|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 17,432
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 17,432 |
I’m pretty sure enough energy to properly upset the bullet is the issue.
Not energy for energy’s sake.
“Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils.” - General
John Stark.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 5,175
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 5,175 |
A 1-9T 300 PRC, pretty much the ultimate long range hunting and target cartridge. "ultimate long range hunting" ? what's the velocity and energy with the 245 gr Berger bullets at 1500 yards & 1760 yards ? Hell if I know. But according to most experts a elk cartridge needs to have at least 1000 ft-lbs of energy. A heavy 7mm bullet at 7mm PRC velocity runs out of elk killing energy at 1000yds. The 300 PRC doesn't run out till after 1400yds while shooting heavy for caliber bullets. It's only my opinion, but 400yds is a long ways. Even if you accept the irrelevant metric of 1000 ft-lbs of impact energy, the 180 ELD launched in SAC at 2990 fps still has over 1000 ft-lbs at 1350 yards. I used Burger bullets and ballistic calculator at 2900. And for sure 1000ft-lbs is irrelevant. How much less will a heavier bullet drift in the wind with close to the same velocity and BC? And do you feel a bullets RPM has anything to do with wind drift? The heavier bullet will have the exact same wind drift as a lighter bullet with identical muzzle speed and BC. Wind drift does not depend on the bullet's rotational velocity, but rotational velocity does affect spin drift. Thanks, I would of never figured that.
Life is good live it while you can.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 864
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 864 |
I’m putting my version together now. I picked up a Seekins Havak PH2 in 300win and a NF ACTAR 4x16 F2 scope. Even though I love my Sako 7STW, I went with the 300 because of brass availability (I’ve been struggling to find STW brass for too long). I chose the Win flavor over the PRC for similar reasons, and because my son’s, who will inherit my toys, just haven’t been bit by the reloading bug.
Long range means different things for different people. I’m focusing on 200 and 210g bullets because these are more than adequate for the ranges I can imagine shooting given wind and the propensity for animals to move at an inopportune time.
If I find myself wanting to shoot heavies, another barrel or rifle can readily be rationalized. Similarly, if I find myself regularly shooting beyond presently envisioned ranges, a higher magnification scope will be order. Just my 0.02.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 1,361 Likes: 1
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 1,361 Likes: 1 |
It’s pretty easy to get inside 1,000 yds when hunting elk. Most are taken well inside 250 yds. The big ones are found in dark timber hell holes. The places most hunters won’t hunt.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2022
Posts: 2,331
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2022
Posts: 2,331 |
You won't go wrong with a 300. I think if you'd grab yourself a simple reloading setup and a chronograph, you'd have way more consistency in your shooting. You'll know exactly what's happening and eliminate all guessing. You'll pay for that reloading stuff in the long-run.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,528 Likes: 2
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,528 Likes: 2 |
And that 1000 pounds of energy becomes very relevant at "long range" Not really. Sufficient impact speed to cause bullet upset and expansion is far more important. I see what your saying. I get that speed translates into energy delivered upon impact, but what is speed without energy? Shoot a 25-06 with a 100 grain bullet at 1000 yards. Shoot a 7 mag with a 175 grain bullet at 1000 yards. Both will reach the target within 100 to 200 fps of one another. Probably somewhere in the 1500 fps mark. That 25 will hit with a third the energy that the 7 will. Energy is the end goal. Not speed. An object cannot have speed without kinetic energy, nor kinetic energy without speed. The two quantities are directly correlated and proportional. But what matters most is enough impact speed to cause bullet expansion, which will translate into destroyed tissue. Contrary to a decades old narrative, the quantity of interest is not kinetic energy (within reason), but impact speed. In your example above, if neither bullet arrives with enough speed to expand, then what does it matter if the 7mm bullet has 3x more energy? If both arrive with enough speed to expand and both have enough mass to penetrate, then they will both destroy bone and tissue. Gun writers have overhyped kinetic energy for so long that many guys see it as the primary quantity of interest, when in fact it is an important but peripheral quantity in the assessment of killing power. Kinetic energy at bullet impact really only becomes relevant in extreme cases. One such case is if the bullet has enough impact speed to expand but lacks the mass (and therefore KE) to penetrate (e.g., a .177” 25 gr bullet impacting an elephant humerus at 2200 fps). But in the vast majority of reasonable cases, i.e., bullet weights and calibers that a reasonable person might use in a given hunting scenario, KE just is not the most important quantity in describing how well an expanding bullet kills. Impact speed matters far more.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,594 Likes: 1
