I've had an itch to explore a minor historical point with you for some time.

A while back, your article on the admirable achievements of the .30-06 included a brief suggestion that the Brits evolved the .300 H&H in reaction to the challenge of American innovations with the .30-06. One caliber followed the other chronologically but I am not sure about a linkage.

I am innocent of any specific knowledge on the point, but my perception of the English at that time is that they were very much still, in their own minds at least, the center of world. Their empire was fairly intact and the empire builders still on top of the heap. They imitated "foreign" achievements reluctantly -- if at all -- and were more prone to wallow in old technologies on which their wealth and self image was based. This was one reason why they were so ill-prepared for WWII.

I would be interested in any details on how the .30-06 penetrated this wall of Brit self satisfaction. Did it make a big splash in African big game hunting at that time? And what about the .303 Enfield as the Brit 'answer' to the .30-06 challenge?

Thanks,
1B

All I know is that the .300 H&H came out well after the .30-06, with ballistics that were basically identical to the .30-06 at the time. Have read more than once that this was their attempt to match '06 numbers with Cordite.

My only gauge on its reception is some of the British hunting literature of the time, which seemed receptive, at least among those who could accept any bullet below 250 grains at more than 2500 fps. John Taylor liked it a lot, for instance, for plains game.

But obviously the .303 was a LOT more popular, and for some of the same reasons the .30-06 was popular over here: lots of surpruls military rifles, ammo, etc., plus adequate killing power.

Today, of course, the .30-06 is far more popular than either in Africa, as is the .300 Winchester Magnum.

JB

Comparing the 303 Brit to the 30-06 is like comparing a Chevette to a Corvette.imo

The .303 was more related to the .308 in power and not full equal of the .30/06. I used it a lot in my earlier days for obvious reasons and it killed medium game very well, as you would expect. The 10 shot magazine was pretty handy too, for culling work.

Needless to say, many on the African continent used it on from plains game up to elephant, not becuse it was ideal, but mostly because it was all that had at the time. With a 215 gn RN bullet, it scored a few kills to its credit.


AGW

If there was any justice, the 300 H&H would be much more popular than it is, and it's one of those cartridges that deserves a serious revival. It's extremely shootable, just as accurate as the 300 Win. Mag., burns less powder, achieves just about the same velocities, and it feeds like a dream. Everything about it is easy, enjoyable, effective, and practical, and it's the perfect running mate to a 375 H&H or 416.

Many times I've read the year 1925 as the year of it's introduction, but I've never been certain that this was the actual year it was first offered............

AD

Allen: FWIW, the following is from Wikipdia:

"The .300 Holland and Holland Magnum Cartridge first became available in 1937. The case was belted like the 375 HH Magnum, and is based on the same case, as also is the .244 H&H Magnum."

I know that 1937 was the year it was introduced as a factory chambering in this country, and it was one of the original chamberings for the Winchester Model 70, which was introduced that same year.

AD

I believe Western cartridge co was still making loaded rounds in the 50's..

I have a friend who got his 1949 Model 70 from his Grandfather and has been using it for 30 years. I am building my 1st real �heirloom� rifle with a wood stock in a Model 70 by IMHO one of the best in the ACGG. After very little thought because I love the cartridge it is going to be a 300 H&H!

Yeah, that gets repeated over and over in various gun magazines and books.

Winchester started loading the .300 H&H and .375 H&H in 1925. Some books state that the .300 H&H was introduced in 1925, implying by H&H (and Kynoch). I think they're confusing the 1925 introduction in America by Winchester as the year of introduction of the cartridge itself.

If H&H (and Kynoch) introduced the cartridge in 1925, I don't see how Winchester would have started loading it the same year. Remember, this is in the 1920s... Information, etc. traveled slower then. It would have taken Winchester some time to first find out about the new cartridge, and then time to test and work up their load specs for their factory ammo. (I believe Kynoch loaded the .300 H&H with Cordite while Winchester used nitro-cellulose powders.)

I have seen some sources (Ken Waters and Finn Aagaard among others) that list the original introduction, by H&H and Kynoch, of the .300 H&H as 1920. That makes more sense. My guess is that H&H almost had the .300 H&H cartridge ready to go about 1914 or so and then World War I intervened delaying the introduction until just after the war. So, just after the war, H&H introduces the new cartridge in 1920. A few years after that, in 1925, Winchester picks up both the .300 H&H and the .375 H&H as factory loaded ammo.

My two cents...
-Bob F.

Federal and Winchester still make .300 H&H ammo. Federal even offers a 180 gr Barnes TSX load in the .300 H&H.

-Bob F.

IIRC, the .303 came out in approximately 1888; long before the .30-06 (or even the .30-03). The .30-03 Springfield (1903) was a response by America to catch up with such military rounds as the 7x57 (1892), 8x57J (1888), .303 British (1888) and 8mm Lebel (1886). The .30-06 (1906) came about as result of the German's bringing out the 8x57JS in 1905 loaded with a spitzer bullet.

-Bob F.

The year I have seen for the .300 H&H is 1920.

JB

Well a Nations service cartridge is going to be popular as a sporting round. You would expect the 303 British to be popluar in the Empire and the Commomwealth. For Us Americians the 30-06 then the Nato 7.62 (308 Winchester for those of you in Rio Linda) and the 5.56 or 223 Remington.

As for the 300 H+H yea is should be a lot more popular that it is, the 300 Winchester just about killed it. Now it would be nice if Ruger would do a version of the new Hawkeye African in that chambering. But i doubt that it would ever happen. As far as 300's go its a Winchester world. Just one of the curses of the modern era. By rights we should be shooting Rigby Mausers in 275. And the Sun never sets on the British Empire the world would be a better place.

Since the .300 H&H is too long for the Hawkeye magazine, ain't gonna happen.

JB

I love the .303. Softly constructed 180s from my Mk V Jungle carbine really swat deer. I think of it as a handy, 200 yard, 10-shot .30-30.

Expat

If only the 30 Newton had prevailed.

In the USA the 30-06 outsold the 300 HH a zillion to one. We could get 06 ammo almost free. Who could afford to shoot a 300? And those stocks they had then really kicked and hurt.

The 300 HH is an awful design but ripe with nostalgia, Harry Selby- Super 30 and all. Yes I have one too.

The Super 30 is about 7% faster than an 06 and is a lot of bother.

Thats why it's dead.

Allen: Ditto your comments on the 300H&H. Have owned and shot 4-5 of them, all pre64 M70's and everything you say is true.Every one of them was an excellent shooter and very easy to work up loads for. I took one to Alberta 4 years ago; everyone in the outfit was in their 20's, and no one knew what it was! But I let a guide use it to fill his tag on a big whitetail and he procaimed it old, but very effective!

So the 300 HH is 'effective' and easy to work up loads for (as if the 30-06 is not).

Then why is the 300 HH dead?

"REM BRASS 300 H&H UNPRM BULK PER 100, The item "REM BRASS 300 H&H UNPRM BULK PER 100" is currently out of stock."

Winchester brass for the 300 HH is not even listed!

I see a trend here.

Savage: I was not comparing the two cartridges, just commenting on the H&H.The H&H is dead because a lot of advertising to sell more rifles was generated about the alleged superiority of the 300 Win and Weatherby, and these two won the popularity contest; sorta the same phenom we see today over the 300win vs the 300WSM. People tend to be easy marks for Madison Ave advertising, and saw advantages (many of which do not really exist) for the new cartridges.

Course, we all know, the 300H&H beats the 30/06 in the velocity department, hands down..........Not much sense comparing those two.Spend much time with a 300H&H and you'll find it is just as fast as the 300 win, and only 100-150 fps behind he 300 Weatherby. These 3 cartridges are as alike as a lineup of Las Vegas dancers..................

300 H&H in Fedaral factory load and Winchester Factory load with the 180 Failsafe,both loads broke 3000 FPS when chrono'ed despite publish factory claims of 2880 FPS...........The 300 H&H has been killed by low published speeds, even tho it is capabile of better.... Why did the factory claim lower speeds than they were actualy loading to?...........

That's a good question!

The 300 H&H was killed off due to (perhaps) ignorance, even on the part of some prominent guwriters who should have done it better justice, including Jack O'Connor. But there were those writers, like Dave Harbour and John Jobson (both of Sports Afield in the '60s & '70s) who truly understood the 300 H&H, loved it for what it was, and weren't afraid of saying so. From what I could tell, Harbour (a great, talented, and today a largely unsung writer) hunted with almost nothing other than a pre-64 Model 70 300 H&H, and he used it extensively.

It was also killed off by cost accountants at Winchester, who not only wanted to boost sales with a new cartridge introduction (300 Win. Mag.), but wanted to reduce production costs; thus they'd rather boost sales of the 300 Winchester and kill off the 300 H&H for another reason: The additional machining work required to make a Model 70 action work with the 300 H&H added cost to production, whereas the 300 Win. Mag. fit into a regular Model 70 action, without the additional loading port work, plus no material was machined away from behind the lower lug seat (right in front of the magazine box mortise), which materially decreased action strenght with the old pre-64s. Thus, the 300 Win. Mag. became a more profitable proposition for Winchester right off the bat, and a safer one as well. But you couldn't go out of your way to make the 300 H&H appear to be just as, or almost as good as the 300 Win. Mag. and do new rifle (and ammo) sales any good, could you? Sort of like today's malarky where the 300 WSM is protrayed as just as fast or faster than the 300 Win. Mag. with bullets of equal weight, which, on average, is far from the truth.

Savage, the 30-06 is also easy to load, of course, we all know that. But it won't produce 3000-3100 fps. with 180s, whereas the 300 H&H CAN and WILL...............

AD

The beauty of at least my 300 H&H, a pre-war 70, is that is shoots EVERY bullet, from 220gr Hornady RNs,200gr Swift Aframes & Partitions, 180 Partitions, & TSXs to the SAME POI at 100 yards (at 200 the 220RNs are a few inches below as expected). MV for the 180s is just a tad over 3000 fps the 200s@ 2750. jorge

JWP: What Allen said about the H&H is true; Winchester saved dough bringing out the new 300 Win Mag by eliminating a lot of machine work in the old M70 action. Course, the 300 Weatherby was hot in those days and I think it stole a lot of thunder from the H&H. Plus,then, as now, gunwriters influenced a lot of people and O'Connor did not do the cartridge any good with his negative comments about how it barely edged a 30/06. I really do not know what factory ammo gives for velocity because I have never fired a round of the stuff, but I have used many handloads with 165-180 gr bullets in the 300 win, Roy, and H&H. As you'd expect, the Roy is the fastest but not by as much as you'd think.

I have had no problem getting 3050-3100 with the 180 in the H&H, about what I've gotten with the 300 Win. Some of the lowest SD's I've recorded with any cartridge has been with the 300 H&H. I have hunted more with the 300 Win, but honestly could never see any difference between the two, in the field, or at the range.

One more thought while it's on my mind, concerning the shape of the 300H&H, aside from the use of cordite in the loading and manufacturing process......

First, because of the tapering shape, the cartridge feeds slicker than anything in a Mauser-type bolt action. More than once,as I worked the bolt from prone, I swore the bolt failed to pick up a case, only to find it chambered.But 30/06 cases feed super-slick, too.

Second, it was a cartridge designed by the Brits for the tropics,and for tough conditions where rifles did not get a lot of TLC, where things are always dusty, dirt, damp, rusty, etc. If you think about it, PRIMARY extraction occurs as you first lift the bolt handle on a Mauser or M70, slightly moving the case to the rear, and "pulling" the fired case back a bit; a tapered case would move away from the (dusty, dirty,rusty?)walls of the chamber for the full length of the cartridge, facilitating theoretically easier extraction than a straight walled case that may not break free from the walls of the chamber as easy. Those who are mechanical engineers here ( I am not)may have their own views.

The cartridge was not designed to be a handloaders dream; it was designed to be used as a HUNTING cartridge over the breadth of the British empire, from Africa to Asia, under diverse climates and conditions; rather have it than a WSM (good lord) anyday.

Bob, here's another aspect of this supposedly "obsolete" and "awful" case design that is overlooked by the ignorant, and some of these New-Age cowboys who are more theorists, paper-punchers and cartridge experimentors than they are hunters:

The British (Holland & Holland) designed these belted cases in order than the cartridge will indeed headspace on the belt, and NOT the shoulder. This is so that there is a bit of room between the case walls, the shoulder, and the chamber, and this deliberate design feature was developed so that the cartridge will chamber properly even under the extremely dusty hunting conditions that were (and still are) encountered in Africa and Asia. Like the gentle shoulder angle which facilitates perfect and effortless feeding, the belt is a carefully-calculated design feature that enhances feeding and reliability under the worst possible hunting conditions. The belt is far from "useless" as has been stupidly and ignorantly stated and parroted so many times that it's now become accepted as truth, when in reality is should be rejected as a falsehood and a misconception.

Now, when I resize belted cases for practice ammo, I do set the resizing dies so that the cartridge will headspace on the shoulder, rather than the belt (partial resizing), but for HUNTING ammo, I load new cases ONLY that have simple been neck-sized and trimmed square for purposes of uniformity. I WANT belted cartridges, in the field to operate as they were originally intended to function, and I DO prefer the belted case for hunting purposes, for the reasons previously stated......

AD

Sounds like something we already have in a short action with a 22" barrel.

300 SAUM.

Just a note on O'Connor . . .

IIRC, he actually had the 300 H&H ammo chronographed and it barely edged the 30-06.

It may well be that the 300 H&H was great then (it certainly is cool today), but Jack did not see any advantage in the field, and the chronograph results (only one factory loading) were unimpressive.

Just my poor old memory . .

YMMV,

BMT

I had a chance to buy a very nice condition Remington 721 in 300 H&H last November. It was well maintained and not shot alot and came with a 26" barrel. I talked myself out of it. It was a great deal for sure.

I recall years ago reading Townsend Whelen on the .300 H&H, he thought a proper hunting rifle in that calibre ought to weigh about ten pounds. That certainly did not help sales. Of course a pre64 in that calibre when you got a decent scope onto it did weigh pretty near that much.

Allen - good points about the marketing aspect of the situation. One needs to look no farther than the auto industry to see the truth to the fact that production is not driven by what people actually want, but rather by what manufacturers want to produce and then tell people that what they produce is what the people want. Best, John

I don't think JOC could romantic a 1920 British brain fart.
It was their lazy approach to market rifles.

The cartridge design was for obsolete cordite powder, the belt was added for headspace.

The only thing it really has going for it, it's a natural slick feeder but overly long at the same time.

The only reason I would want one is if I inherited my uncle's
Pre 64.

Or, to be cool like me!

That's right JIM!!

To all,

The 45th edition of Lymans manual has these actual velocities taken a 15 ft with factory ammo in their test guns.

The 300 HH goes as follows: 180 Rem. 2873 fps 26", 180 Rem. Match 2881 fps 26", 220 Win. 2550 fps 26".

The 30-06 Springfield showed: 180 Win. 2666 fps 26", 220 Win. 2409 fps 22".

Others

308 Win.: 180 Win. 2604 fps 26".
300 WM: 180 Win. 3048 fps 24".
308 Norma: 180 Norma 3115 fps 24".
300 Weatherby 180 Weatherby 3164 fps 26"

The pre 64 M70 in 300 HH on the right weighs nine pounds.

The real solution is to own both. The 165gr bullet is optimal, in my view, for the 06. If something needs shot with a 180gr bullet I pick up the .300H&H which pushes the heavier bullet a bit better.

As I get older so does my taste in cartridges. In the last few years I've 'discovered' the 7X57,300H&H,303 Brit and the 9.3X63. Guess what? They all work just as well today as they did back then. In fact, if a guy wanted a 4 gun battery for hunting most of the world, those four would do him quite well.

Savage: You really ought to get rid of that antiquated, old, heavy thing. Just taking up a lot of space in the safe.........

Federals Premium Safari ammo for the 300 H&H does push 180 grain Noslers right around 3000 fps. I got some with my rifle when it was built. As far as handloads 3000-3100 is no problem at all with 180s and you can get very nice brass from Nosler at this time. The cartridge does feed beautifully and I've had no reloading problems at all. It really runs neck to neck with the 300 Win or 308 Norma and it's something a little different from what everyone else has at elk camp.

Yeah, me too. My battery consists of these "oldies": .30-06, 8x57JS, .35 Whelen, 9.3x62, .375 H&H and .416 Rigby. My two newest cartridges are the .280 Remington (intro'd in 1957) and the .338 Win Mag (intro'd in 1958). Of course, they are my "poor man's" versions of the 7x64 Brenneke and the .333 Jeffery!

Heck, I've even been known to hunt using heavy (high sectional density), round nose bullets!! Oh, the shame, the shame....

I had a Winchester Model 70 XTR (post-64) that was factory chambered in .300 H&H but I sold it to a friend. I'd like to get another .300 H&H one of these days. I never hunted with mine but it was a real sweet shooter.

Cheers!
-Bob F.

Bob: I'm planning to use 220gr Hornady RNs @ 2500 fps next time as they also shoot to the same POI as all the other bullets I've tried! jorge

In regards to the 300 H&H case design...I thought Mule Deer did a super job with the article comparing it to the 300 WSM... testing was performed by Charlie Sisk, Savage Action...same weight powder charges, same bullet, same barrel, bullet seating depth the same in respect to cartridge case neck...end result, velocities & pressures nearly identical......so much for case design magic. The 300 H&H is a super cartridge and way overlooked in my book.

BF..,

No doubt I'll soon give in to the desire for a 8X57. Not so sure about round nose bullets though. I have nothing against guys who use them ......... but I'm not sure I'd want my daughter to marry some one who does!

-Bob F.

I'd love to have one of those pre-64 70's in 300 H&H, would go right nice with my 375 H&H. You can't hardly find them for sale without having to mortgage the house to be able to buy one though.

Savage 99 says he will sell you his real cheap

In 1988 I went to Botswana with a Sako Safari .375 and a Ruger 7mm Rem Magnum. The mag capacities and safeties were different which was confusing. So when I got back I sold the Ruger, got another Sako Safari, and had it barreled to .300 H&H, to give me a matched pair. I had the new barrel fluted so that when I grabbed for a gun in the back of the safari truck I would know which was which by feel. Both the Sakos had a five shot magazine and held another one in the chamber. They made an ideal set but, I am sorry to say, I never went back to Africa and I sold them off several years ago. The buyer did indeed go to Africa with them and still has them.

