Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting Enough energy for elk?

...... if you get my drift...

Both were double lung shots, with modest bullet expansion, judging by exit wounds.

Jeff: If I am going to compare cartridges and bore diameter,I guess it's only fair to keep velocity levels the same,or close. I don't think anyone would rationally argue that a 340 is not more "powerful" than a 30/06,due to a number of factors including heavier bullets, more frontal area, higher velocity,etc. All these little factors add up.A fairer comparison might be a 300 Weatherby with 200's against whatever you want to feed a 325 or 340.

But we have developed this "picket fence" mentality here, where we seek to fill every little gap in the caliber lineup,trying to distinguish among minute differences in caliber/cartridge performance,until the "line" or distinctions of performance between them gets very blurred;so that if we take a 200 gr 308 bullet, and a 200 gr 323 bullet,and start them at the same speed,smash them into elk bodies and make them expand, that .015" diameter difference becomes sort of...well...irrelevant...and trying to distinguish between their lethal effectiveness becomes a hollow conversation...the animals we shoot with such comparable stuff don't distinguish;they just die from either.

Bullet performance clouds the issue even more,making the already fuzzy lines of performance between these comparable cartridges even more obscure...and if we think, by going to a 325 from a 30,that you are going to get bigger holes in game,a difference in performance that you can discern, you won't. It's a pipe dream.The difference, to the extent it exists, will come more from bullet structure and expansion characteristics than minute differences in bore size.

Jeff: If I am going to compare cartridges and bore diameter,I guess it's only fair to keep velocity levels the same,or close. I don't think anyone would rationally argue that a 340 is not more "powerful" than a 30/06,due to a number of factors including heavier bullets, more frontal area, higher velocity,etc. All these little factors add up.A fairer comparison might be a 300 Weatherby with 200's against whatever you want to feed a 325 or 340.

But we have developed this "picket fence" mentality here, where we seek to fill every little gap in the caliber lineup,trying to distinguish among minute differences in caliber/cartridge performance,until the "line" or distinctions of performance between them gets very blurred;so that if we take a 200 gr 308 bullet, and a 200 gr 323 bullet,and start them at the same speed,smash them into elk bodies and make them expand, that .015" diameter difference becomes sort of...well...irrelevant...and trying to distinguish between their lethal effectiveness becomes a hollow conversation...the animals we shoot with such comparable stuff don't distinguish;they just die from either.

Bullet performance clouds the issue even more,making the already fuzzy lines of performance between these comparable cartridges even more obscure...and if we think, by going to a 325 from a 30,that you are going to get bigger holes in game,a difference in performance that you can discern, you won't. It's a pipe dream.The difference, to the extent it exists, will come more from bullet structure and expansion characteristics than minute differences in bore size.

Right on BobinNH

I'd like to make a couple more comments about "creeping incrementalism."

One story my friend John Haviland ("Elk" on the Campfire) tells on himself is about the 7mm Remington Magnum. John is about my ago, 50-something, which means he also grew up in Montana when the Seven Em Em Maggie was THE hot cartridge, even more than the .300 WSM was a few years ago. Everybody had to have one, and so John and all his buddies bought them.

John handloaded 160-grain spitzers, I believe Speer Mag-Tips, because that's what he could afford. Then he went out and whacked a pile of animals--deer, elk, black bears, etc.--and the Big Seven proved itself exactly the wonder cartridge that everybody said it was.

Eventually John bought his first chronograph, years after his 7mm Magnum. The load that he'd been using all those years, the load that had dumped a bunch of elk, the load that his handloading manual said got around 3000 fps--well, that load was going around 2700 fps at the muzzle. This is about what a "modern" 7x57 load can do.

Of course the load was instantly ruined. He changed powders and bullets until he got "magnum" velocities. Funny thing was, the rifle didn't kill any better....

One more comment about the .325. It is a fine cartridge. Heck, they are all fine cartridges. But upping the bore diameter of the .300 WSM case to .323 only gains a little more than 1% velocity with the same bullet weight, according to the 1/4 rule. This is about 35 fps in loads going around 2900 fps.