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,594 Likes: 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,661
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,661 |
If you plan on using a brake, might as well get a 30 or 33. Contrary to a decades old narrative, the quantity of interest is not kinetic energy (within reason), but impact speed. In your example above, if neither bullet arrives with enough speed to expand, then what does it matter if the 7mm bullet has 3x more energy? If both arrive with enough speed to expand and both have enough mass to penetrate, then they will both destroy bone and tissue. You state speed is important, not KE, then in your example you say you need both speed AND mass to be of sufficient quantity. I'm no expert but isn't that the two components that make up kinetic energy? 1/2MV(squared)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2022
Posts: 2,331
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2022
Posts: 2,331 |
And that 1000 pounds of energy becomes very relevant at "long range" Not really. Sufficient impact speed to cause bullet upset and expansion is far more important. I see what your saying. I get that speed translates into energy delivered upon impact, but what is speed without energy? Shoot a 25-06 with a 100 grain bullet at 1000 yards. Shoot a 7 mag with a 175 grain bullet at 1000 yards. Both will reach the target within 100 to 200 fps of one another. Probably somewhere in the 1500 fps mark. That 25 will hit with a third the energy that the 7 will. Energy is the end goal. Not speed. An object cannot have speed without kinetic energy, nor kinetic energy without speed. The two quantities are directly correlated and proportional. But what matters most is enough impact speed to cause bullet expansion, which will translate into destroyed tissue. Contrary to a decades old narrative, the quantity of interest is not kinetic energy (within reason), but impact speed. In your example above, if neither bullet arrives with enough speed to expand, then what does it matter if the 7mm bullet has 3x more energy? If both arrive with enough speed to expand and both have enough mass to penetrate, then they will both destroy bone and tissue. Gun writers have overhyped kinetic energy for so long that many guys see it as the primary quantity of interest, when in fact it is an important but peripheral quantity in the assessment of killing power. Kinetic energy at bullet impact really only becomes relevant in extreme cases. One such case is if the bullet has enough impact speed to expand but lacks the mass (and therefore KE) to penetrate (e.g., a .177” 25 gr bullet impacting an elephant humerus at 2200 fps). But in the vast majority of reasonable cases, i.e., bullet weights and calibers that a reasonable person might use in a given hunting scenario, KE just is not the most important quantity in describing how well an expanding bullet kills. Impact speed matters far more. OK. That's good and all, but of the two cartridges I used as an example, only one will arrive at the speed necessary to have good enough bullet performance. Not all cartridges are created equal. You have to have powder and bullet weight. No way around that. He's building an elk rifle, not a prairie dog gun. Once he decides on a cartridge that is adequate, that's when bullet construction can be decided. As far as KE, think of a light, fast arrow versus a slow heavy one. At 15 or 20 yards, it won't make a difference. At 30 it will factor. But the broadhead remains constant. A bullet needs both speed and weight to transfer into energy, enough that is to kill an animal of that size (the elk). You have to have mass with the speed at those ranges or you have a pea shooter. Do whatever you wish, it's your deal, but for me, I want 1000 pounds at 1000. Shoot a good bullet and you'll be worry free, because whatever cartridge you decide, if you got that kind of energy at that range, you got speed, and you'll have bullet performance.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2022
Posts: 2,331
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2022
Posts: 2,331 |
If you plan on using a brake, might as well get a 30 or 33. Contrary to a decades old narrative, the quantity of interest is not kinetic energy (within reason), but impact speed. In your example above, if neither bullet arrives with enough speed to expand, then what does it matter if the 7mm bullet has 3x more energy? If both arrive with enough speed to expand and both have enough mass to penetrate, then they will both destroy bone and tissue. You state speed is important, not KE, then in your example you say you need both speed AND mass to be of sufficient quantity. I'm no expert but isn't that the two components that make up kinetic energy? 1/2MV(squared) What I've been saying....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 11,352
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 11,352 |
Never had any issues with faster twisted 7mm remington magnums shooting 180 scenar and 195 eol. If the OP is already setup for 7mm Rem, that would be the easy button to long range. Retumbo, H1000, RL26 for powders. Good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,317 Likes: 3
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,317 Likes: 3 |
Never had any issues with faster twisted 7mm remington magnums shooting 180 scenar and 195 eol. If the OP is already setup for 7mm Rem, that would be the easy button to long range. Retumbo, H1000, RL26 for powders. Good luck. Good to see you around buddy!