My father has a Remington 721 that he had restocked by Fajen back in the day. It's a beautiful rifle and strikes me as an unappreciated classic. I'm also partial to it since it was the first centerfire rifle I ever shot! He gave in to my whining one day at the range when I was 9 years old and let me shoot it twice. Reportedly I shot well. All I remember is wanting to shoot it more and him saying doing so would be child abuse. I was proud of those bruises on my skinny little carcass!

As this thread is drifting pleasantly anyway...

I had my .300 H&H built on a Ruger 1B .30-06 NIB that I swapped for a SAKO Ultramag I won at a RMEF dinner.

It was an easy recahmber but needed a magnum extractor. Excellent rifle with acceptable recoil.

Best break and project gun idea I've ever had. A close second was to buy a lot H&H brass for it before it all disappeared.

1B

pa..,

I fell into collecting 721's a few years ago. My .300H&H is a very nice example. A joy to shoot. Recently got an original Weaver V9 back from being rebuilt which will go on it shortly - making a real neat 'heritage' piece.

Now, if I can just find a 721 in .280Remington ...

Outcast: My feable memory recalls that Remington first brought out the 280 in the M740, and then in the M725. Could be wrong but I don't think they made in 721's in 280. The 725's are nice though!

Yeah, Jack did not like the 26" barrel on his H&H, so he had it cut back to about 23.5".
He chronographed his loads at Speer and came out with about 2770 IIRC.
So he concluded that the H&H was not worth bothering with.
This info came out of Jack's Rifle Book.

I like his writings, but if someone had used a sample of "one" regarding his .270
there would have been hell to pay! He really did not give te 300 H&H a fair assesment.

Bob

For some time I been lusting for a D'Arcy Legend. And I can tell you If I ever get down to sending him a M-70 to do along with a check for 6 figuires I would think what cartridge for about 2 sec. And tell him make it a 300 H+H. I know a 300 Winchester would be more pratical, from ammo and cases on the shelve ever where you look, or a 338 Winchester because he builds a lot of rifes so chambered. Its just somthing about a 300 H+H either 180 bullets for the open and 220 's for the thorn bush that just make me feel all warm and gooy inside. ( I had a Remington 700 Classic so chambered) I know the 300 WSM come close in performace or You can do it a little better with a winnie, but dam those case's is the only thing Art deco that I like, yea is a fashion statement. But dam it the guys at Holland and Holland knew a thing or two what makes a good hunting rifle and cartridge combonation. And the 300 H+H scores bit time on both.

I see your point, but I agree (generally) with JC's conclusion that the 300 H&H does not yeild a guy very much over the 30-06.

I say this because for the same money guy could get a lot MORE of shooting practice in with this 30-06 and practice far outweighs velocity in the hunting field.

That being said, I would give up a month "nookie" for a chance to hunt Afica with a matched parir of 300 and 375 H&Hs.

BMT

Incidentally gents, just finished a range session with the new Nosler custom brass. it's expensive, but arguably the nicest, cleanes brass I've ever worked with. Winchester/Olin can pack sand for having left us in a lurch with it and 375 H&H brass. jorge

Oddly enough, O'Connor hunted a LOT with the .300 Weatherby and liked it very much--until he evidently became disenchanted with the recoil.

My own .300 H&H (built on a M70 Classic action) has a 23" Custom Barrel and Rifleworks barrel. The load I use is a 180 Partition and, if I recall correctly, 70.5 grains of H4831 for just over 3000 fps. Which beats any .30-06 I've ever shot, even those with 26" barrels, handloaded to over book max. This is actually all anyone needs this side of big dangerous game....

JB

I have a 300 H&H getting put together right now, just because I've never had a 30 mag of any sort and I have a nice M70 action kicking around.

The lack of brass kind of scared me off at first, but recently I made a pile of it by running 300 Weatherby through a 375 H&H sizing die (with the decapper stem removed), then through a 300 H&H FL sizer. Works effortlessly and brss comes out perfect, other than needing about 40 thou of trimming.

loads, be they factory or handloaded, for all centerfires have come a long ways over the last 80 years or so... temperature insensitive propellants alone give added security at the upper limits of load specs...
i have shot and loaded both the h&h and the winnie... put me down for the winnie, if you please... it is, and probably always will be, the workhorse of the fast 30s..... john w

I just finshied a history of H&H by Dallas--can't remember his first name. His book contained production records. H&H introduced their 300 Super in early 1925 but did not complete their first rifle until October 1925. I could supply the serial # if I still had the book. In many cases with their double rifles the records indicate the name of the buyer, but this was not the case with 300. The book did not mention anything about its introduction in America

If Cartridges of the World is correct, the Brits fielded a .30-06 class sporting cartridge one year before the .30-06 was developed. See the entry for the 375/303 W-R. As a rimmed cartridge, it would not have been ideal for a bolt gun, and the limited case capacity surely meant rather high pressures; both reasons were enough to develop the .300 H&H.

Years back I had a 300 win,300h&h, and 300 weatherby,all at the same time and used to shoot all three regularly to 600 yards, all with 180 Nosler Partitions and Nosler solid base bullets.This will drive people nuts (it did me), but there was really no difference in trajectory between all three clear out to 600. From a 300 yard zero,(3"+@100 yds), all three dropped 48" at 600. Net advantage of one over the other- zero.The Weatherby is fractionally faster; not enough to truly matter.

By the way, no 30/06 load can stay with a Holland. If you lean on a 30/06 to make it as fast as a Holland, you can lean on the Holland , too. Unwise in both cases.

Bob, if you're not careful, you're going to drive all of the chronic equipment collectors and ballistic theorists into a sure'nough tizzy. Practical truth has a way of doing that.........

AD

Another thing that is often over-looked is that the '06 is the equal of the 300 mags.....just at 75 to 100 yds closer. In hunting scenarios the range to the target is so fluid and relative that one not be handicapped by the old classic. The handicap if there is by and large a mental one.

Gdv

I had a .300 H&H built about 4-5 years ago on a M70 Classic action. Until last year I hunted with it exclusively. The only reason I didn't use it last year was because I've got a few rifles I've never hunted with and felt I needed to justify owning them . Next year I'll probably have the H&H out again. It's a little heavy for white tails, but they don't complain too much about it.

It's a fantastic round with a lot going for it. Mine loves H4350 powder and about any weight bullet.

Terry

Goodnews: Well, sure! At some tome in it's ballistic life a 300 mag becomes a 30/06>becomes a 308>becomes a 30-30, etc.

Except for one tiny wrinkle that we don't talk about too much and that is rotational velocity. From equal 10" twist barrels, the bullet from a 300 weatherby is still turning out higher revs at a given velocity level than the same one fired from a 30/06. Does it matter?

Allen: I'll stop doing that........

Yea, and we can only feel sorry for those poor souls who unknowingly trudged through life while filling box cars with game with only the pipsqueak 30-30 or the 30-40 Krag (not to mention others). It's a blessing they didn't know how bad they had it .

About the 300 Wby's rotational velocity: there's a reason to go with a 300 mag if I've ever heard one.

George

at the ranges where most of us do our hunting, rotational velocities have no bearing on bullet performance...
when the shooting gets long, if all else is equal, the faster bullet retains its stability farther...

by 800 or so the m118 lake city stuff is panting hard and beginning to yaw fired from the xm21 with a 1-12 barrel...
any of the fast .30s with a 1-10 twist extends the range of stability by a couple of hundred yds easily...
difference between the 30-06 and the h&h, or other fast .30s, is not as dramatic but, still, significant on a make or break shot...

beyond the arena of the long shot, the fast .30s offer the ability to project heavier bullets at velocities which make them ballistically viable for game shooting within the ranges that most of us hunt... an advantage that is somewhat negated today by the use of better bullets..... john w

The other thing rotational velocity does ( I think), is facilitate expansion of the bullet.Rotational velocity does not decrease with distance, one of the reasons 300 mags are still tough on fragile bullets at long range. And why "reduced velocity " tests of bullet expansio are not always valid.

One of the reasons I "like" the 7 rem mag, 9" twist barrel, is that you can use a tough bullet and still get it to expand properly at long range, at least MY definition of "long".

If a rifle is in a 1 in 10 twist the bullet is only going to turn one revalution for evry 19 inches of travel and it's rpm's are relavent to velocity...........

maybe so, bob...

but you're bringing up stuff that's beyond my experience...
the longest KD (known distance) i have ever fired a bullet on game was a measured 440 yds... from 1 quarter section fence, to the next.... john w

i have had shots called in by a spotter on prairie dogs at somewhat greater, but indeterminate, distance...
call it an ideosyncracy, if you will, but i have no interest in using a LRF to hunt... not before the shot... not after.....

John: To me ,thats "long". I can shoot to 600 here on a range
, but on game the longest I ever shot was about 500.

To me, long is any distance that I can't use a "dead on" hold.

Good definition.

That is the same rule I apply to myself. If it requires holdover, it is a long shot. Anything else is rifle control.

AGW

agreed.... i think, though, from a hunters standpoint, that the 30-06 will, indeed, hang with the holland..... john w

I started out with the 30-06 35 years ago, and there's no question in my mind that the 300 magnums hit the same species harder and kill better at all ranges.

The common misconception is that the 300s only gain you a few yards in terms of flatter trajectory over the 30-06, but that's just part of the story -- they also deliver more energy at all ranges as well, and you can look those numbers up for yourself.

Modern revisionist ballistic interpretation seems to lean with the concept that energy has very little to do with killing power, which is totally false. That froth gets spewed out when a specific writer will try to sell a new, low-voltage cartridge, and in order to do that, he has to portray it as "just as effective" as an established cartridge of the same caliber that's much more powerful..... But, anyhow if that concept were true, then a 30-30 Winchester would be just as potent as the 30-06, and the obsolete 375 Winchester lever round would be just as versatile and effective as the 375 H&H...............or the 378 Weatherby, for that matter!

AD

Occasionally we see the photograph of a bullet in flight, a shadow gram I believe it is called, don't know how they do it but you see them in reloading manuals etc.
The faster the bullet is traveling the bigger the wake and air turbelence built up behind it. To my way of thinking this turbulent air follows the bullet through the animal and is part of the reason the hole is so much bigger than the bullet.

I have been enjoying this thread. So much so I thought I would throw my own opinion in. A friend used to work at the local Scheels store and kept me broke with all the calls when a certain gun came in. One just happened to be a pre-64 Win. in .300 H&H. The first loads I got were bought at a gun show. It was easy to shoot .5" groups with those 180g Hornady's. I still didn't use it much for hunting due to having a go to gun in 30-06. Well, I sold the '06 so I would have to use the .300. After using it for some time it is my go to gun. My loads only make 2950fps from the 26" barrel, but it is very accurate. It doesn't weight 9 lbs on the bathroom scale with scope and sling. I don't think it kicks much even with the steel butt-plate. My Pre64 Featherweight 30-06 with steel butt-plate is worse. I find it very easy to load for and bought a bunch of brass when it was available. If I ever have to start selling my guns to make ends meet it will be one of the last to go.

Well , if I am following much of the logic presented on this thread correctly , the extra 200 fps the 300 H&H offers over the 30/06 provides a good increase in flatness and killing power , while the extra 200 fps the 300 Weatherby offers overs the H&H is all for nothing......

Somehow , I don't quite swallow that and for my money I would take the faster cartridge.....of course you do reach the limit of recoil and blast the individual can stand or wants to put up with...

No .300 magnum drops deer sized game any faster than a .30/06 over normal hunting ranges using the same bullets. You get a little flatter trajectory over the longer shots, but the rest is theory and justification for purchase.

Look at it this way:

What animals can you kill with a .300 magnum that you cannot kill with identical shot placement and bullet using a .30/06?

Let the whopper's begin.

AGW

Wouldnt it stand to reason that higher velocity correlates with more tissue destruction and thus faster death? I know for a fact that a wound from a 06 is a lot less tramatic than one from a 300 win mag.

speed kills, allen... i'll grant you that...
the partition, tsx, a-frame... none are much good at baseball pitching velocities...
if the holland does it for you, or whatever cartridge, so be it... regards..... john w

Too many evaluations are made on a single or a few animals being taken. If that level of hunting restrictions are placed upon us, so be it.

But the reality is, if you kill hundreds of like sized animals and average out the results, then you will see there is no killing difference between the .30/06 and the .300 magnums with like bullets over usual hunting ranges.

When an animal falls to the shot, who among us, can chronograph the speed of the fall in our minds eye and recall after the event?

AGW

I agree if you are thinking of whitetail sized stuff or your 'roo size stuff..........I think if you move up to elk sized game you will began to see some difference......but of course not uniformly with every individual animal......like people some are going to be tougher than others

Hit a coyote with a 22 LR using a 40 grain HP and then shoot one
with a 223 or 220 Swift and a 40 HP. There's a huge killing difference.

No doubt in my mind a killing dif between a 300
win mag and a 30-06. 300 winnie is brutal compared to an O6.

I've killed enough elk to easily see a difference.

Aussie Gun Writer: I've seen John Barsness type the same thing. He hasn't observed an increase in lethality between the 06 and the 300 either. He likes the caliber though.

Will

That observation is so very different from my own that I have to wonder what sort of animals you're referring to.

AD

Maybe not chronograph, but I can generally recall the sight and circumstance of it.

This isn't at all a fair comparison as there is nearly a 300% increase in velocity in the long rifle comparison and but a (at most) 10% difference in velocity between the 30-06 and the 300 magnums.

He is saying 300 magnums.


Also,
Then take a 22 LR Compared to a 22 Mag. Do you think there is a killing difference between the two? I know there is!

I have done culling work with a 25-06 and a 243. Most of the kills dropped on the spot. That doesnt mean a 300 isnt more effective.

hey straydog,

a lot of theories and ideas get kicked around and thought about...

i believe that if your theory of the effect of bullet trace on target were to hold water, you'd also see the effect on paper...
in point of fact, when a spotter reads trace, the bullets impact is actually somewhat lower than the trail of turbulent air... the visible turbulence boils in an upward swirl... regards..... john w

I guess I won the bet I had with myself?

Not a single taker offering any suggestion on this mythical animal species that can be taken by a .300 magnum but not by a .30/06 with the same bullet over usual hunting distances?

Although suggested tongue in cheek, is is really a pretty accurate statement because I for one, cannot invent any animal that cannot be taken with either, or.

AGW

I agree...........

I cant think of a animal that couldnt be killed with a 25-06.... or a .223 for that matter. Even a arrow can and has fell every animal on earth.

By that sort of logic , a 338 Federal is just as effective as your 340 Weatherby.........

Things are REALLY getting bizarre around here! Now we have "bullet trace", the turbulence in the air behind the bullet, contributing to wound channel size and hence cartridge effectivness??!! Like to see THAT one studied. Where DOES this stuff come from?

I think SU35 makes a good point comparing the 22 long rifle to a 223 or whatever to demonstrate that velocity contributes to killing effectiveness, but it sure seems to me that a 30/378 is not substantially more effective than a 300 win or Weatherby for example. The "advantage" of a 300 H&H over a 30/06 with a 180 is (with handloads) 200-250 FPS, ASSUMING 2800 for the 06, and 3050 for the Holland.
They will both kill anything in North America with impunity; and .I suspect, most stuff in Africa as well. The H&H will shoot flatter at all distances (obviously), and may be somewhat easier to hit with in open country, due to a flatter trajectory. It will kick a bit more and expand a tough controlled-expanding bullet somewhat more fully and dramatically at longer ranges due to a)higher impact velocities, and b)higher rotational velocity, all other things being equal. To the extent any of this equates to greater killing power, the Holland is the superior cartridge, but overlapping velocity levels, distance, angle of shot, bullet performance, etc can cloud these distinctions because the 30/06 is no pipsqueak cartridge, and goes pretty fast, too. If you like over 3000 with a 180 gr bullet, get the Holland; if 2700-2800 is OK, stick with the 30/06.

A good rifleman will get his game with either if he uses good bullets and can shoot.

As I recall, you're a 340 Weatherby fan. Now, by that same logic, there shouldn't be any difference in killing power between the 338-06 and the 340 Weatherby, either. No more so than there is between the 30-06 and the 300 Weatherby.

If that's the case, why do you bother shooting a 340? By your own logic, wouldn't a 338-06 kill just as well as the 340, only with a whole lot less noise and recoil? And you know what, if all anyone ever hunted with either one of those cartridges was, say, Texas whitetails (which don't take much killing) or kangaroos, I could easily see how they could come to the conclusion that there isn't much difference in killing power between the 338-06 and the 340 Wby.

But if we follwed this rational straight down the line, maybe we all ought to ditch even the 30-06 and go back to the 30-30, or better yet, the 30 M1 Carbine!

At some point, all know laws of physics will be ignored or trivialized, and all such interpretations will get down to the mood of the moment, or the edicts and whims of the "cartridge of the month club"

AD

Well said.

Most animals we hunt are in the 150 to 500 pound body weight and when talking .30 caliebr rifles, there comes a point when we have "enough" gun to reliably take these animals.

My point was simply that if you use the same bullet, place it in the same spot, and shoot a lot of animals and average out the results, there is little to no difference because once an animal falls to the shot, how can you claim additional killing power?

I remember Elmer condemning the .30/06 because it did not have the velocity to expand bullets reliably out at extended ranges. Now, there is some truth to this, even though the bullets of his era were a lot less than we have today.

The options were that we could drop in bullet weight, assuming conventional bullets, to select a more frangible, easier opening bullet, then the ballisticians interject with their arguments, in favor of SD and BC. All true in theory.

I am reminded of a pronghorn I took in Wyoming a few years back, only a single example but it states a cases that is backed up by a lot more animals and larger than this delicate doe sized antelope.

My hunting partner had a couple of shots and the antelope stood angled towards us steadily as he knew he was safe at that range.

My mates .243 had the ranging ability but as a shooter, he did not. Kevin called "It's more than 300". On the prairie, it looked more to me, as I was not looking at the distance between us, but rather at the size of the animal in the scope wound up to 9 power.

Assuming the prone position with the Model 70 Featherweight sitting securely in the Harris Bipod, I aligned the scope at the still, staring buck. He felt safe.

Having killed several thousand goats prior to this moment, I guessed about 3-4 inches daylight and squeezed the trigger and was wrong, as expected.

