented until it is over and it will happen quickly. Meat damage is not a consideration. Nor are lethality values or knock down formulas. If I was a buck and knew he was in the woods, I would find a tree and knock my horns off.

Caliber of choice is a .30-06 with a 200gr partition. Has complete confidence-from experience-that day in or out it will get to where it has to be or if hit with enough of them that it will make them sick enough to give it up.

He has proven to me this theory stuff is nothing more than that. Being a hunter that knows their stuff trumps it every time.

It's awfully hard to beat a 7mm with a 140-160gr bullet going 2850-3000fps for just about anything short of the big bears but that's why they make the 175gr. powdr

Not sure to what extent you're being 'serious', but I believe one will find that dividing by kinetic energy will yield some rather anomolous results.

If DG comes into play then I put big pluses to the cross section of a bullet to stop them but only when velocity is sufficient..

The bigger the cross section the better blood trails you get and that is important big time in my books..

If all this posted malarky was fact as opposed to opinnion then the only caliber any of us would need is the 30-06..There is obviously a difference in these calibers however slight it might be...I agree there is little if any in most of them from the mid bores to the 300 magnums. but when you get to .338 and up I think the differnce is apparant to anyone that has used them.

Ray: Happy Birthday(?)Mine was the 7th!

Happy BDay Mr. Ray.

Ray,

I heartily agree with you about the bigger bores, especially .338 Magnum on up.

But this thread was started by (as it turned out) somebody who wanted to compare the .280 Remington and the .338 Federal, in order to convince his wife that the .338 Federal would kill bigger game "better."

This little cartridge in no way compares to the .338 Winchester Magnum. I know this not because of any formula but because I own a .338 Federal, have used it, and seen other use it. It ain't no .338 Magnum (or .35 Whelen, or .375 H&H, or whatever). It just doesn't have the bullet weight. It is basically another of dozens of variations of "about like the .30-06."

Happy birthday!

Can I throw the 8mm Magnum in that same bucket?

Boddington planted that seed in me a long time ago, and I still want one someday.

Scott

Which is not a bad thing when hunting 99% of what people hunt in NA and at the ranges where 99% of things are killed.

We can also add the FPE to the BS list.

Yeah, especially when somebody starts saying their .300 Mangle'em load gets 307 more foot-pounds KE at 500 yards because they use some sort of magic powder or bullet....

Ray
"If all this posted malarky was fact as opposed to opinnion then the only caliber any of us would need is the 30-06..There is obviously a difference in these calibers however slight it might be...I agree there is little if any in most of them from the mid bores to the 300 magnums. but when you get to .338 and up I think the differnce is apparant to anyone that has used them."

That must explain why the bison shooters in the Delta hunt here in AK have shown the 30-06 requires fewer rounds expended per bison. It also shows a direct relationship between tru big bores and extra shots.

The minimum cartridge allowed is 30 cal with a bullet of at least 200 grains with energy about par with the 06...

If what you say were true the number of rounds per bison would have to go down as the caliber increases. It doesn't. There is a BIG variable being overlooked...

There is nothing magic, nor even close at any step, but as we get larger the smaller animals become overwhelmed by the bigger stuff. The bigger animals continue to require better placement, regardless the cartridge.
art