Semper Fi
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 90
Campfire Greenhorn
|
|
OP
Campfire Greenhorn
Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 90 |
And that 1000 pounds of energy becomes very relevant at "long range" Not really. Sufficient impact speed to cause bullet upset and expansion is far more important. I see what your saying. I get that speed translates into energy delivered upon impact, but what is speed without energy? Shoot a 25-06 with a 100 grain bullet at 1000 yards. Shoot a 7 mag with a 175 grain bullet at 1000 yards. Both will reach the target within 100 to 200 fps of one another. Probably somewhere in the 1500 fps mark. That 25 will hit with a third the energy that the 7 will. Energy is the end goal. Not speed. An object cannot have speed without kinetic energy, nor kinetic energy without speed. The two quantities are directly correlated and proportional. But what matters most is enough impact speed to cause bullet expansion, which will translate into destroyed tissue. Contrary to a decades old narrative, the quantity of interest is not kinetic energy (within reason), but impact speed. In your example above, if neither bullet arrives with enough speed to expand, then what does it matter if the 7mm bullet has 3x more energy? If both arrive with enough speed to expand and both have enough mass to penetrate, then they will both destroy bone and tissue. Gun writers have overhyped kinetic energy for so long that many guys see it as the primary quantity of interest, when in fact it is an important but peripheral quantity in the assessment of killing power. Kinetic energy at bullet impact really only becomes relevant in extreme cases. One such case is if the bullet has enough impact speed to expand but lacks the mass (and therefore KE) to penetrate (e.g., a .177” 25 gr bullet impacting an elephant humerus at 2200 fps). But in the vast majority of reasonable cases, i.e., bullet weights and calibers that a reasonable person might use in a given hunting scenario, KE just is not the most important quantity in describing how well an expanding bullet kills. Impact speed matters far more. And that 1000 pounds of energy becomes very relevant at "long range" Not really. Sufficient impact speed to cause bullet upset and expansion is far more important. I see what your saying. I get that speed translates into energy delivered upon impact, but what is speed without energy? Shoot a 25-06 with a 100 grain bullet at 1000 yards. Shoot a 7 mag with a 175 grain bullet at 1000 yards. Both will reach the target within 100 to 200 fps of one another. Probably somewhere in the 1500 fps mark. That 25 will hit with a third the energy that the 7 will. Energy is the end goal. Not speed. An object cannot have speed without kinetic energy, nor kinetic energy without speed. The two quantities are directly correlated and proportional. But what matters most is enough impact speed to cause bullet expansion, which will translate into destroyed tissue. Contrary to a decades old narrative, the quantity of interest is not kinetic energy (within reason), but impact speed. In your example above, if neither bullet arrives with enough speed to expand, then what does it matter if the 7mm bullet has 3x more energy? If both arrive with enough speed to expand and both have enough mass to penetrate, then they will both destroy bone and tissue. Gun writers have overhyped kinetic energy for so long that many guys see it as the primary quantity of interest, when in fact it is an important but peripheral quantity in the assessment of killing power. Kinetic energy at bullet impact really only becomes relevant in extreme cases. One such case is if the bullet has enough impact speed to expand but lacks the mass (and therefore KE) to penetrate (e.g., a .177” 25 gr bullet impacting an elephant humerus at 2200 fps). But in the vast majority of reasonable cases, i.e., bullet weights and calibers that a reasonable person might use in a given hunting scenario, KE just is not the most important quantity in describing how well an expanding bullet kills. Impact speed matters far more. This has been the tough part for me to let go of. It’s been beat into me for so long you need at least 1500ft/lb to be humane or lethal. Letting that part go and looking more for well constructed bullet with adequate impact velocity and prioritizing shootability is something I’m trying to accept more vs just pour on more horsepower. Not at these ranges but it is amazing the results guys are having with 223 and 77gr tmk on large game.
Last edited by Remington92; 01/10/24.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 17,432
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 17,432 |
I think the point is good bullets with similar BCs at similar velocities will both perform if aimed well.
Bigger bullets give a margin for error not available with smaller bullets, which is related to energy.
A velocity drops off, the effect of v squared drops off and mass and bullet construction play a larger role.
Hence the elephant example. Solids are not moving fast, but they are heavy for caliber and penetrate.
WDM Bell thought a solid (FMJ) 308 was the perfect round for elephant culling. Most miss that he wasn’t discussing shooting elephants who were charging, or otherwise riled up.
“Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils.” - General
John Stark.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2022
Posts: 2,331
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2022
Posts: 2,331 |
And that 1000 pounds of energy becomes very relevant at "long range" Not really. Sufficient impact speed to cause bullet upset and expansion is far more important. I see what your saying. I get that speed translates into energy delivered upon impact, but what is speed without energy? Shoot a 25-06 with a 100 grain bullet at 1000 yards. Shoot a 7 mag with a 175 grain bullet at 1000 yards. Both will reach the target within 100 to 200 fps of one another. Probably somewhere in the 1500 fps mark. That 25 will hit with a third the energy that the 7 will. Energy is the end goal. Not speed. An object cannot have speed without kinetic energy, nor kinetic energy without speed. The two quantities are directly correlated and proportional. But what matters most is enough impact speed to cause bullet expansion, which will translate into destroyed tissue. Contrary to a decades old narrative, the quantity of interest is not kinetic energy (within reason), but impact speed. In your example above, if neither bullet arrives with enough speed to expand, then what does it matter if the 7mm bullet has 3x more energy? If both arrive with enough speed to expand and both have enough mass to penetrate, then they will both destroy bone and tissue. Gun writers have overhyped kinetic energy for so long that many guys see it as the primary quantity of interest, when in fact it is an important but peripheral quantity in the assessment of killing power. Kinetic energy at bullet impact really only becomes relevant in extreme cases. One such case is if the bullet has enough impact speed to expand but lacks the mass (and therefore KE) to penetrate (e.g., a .177” 25 gr bullet impacting an elephant humerus at 2200 fps). But in the vast majority of reasonable cases, i.e., bullet weights and calibers that a reasonable person might use in a given hunting scenario, KE just is not the most important quantity in describing how well an expanding bullet kills. Impact speed matters far more. And that 1000 pounds of energy becomes very relevant at "long range" Not really. Sufficient impact speed to cause bullet upset and expansion is far more important. I see what your saying. I get that speed translates into energy delivered upon impact, but what is speed without energy? Shoot a 25-06 with a 100 grain bullet at 1000 yards. Shoot a 7 mag with a 175 grain bullet at 1000 yards. Both will reach the target within 100 to 200 fps of one another. Probably somewhere in the 1500 fps mark. That 25 will hit with a third the energy that the 7 will. Energy is the end goal. Not speed. An object cannot have speed without kinetic energy, nor kinetic energy without speed. The two quantities are directly correlated and proportional. But what matters most is enough impact speed to cause bullet expansion, which will translate into destroyed tissue. Contrary to a decades old narrative, the quantity of interest is not kinetic energy (within reason), but impact speed. In your example above, if neither bullet arrives with enough speed to expand, then what does it matter if the 7mm bullet has 3x more energy? If both arrive with enough speed to expand and both have enough mass to penetrate, then they will both destroy bone and tissue. Gun writers have overhyped kinetic energy for so long that many guys see it as the primary quantity of interest, when in fact it is an important but peripheral quantity in the assessment of killing power. Kinetic energy at bullet impact really only becomes relevant in extreme cases. One such case is if the bullet has enough impact speed to expand but lacks the mass (and therefore KE) to penetrate (e.g., a .177” 25 gr bullet impacting an elephant humerus at 2200 fps). But in the vast majority of reasonable cases, i.e., bullet weights and calibers that a reasonable person might use in a given hunting scenario, KE just is not the most important quantity in describing how well an expanding bullet kills. Impact speed matters far more. This has been the tough part for me to let go of. It’s been beat into me for so long you need at least 1500ft/lb to be humane or lethal. Letting that part go and looking more for well constructed bullet with adequate impact velocity and prioritizing shootability is something I’m trying to accept more vs just pour on more horsepower. Not at these ranges but it is amazing the results guys are having with 223 and 77gr tmk on large game. You don't need more horsepower, just enough horsepower. It's really pretty simple.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2022
Posts: 2,331
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2022
Posts: 2,331 |
It all really comes down to what you consider "long range". If your long range is 500, take your 06 with 165s and have fun. If it's 1000, get some powder and a good bullet. Culling an elephant at 100 yards in the brain isn't even close to the same thing as an elk at 8500 feet at 1000 yards and a crosswind. Only one classification of dead. Use enough gun. You don't pull a 30 foot gooseneck with a toyota tacoma do you?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,317 Likes: 3
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,317 Likes: 3 |
Lotsa ways to get to the end I think. The 7mm with a good bullet isn’t a bad way to start/finish. Moving on up in diameter you’ll just need a bit more recoil as you continue into the 30’s and larger.
Shooting elk at 1000 yards won’t be easy in practical practice or in the field. Just not something to be taken lightly at all.
Semper Fi
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,870 Likes: 5
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,870 Likes: 5 |
One could always try a 338 Ultra Kurzerschwanzcompensator.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,317 Likes: 3
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,317 Likes: 3 |
One could always try a 338 Ultra Kurzerschwanzcompensator. You have a reamer 
Semper Fi
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,870 Likes: 5
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,870 Likes: 5 |
My "reamer" ain't kurze. 
|
|
|
|
|
574 members (2500HD, 1minute, 1234, 222Sako, 007FJ, 160user, 58 invisible),
2,071
guests, and
1,257
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,778
Posts18,495,871
Members73,977
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://www.hunt101.com/data/549/medium/IMG_1373_3_.JPG)