The animal was more like 450 yards away as 180 grain Swift A- Frame struck low in the chest through the lower shoulder. Sure Elmer was right, at that range the velocity can effect the bullets ability to expand but the fact is that the bullet opened and penetrated, to exit low and center ribs on the off side. The antelope bucked into the air and fell to the ground dead.

The shot from my .30/06 loaded a little under 2800fps was witnessed also by our guide and representative from the scope company that paid for that hunt. Sitting on a butte to the side a 1/3 of a mile away, he watched the shot in disbelief. It was considered that far.

I know MD and many others here can take a shot like that so it makes no hero out of me. Referring back to what I was saying about cartridge performance, it would not have mattered what .30 I was using becuase the power level is "enough". the game can only fall over.

Let me go to another extreme.

I videoed a nanny goat kill once with a 6.5 X 55. I still have the tape somewhere but have forgotten the total number of shots fired at the standing goat from perhaps 50 yards.

It fell to a chest hot behnd the shoulder. Got up and stood there with legs braced. C'mon it is only a goat? What's going on here? Another shot made the aniumal do a complete flip in the air and get up again. I instructed my teenage nephew to aim lower and take out the heart. With the shot, the heart exploded so much the blood blew back out the entrance hole and stained a softball sized patch on the lower chest but the animal stood braced and shaking until another shot to the shoulder dropped it for good.

This is madness, as the 6.5 x 55 is a wonderful moose cartridge as stated in an earlier thread.

What it proves is simply this, you cannot generalize from a single or even a few animals what is really happening from the effects of a cartridge and load. You can however average out results on similar sized animals as long as they are in the same weight range.

If you took one load and cartridge on a hunt and took a wide range on animals, you will learn about your rifle. If you took a golf cart full, you learn superficial information based on single kills. You are entitled to develope a feeling only, not claim authority.

Any Aussie or Kiwi will tell you with authority, that goats are tougher than deer. Even red stags at 600 pounds are not as tough as a big bille which can go over 200 pounds, a few more than that and some smaller ones like the example above which although full grown, was not mature and heavier in build, perhaps 90- 100 pounds tops.

Enough is enough, and, the .30/06 using the same bullets as a .300 magnum with like placement over usual hunting ranges has little to no difference in killing power because the animal can only fall down dead. Single examples falling out of the scope are still single examples. Changing from a 180 to a 150 grainer on deer sized can change the interpreted speed of a kill on some isolated kills.

One thing that never ever gets written about is the simple fact that animals can be divided into specific weight, size and tenacity categories. There may be a grey area where the .338 and .375 calibers show up a .30 caliber but I have never seen or heard of a category of animal that can divide the .30's into "the .300 will, but the .30/06 won't".

I would never leave a .30/06 at home because an expert told me I needed a .300. Would you?

AGW

Oh, I now have a reason to start loving the most mediocre, if Elmer condemned it that is reason enough to reconsile with it.

You ever see a slow motion of what happens to ballistic gel after the bullet clears as compared to when the bullet does not?

My .340 was obtained as a good deal some years ago, trialed aganst the .338 and .338/378 I was using at the time and kept because it was a performer and the rifle was a nice Mark V. I liked it.

On deer sized game you are correct, there is not a lot of difference between them but I had a lot of expertise and experience assisting me with my loads as I have been a president of the largest SCI chapter outside the US. Many safari's all over the word have been undertaken using my loads or in rifles I deveolped loads for, prior to the hunt. You will probably know already, how detailed the hunt reports become when these people return.

You may be interested to know that 'roo's can have their guts blown all over the paddock with a .375 and they will sit up at you when you approach them. Shot placement still applies.

Another unknown fact few Americans know, the little 3 foot cute fur balls they have in animal parks for the kids to fed peanuts to, are not full grown or they would kill the kids. They are often wallaby's too, which is a small sub species. (Actually there are dozens of sub species)

When they get to about 3-4 foot tall they are removed from the pens the tourists like. A full grown Grey reaches 6 or more feet tall and outweights a man. A red is taller still with heavier bone structure though leaner and probably no more havier than the Grey because of the harsher desert country they inhabit.

As for extrapolating my opinions on cartridges and performance, I can handle that quite well myself, which is why I have been invited and performed ballistic seminars for many years both in Australia and the US.

My last invitation was from the Colorado DOW Master Instructors. An honour to be sure, but one I was warned about in advance, as these gentlemen are the cream of the DOW and I was told, "you better know your stuff, or they will eat you alive".

I got an ovation. I was proud to be able to share advice.

AGW

...which is why the 'campfire is better because you're here.

Gdv

Very interesting discussion. And unprecedented as far as I know to have two such distinguished panelists arguing cartridges. I guess no one is immune to an occasional bout with it.

Very good point about number of animals killed and drawing conclusions from it. This is what makes guys like you so valuable. Funny thing though, everyone seems to think that killing a whitetail is trivial. And most times it is. But once in a while you get a really tough one that will give you fits.

A very interesting phenomena that the guys in our camp noticed was regarding the 300 WM and bullet performance. It seemed like, growing up, that people had more trouble with erratic bullet performance out of this caliber than anything else. With the advent of bonded bullets this problem just seemed to disappear overnight. It was like the standard bullets that were so common back in the 80s and 90s just didn't agree with the caliber. At least in our experience.

Funny thing is though, that more than a few of our camp are worshippers at the alter of the 7mm Mag. And they NEVER had erratic bullet performance even though they shot standard cup and core bullets too. Seemed like they shot every weight you could imagine and it just didn't matter. No matter what the bullet or range the result was a clean, quick, and very dead animal be it deer, bear, or Russian Boar.

I wonder if you guys, having seen and heard more than our little group would have been exposed to, noticed anything similar to this?

Will

I have to smile at these kinds of discussions not because they're funny or without experience-born facts and anecdotes but because at the end of the thread (day?) the differences between these two cartridges in the field while real are mostly discussion fodder.

The term you want to use is "shadowgraph" which is the general term for inferring fluid flow characteristics from photographs capturing variations of fluid density;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieren_photography

Most shadowgraph photography these days uses the Schlieren technique.



Unlikely. Consider the energy of a bullet versus the same volume of air;

lead; 11.35 g/cc
air; 0.0012 g/cc

thus a given volume of lead is about 9500 times more dense than air. Assuming roughly the same velocity, that volume of air would have 0.01% of the kinetic energy as the same volume of lead. If you want to go to the next level, cut the velocity in half, increase the volume by maybe 5, and its still irrelevant.

When in doubt, rank KE damage by material state; mostly by solids, then by liquids, lastly by gases. You've got a solid metal bullet passing thru, creating secondary projectiles made of bone, skin, muscle etc, and trailed by a bit of air.

Movements that happen after the bullet passes are easy to understand. For the simplest model, whack a spring with a hammer. After the hammer is back in the toolbox the spring is still moving. With elastic materials, the exchange between kinetic and potential energy is a long-term thing, only limited by dissipation. Another model is to shake a half-full coffee cup then set it on the counter; the coffee will still be sloshing around many seconds after the input forces from the cup have stopped. I've no doubt whatsoever that a high-speed video of a bullet passing thru ballistic gelatin, performed in a vacuum, will show the same peculiar wiggles, thrashing, and whatnot as the same test performed in normal atmosphere.

Yes; what does air turbulence have to do with ANY of it? Are we forgeting that a high-velocity bullet just hurtled through the gelatin? Most of the effect of air-turbulence on killing-power and bullet performance is contained on this website.........

Ahahahahah!

Now that is a post worth remembering.

Will

Couch Tater: Thank you for your articulate, scientific explanation of what we should, through common sense alone, understand to be meaningless. Great post..........

CouchTater,
Thanks for your time to express in formula and explaining what I have seen.

AGW, since your position on killing power is backed by your empirical law of averages. Am I correct in saying that you more precisely mean "average killing power" is the same, not "killing power".

And by saying that both rounds can be used on the same animals - is that the same as saying they have equivalent "killing power" or lethal effect?

Sometimes we get stuck on definitions. I'm thinking similar energy defines equality and you are talking the average results of the hunt.

Only the lenght of this thread inspired me to comment. Wasn't even going to comment on the comets tail thing. I am curious though to hear more about the rotational velocity/energy BobinNH keeps bringing up. Might be as important in the big scheme of things as coffee cup waves.

HEY GUYS , we have a winner!!!!!



Oh yeah baby!!! THAT DOG'LL HUNT

Excellant post.

If I want "expert" opinion on topics like the 30-06 versus the 300s, all I have to do is go into a few of our local gunstores around here. None of the clerks and store owners have shot much of anything other than theory and paper, plus a deer or two thrown in for good measure, but man, they'll tell you all about it anyway...............

AD

Absolutely. And thank you for your support, as that is why writers contribute, simply to help. I have seen enough exagerated self esteem in my life to smell it from quite a distance and I prefer decency and acceptance of opinion, as someones personal experience whether it agrees with my own or not.

It is ok not to see things the same.

Back to your question;

The reason the .300 Win got such a bad reputation was that the majority of bullets on the market were designed for velocity ranges directly relating to the .30/06.

I example this in seminars by stating that if you drop an egg to the ground, it will break. Simple so far. If you throw it to the ground as hard as you can, the same structural integrity of the egg is compromized and it shatters.

A bullet reacts exactly the same way which is the logic behind controlled (read that as restricted) expansion.

The 7mm Remington did not suffer from this because the lesser 7mm's were not as entrenched in the market as the .30/06 was and had less influence on bullet design, so the bullets that came on the market after 1962, were designed for the velocity ranges of the 7mm Remington. That makes them even better if used in the lesser 7mm cases without the need for premium bullets and additional costs.

You can qualify that statement by loading a few of those same bullets into a RUM case today and you will experience the same failings the .300 had during its introductory years.

Hope that explains it better.

AGW

This undoubtably was true in 1963 when the win mag was first introduced, but not in the 90's time frame the poster referred to.

I apologize for my ineptitude at communicating this opinion. What I am saying, is that if you load the same bullet into a .30/06 case and a .300 Winchester Magnum and take shots at usual hunting ranges, there is not one single animal on this planet that "cannot be taken" with a .30/06 but "can be taken" with a .300 with like shot placement.

AGW

I don't mind a difference of opinion at all, however, like the opinions of pettifoggers and papershufflers, not all of these opinions are created equal by any means.

I've heard the half-baked opinion that there's no difference in killing power between the 30-06 and the 300s before, but in EVERY CASE, those opinions came from people who had little or no experience on big game with any sort of 300 to be able to furnish any sort of valid opinion whatsoever, and some of them had not shot much stuff with the 30-06, either.

What I like to know is what sort of background a person is coming from, what personal experience is he calling upon, when such pronouncments are made? If all he's shot are Texas whitetails, but no elk, moose, bears, sheep, or African big game, then I'll look upon that testimony a lot differently than I would coming from a man who's been around and shot a lot of stuff in a lot of places.

And that's the problem I'm having with this thread: Too much supposition, plus a few inane, pointless theories, with very little actual personal experience being sited...........

AD

[/quote]

I apologize for my ineptitude at communicating this opinion. What I am saying, is that if you load the same bullet into a .30/06 case and a .300 Winchester Magnum and take shots at usual hunting ranges, there is not one single animal on this planet that "cannot be taken" with a .30/06 but "can be taken" with a .300 with like shot placement.

AGW [/quote]

Time to step away from this thread, I think. After re-reading my contribution, I never once used the phrase "Killing Power" in support of my statement and my repeated question, has not been answered. I believe it cannot be answered, only opined.

AGW

GMACK: Real simple; higher rotational velocity helps expand bullets. Sometimes it destroys them, even in mid-air. I did not dream it up. Call Bill Steigers or some other bullet manufacturer who knows; ask them.Got to do with something called "centrifical force". (Did I spell it right?)RPM's; we all know what that is...........

Gmack: Almost forgot; go back to an early issue of, I think Rifle magazine; or was it Handloader? Article by one of the ballisticians for , I think Speer. Did an article on the effects of rotational velocity, bullet expansion, size of wound channels, etc. Guys name was either Caldwell or Andrews. Anyway, you would find it interesting. He found that faster twists facilitated bullet expansion, and generally created larger wound channels.Ballistician... not me! Anyway, look it up. Test in the morning!

I believe you are using out of date research as your reference.

"My point was simply that if you use the same bullet, place it in the same spot, and shoot a lot of animals and average out the results, there is little to no difference because once an animal falls to the shot, how can you claim additional killing power?"

AGW, this is yours, minor point but you did define "killing power" here.

"how can you claim additional killing power". I do claim it by my definition. My point is that I think your point was lost on some. Maybe because we're hung on on physics, mags do have more horse power.

BobinNH, Thanks, I honestly do want to know more about the subject. Right now I'm thinking there's not a lot of energy in the rotation. Kind of like the energy in trailing gas someone else pointed out.

I agree with your point.

The repetition of the phrase "killing power" was used against my comment, not used by me in favor, of it. My opinion is as yet, an unchallenged statement, as no animal has been nominated.

AGW

Gmack: I don't think it's an energy issue at all; I just think it's a mechanical thing. I'm no engineer, so can't explain it. But we know rotational velocity plays some part in bullet expansion. Take a look at the 165 TSX over on the Africa thread that was recovered from an Eland. The petals are twisted out at an angle to the shank of the bullet. What causes that? I think it's a combo of velocity and twist.

I was reminded this afternoon that John Jobson wrote of using both a 10" twist and a 12" twist in a pair of 270's. Noticed the 10 twist was a more dramatic killer than the 12 twist. I remember reading that myself.

HUSQVARNA: Dated info? Something happen to bullet flight and physics, terminal balistics since the 1970's? Got news for ya; TSX bullets are not "new"; PO Ackley invented them in ,I think, the 50's; WSM's are not "new", they were invented by a California gunsmith in the 50's. Contolled expansion bullets and Northforks are not "new". Bill Steigers (Bitterroot Bullets) had that scene going on in the 60's.

I'd like to know, after you read the article, exactly how what happens when a bullet is spun out of a rifle barrel and impacts an elk, is different or dated as opposed to what happens today? Elk DNA has morphed into a denser medium immune to ballistic laws existing prior to Y2K, or what?................

Good point...........

jwp: Whad I say??...........................

Hey Bob , I was just going to post
on old Jobson's observation of 1 in 10 versus 1 in 12 270 s .

I tend to think there is something to high rpm thing myself , , seems to me there's a trend there with such calibers as the 264 , 7 mag , 270 and 06 with 150 gr bullets.....

SD: Course ya know our info is sort of dated............ ...After all, what did Jobson know? He was a rifleman fron the 60's and 70's!Even tho he shot a lot of game and a lot of rifles!

I think there is something to it all.Be nice to see someone research it

+2

Terminal Twaddle...

The energy issue - it takes energy to spin something. look at how much slower a curve ball is. A pitcher who has a fast ball of 90 might throw a 70 mph curve?

If my quick math is right, the rpm does look outrageously high by machine design standards. Going from 12 to 10 twist looks like 20% more rpm.

Still thinking on this one, how rotation fits into the big picture. I thought I read one writer noting that his load speeds didn't drop much when he fast twisted a barrel. If that is true there's not much energy difference. It takes the energy that would go into straight line fps to spin something faster.

Not saying anyone's wrong. Talk about hi-jacking a thread. I am a non-practicing mechanical engineer. My career took me into construction, boy does that have a dumb down effect. Maybe that's my problem.

A riddle:

At what point do the laws of physics no longer mean anything?

AD

So if a mushroom rotates once while penetrating 10" of meat at 3000 fps it is more lethal than the rotation in 12"?
I would like to see that subject study.

Stray Dog: Quit ragging BS; I told you where the damn article was; just go read it! I'm not here to waste my time arguing with anyone;if you feel as if you know more about it than a ballistician from the SPEER BULLET COMPANY, then do a treatise on it yourself after you have researched the issue.What, precisely, is so tough to understand, anyway? Just read the article if you can find it. I'm sure someone on here can get it for you.You want the study, THERE IT IS!

You drive the bullet faster,it revolves faster, places greater stress on the jacket and it opens more violently on impact.Is it more "lethal"? I don't know. But if bullet expansion means nothing, then just shoot solids; why not do that? It's "lethal".

My my what a run away, I didn't ask you all of that chit.

Someone may be having a ragging moment.

Answer:

When you are dreaming.


The energy from any bullet starts out as chemical energy from the powder. Then there is always a loss due to efficiency but the bullet leaves with rotational and projectile energy in kenetic form.

I believe there would be a balance if the powder charge remained the same. If you go to a faster twist more energy goes to turning the mass and less can be available for travel.

Never thought much about the rotational energy before because I took it to be insignificant. There is no question however that a higher RPM bullet would stress the bullet jacket more. Whether this would aid expansion in any appreciable amount...?

Several articles have been published in the last decade that indicate from test that bullet spin has little or no effect upon the bullets behavior on impact. The only one I can site offhand is Gary Sciuchetti's "The Best Hunting Bullet" HANDLOADER #193 June 1998 pp.40-44.

It could be a great deal about very little, or very little about a great deal.
If an O6 bullet spinning at a faster rate could cause more damage than a 300 mag spinning at a slower rate, this would be news to share.

But it is most likely some form of Terminal Twaddle...

Curveballs aren't slower because putting additional spin on the ball consumes that much more energy. Curveballs are slower for at least 3 reasons I can think of. One, the human elbow just isn't designed for throwing overhand, and the additional stresses on the ligaments and tendons caused by snapping the wrist diagonally rather than longitudinally are pretty bad. In fact they keep a lot of orthopaedic surgeons well fed. Two, the curveball works not only because of its movement, but because of its slower speed than the fastball; same function as a changeup, with the added benefit of movement. Throws the hitter's timing off. Lastly, the path a curveball takes is dependent not only on the side forces caused by the spin (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_effect) but on the ball's initial velocity. If the ball is travelling too fast, there won't be that much lateral or downward movement; the best curveball pitchers can adjust not only spin rate but velocity to dial in the desired amount of ball movement. You've no doubt heard sportscasters talk about a "breaking curveball". I had the opportunity once to stand right behind a catcher who was warming up a MLB reliever during spring training. The "break" was very visible, I believe due to the ball slowing down to a speed where the flow around the ball transitioned to mostly laminar flow and thus gaining much more Magnus effect. Add 10 or 15 mph and I don't believe there would have been any substantive movement before the ball crossed the plate. But this guy was able to locate the break about 10 feet from the plate, consistently.