This slight gain is more than negated at longer ranges by the lower ballistic coefficient of 8mm bullets of the same weight as .30 caliber bullets. The 200-grain .30 caliber AccuBond, for instance, has a listed BC of .588, while the 200-grain 8mm AccuBond's listed BC is .450.

At 400 yards a 200-grain AB started at 2900 from .300 WSM is going 2283 fps, while a 200 AB started at 2900 from a .325 is going 2137 fps. So the .325 with this bullet isn't even as "powerful" as the .300 WSM at 400 yards. (Unless, of course, we ascribe some magic powers to the .015" greater bullet diameter of the .325.)

Now let's load a 200-grain AccuBond to 2600 fps in the .30-06. I have generally found this velocity can be beaten somewhat, but we won't quibble. Here we find the bullet still going 2022 fps at 400 yards, a little more than 100 fps slower than the .325 200 AB started 300 fps faster at the muzzle. The difference in foot-pounds is now down to a little over 200.

Run similar calculations with the 220-grain 8mm A-Frame started at 2800 fps (which, given the tendency of the A-Frame toward creating higher pressures, might be 100 fps too much) and we find 400-yarn energy figures to be at most 1800 foot-pounds--or about like a .30-06 with the 180 AccuBond started at 2600 fps.

Enough ballistic gack--at least for now.

I'd like to make a couple more comments about "creeping incrementalism."

One story my friend John Haviland ("Elk" on the Campfire) tells on himself is about the 7mm Remington Magnum. John is about my ago, 50-something, which means he also grew up in Montana when the Seven Em Em Maggie was THE hot cartridge, even more than the .300 WSM was a few years ago. Everybody had to have one, and so John and all his buddies bought them.

John handloaded 160-grain spitzers, I believe Speer Mag-Tips, because that's what he could afford. Then he went out and whacked a pile of animals--deer, elk, black bears, etc.--and the Big Seven proved itself exactly the wonder cartridge that everybody said it was.

Eventually John bought his first chronograph, years after his 7mm Magnum. The load that he'd been using all those years, the load that had dumped a bunch of elk, the load that his handloading manual said got around 3000 fps--well, that load was going around 2700 fps at the muzzle. This is about what a "modern" 7x57 load can do.

Of course the load was instantly ruined. He changed powders and bullets until he got "magnum" velocities. Funny thing was, the rifle didn't kill any better....

One more comment about the .325. It is a fine cartridge. Heck, they are all fine cartridges. But upping the bore diameter of the .300 WSM case to .323 only gains a little more than 1% velocity with the same bullet weight, according to the 1/4 rule. This is about 35 fps in loads going around 2900 fps.

This slight gain is more than negated at longer ranges by the lower ballistic coefficient of 8mm bullets of the same weight as .30 caliber bullets. The 200-grain .30 caliber AccuBond, for instance, has a listed BC of .588, while the 200-grain 8mm AccuBond's listed BC is .450.

At 400 yards a 200-grain AB started at 2900 from .300 WSM is going 2283 fps, while a 200 AB started at 2900 from a .325 is going 2137 fps. So the .325 with this bullet isn't even as "powerful" as the .300 WSM at 400 yards. (Unless, of course, we ascribe some magic powers to the .015" greater bullet diameter of the .325.)

Now let's load a 200-grain AccuBond to 2600 fps in the .30-06. I have generally found this velocity can be beaten somewhat, but we won't quibble. Here we find the bullet still going 2022 fps at 400 yards, a little more than 100 fps slower than the .325 200 AB started 300 fps faster at the muzzle. The difference in foot-pounds is now down to a little over 200.

Run similar calculations with the 220-grain 8mm A-Frame started at 2800 fps (which, given the tendency of the A-Frame toward creating higher pressures, might be 100 fps too much) and we find 400-yarn energy figures to be at most 1800 foot-pounds--or about like a .30-06 with the 180 AccuBond started at 2600 fps.

Enough ballistic gack--at least for now.

A chrono will mess with your head, that's for certain.

I chrono'd a book max load of RL19 behind a 140 in my 7mm08 the other day. Book says 2922 fps; I got 2625 fps!! I have a buddy who's pretty convinced he's zapping deer at 2900 fps with that load...