Now some pitchers can throw sliders, tailing fastballs etc at nearly the same speeds as their fastball, but those pitches don't have nearly as much total lateral movement as a big curveball.

I dunno, I just aim and shoot.

Not the expert on pitching you appear to be. I agree a pitchers curve may not be the best analogy here.

I am thinking however that if the pitchers arm moved much slower, the batter would read that like a stop sign. Again, not an expert but the energy put into the pitch by the pitchers body should be similar.

I understand that speed can effect the curve, know what laminar flow is, need to look up magnus effect. Do you dispute that curve balls can't be thrown as fast when the same total energy is applied? Actually, you are saying that in your first sentence and picking on my example at the same time. Don't worry, I have thick skin.

Ok, another ball example. Did you ever see a ball with a lot of top spin hit the ground and then take off at a higher speed. The rotational energy changed to linear motion. The converse can also happen, a machine can be set up to change potential energy to varying degrees of rotational and linear motion. You can change speed simply by applying the total force differently.

Please review your aerodynamics, laminar flow does not happen around a sphere which is a horrible shape aerodynamically.

I dunno, I just aim and shoot.

My view is quite different. There are two types of energy imparted upon a bulley upon firing. One is forward momentum and one is rotational velocity. They are absolutely independant of each other.
While you can say how many inches a bullet will travel per rotation at the muzzle, it is not linear, as a bullet sheds its velocity.
Bullets lose their rotational energy much slower than their velocity in flight.
I believe bullets fired from faster twist barrels expand more readily.
A bullet fired from a faster twist barrel can kill an animal faster, not because of the amount of rotation inside the animal, but because it is more likely to end up being larger in diameter.
It is my opinion that the 300 mags can and often do kill better because with higher impact velocity, additional expansion can be expected and even with the same twist rate the bullet will have more RPMs additionally aiding expansion.

SAWBUCK: Thank you, that is precisely what the article says. Wish they'd just read the article.Guess they're afraid they might learn something........

Stray Dog: Terminal Twaddle is, I think, your definition of anything you don't ubderstand,which from what I can gather, is quite a bit.

I should have proof read,but didn't;should have been,

If a rifle is in a 1 in 10 twist the bullet is only going to turn one revalution for every 10 inches of travel and it's rpm's are relavent to velocity

jwp: thanks for clarifying that. Been scratchin' my head over the 10 vs 19 deal.

For what it's worth...

From Noslers website under the "Did you know" facts;

"Did you Know?
A bullet that comes out of a 1-10 inch twist barrel will make one complete revolution for every 10 inches it travels, even after leaving the barrel, regardless of velocity."

One would think they know their stuff...

[quote=99Lover]
A bullet that comes out of a 1-10 inch twist barrel will make one complete revolution for every 10 inches it travels, even after leaving the barrel, regardless of velocity."
quote]
Very refreshing, a reasonable comment.

When it leaves the barrel it will be 1 in 10.
Not so downrange.

How can it be any different?........

Rotational energy is not mechanically connected to the energy used to propel the bullet forward once it leaves the barrel.

It takes alot of energy to move a bullet through air and it sheds that energy at a greater rate than the rotational energy because not much energy is required to spin the bullet in flight.

If you look at the petals on a Barnes bullet where they are bent due to the rotational energy, you can see that they might actually stop the rotation of the bullet due to drag.

Ask yourself, what is the likelyhood that the bullet stopped moving forward at the exact same instant the rotation stopped and also maintained the 1-10 ratio to the very end.

Not likely and they are not connected.

And how is this going to cause the bullet to spin at a different rate than 1 turn in 10?.........As long as it was shot from a 10 twist..........

Barrel twist rate will only give the bullet a starting RPM.

The higher the velocity, the higher the starting RPM.

It's pretty safe to say that RPM will not increase but only decrease down range.

Does that make sense so far?

Yes and that is what I stated earlier it will be 1 turn per 10" of travel and this is velocity related..........

RPMs will indeed decrease... revs per linear foot travelled will not, until such time as the projectile departs "controlled flight"..... john w

Exactly...............

Forward energy caused by the gasses pushing the bullet is one kind of energy. We know the bullet slows down due to having to plow through the air.

The barrel itself takes a tiny bit of that energy and transforms it to rotational energy via mechanical means.
As long as the bullet is in the barrel it will match the described twist rate.

Once the bullet leaves the barrel it is subject to other forces like air resistance.

Twist is no longer mechanically tied to the forward movement.

In other words, air, flesh, water, etc. can impact rotational energy more or less than it effects the forward energy.

Give precise details..... do you think the turns per inch slow down or speed up........exactly what are you saying?

Lose velocity faster than RPM.

I understand that you lose velocity,but are youy saying that a 1 in 10 twist changes from 0ne turn in 10 inches of travel? I believe that as velocity slows down the bullet continues to make one revolution per 10 inches of travel.............

Right, thats what all my posts have been trying to say.

You see, for it to remain 1-10, the RPMs would have to decrease at exactly the same rate as velocity. Not likely to happen.

Hope that makes sense but not much more I can add.

That's what I got from the statement on Nosler's website...

Take a spinning top for instance. Yes it does slow down over time but that reduction in rotational velocity is due to friction of the tip in contact with the surface it's spinning on not by wind resitance it encounters during the duration of it's spin. That is why it will stop much faster on a rough surface than if you set it spinning on say, a glass table. The air is not a measureable factor in the comparativley long time it take the top to fall over, especially so when compared to the time of a bullets flight to target.

That said a 180gr .308 caliber bullet at 3000fps MV with a B.C. of .450 will travel 300 yards in .334 seconds according to my ballistic software, that's one third of a second. That's not enough time for the rotational velocity to vary in a measurable amount based on friction in air ....

Just my opinion...

And what proof do you have that the projectile is no longer turning at the rate of one revolution per 10 inches of travel?

In your scenario with the bullet spinning at only slightly less RPM than it had at muzzle velocity, and with the bullet traveling at say 1000 FPS less this would tend to give a slight increase of spin per travel distance, not less.

At any rate I am not likely to have an '06 made with a 1-7 twist.

just to divert the thread from bullet rpm, Midway has R-P 300 H&H brass in stock.

Time to step away from this thread, I think. After re-reading my contribution, I never once used the phrase "Killing Power" in support of my statement and my repeated question, has not been answered. I believe it cannot be answered, only opined.

AGW [/quote]

-------------------------------------------------------------

I couldn't help responding to this after just reading through the thread, as the reasoning is basically sophistic.

If the question is: "Is there any real difference between the lethality of the 22 rimfire and the 22 rimfire magnum?"

The rephrasing of it to:

"What small game can be taken at any reasonable range with a 22 magnum that cannot be taken with a 22 rimfire medium velocity round?"

This produces a subtle twist which might throw off the non-thinking person. The issue is not whether the same game can be killed at the same range, but whether the one cartridge possess greater terminal impact to the animal.

The truth of the matter is that the 300 H&H produces more terminal impact at all ranges to all game (with the proper bullet selection). This is why many well-travelled hunters use a 300 magnum of some sort as there all-round cartridge instead of the 30-06.
So when the question is properly framed, it is about fact and not opinion.

I disagree.
I wrote a question that has not been answered because it cannot. No-one with respect, can interpret or change what I said because it was a complete question and statement in one.

The real answer is that there is no animal on this planet that can be killed with a .300 H&H that cannot surcome to an equally placed same bullet, launched from a .30/06 at usual hunting ranges.

It is that simple. There is no such animal and the invitation has been there for some time now to consider.

If anyone wants to know what I say or think, it can only come from my writing, not reinterpreted or they are not my words.

AGW

Still don't quite know how we got here, but I agree fully with Aussie. You are simply not going to see any long-term difference in the way a .300 H&H and .30-06 kill. That is because their performance overlaps so much. Same with a .300 Winchester and .30-06.

That's because there's about a 260 fps difference between the .300 Win. and the .30-06--about as much velocity as a .300 180 loses in the first 100 yards. (This applies to both the relatively mild factory loads for both rounds, and maximum safe handloads.)

Yeah, at 100 yards there is 500 or so foot-pounds difference between them. This is less than the 100-yard energy of the .22 Hornet. Is anybody here claiming that adding a Hornet's energy to the .30-06 makes vast difference in how it would kill a kudu? Give me break.

Some of the analgies seen here trying to "prove" the .300 kills a "lot better" have been laughable. One compared the .22 Long Rifle to the .22 Magnum. Yeah, the .22 Magnum hits harder than the Long Rifle! That's because it has at least 2.2 times the muzzle energy of the .22 LR, depending on the load, and in some cases 2.5 times as much. In contrast, the .300 Winchester only has about 20% more energy than the .30-06 at any range.

No big game round has enough energy to literally knock a deer off its feet. (If it did, the rifle that fired it would knuck us off our feet: see Newton, the scientist, NOT the firearms developer.) Instead, big game bullets kill by putting a hole through the vitals. A good .30-06 bullets does this just as well as a good .300 magnum bullet, at any sane range.

Now, if you want to argue that the .300 will kill 20% faster, on average, well go ahead and shoot a pile of animals with both rounds, and time how long they stand up afterward. But be quick. There isn't much difference between 10 and 12 seconds.

JB

Sounds like my wife ...............sorry I could not resist

John, I simply do not agree.

The 300s DO kill better and faster than the 30-06, of that I have absolutely no doubt, and I go back to actual hunting with the 30-06 some 35 years, and I've taken over 80 species (not just individual animals) with the 300 Winchester.

Most hunters I know who have used one of the 300s extensively for a wide variety of animals feel exactly the same way as I do.

AD

AD,
i really don't think that anyone is picking on your choice of rifle or cartridge.. and i believe that most of us here use what we "feel" best with...


with good bullets, it is pretty much a given that the .300 mags will do every thing that the 30-06 will do, save fit into an 06 chamber...
empirical evidence of their superiority, though, is pretty well limited to long range shooting and/or windy conditions..... john w

Oh really?

AD

JB,

I think your argument that the 300 Mag only has 20% more than the 30/06 leaves out thresholds. Let me give a couple of examples.

Let's take recoil for a start. Increasing the recoil of a 223 by 20% is not even noticeable. In fact double it and no problem. But increase the recoil of a 375 H&H or 458 by 20% and there can be a world of difference.

I think AGW will agree with what I am about to say even though he is supporting the "no difference between 30/06 and 300 Mag" argument. Any Australian who is real keen shooter and who has been shooting for years will have shot roos, pigs and goats literally in the 1000s. He will have shot them up the arse, in the guts....you name it That same shooter will tell you that the 270 is a whole lot more rifle than the 243. BUT he will probably also tell you that the 243 is not much more than the 222 or 223. There is obviously a threshold at work because you don't gain much (except for visual damage) when you go bigger than 270.

Based on your argument we should see a gradual increase in "power" as we move up from 223 to 243 to 270, but we don't.

Allen Day has different observations to you. That could be because of how he shoots, what he shoots, his expectations etc. all of which are causing a threshold to exist and that threshold has been exceeded somewhere between the 30/06 and 300 Mags. Of interest is the fact that Allen Day has often said there does not appear to be much real world difference between 300, 338 and 375 Mags.

If we come back to recoil I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of shooters would regard the difference in recoil between 375 H&H and unbraked 378 Wby as being unreal, yet the recoil energy is only about 50% greater. A shooter that could happily shoot 30 or 40 shots from the bench with a 375 might be a complete wreck after 3 or 4 shots from a 378. Compare that situation to firing a 243 and a rifle that has 50% more recoil than a 243...not even worth talking about.

Mike

Mike, I really have not seen much difference in killing power on the same species with the 300 Win. , 338 Win. ,and 375 H&H.

But all three of them hammer stuff harder than the 30-06 - that much have have seen..........


AD

I agree 100% I have used both for many years and just don't see the suposedly greater suppiority of the 300's If the 300 Win,H&H is so much better than a 30-06 then why isn't everyone claiming the greater suppiorty of the 300 RUM's over the latter 2.I use and like the 300's,Not because a 30 bullet out of on of them is better than a 30 cal bullet out of a 30-06.If one wants to hit game harder IMHO,then bgrab a weapon with a larger diameter...........

yeah, allen....
you got evidence, other than subjective observation, i'm all ears... and i mean that the right way... enjoy your opinions and observations..... john w

After putting 40 elk down and losing count,
I totally agree with Allen, I've seen the difference in the
field on elk I've killed with a 300 Win.



My point was, higher speed does have an affect on an animal
and it does.

I'm not into this paper energy stuff and if anything is laughable it is. That's gun writer gobeldeguke.

I am into impact velocity.

JB you say a 338 has no more effect on elk than a 300 but a 375 does. Can't tell us why, but you just know it does from what you have seen in the field. My point being, field experience does matter, it's more than paper.

Another example, and in your own words where FPE fails to correctly predict the outcome as the 338 and 375 have the most FPE,yet in your own words are not more effective............

I'd really love to know what sort of animals some guys have shot with any sort of 300 versus the 30-06, or even what they've seen shot for that matter with either cartridge.

But, if there really is no difference (and the energy figures say otherwise right off the top), then there must not be any difference between the 30-06 and a 300 Savage, either!

Right?

AD

What have you shot with these cartridges yourself?

AD

But, if there really is no difference (and the energy figures say otherwise right off the top), then there must not be any difference between the 30-06 and a 300 Savage, either!

To take that further in either direction we can work our way down from a 30/378 in 200 f/s changes until we get to a 222 necked up to 30 calibre.

Anyone who has done at least a little bit of shooting knows that one or two animals does not mean much and if the calibres being compared are in the same general category then it will take a lot of kills for the more powerful cartridge to appear "to be more powerful". In my opinion different individuals have different degrees of observation and also different expectations.

At what point between the 30/222 and the 30/378 will there be a difference.

Mike

Deer and Elk and Hogs.................Have you killed anything lately with the 30-06 with the suppior bullets of today or only years ago with the bullets of the day.....

My Grandfather used a 270 Win. and Everthing that old man shot with his 270 hit the ground IMEDIATELY....and as such he was convinced that the 270 was supior to the 30-06 and 300's and thier was nothing in his experience to the contrary,did that make his obeservations correct for anyone other than him?

hey allen,

the .300 savage will do everything that a hunter needs to do, at sane ranges, with a 150 gr. bullet...

a 180 gr bullet in the savage starts off pretty slow, and common sense dictates that shooting distance be curtailed somewhat as velocity can drop into the range where expansion is iffy...

in point of fact, i shot my only elk with a .300 savage, and i love the cartridge for what it is...
i have shot a handfull of deer, 1 pronghorn, and a goodly number of hogs with a .300 winchester... my go to rifle for such critters is still my .243 model 70..... john w

at the point where the bullet that you choose fails to expand and/or penetrate... it ain't rocket science, and it ain't difficult...
if you care to limit yourself to the performance of a .308 bullet launched at the velocities that the .222R case will provide, then more power to you...
as for me, i know the difference between bullshit and bean blossoms.....

Interesting thread. It appears to me that AGW (et al) and AD (et al) are talking about two different things. AGW says "dead is dead, and what more do you need?" AD and others say they've seen the difference - well, by definition, what they saw was before the animal died. A different effect, perhaps, between the two bullets, that leads to the same place.

And, FWIW, the rotations per distance number is only good in the barrel. Consider a bullet fired straight up. At some point it stops going up, i.e., not traveling even another 10 inches. At that point, it's still rotating about its major axis, because rotational drag is lower than its forward velocity drag.

Jaywalker

I will not try to put words in AGW's mouth.

But I am talking about the supposed huge difference in killing power between the .30-06 and .300 Winchester Magnum.

Allen, I have not taken 80 species of big game and probably never will, as I am evidently not a collector. However, I added up the numbers, and have shot or seen shot 17 species of big game with the .30-06 and various .300 magnums, including the SAUM, WSM, H&H, Winchester, Weatherby and RUM. This experience included 25 bullets, ranging from 150 to 200 grains, ranging from simple cup-and-core to most of the top premiums. Ranges went out to around 400 yards, though oddly enough the longest-range shots went to the .30-06. The total is several hundred animals.

In North America the game ranged from pronghorn to elk, in Africa from springbok to eland.

If there was a difference in how quickly any of the .30's killed, on average, I couldn't see it. It appeared the bullet and the placement mattered far more than anything. Unfortunately, only in the last few years have I started pacing off how far an animal went after being hit. So far I have not been able to tell much difference between various cartridges, given the ame shot placement. Most go 20-40 yards after a good heart/lung hit, maybe a little less with one shoulder broken, and almost always go right down with both shoulders hit.

Have seen some deep penetration from some larger bullet/cartridhe combos, but have also seen the same thing with some smaller ones.

If you really did say that you can't see much difference between the .300, .338 and .375 magnums, but can tell a big difference between those rounds and the .30-06. I would suggest you suffer from a case of magnumitis.

JB

JB, I totally concur... I think most of the "advantage" of the various 300's is between the shooters ears...

I also think that the guys that harp on the superiority of the 300's over the 06 are predisposed to magnums and, therefore, have taken more game with the various mags than standard rounds like the 30-06 and, as a result, are overly impressed with the various mags and unimpressed with cartridges like the 30-06.

I find it remarkable that a cartridge as powerful as the 30-06 has been relegated to some hapless middle of the road category... it's a figgin powerful round! Most GI's couldn't shoot it well and as a result was dropped in favor of less powerful rounds.

I don't have the number of kills of you (or many on this thread) but I do know what I've seen on elk. Every one I've taken with 338's and 300's could as easily have been taken with a 30-06 and yeah, I've taken more than a few big bulls with the 30-06... I've never seen much difference.

Maybe an additional 5 yards tracking (grin)...

How would one go about conducting a controlled test of the "hammer's them harder" theory? Perhaps two identically proportioned animals staked next to one another, one shot with a 30-06, the other with a 300 magnum. Animals could be marked with aiming points beforehand so shot placement is the same, bullet weights could be matched, etc. With all the money people spend on rifles, ammunition and high speed internet to keep these arguments alive I'm surpised noone has done a live test yet.

I do have one question, if a 30-06 and a 300 Win will each penetrate an equal depth (and I don't recall penetration being an issue in this thread) then what difference does it make which bullet reaches its maximum depth sooner? Put another way, is this whole thread really just a resurrection of Roy Weatherby's "hydrostatic shock" notion?

I haven't killed anywhere NEAR what some of you gentlemen, but I have shot a few, I can report, without reservation, that I noticed a distinct difference between the 3006 and my 300 Weatherby with 180gr bullets. Further, in deer sized game, the most dramatic one-shot "electric" kills have been with my 257 Weatherby and 100gr factory (Hornady) loads. the more experience I gain, the more I believe in velocity as a big factor in killing game(not the biggest,that honor goes to shot placement). jorge

Jorge, there's no doubt, on average, the 300 mags (especially on smaller game) show more striking effect... the question remains however, are the animals any deader and that sooner?

I think not...

Would add, the main reason, in my mind, for a 300 of some sort over a 30-06 is for its ability to throw the heavier 200 gr bullets at meaningful velocities for less drift and more punch at ranges over 500 yards. Seems to me that's the territory where the various 300's begin to shine. Inside 500 yards I can't see where the 300's have any real advantage but can see where they posses disadvantages.

Msybe not Brad as I've never relly timed that, but I can tell you it sure as hell seems they hit the ground faster when I whack them with the 300 Weatherby! jorge

Could come back to passing a theshold

I can remember when some magnums were introduced and the claims that were made, after the drivel died down, there was a reasonable concensus that what the magnums offered, was the ability to shoot heavier weight bullets at the same velocities as standard counterparts.

The advantage seen here, was countering wind drift and gaining bullet integrity for expansion and weight retention, as that was an issue in earlier magnum days.

That being said, there was never a claim to make the .300's a separate class of cartridge as they were still being used predominately on deer to elk sized game, nor would such an argument have help the careers of the noted scribes of the day.

When generations change and a new breed comes along, they fall into the trap of discovering something for thmeselves and seeing wonderment, irrelevant and irrespective of those who learned and experienced before.

The other thing that raised the .300's in the status of the later generations was the Weatehrby hunters who travelled the world with very deep, oil well deep, pockets and took everything with the one custom Weatherby .300 magnum. This again gave the impression that the .300's were capable of taking very large game where the .30/06 was left behind, simply because it was a choice that was made.

This is only true is you do not know your history of writers and cartridges.

Elgin Gates killed everything that can be hunted with a .300 Weatherby. So did many hunters. I know many SCI hunters who do the same thing with the .340 these days and swear buy it.

Well, you all know about Jack O'C and his love of the .270. His wife used mainly a 7x57 for her hunting the world over, so what does that prove. Much, when you consider that Jack wrote that Eleanor thought of the .30/06 about like he considered his .375, a much larger cartridge.

How many of you know that Eleanor took her elephant with the .30/06 handloaded with Hornady 220gn Solids. Does this mean that she should have used the .300 Weatherby Elgin Gates used?

Of course not. It simply proves that for all animals there is a point of "enough". Anything else, is your choice but not your dictatorial right to impose it upon others nor condemn others for have a different life's experience.

Mike378 is correct, many Aussies have killed animals in the thousands. It is no big deal and if you boasted that you had killed even 100 of something they would laugh at you becuase the more experience cannot tell you what they have killed within 100 or 1000 on some animals.

Life experience cannot be the same.

What I now find interesting, is the complete avoidance of my question. I know it cannot be answered but that is no longer the point or important.

I have both .30/06 and .300 Magnum, but my selection will be based on weatehr conditions, ie stainless steel and plastic or blued steel and wood. Either cartridges have far less significance to me, because that is my life's experience.

AGW

AGW-

It just shows that there are some things each generation has to learn or discover or argue all over again, some of great import, others on the order of how many angels can dance on the ............Each decides what significance he gives to his conclusion.


George

If AGW was still in Australia he would be shooting the [bleep] out of animals and running over the rest with the 4 wheel drive But now he is in America We won't talk about blasting goats, pigs and roos with 416 and 460 Wbys

At the end of the day it comes down to observations in combination with want you want.

For example, a bloke has a heavy barrel 243 Sako and thinks there can be nothing better......it does it all for his thinking. He can't see that a bench gun in the field (chambered in 243) is a step above. Why should he think any different when the heavy barrel Sako 243 does all that he wants

I have a strong feeling that D'Arcy Echols and David Miller do more 300 Magnums. In fact I think 300 Mag might be their favourite calibre. The 300 Wby is still number 1 with the Wby Custom Shop and let me tell you that the Crown Custom is the cheap option.....the proper Wby custom is very serious money.

For whatever it is worth, a friend of Allen Day's has two Echols 300 Wbys and I think a 300 Win/Echols is due....with 24 inch barrel. His two 300 Wbys have different weight barrels and the Echols 300 Win is about a more compact rifle. This bloke also has an Echols in 375 Wby.....only one Echols has done....that tells you two things. This man can afford what he wants and is not worried about resale etc. only what works. The same bloke also has a 416 Rem coming from Echols....he also has a nice
416 Rigby on a Brevex, but is putting it out to the retirement home. He is about what works.

Mike

I'd be curious to hear AGW's observations and opinions on the performance of the larger cartriges versus 06 class when you get to the bigger tougher stuff you have over there such as the camels , wild horses , maybe the large donkeys and buffs......if he has seen enough of those shot to form an opinion ?

In my mind there is a bunch of difference in toughness between 150 lb class animals like whitetails, pronghorn , roos, goats, and stuff that will weigh 600 lbs and up........

At the risk of over simplification, sometimes I think we make this more difficult than it it.
If we put our game into reasonable classes as to weight and typical shot ranges, it becomes more intuitive to pick the more appropriate cartridge/rifle combo.
For praire goats to whitetails and the like, a whole slew of cartidges on the '06 case (and many smaller)including the '06 will suffice. Sure, there will be overlap between classes; there are no hard and fasts divisions on game or in the useful cartridges for same.
The A-Square Reloading manual (title?) does this sort of thing, grouping game into useful classes and proffering a bunch of appropriate cartridges. It is intuitive also, as has been argued here that the same weight bullet going faster hits harder. For some classes of game in which you choose to use the faster cartridge, "so what"; it's dead if the bullet takes out the heart - lungs.
In N.A., for elk, I think the 300 mags make very good sense generally but again as we all know there is overlap from cartridges below with which some folk do fine work. Myself, I've used the 340 Wby for some 15 years now so I've nothing against the faster, bigger cartridges; it's just that I do think many here in our country - and I speak from some experience in various elk camps - have magnumitis, thinking that the coke bottle-sized whiz bang will solve all their needs. And their is no small amount of male machismo involved with some also me thinks. And I don't think that is an issue among the experienced here at all but among the less experienced mostly. It seems to be a way of compensating.

On one hand you tell us that FPE is meaningfull and that the FPE geing greater in the 300 mag than the 30-06 shows the suppiority of the 300's.Then you tell us that the 300 is as effective as the 338 and 375 which both have more FPE... You seem to be a little inconsistent in reguards to the FPE ranking and or predicting the outcome......
Your quote above would tend to make FPE invalid as a way of compairing cartridge efectiveness.............

jwp475

Have you thought about the possibility of a threshold? Could that threshold be crossed at the 300 Magnum level?

I don't know about a threshold,I have never contemplated it in that manner.. I do know that of all the game that I have shot,the 30-06 put them on the ground as fast as the 300 as such I was a little disapointed in that fact.I have alawys felt that in my experience the 338 was a step up,but others like AD say no. I do belive that in thier experience that was the case.... I believe that a proper bullet is more important than caliber or any other variable,with proper bullet placement of course.....Allen's last Safari he he bullet integrity issuse,some of his 225 grain AccBonds came apart and failed to penetrate,The FPE was there,but the pentration was not,thus another example of FPE not telling the complete story......

jwp475,

At least we know the 30/06 Vs 300 Magnum issue will be solved and put to bed because of this thread.

My own experience with the 30/06 isn't as deep as many have, but enough to know it is great killer of game. It is easy to shoot, gets along well with a 22" barrel and makes up into a trim and handy rifle that doesn't need to weigh over 8 pounds. I love the caliber and my rifles that fire it, and fully intend to own at least one more chambered to the old warhorse.
But, like my old hunting buddy Allen Day, the 30cal magnum is just better, IMO. I'll probably never get to kill the number and variety of game with the 30/06 that I already have with a 300mag, but I have taken enough to know I prefer the magnum's extra velocity and flatter trajectory for much of the hunting that I do. I have noticed a difference in how game reacts to being shot with both calibers, especially when the shot angle is bad and/or the distance is long...and especially when the game is large.

I remember reading (although can't remember the author) what makes sense to me in these two comparisons.

If not for long range, magnums are not needed.

Matching impact velocity to bullet construction is a very good way to get similar performance from cartridge to cartridge.

Can't say that I agree with that statement at all. As an example, if you were hunting coastal brown bears in Alaska and the shots would all be 125yds or less, would that make a 30/06 preferable to a 300mag? A 9.3x62 preferable to a 375H&H? Under these circumstances I think most of us here would choose a premium, heavy for caliber bullet like the Swift, North Fork, TSX or similar. Or, how about elk in the black timber? For any of these hunts I would select a magnum chambering over ANY non-magnum chambering of similar bore size.

With all due respect, this conversation was never intended to include potentially dangerous game in the discussion.

These threads often go in a direction that is divisive without offering any argument that is saleable to the masses. Guess that is why we have Win Vs Rem, Ford Vs Chevy and it does the job for me Vs no-one.

AGW

If I was going to hit a deer in the woods at 100 yards, I'd want a 30-30 (impact vel. 1,800 fps).

If I was going to hit a deer in mixed terrain at 400 yards, I'd want a 30-06 (impact vel. 1,800 fps).

If I was going to hit a deer on the other side of a large open bowl at 600 yards, I'd want a 300 mag (impact vel. 1,800 fps).

You need a "variable rifle"

Mike,
he just needs a good 300mag and some reduced load recipes! That's what is so nice about the big case, it can be whatever one wants it to be.

John, you made the statement that the 30-06 is a "great killer on game", and you're right, it is, no question about it. Anyone who underestimates its capabilities as an all-around hunting cartridge is being foolish or pig-headed, pure and simple. You don't have to think that the 30-06 is somehow ineffective (and I don't) if you happen to think (as I do) that the 300s are even more effective -- as energy figures surely would seem to back-up, even if testimonial evidence (or lack thereof!) says otherwise.

The 300s DO offer some real advantages that are meaningful, and it's pretty clear to me that a lot of guys who underestimate and trivialize those advantages have had very little experience with these cartridges on game. I've heard a lot of these arguments before, and mostly from guys who've maybe shot a few deer and maybe an elk or two with the 300s and nothing else. Some guys have put up these arguments with absolutely NO experience with the 300s on big game -- I've heard that brand of testimony many times before -- but usually such truths get swept under the rug. Some guys seem to think that 300s just "shoot a little flatter", but they will then totally discount the increased energy that they deliver at all ranges, as if that aspect of things adds nothing to killing power -- and nothing could be further from the truth. They'll accept the physical reality that the 300s shoot flatter, but they'll trivialize or discount the phyical fact that they hit harder. Now, how the duce does THAT work?

Physics is physics is physics, and no amount of theory or wishful thinking (or the Great Motherhood Theory) is going to make one aspect of physical performance mean nothing, while another aspect of physical performance, that's based on the same control factors, is recognized and embraced as meaningful.......

AD

Damn good post - last paragraph in particular...

Physics is indeed physics. But the problem is that no one has conclusively shown which laws of physics are in play and what parts they play. The ground work has just not been done yet. At least, to the best of my knowledge, it has never been published.

So you get what we have here: A big argument that does nothing to change anyones mind... but does cause hard feelings.

Will

Would anyone argue that with equal bullets and placement a magnum will provide for more internal damage than a standard cartidge of like caliber?

I'm in Allenday's camp.

You want ground work, shoot some water jugs with both and see which one is the winner. I think that's the physics in action.

Edited: "Wishful thinking" is good. I'd like to add, romantic thinking. That's when you don't see the big picture, you just see what is attractive to you.

Allen,

You have said that you don't trust shooting into test media, only animals.

Well, two direct comparisons that I've cited before I'll cite again here:

In the 1950's one of my late university profesors, Phil Wright (who was also a very experienced hunter and for many years a higher-up in the Boone and Crockett Club) went along during an elk cull on the National Bison Range here in Montana. The shooter was very good, and the two rifles he used were Model 70 Winchesters, one a .30-06 and one a .375 H&H. Ammo was Winchester factory, with 220-grain Silvertips in the .30-06 and 300-grain Silvertips in the .375. A bunch of elk were shot, from cows up to big bulls, and shot placement noted (Phil was a zoologist). Also, how far each elk went after the shot before falling was measured, and how long it stayed on its feet timed.

The end result was basically a wash. If I can remember correctly (and somebody out there probably has a copy of this study, because it appeared in AMERICAN RIFLEMAN in 1958, I believe) elk shot with one caliber went a few yards farther, but didn't stay on their feet quite as long. As far as anybody could see, the only real difference was that the .375 bullets exited more often. The bullets were of about the same sectional density and muzzle velocity. Only diameter and kinetic energy varied considerably. The kinetic energy of the .375 load was about 50% more than the .30-06's.

The other study was a more recent one done in one of the Scandinavian countries (either Sweden or Finland, and no doubt soomebody can pull this one up) on moose. The cartridge, range, number of rounds, and how far the moose went after the initial shot were all recorded. The range of rounds was enormous, but the most data came from more popular rounds such as the 6.5x55, .308, .30-06, .300 Winchester, and .375 H&H. In the end, the average range was 40-something yards (most moose are shot driven over there), average number of shots per moose was about 1.5, and the average distance they went after being shot was around 30-40 yards. It didn't matter much which cartridge was used, from the 6.5x55 up to the .375, the end results hovered to the average.

Part of the reason for all of this is that after the heart/lung system is punctured, it takes 10-15 seconds for blood pressure to drop enough to cause unconsciousness in the average big game animal. Also, believe it or not, the wound channel produced by many big game cartridges is not all that different. (Here I rely on shooting into media, but I have autopsied enough game to believe in the correlation between soft media testing and soft chest organs.) Major differences are more due to bullet construction rather than the actual bullet used, especially in the range of 140-200 grains, whuch probably takes in 90% of hunting bullets.

The longer I hunt, the more I'm convinced that the results of these two studies (not anecdotal experience) are accurate, given the somewhat variable reactions of big game animals to being shot. Sure, we all remember some spectacular kills made with certain rounds and bullets, but we tend to edit out some of the substandard results. The results outside the average do not really apply. The average does. Based on my experience with the .270 Winchester, for instance, I could declare it the best moose cartridge in the world. This is because the quickest kill I've ever seen on a bull moose as made with a .270 Winchester and a 150-grain Nosler Partition. But that is statistically irrelevant.

I have seen more very quick heart-lung kills made with rapid-expanding bullets than the super-premiums so many of us seem to prefer these days. I can only guess that this is indeed because they make a bigger hole inside the vitals. But how well this is correlated to the cartridge itself I am still not sure.

I am not saying there is no difference between how various cartridges kill. I am saying, however, that with most cartridges we use for big game, there isn't a difference than can be absolutely quantifiable in the way you seem to regard the difference between the .30-06 and .300 Winchester. If you do have some quantifiable data, I'd love to see it, but so far all I have heard is your conviction, not even much anecdotal evidence.

Did you really say elsehwere on the Campfire that you couldn't see much difference in how well the .300 Winchester Magnum, .338 Winchester Magnum, and .375 H&H kill? Sorry to bring this up again, but if you did it tends to refute the very argument you're making about physics.

We could go round and round about this for a very long time and not get any further. It is an argument, probably, as old as spears and arrows. We have each stated our opinion, and I just gave some more reasons for mine. I'd be interested to hear more, though it would help if it differed from what's been written already.

John

Were the elk/moose standing undisturbed? Or, fearing for their lives hopped up on adrenaline?

Shooting undisturbed animals is no real test. Just use a 257 Roberts and your argument will apply.

Not all shots hit the heart lung area on a hunt. How about
solid muscle in the shoulder area. Delivering more shock
with 300 fps out of a 300 win mag. Your telling me that will
have no "more" affect on an elk/moose?



Would you stand by your 375 and 30-06 comparison for Cape Buffalo?

This is a general comment not aimed at anyone in particular.

We have another case of extrapolating information offered to help people. This is not healthy comment.

Why not read someome's contribution, think on it, and compare it to your own experience quietly and leave it at that. If you can offer advise, (not opinion) based on your experience that differs, then that is fine.

This is not going to work if people slander anothers comments in order to dominate the discussion and even more so, if people keep reinterpreting comments made and fabricating analagies.

As I stated perviously, this discussion has nothing to do with dangerous game so there is no point going there. It started out and still should be, on track to openly discuss your experiences and provide information noted when using the .30/06 or .300 magnums (.300H&H?)on game, which for the majority of us, will be deer and elk sized non dangerous game.

AGW

Well said Aussie...

John,

I'm going to go off on the tangent here but it's obvious you are an "empirical evidence guy" which is the approach science teaches us in order to make sense of our observations.

This is a tough thing to bring to bear in determining the relative "killing power" of cartridges because (and it's here I may sound a bit too loony) we can never eliminate all the contributing factors except one - the cartridge - in any game-taking scenario. Even in a "lab" project, we would have to use a different animal. For example, we can kill that animal only once; theoretically at least, a different animal of the same species may differ in viability, attitude, strength, and toughness. The same creature may even react differently at different times in its life. How many times has each of us even killed two of the same species of the same age and weight at the exactly same range, same conditions, same rifle, etc. with the same load let alone done so with the "competing" load so that we could observe the difference real or imagined? So, many of our determinations are the sum of many unregulated observations; at what point they become more than anecdotal I think becomes apparent to the shooter but someone else could rightly have "about" the same observations with a different cartridge. Mostly our opinions are based on many anecdotes but they are not, cannot be rigidly controlled. Even the "elk study" and the European "moose study" are really not purely scientific although the elk one is about as close as we might come.

Many make the distinction between two cartridges, i.e., the 30-06 and the 300 Win mag, without even differentiating between the different bullet types, weights, factory loads or handloads. How can anyone meaningfully differentiate killing power between a "slow" factory 300 win mag with a tin foil bullet and a warm '06 handload with a premium bullet and be confident it represents the meaningful difference between the two cartridges in the field? I know the above comment does not pertain to truly experienced hunters and riflemen but it does to others. Too many other factors are at play like the game, the distance, the bullet placement, and on and on.

IIRC, the 300 mags got their press boost esp in the Elgin Gates (to name one), Wby hunter awards period when these globe-trotters spread the fame of the mags esp the 300 Wby. But just look at the bullets we have now compared to then. I remember Ross Seyfried hunting feral donkeys in Aussieland with the then new X-bullet from Barnes and describing how the little '06 now thought it was a .340 in its effect on these tough little horses with the new premium. New bullets have lifted a cartridges effectiveness. It's true it's lifted them all , the mags too.

It's intuitive to us that when one bullet is fired faster than another that is exactly of the same type that there should be a difference in killing power, advantage to speed, all other things equal. Yet in the field there are too many other mitigating factors that can not be eliminated that could neutralize that advantage.

Allen, you and John are woefully ahead of me in experience and that's OK; I will never catch up and don't need to; my experience in shooting some game with each more nearly parallels Johns but I don't doubt yours at all. But I wonder how different your "record" would be had you stayed with the 30-06? I would submit that your ability as a hunter and rifleman would make-up for the "disadvantage" of the '06.

In the end, the observations of an experienced rifleman and hunter form his conclusions but I suspect that as oft been stated, "there's more than one way to skin a cat". That these same conclusions could have been formed from using any number of cartridges. Again, as someone quite well known has once said, "there's nothing new under the sun".

Alright, I'll go take my medicine now and go to bed.

George

AGW,

You quote my post then say "this is not aimed at anyone in particular" Huh?



What's good for the goose....

I say a 303, 308, 30-06 or 300 H&H all do a great job when placed in the vitals....with that said, I would like to resite a saying that has always made me glad I own a 30-06.

"There just ain't much that a man can't fix with eight hundred dollars and a thirty od six" Ain't that cool?

SU35,

I would guess the elk were relatively undisturbed, since on the Bison Range they are not hunted, so are somewhat used to humans.

I would guess that the moose were almost all up and running from moosehounds, since that is the way most moose are hunted in Sweden and Finland.

As for bullet placement, we can assume that when the numbers of animals killed get up in the thousands that this pretty well evens out. That's the reason most studies of anything strive to use the largest sample size possible.

As far as Cape buffalo are concerned (and as Aussie pointed out, they were not part of the original discussion) I will give some "anecdotal evidence." When hunting in Africa a few years ago, my PH was a veteran who often described hmself as a Rhodesian, which dates him some. I'd brought two rifles on the trip, a .30-06 and .375 H&H, and toward the end of the trip made a nearly 400-yard shot on a kudu bull, dropping it cleanly with one 180-grain Partition from the .30-06. Afterward Kevin commented, "And there are those that claim the .30-06 isn't enough for African game...."

So I asked, "What's the largest African game you'd hunt with the .30-06?"

He said, very quickly, "Buffalo." It turned out he'd literally killed hundreds of buffalo on control with a .30-06--and 180-grain Nosler Partitions. Almost all were chest shots.

How's that for an anecdote?


Goodnews,

I agree to your points, but again I would look at the sample size. The larger the sample size, the more valid the data.

Again, I have yet to see the vast difference in killing power between the .30-06 and .300 Winchester Magnum that some claim. Maybe it will show up as I see more game killed.

Your bullet book went out today. Thanks, both for the order and the note!

JB

Johnny B,

That is a good anecdote.

Thank you for a good post.

You're welcome!

JB

Wolfe publishing had the scandic test in one of their mags a couple years ago,relating to moose kills. The 6.5x55 and 30/06 had the most data or number of kills. The bottom line was,there wasn't much differance like mule deer said in distance traveled after the shot. Wether it was a magnum or standard cartridge.

One thing not mentioned,is if you're carrying an ultra mag. Without fail the shots will be under 200 yards. If you're carrying a .303 savage with open sights,you'll be presented with copious amounts of 500 yard offerings.

Carrying a 300 magnum is a mental game for many. It in fact builds confidence in alot of hunters and keeps them believing that they have an edge. That belief can make all the differance in the world,even if it really isn't needed or isn't true.

There is just something about a well balanced 30/06,with a lighter contour barrel of 22 inches or less,in a classic stock. That simply trumps a similar designed magnum,when it comes to usefulness.

As for the 06 on cape buffalo. Theres plenty of footage available of elephant culls involving the use of a FAL in .308,being used with complete devastation to the dozens of elephants involved. It lends a ton of credibility to WM Bell's use of the 7x57.

Since I have your attention, sorry for straying here, but it does involve a 300.

I have this itch, I want to neck down a 375 Ruger to 300 Ruger.

I think the 375R case perfect for my needs, not to Short, not to
Ultra, has no belt. Just right.

Would a L61R make a good donor for the project?
Any alterations?




Has any heard of Ruger making plans to make a 300 Ruger

Murphy's Law...........

Anything would be better then using a ruger action or rifle.

Regardless of any real or percieved flaws. A nonbelted 300 mag without the beer can capacity of the ultramags and smoother feeding then the wsm's would and should have been offered in the first place.

JB,
Your comments about the .30/06 on Cape Buffalo is very interesting. I have a documentary about buffalo culling in Australia in the 1970's where a pro shooter called Henry Daioso killed thousands of buffalo which are larger and heavier than the African Cape variety, with a Ruger Heavy Barrel in .308.

Also in the 70's, was a very familiar face on the hunting magazine covers with writer Dick Eussen, who shot countless buffalo using a 270 Weatherby loaded with 150 or 160gn Nosler Partitions.

I am not surprised as the hunting was mostly in open country in those days before they became more wary with the government helicopter gun ships that were employed en mass, to thin out the herds.

Anything in the 270-340 does much the same job and it takes a dangerous turn of events to make these cartridges appear inadequate.

Good thing we didn't include Corbett hunting tigers with his 7x57. The magnum lovers would go to bed grinding their teeth tonite.

AGW

PS, I am a magnum lover too, but choose my time and place to take them, not so much by the animal species, unless it is potentially dangerous, and that is a separate argument.

PS, I am a magnum lover too, but choose my time and place to take them, not so much by the animal species, unless it is potentially dangerous, and that is a separate argument.

Why is potentially dangerous game a separate argument.

375 Whelan = 375 H&H???
400 Whelan = 416 Rem???

I assume MuleDeer uses the 375 Whelan and 400 Whelan for big game and may use the 375/08 and 400/08.

According to MuleDeer no difference in killing power between 300 Mag and 30/06. The big game scenario removes the differences trajectory from the equation. So 375 Whelan should be the way to go.

OR, does MuleDeer suffer from gunwriter inconsistency?

Mike

I've been wondering myself why potentially dangerous game is a separate discusssion ?

After all , if there is no greater killing effect gained from a large capacity case , a standard case would be of even MORE advantage used against dangerous game ; you'd have a rifle that carries more ammunition , and could be fired more quickly for repeat hits .

And if a 6.5x55 = a 30/06 and a 30/06 = a 340 , a man is a fool to even use the 06 . The 6.5 has all the shootability advantages of lessor recoil and blast over the 06 , same as the 06 has those advantages over even larger cartridges.

JB

Of course your large sample sizes are significant and your "anecdotes" too; my point is to all this fuss about differences in "killing power" between two cartridges of the same caliber, one with a little bigger engine, is that the differences in the field are hard to separate from all the other factors involved and therefore hard to attribute only to the effect of the bigger "engine". There, I guess I could've said it that way the first time and not been so long winded.

Thanks for the book; I'll be looking for it.

Gdv

I don't presume to speak for JB but here's where reading comprehension comes in. I don't think he's saying there's no difference between the two cartridges but rather that the difference is hard to observe.

George

Here's what I don't get about the discussion. It seems to me the only relevant velocity and energy in terms of effect on the animal are the impact velocity and impact energy.

Using figures from Norma's online ballistic calculator, if you have a .300 magnum that launches a 180 Norma Alaskan at 3000 fps m.v., and shoot an animal at 200 yards, impact velocity is 2280 fps and impact energy is 2080 fps. That's the same impact velocity and (for some reason that's escaping me) 2 ft.-lbs. more energy than the same bullet from a .30-06 (m.v. 2700 fps) at 121 yards.

The same bullet hitting at the same velocity ought to work exactly the same (all other factors being equal) so I would think a fairer claim for the magnums isn't that they "hit harder" but that they hit "just as hard, farther away." But even then, there would have to be some reason to think that a 180-gr. bullet hitting a 200-yard animal at 2280 fps is going to have some effect that's different in a relevant way from the same bullet hitting at 2031 fps (the impact velocity for the hypothetical .30-06 at the same range).

Who was it that said all any of these cartridges do is launch bullets?

George.

From one of his postings.....

You are simply not going to see any long-term difference in the way a .300 H&H and .30-06 kill. That is because their performance overlaps so much. Same with a .300 Winchester and .30-06.

That was my thought as well. Somebody (Finn Aagaard maybe) made a statement along the lines that the difference between a big magnum and a standard is that maybe 5% of the time the game will drop at the shot vs. running 20-30 yards. I would like to hear some opinions of trying to quantify the increase in killing power of a .300 vs. a .30-06. It's easy to say the .300 is more gun than a .30-06, but doing so only in terms of ballistics without stating what that means in terms of killing power doesn't mean much. Does it mean game will more likely drop at the shot and if so, how much more often. Does it mean that the game will run a shorter distance on average? Does it mean that you are more likely to recover a gut shot animal ...if so, how much more likely?

-Lou

Mike378

Exactly, over the long haul, much game harvested over as many sets of conditions it will be hard to discern and to frequently discern a difference that is strictly attributable to a bigger engine.
And, I too shoot magnums - a 270 Wby, 340 Wby, 375 H&H (here the term magnum is really relative) and have a 459 Lott being made.

Hoping everyone here has a restful 4th!
George

goodnews,

I have the opposite view in that the longer the term of use will show differences. One shot from a 338 might drop a buffalo right now and one shot from a 505 Gibbs might leave the buffalo running all over the place. But shoot 100 buffalo with each calibre and then the 505 Gibbs will show up as being better.

Mike378,

As Aussie said in the post just before yours, dangerous game is another thing again, and not really what we are discussing here. But if we were, I would be making a different argument. While it obviously quite possible to kill large, dangerous animals with cartridges such as the 7x57 and .30-06, there is the distinct possibility of their coming toward us, intent on damage. This is why they are called dangerous!

Here is I do indeed prefer something bigger than a .30-06--or .300 magnum, or .338, or even a .375. I like the .416 Rigby a LOT, and have also dabbled with even larger bores. No, these do not guarantee smashing something to the ground with almost any hit, but they can penetrate LOTS of heavy bone and muscle, with less chance for deformation and deflection than smaller bullets. They can also penetrate a going-away animal more reliably, sometimes preventing the need for stopping a charge.

But they are not magic either. I have seen several .458 LOtt bullets (good ones, of course) that made absolutely no difference to both water and Cape buffalo, regardless of all those foot-pounds at close range.

For large, non-dangerous game I have often used such cartridges as the .338 Winchester, .375 H&H and, in recent years, the ".36
Whelen," otherwise known as the 9.3x62 Mauser. I also often carry these when hunting any size game in grizzly country. But the more I hunt moose and eland (the only two truly large non-dangerous game animals on earth), the less I am convinced that even those rounds are necessary. With today's bullets much smaller rounds are entirely capable of cleanly taking 1000+ pound animals. I know this because I have done it, and seen it done.

As goodnews pointed pointed out, I have never said there is no difference in killing power between the .30-06 and .300 Winchester Magnum. I have just never seen a consistent difference in the field, due to the variables he mentions.

And of course Allen Day did state that he sees no real difference between the .300 Winchester, .338 Winchester and .375 H&H, despite the differences in foot-pounds (physics). He wrote that here on the Campfire--at the same time stating that he does see the difference between those rounds and the .30-06. Now, if the laws of physics make the .300 Winchester a "better" killer than the .30-06 (same bullet, about 250 fps difference in veliocity), why do they not show up between the .300, .338 and .375?

Finn Aagaard, who had far more experience on various African animals that either Allen or I do, wrote that on most game he could not see any real difference between the .30-06 and the .375, given equal bullet placement. But here again, we are talking subjective opinion.

It is dangerous to make generalizations about "killing power" due to foot-pounds of kinetic energy. The theory here is that somehow 4000 foot-pounds somehow kills far quicker than, say, 2000 foot-pounds (twice as fast?). That is demonstrably not true; see the elk shooting study I mentioned earlier.

In fact, it takes relatively little kinetic energy to make a quickly fatal hole in the chest of a big game animal. I have killed deer and elk as quickly with an arrow (kinetic energy around 50 foot-pounds) as I have with a .300 magnum (kinetic energy 3500+ foot-pounds, 70 times the arrow's).

My point, again, is that while many of us toss opinions about killing power around, most of the time they are based on either limited experience, or prejudice--most often a firm belief in how much difference kinetic energy, or hyper-velocity, or big, fat bullets kill.

But all any bullet can do is puncture the vitals, and what happens after that tends to be a lot less dependent on foot-pounds, fps or bullet weight than WHERE the bullet is placed, and the individual animal.

In short, the only real "magic" I believe in when hunting any sort of big game is bullet placement and bullet performance, probably in that order. Even the best bullet in the world does no good when illy placed--and the "extra" of magnums does not apply when that placement is of even a few inches. I do like some magnums, and use them when some deeper penetration or flatter trajectory might be handy. But they are not magic.

JB

Mike, I know what you mean and AD would agree with you it seems at least in regard to the 300 Win mag (which I think is a great cartridge by the way) vs. the '06 nor would I necessarily disagree either even after what I've said before. It's just that there are so many other factors involved my point is with non-dangerous, soft-skinned game, it's hard to separate everything out to the point of a single factor. I'm not sure I'm qualified to continue this discussion based on experience and I surely wouldn't extrapolate it to game as big and temperamental as Cape buff. In dangerous game it would seem to me that being "the big dog on the block" which Cape buff, lion, ele, and some others are you have an "attitude", temperament difference that makes dangerous game a whole 'nother issue..at least in my mind.

John Frazer used some common sense. An '06 is a 300 win mag at 121 yds. compared to the same '06 at 200 yds all other things equal.



George

Think of it in terms of how large of a wound channel is Large enough.In other words if a 30-06 leaves a wound channel of X diameter and exits and a 300 leaves a wound diamiter of Y and Y is larger than X,yet the heart can not maintain blood pressure with X wound channel (because blood loss is at loss rate greater than the Heart can pump) and this would mean that the larger wound would not bleed out any faster,since the Heart can't keep up with the blood loss of the smaller wound.

Interesting point! I had never thought of it that way. Which helps explain how a wide broadhead kills so well--aside from the fact that the wound made by a sharp blade tends to bleed a LOT more than a wound torn rather than cut.

JB

John - your thoughts make a lot of sense to me. It still seems to me that the concept of thresholds has some validity here as well. In the end, we are looking for a machine to complete a task. There are different machines that will complete the task within reasonable parameters. Our job as individuals would seem to be to determine which machine best meets our criteria. I use a self-propelled walk-behind mower, my son's mower is not self-propelled, my neighbor has a rider. We all made our choice based on a number of factors (cost, time required, physical effort necessary, size of lawn). Each of our choices meets our needs and gets the job done. Nothing profound added here, just another voice offering its take on things. Best, John

One of my ambitions is to write a rather definitive freelance article on my experiences with the 300 Win. Mag. over the years, complete with load data, targets, bullet info, rifle info, and a wide mix of hunting photos -- trophy animals ranging from Coues deer to Cape buffalo, and just about everything in between. I believe it would be a lot more revealing (and lot saltier) than many of the rather sophmoric, lame "cartridge of the month club" articles that seem to be so very prevalent these days.

In an effort to make things a bit clearer, I have NOT experienced bad kills with the 30-06 - far from it. The '06 remains one of my favorite hunting cartridges, one that I greatly respect and admire, and in fact I have a new custom '06 semi-planned even now. I particularly recommend the 30-06 to guys who simply can't handle 300 magnum recoil, or else want a lighter rifle with a 22" bbl. that's a bit handier.

What I HAVE noticed is that the 300 Win. Mag. (shooting the same bullets as the '06) drops the same animals harder and faster, and that wound channels and related tissue damage is just that much greater. Since bullet diameter, etc., is the same, there is no other factor that could account for this disparity other than the increased velocity and resultant higher delivered energy that the 300 Winchester provides at all ranges -- especially if both cartridge are loaded to their full potential.

In complete candor, I have NOT seen a significant difference in killing power between the 300 Win. Mag., 338 Win. Mag., and 375 H&H, and I've shot the same species (for the most part) with all three cartridges. Of my current, active, in-use hunting rifles, I have a 300 Win. Mag. in the safe that has taken over 70 big game animals (pronghorn to eland), a 338 Win. Mag. that I've used on some 35 animals (Texas whitetails to eland), and a 375 H&H that I've used on 26 animals (black bear to eland). This does not take into account animals that I've taken with other 300s, 338s, and 375s I've owed over the last 27 years, particularly my old Glen Pearce custom Model 70 300 Win. Mag. that I used on over 50 big game animals, including three of Africa's so-called "Big-Five", and which was used in likely the only video footage of a hunting client shooting a Cape buffalo with a 300 Win. Mag. that's in existence.

This obviously does not represent all of the experience in the world by any means, but it has given me what I think is a fairly good indication of the potentiality of these cartidges for many, if not most, hunting situations. I guess whatever the 300 offers in terms of killing power due to high velocity with .308 bullets, the other two off-set with bigger, heavier bullets at moderate, 30-06 type velocities.

Many years ago, one of my hunting mentors, who did much to help me get ready to hunt Africa, and who is a member of our local SCI chapter plus has won just about every big game hunting award there is, including EVERY "Level of Achievement" award that SCI offers, as well as the Weatherby Award, told me that felt the 300 Weatherby (his main cartidge) and the 375 H&H were "too similar" in their effects on game, so he didn't bother with the 375 at all - he boiled his battery down to his old 300 Weatherby, plus a 458 Win. Mag. for the stuff that truly needed a big, heavy bullet. At the time, (being a lot younger, greener, and even stupider than I am now), I was highly skeptical of that commentary, but as the years have gone by, I don't see things a whole lot differently than that myself.

Happy 4th of July!

AD

If you are making the argument that based on your vast experience and research, the Magnum is "overkill" on non-dangerous game because the standards are "enough", then I agree. I surmise you could also say that there is no difference in killing power on ground squirrels with equal justification - and field data.

That quote also explains to me why is not inconsistent to place dangerous game in a separate discussion. Thanks for staying with this thread.

Mule Deer-
You keep referring to a statement that Allen Day made about his observations of killing power between the 300, 338 and 375. I happen to agree with him, as many years of hunting/shooting have shown me there are definite performance thresholds one passes through as velocities rise. A 30cal 180gr moving out at 2750fps does not perform the same as that bullet starting at 3000+fps. You and others may or may not have noticed this, but many of us have. Are we crazy? Are we so magnum brain washed that this is just a figment of our imaginations driven by a need to justify our use of these oversized cartridges? Or, could there really be something to all of this? Does a large group of hunters with a pretty vast amount of worldwide experience really see something that others have missed, failed to recognize or just don't care enough about to give a damn?

Does this mean that a 300 Ultra Mag at 3300+ plus with a 180 grain Kills better than a 300 Win. And therefore a 30-378 at 3400+ Fps kills better than a Ultra Mag?.........

I can't say because I have never used any of those cartridges on game. Over the years I have been completely satisfied with the performance of the 300Win or 300Wby when I wanted more than a 30/06, so I've not bothered with the ultra type rounds. I haven't observed or believe the difference between something in the 2700fps area vs 3000+fps is huge, but it has been there nonetheless. And in enough instances to make me realize it and consequently think as I do about it.

We are talking about the effect of 200 to 250 fps (MV) and the observable difference it makes in the nature of the kill out where the game is assuming that the vel difference remains constant. An object, whatever it is, going at this velocity is easily observable with the naked eye even if small if the light is right.
With all the other variables involved (again)I find it questionable that this added vel (the 300 mags) makes a significant, consistent, and observable difference.

Ain't it fun?

Gdv

My understanding is that MD is qualifying and therefore defining killing power in terms of average results on thin skinned game, not wound channel size or penetratiion in the toughest tissue or fastest drop speed .... or "other" that I may favor as defining parameters.

You can contend there is no difference if you believe the excess killing power is essentially shed or superfluous in some way; "enough" is enough. 308 holes in a thin steel plate will look the same to an observer regardless of bullet launch speed. No one has said there is no difference in Kinetic energy.

All these can be correct statements:

- There is no difference between the 06 and 300 on deer
- There is a difference between the 06 and 300 on grizzly
- There is no difference between the 300 wby and 375 on some african species

"performance thresholds", well said. I don't think anyone is wrong. We're just saying slightly different things.

By all means, keep on scratching your head about all this! Be patient, the answers WILL come to you in time.........depending, or course, on what, how much, and where you hunt

One of my local friends used a 300-378 Wby. for a few years, and I watched him shoot some animals with it. Whatever he hit with it went down like a paper airplane in the wind, and yes, it DID hammer stuff with more authority than any 300 Win. or 300 Weatherby I've seen in action, no question about it. But it also had a 26" or 28" (plus a 2" or 3" muzzle break), and it was not only incredibly loud, obnoxious, and heavy, but after some 800 rounds of shooting, the barrel was completely shot-out. He didn't see that the extra baggage it brought with it resulted in any net-gain he need all that badly, so he dumped the whole shebang as soon as the barrel was fried. At some point, the extra noise and recoil that cartridges like the 300-378 and the 300 Ultra Gag bring to the table definately pass the point of diminishing returns, and unlike solid, practical, middle-ground 300s like the 300 H&H, 300 Winchester, 308 Norma, and 300 WSM.

Of course, if someone does not buy into the concept of extra delivered-energy resulting in greater killing power, they should simply buy or build some psuedo "tactical" (man, I hate that term!) rifle in 308 Win. and, in true Campfire fashion, mount some big target scope, complete with turrets (of course!) and not worry about trajectory, either. Such a package would kick a whole lot less, and since energy "doesn't mean anything" (and since you can punt the wind-drift/trajectory issue in the direction of the scope) you'd be just as well off as with any sort of 300 magnum. Makes sense, doesn't it? So why bother with a 300 Ultra Gag or 300 H&H ever again, huh?

That concept ought to make ever mother in America happy on this Indepence Day!

AD

One way to look at this is do you notice a difference how a .300 kills game at 10 yards vs 100 or 200 vs 300 or 400 vs 500 etc...? Whatever 100 yard increment you think you start seeing a difference, you shouldn't see a differnce between a .30-06 & .300 inside the shorter distance. For example, if you are shooting an Elk with a .300 and you don't think it matters if the Elk is 250 yards or 350 yards and expect the results to be the same, then the 30-06 would do similar work inside 250.

-Lou

I am scrathing my head over the inconsistencey of your statements in this post you contribute the greatewr effectiveness to the 300 because of the greater energy figures





Then in this post you state that a 300 is just as effedtive as a 338 and a 375 even tho both the 338 and the 375 have the most energy as well as greater diameter bullets and a greater frontal area than a 300





Then when someone Else states that thier is little to no difference in effectiveness between the 300 and the 30-06 you ask this






Do you not see the inconsistencey?.......

A 300mag's bullet will hit the animal with more velocity and consequently cause more and faster tissue disruption, regardless of the range...given they are equal. You cannot say a 30/06 will hit something with as much force just because the range is shorter. Now, if you say a 30/06 will do the same thing at 100yds as the magnum does at 250yds I would agree, but if the ranges are the same the magnum wins every time. When I choose to carry a 300mag it is because I want that extra power and penetration capability, regardless of what range I might happen to get a shot.

The figures I ran suggested a .30-06 will do MORE at 100 yds. than the magnum will at 250. The question is whether the difference at the same range is significant, but I have no experience on that.

I believe I have satisfied my own desire for the answer to that question, whether you or anyone else agrees with my answer is your (their) option. It's all for fun and sport anyway, so if using a 308 or 30/06 instead of a 300 fills you with confidence and joy then by all means carry it and go kill something!

John55,

In general, I agree with what you are saying. At the same range, a .300 magnum will hit harder. A lot of this discussion is based on what that means to killing power. I have killed more game and seen more game killed with a .300 mag than a .30-06. It is not a bewildering amount of animals, but I have not noticed a difference in how a .300 flattens game from 0 out to about 400 yards which is as far as I have personal experience with this round, which is to say it has plenty of oomph out to this range. If I extrapolate this then out to at least 300 yards the .30-06 would have been just as effective because it's about 300 fps behind. Maybe the range is further, but that is out of my scope of experience with .300s. In any case, 300 yards covers a lot of hunting territory and I can see why some people say they don't see a difference.

I'm not wondering why somebody wants to use a magnum or asking for justification. I use them routinely for the reasons you mentioned, but don't get too hung up on it. If someone can't see any difference how a .300 performs at say 100 yards and 200 yards, then I can't see how one can say there is a perceivable difference between a .300 and .30-06 unless there is a velocity threshold (i.e. range) of some sort crossed where a more dramatic effect on game becomes apparent.

-Lou

Allen-
After seeing game hit with just one cartridge/bullet combo show varied reactions from all four hooves in the air to not reacting at all, (because of factors like shot distance/placement/angle, state of alarm of the animal,etc.), how would you quantify a cartridge "hitting harder"?

(No flame, serious question!)

Cast-

Not just to AD but for all here, that is the essence of the question on the table.

George

Lou 270,
I think your last sentence pretty well sums it up...this velocity threshold theory is something I believe in quite a bit. If one can't see any difference it might be because he hasn't paid enough attention, shot enough game under varying conditions or just doesn't bother with worrying over it. You know, there are tons of folks out there who are just happy to fill their tags every year. What they do it with and/or how it gets done isn't the most important part of the equation. That person would likely be just as happy using either cartridge! The difference isn't like night and day, but it's there.

This covers it all and that includes different types of rifles, cars, you name it.

But I can assure all readers that even someone with little interest will notice a difference between a pig hit up the arse with a 460 and a 270

Mike

[/quote]

But I can assure all readers that even someone with little interest will notice a difference between a pig hit up the arse with a 460 and a 270

Mike [/quote]

Very true.

I want to tell a little story of a cull I particpated in. Wild horse culling, may be a greenies night mare in the US, but they are grass eating, water drinking vermin in Australia.

It was the usual verbal contract deal, whereby if I wanted to hunt a particular species on this property, I had to kill on sight, every animal on the proterty owners "hate" list, with the caveat that if he did not find bodies on the ground, we would not be permitted to hunt there again. Ok, I'll be in that.

So we shot horses, dozens of horses. We used a .275 Rigby, .300 RUM, .458 and a .460. (also had a couple of other rifles which did not participate)

All rifles killed these mostly 800-1100 pound animals with more than enough bullet expansion, penetration and killing power, meaning that the animals dropped on the spot with shoulder and chest shots, with a few head shots thrown in.

Now there is a vast difference between these cartridges on paper. Science, physics, opinion and fact, you name it.

Of the 4 cartridges, the Rigby started out the weak player in the field. I began with 150 gn Nosler Solid Bases. The first horses were swimming in a lake and I stalked within 50 yards of a trail they entered and left by, hidden by some scrub until they left the water.

The first shot landed just behind the shoulder and left a red patch to indicate a hit on the white hide. The horse began to run so I hit it again as it ran by, with bullet impact within a handspread.

The horse ran perhaps 200 yards and stopped under a tree looking back at us. I took another shot into the chest from a quartering angle. The animal shook it's head and blood streamed from its nostrils. A lung punctured, certiainly. My last shot on this animal was a brain shot dropping it on the spot.

There was a tan animal a little smaller in size nearby watching, so I tried a couple of fast shots into the chest with similar results, also requiring a head shot to finish up. I ceased using the Noslers as they were not adequate on animals of this size.

I reloaded the rifle with 160 grain Fail Safe's and followed the departing herd. The next few animals were shot in the chest to drive the bullets back into the vitals, resulting in mostly 2 shots being taken per animal with 3 Fail Safe's being recovered in the rump area after near full length penetration.

This was a marked improvement over the Nosler SB's.

In checking my notes, I also used 160gn Partition Gold and 140 Barnes X's, 4 bullets in all in the Rigby.

Of the lot, The 140gn X bullets out penetrated the rest with no bullets being recovered and also provided the fastest kills, meaning as some have stated here already, if you kill enough anumals and average out the results, you will see a pattern emerge that tells you which works best and most consistently.

The point of this is that, to begin with, the 7mm was the only cartridge that struggled to drop these animals with consistency.

The 7mm was greatly enhanced in field performance, simply by changing bullets to determine what was more suited to the size, weight and tenacity of the game hunted.

Once that conmbination of game bullet was qualified, the 7mm proved fully the equal to the more powerful cartridges, in dropping these elk sized animals with consistency and reliability, which spells, humanely.

On paper, there was a huge disparity in power between these 4 rounds. There was also a huge disparity in bullet performance that many would have assumed to be too little power in the case on the 7mm and many would have retired the little Rigby, as inadequate for 1000 pound animals and just got on with it, using the heavier caliber rifles.

What was proved by changing bullets and loads, was that the Rigby case had more than enough velocity generated, to launch 7mm bullets to effect on these animals and also, that if the best bullets are used, then that which can be proven inadequate by opinion, field experience and sampling, can equally be proven adequate by more field experience and sampling.

In the end, the .275 Rigby handloaded with 140 grain X bullets proved just as effective in dropping these 1000 pound animals on the spot as did the heavier rifles. The same applied to the wild boars we also shot, also being on the "hate" list.

Did the larger bore .450's show any signs of superior effect? yes, in that a couple of animals reared up in spectactular fashion and then dropped making a visual impact statement I guess, but in the time it took these animals to hit the dirt compared to the Rigby or the RUM, I would hate to quote a difference and put my name to it.

There is a point of enough gun. Enough gun, coupled with a bullet that offers enough integrity to open up and penetrate an adequate depth, does the same or similar job, as other cartridges in the same or a heavier category.

The .460 for example did not kill pigs any faster than the .275 Rigby. Once you reach "enough" all else is moot and opinion.

The reason this appears so, is that after you reach a combination of enough gun and adequate bullet integrity, the only variable really, is shot placement. When you stick them all in the same place, to breakdown the heart lung area, you get similar performance.

There is no point in changing animal species to extend the argument or questioning the time of demise, when they fall over, they fall over, You win.

When I shot larger heavier game like wild scrub bulls with the .460, I again found that bullet choice made a huge difference. What was a great performer in the .459 was a dismal failure in the .460 with 400-500 aditional feet per second velocity.

The bigger calibers used on smaller animals however, killed no faster in real time, that the smaller cartridges placed similarly.

I have seen some visually exciting things over the years using big more rifles on medium game. There is a definite impression that they thump harder and kill more emphatically "on occasion". However, when we look at the time it takes for the animals to fall afer the shot, there isn't much in it at all.

AGW

Good post AW........... I reemeber an article written by Wayne VanZzweol on the WSM 7mm and 270 shortly after they were introduced.He used them in Austria to take Water Buffalo and acccording to the article they performed very well.....He used the Winchester Failsafe as I remember......

I also remember Allen Day's report on the 225 AccuBond Last year when they brokeup on plains game in Africa and failed to penetrate properly.Allen reported them to have been very inefective when this happened despite the same amont of FPE as the 225 SAF that penetrateed adequately and performed very well. Again showing the inability of FPE to proprly predict the outcome.....If the bullet is up to the task then performance will be satisfactory and if the bullet is not up to the task then performance will be dismall.....

Adequate performance is controlled more by the performence of the bullet than by calliber IMHO........

...which leads me to think that for hunting in the Lower 48, many, many, many are over-cartridged

But then we hobbyists are not always the most rational in our choices.

Gdv

CastandBlast, to answer your question, the 300 Win. Mag. has, for me (with the same bullets), resulted in more instantaneous and dramatic kills than the 30-06, pure and simple, and larger and more extensive wound channels. For example, every elk I've ever shot with the 300 Win. Mag. has gone down right now, on the spot, acting as though they didn't know what hit them, whereas the same hits with a 30-06 might result in a run of 50 to 100 yds. before they would pile up. The '06 kills were still good and acceptable kills, but not so sudden or dramatic as the 300 Win. Mag. kills. You don't have to see too many episodes of this sort to begin to connect the dots.

My experience has basically been in line with what Bob Hagel (who was, thankfully, no "ballistics revisionist" by any means!) had to say many years ago: "According to all the rules of mathematics and ballistics, the cartridge that starts a bullet the fastest of the same weight, caliber and shape, not only packs more punch but shoots flatter. It follows that any advantage in killing power lies with the cartridge delivering the highest velocity." Remember this: If you double a bullet's weight, you double its energy; if you double a bullet's VELOCITY, you QUADRUPLE it's energy. If all that was not so (wishful thinking to the contrary notwithstanding), in real and practical terms, then the 30-06 itself would have never been developed -- we'd still be bogged-down in 19th century ballistics to this day!

But, as has been indicated, if bullet performance is poor (like my AccuBond experience was last season) then all bets are off, and all of the muzzle energy in the world won't necessarily mean anything, except on paper. You still have to place your shots well, too, obviously, as Jack O'Connor stated so very well in his analysis of the 300 magnums: "The family of 300 magnums does offer more than just a lot of noise - they provide sure knockdown and killing power at long ranges." And, "Wicked cartridges these .30 caliber magnums - hard hitting, hard kicking, quick killing - but only if those using them can shoot them. They are certainly as close to being all-around big-game cartridges as anything."

This "all-around cartiridge" angle is exactly why guys like my friend and hunting partner, John55, and my local fellow SCI member (the Weatherby Award recipient) are big in their fondness for 300 magnums, and deep in their experience with same. In fact, as a class of cartridge, the 300s are the number one choice with the vast majority of Weatherby Award winners, and, as Craig Boddington stated, "Most of the Weatherby Award winners have been staunch proponents of the 300 magnums, and not out of deference to Roy Weatherby. These guys hunt the world, and are almost always hunting unfamiliar country for new and different species. With a .300 magnum, they have plenty of gun, and rarely have to worry about range estimation."

That's why that local SCI member has mostly hunted with a 300 Weatherby for the last 40 + years, and he has hunted up to 200 days a year, EVERY YEAR, worldwide, for quite some time. Experience (and a lot of it!) has shown him that with that caliber he's ready for just about anything and any situation, and he doesn't have to relearn anything, or guess about the capability of the rifle he has in his hands.

There have been those hunting seasons where I have basically started with a 300 Win. Mag. in May-June for black bear in Arizona or here in Oregon, hunted next in Africa in July-Aug for everything from dik dik to eland, then pronghorn in New Mexico in August, mule deer and elk at home here at home in October, then Texas for whitetails and hogs in November, to finish the season out with Coues deer in Sonora. And I'd use the same 300 Win. Mag. with the same 180 gr. Nosler Partition loads for ALL of it..........

AD

Allen, all I can say at this point is that if ALL the elk you've shot with the .300 Wincheste have dropped right there, and if lots of the elk you've shot with the .30-06 went 50 to 100 yards, then I simply cannot believe they were "the same hits."
Or at least that has not been my experience with the same rounds.

Since we now down to trading anecdotal evidence again, the very first animal I shot with the .300 Winchester some years ago might be an illustration. This was a mule deer doe, shot at 80 yards, angling slightly away, with a 200-grain Nosler Partition handloaded to 2900 fps. (If there is a velocity threshold--and I tend to agree there is--then this instance surely reached it.) At the shot she turned and ran back down the trail she was on, then downhill for a ways, finally piling up about 75-80 yards from where she was hit. As you might imagine, tissue damage was massive.

The last 6x6 elk I shot was with a .300 Winchester Magnum, at about 75 yards, the bullet again the 200 Nosler Partition. This bulet struck the big shoulder joint as the bull angled slightly toward me--and the bull took off running through some willows. He emerged 35-40 yards later in a little clearing, obviously very hurt and probably about to go down, but it was sunset so I shot him again, this time angling slightly away. This bullet went through both lungs and exited the far shoulder. He staggered backwards a little and went down.

The last elk I shot was with a .300 Weatherby and, again, 200-grain Nosler Partitions. The first shot, at 315 yards, took out the bottom of the heart, but the bull hobbled uphill about 50 yards ways, and stood there, facing directly away. He was also obviously hard hit, but I aimed at the vase of his neck, figuring the bullet would hit the spine somewhere. It did--at the top of the pelvis, and the bull went down.

The last animal I shot with the .300 Winchester was about 6 weeks ago in Africa, a blue wildebeest angling toward me at 100 yards. The 180-grain Nosler E-Tip broke the shoulder joint and went on through the chest to the rear of the rib cage, where we found it under the skin. The wildbeest went 24 yards, obviously very sick, and went down.

I have seen a few animals animals dropped in their tracks with a .300 magnum, but they were shot through both shoulders, spined, or were smaller animals lung-shot with very frangible bullets, such as the 150 and 165 Nosler Ballistic Tips and the 168-grain Berger VLD.

Now, of the elk you've dropped where they stood, how many were shot through the shoulders or spine?

JB

Here is a point to consider.

Comparing two manual loads:

30-06 180 NP 2800 58k psi

300WM 180 NP 2950 63k psi

That's about a 5% difference...and supports my own observations that any performance differential between the two is not as great as commonly believed.

As AD has just pointed out here, a 300 Weatherby is another step up. The one I've personally owned since the early 60's will send that bullet downrange another 200 fps faster, with no problem.

It does seem to show more punch over the other two...no doubt, but I rarely use full power loads. No...not because of recoil... that rifle is so well stocked I never actually feel the recoil, it's more of a push...but because it just isn't necessary...I can easily get done what I need to do at 2950 fps, or probably lower, but that loading is fine.

That is one rifle I will always keep. At the time, I traded my only 30-06 in on it, but I've since acquired half a dozen more 30-06 rifles.

Since I managed to learn a lot along the way about being a better rifleman, a 30-06 will do anything that I need a rifle to do.

TC

With what little experience I have on 7 elk mirrors AD.

300 win mag long throated and loaded with 200 NP's to 3,000 MV.

All 7 elk ranged from 150 yards to 600 yards. All dropped in their
tracks. The last shot at 600 killed two elk. Both dropped at the same time.
A small bull calf was on the other side of the larger one.

Mostly shoulder shots, the last shot what a shoulder lung that penetrated both animals.

No recovered bullets.

This 300/200 NP was brutal on elk. I lost more meat with that
combo than any other load I've ever tried. Near whole shoulders
were bloodshot attesting the the destruction of that load, when
shot in the shoulders.

I never seen an 06 able to produce the same results as this.

Now we may be getting somewhere. "Mostly shoulder shots?"

I have generally found the .30-06 also does a good job of dropping animals with shoulder shots, and not just at shorter ranges.

JB

While riding horse back on a mountain trail I jumped an Elk.The Elk was moving to my right and away as I took the shot with a 30-06 and a 165 grain partion.The bullet enterd toward the back of the rib cage and exited the off shoulder,That animal hit the ground and just slid on its side at the sound of the shot....I don't think that anything could have put it on the ground any faster......
As a side note that load was only going about 2840 FPSn (muzzle velocity)..........

Actually, so will most Win Mags with a better load than the above.

Your cherry picking data. With a 180 partition you can exceed 3100fps according to Noslers data. With a 200 accubond you can slightly exceed 3000 according to Hodgdon.

Exactly. I have owned .30-06s that got 2850 with published data with published data. I also own one right now that matches .300 Winchester "standard factory" muzzle velocity with Federal High Energy 165 or 180 Trophy Bonded loads.

Come on, guys. I freely admit that the various .300 magnums are great hunting rounds. That's why I always own 2-3, and hunt with them quite a bit (I have already killed 7 big game animals with the .300 Winchester this year).

But give me a break on the mystical difference in killing power that results from an extra 250 fps. Especially when (again, Allen) you don't see any difference between the .300 Win. and .375 H&H. You still have not addressed that statement, that you plainly made here.

JB

JB

I am not here to defend Allen Day as he can look afer himself but perhaps thresholds hold the key.

Is it also possible that the flatter trajectory means the 300 Mags might end up hitting closer to the aiming mark?

Mike

Allen-
I appreciate your reply. It is remarkable that every elk you have shot with the .300WM has gone down right now. What a confidence inspiring track record!

When choosing an elk cartridge myself in the 80's, that is exactly the kind of performance I sought. I skipped past the .300 and went with the .338WM and 250gr. partitions, based in part on the results reported by Jim Carmichel in an article entitled "Pick a Gun With Punch".

Although no elk has traveled more than about 30 yards after being hit with it, the only time my .338 dropped them where they stood was when the spine was hit. (Even when using the 210 partition @ 3000fps). This performance more closely resembles the results that you have seen from your 30-06. It would seem that your .300 "hits harder" than my .338 as well as the 30-06. Is there possibly another factor at work here?

What shot placement do you most often use with your .300?

If you look at currently published loading data, it clearly shows the performance of both the 300 Win and 30-06. These loads are fairly typical with current powders. An experienced reloader can find some additional "headroom" in both chamberings, and depending on barrel length, and powder choice, one could push that bullet a little harder in both chamberings. I don't have any problem with that.

But that's not really the point I was making. The point is what, if anything, is gained by doing so?

A bullet is always traveling slower, often a lot slower, at the time of impact. What makes the Partition popular is that it's effective up close, (goin' faster), and far away (goin' slower). That might be a differential in impact velocity of 1000fps within normal hunting ranges.

In my opinion, the performance of these 30 cal chamberings is more similar than they are different, and they are all good to go if the shooter has good marksmanship abilities, and at least a minimal understanding of ranging and ballistics.

If I had to choose my all time favorite from the list, it would be the 300 Weatherby, but the extra velocity almost never effects the final outcome as other factors have.

One can always buy a rifle in each chambering, load them as they wish, take them out in the field, and make their own conclusions. This approach is recommended by all the major manufacturers.

TC

The bottom line it seems to me is that from everyones expereience,it is hard, maybe impossible, to quantify the difference in "killing power". And note I said, "quantify " which means giving an empirical value to the difference, a hard and fast number.

KE,Taylors KOV or Momentum are not it. There are just different values used as a basis for comparing the ballistics of different cartridges. Wound size is not one as that can vary more with different bullets than with different cartridges. We've seen that distance gone after the killing shot is not it. These things vary some with the same cartridge/bullet combination.

Note I didn't say there wasn't a difference in killing power (frist we should define that) between the 30-06 and the 300s(H&H,Win,Norma - maybe with the Wby we're reaching another level, I don't know) but that much that given as evidence is simply poi porri circumstance.


Good weekend to all,
George

Mike378,

Tha is the principle reason I chose to use the .300's--when I do. They shooter flatter, and do the same things as the .30-06 another 100 to 200 yards out, depending on the particular .300 magnum.

The .300 Winchester adds about another 100 yards, and the .300 Weatherby close to 200. The .300 Weatherby factory load, for instance, with the 200-grain Nosler Partition, is advertised at 3060 fps--and gets just about exactly that from the 24" barrel of my Sub-MOA Vanguard. At 200 yards it is still traveling about 2600 fps, about the minimum that most .30-06's get at the muzzle with 200's. It also shoots noticeably flatter, so can easily be sighted in so that no holdover is ncessary to at least 300 yards.

JB

John, all of the elk I've shot with the 300 Win. Mag. were hit through the shoulder(s) or spine, except for one bull hit through both lungs. All hit the deck. I've only had two elk go down straight away with lungshots, and one was with the 300 Win. Mag. (180 Nosler Part. @ 3100 MV), and one was with a 338 Win. Mag. (225 Hornady @ 2860). In my experience, few elk go down quickly from lungshots. Most keep going for somewhere between 25 and 100 yds., especially if they've been pushed and have been running. In a nutshell, the elk I've shot with either the 7mm Rem. Mag. and 30-06 have reacted about the same to the shot, and the elk I've shot with the 338 and the 300 have shown more immediate reaction after being hit, and have gone down faster.

The last elk I shot with the 30-06 was about 200 across a small canyon, and I hit him in the left shoulder. At the shot, he turn to run, broke off some dead jackpines, went 50 or so yards, then hit the deck. Still a very good kill, but not as convincing as similar shots have been with a 300 Win. Mag. or 338 Win. Mag.

I've been accused on this thread of being "inconsistent" in reporting about my results on game with the 300 Win. in comparison to results I've had with the 338 Win. Mag. and 375 H&H. The truth is, I've been anything BUT inconsistent, and on other threads I've stated exactly the same thing (especially on Africa hunting threads), and that has exactly been my experience, pure and simple. What else should I tell you? My actual experience, or something else?

Here are a few episodes: I've shot several kudu (size of a spike elk) with the 375 H&H, 338 Winchester, and 300 Win. Mag., and all reacted about the same way to the shot, and all went down very quickly, without fuss. I've seen no significant difference whatsoever in the way those cartridges killed those animals. In fact, with all African plainsgame animals that I've shot (and I've shot a great many), I've seen no significant difference at all in killing power between those three cartridges.

Same with eland. The longest shot I've ever had on eland was on an enormous Patterson's that I shot through the lungs from about 275 yds. out in Tanzania (Maswa) with a 300 Win. Mag. firing a 180 gr. Winchester Fail-Safe @ 3050 MV. After taking the bullet, he went 50 of so yards and went down.

I shot another very big eland, a Livingston's, in Zimbabwe, this time with a 375 H&H firing 300 gr. Trophy Bonded Bearclaws @ 2500 MV, hitting him through both lungs from about 100 yds. out. He also ran, in his case about 70 yds., before he went down.

Last year, I shot another Livingston's in Zimbabwe, and this bull also went about 50 yds. after being hit with a 225 gr. Swift A-Frame @ 2800 MV from a 338 Winchester through both lungs.

I've had two African PHs (RSA & Namibia) swear that 300 Winchester bullets would somehow bounce-off or otherwise have no worthwhile effect on eland, only to see something else demonstrated later in the safari. One excellent young PH in RSA was really nervous about eland, since a 300 was the only rifle I had with me, rather than a 375 H&H. But after two days of hunting, we finally caught up with this bull we had been trailing, and I shot him through the lungs with a 180 Nosler from about 200 yds. out. At the shot, the bull stood where he was shot, wobbling, but to sooth the PH, I shot that bull again for insurance, and he went straight down. This young PH was surprised at how well those 180 Noslers killed that bull, and how quickly he got sick after the first shot, plus the fact that he didn't go anywhere. By the way, after that eland went down, our tracker shook his fist in the direction of the elusive bull, which had given us fits for two days, and shouted @%$# YOU!! We nearly died from laughter over that episode.........

I had another PH in Namibia fuss & fume and act like I was setting out to shoot a dinosaur when we were hunting eland, since (once again!) I brought only a 300 Win., but on the last day of the safari, we had a chance at a very fine bull, and I shot him through both lungs with a 180 Nosler Part. from about 100 yds. out. At the shot, this bull took off, but we found him no more than 50 yds. away, deader'n a doornail.

I don't have time this morning to site more such episodes, but maybe you can see a bit of where I'm coming from with this post.........

AD

JB,
I know Allen has answered this one himself but I wanted to throw out my own observations. Several times on this thread you have brought up Allen's comment about the 338 and 375 not showing much if any advantage over a 300mag. It has also been my experience that the two larger cartridges just have not showed much if any difference in "killing power", "knock down power" or whatever you care to call it. I've used all three cartridges in Africa on several hunts, taking quite a lot of game ranging from Thompson's gazelle clear up to eland. Also used the larger pair here in the states for most everything outside of sheep. I've never been able to find what they did better than a 300mag, given equal shot placement with comparable bullet types. And, on most game I have had better penetration with the 30cal. than with the larger bores.
I believe that the 300s velocity advantage was why it seemed to equal or at times better the "killing power" and penetration of the two larger rounds. Only when I stepped up the 338's velocity by going to my 33G&A wildcat (338/404) did I get better results with the 338cal bullets. With this rifle I have seen a dramatic increase in effect over the 300mag. A 230gr Fail safe @ 3100fps simply has to be used by someone on large game for full appreciation of it's potential. I have never found any 300mag that remotely approaches what this cartridge does on elk sized game. Couple the frontal area of this larger bullet with higher velocity and there is a definite increase in the effects. Take the velocity away and it goes away, at least in my own limited experience. I'd love to try this with the 375 bore but I'm happy to admit a 378Wby is too much for me to do good work with.

Between the lack of agreed upon definition and the natural subjectiveness of experiences... that's why I said nobodys view point is invalid here.

If you have any engineer in you at all, the word "power" means "how fast the work is done" and that can be taken as being completely dependent on bullet speed. For me killing power rank has to go to the round with more kinetic energy, no need to pull a trigger.

I think AD is comimg from the point of view of an engineer having good luck with the 300. To AGW and MD it appears to be game specific and mean "humanely dead, no tracking required"

Interesting Allen about the PHs' idea of eland tranquilzers needing to be something bigger than a 300.

The guy I'm going to hunt with in Namibia and hopefully take eland with, when questioned further than that provided on his website said, "sure the '06 with a good bullet will be fine".

George

Right, the range makes everything relative.

George

This is all very simple.

When you reach a point of enough caliber and bullet integrity, (weight is an obsolete requirement that used to infer increased integrity)the cartridges over this level od power are not giving anything extra.

If you shoot a red stag with a 7x57 loading with decent bullet, it will fall over. If you shoot a like sized beast with a .300 RUM is will hit the ground at the same speed of the 7X57 if the shots a like placed.

The reason? It is the nature of these animals to fall over when shot with anything reasonable, and, when an adequate level of power is reached, anything more is your choice, not the animals need.

All animals fall into a catregory of "cartridge adequacy" met.

AGM

No one has accused you of being inconsistent on reporting YOUR experiences.You are incosistent on the effectiveness of FPE

Originally Posted By: allenday
John, you made the statement that the 30-06 is a "great killer on game", and you're right, it is, no question about it. Anyone who underestimates its capabilities as an all-around hunting cartridge is being foolish or pig-headed, pure and simple. You don't have to think that the 30-06 is somehow ineffective (and I don't) if you happen to think (as I do) that the 300s are even more effective -- as energy figures surely would seem to back-up, even if testimonial evidence (or lack thereof!) says otherwise.


AD


And then you state that the 300 is just as effective as the 338 and 375 both of which have more FPE



Originally Posted By: allenday
Mike, I really have not seen much difference in killing power on the same species with the 300 Win. , 338 Win. ,and 375 H&H.

But all three of them hammer stuff harder than the 30-06 - that much have have seen..........


AD

Ok, I was waiting for AGW to chime in! Great! This has morphed into a wild but interesting expose on what is "adequate".
So.... "adequate caliber" + "adequate bullet" + "good placement" = "success". Works everytime from Africa to Alaska.

Absolutely.

It is so simple that it is hard to sell.

AGW

I've never shot any red stag, so won't dispute what you have written about them falling over. However, in my experience on most other game I certainly have seen a difference in how fast something has fallen over, depending upon what they were shot with. Given equal shot placement and bullet design the bullet with the higher impact velocity has more often than not show a faster and more dramatic demise. Take a bad angle shot on a big bull elk, such as a severe quartering away to break the offside shoulder from 250+yds. Make that shot with your 7x57 or 30/06 and then try it with something like a 300Wby and I assure you there WILL be a difference in how fast he hits the deck more times than not.
As an example, a few years ago my son and I were elk hunting at our favorite spot in Colorado. He was carrying a stout loaded 30/06 using 180gr North Forks, while I carried my 300Wby using the same bullets. He took a nice 4x5 elk from 310yds broadside, bullet entered the elk just behind the front leg and went out the off side with a nickel sized hole to show for it. Elk ran 50yds and piled up. Later in the hunt I took a similar shot on a decent 6x6, but on impact his head flew up and his rear end hit the deck like the rug was jerked out from under him. Same bullet, same shot placement, almost the same range.. Difference was 400fps MV.
Success in either case for sure. It's just that some of use like it in a larger doses!

Or, of course, your son shot a tough elk and yours was a wimp. Like humans, no two animals are alike and the variables are especially hard to measure in a wild uncontrolled situation typically encounted in the woods or the hills.

That is the very reason we have been stating that averaging our the results gives you a more accurate picture of what is happening.

Could you imaging the loss to our library's if Corbett had shot his first tiger with his .275 Rigby and decided after one hit that it was not enough gun?

I am too chicken to hunt any dangerous game with mine without back up as these men did, but Bell and Corbett proved something about adequacy whether it is fashionable or not.

AGW

Certain aspects of this thread remind me of various business ventures from some 15 or so years ago, when we'd go into some small town to begin a project, only to sit across the table from some pettifogger in a 1970s-type polyester suit........

But just to check to see if I really have been imagining or making up all of the points I've tried to argue for on this thread -- to see if I've been so very contradictory with my testimony after all, as has been claimed -- just to check to see if my own experience has matched-up with the numbers (or if I've lost my marbles) I did a quick check with Nosler's # 4 reloading manual, which I happend to have on the desk here. I'll refer to it in a moment..........

The fastest 300 Win. Mag. loads I've used in the field for hunting have pushed a 180 gr. bullet out of the barrel at 3150 fps. MV, and the slowest have gone out at 3050 fps MV. The current loads I'm shooting out of my #1 rifle push the 180 gr. Nosler Partition out at just under 3100 fps., so to say my experience with the 300 Win. Mag. with 180s gives them a mean, real-world average of 3100 fps. MV is very accurate.

With the 30-06, my fastest 180 gr. loads have been just over 2800 fps. MV, and my slowest has been about 2750 fps. MV, so I'd be accurate in saying that my average 30-06 hunting loads with 180s have averaged 2800 fps. MV.

Hunting loads for the 338 Win. Mag. out of my rifles with my favored 225 gr. bullet weight (the weight I've hunted with the most) have been as low as 2760 fps. MV, and as high as 2850 fps. MV, which is what my current rifle produces. All in all, I've averaged 2800 fps. MV with 225s.

The load I've used the most in the 375 H&H has produced right at 2500 fps. with 300 gr. bullets.

I've very simply run the numbers with Nosler's #4 manual with the bullet weights I've used to shoot the same species with all or some of these cartridges, and at the speeds that I've actually fired them out of the barrel at.

30-06, 180 gr. Nosler Partition at 2800 fps. MV/3133 fpe:

Velocity/energy:
100 - 2608 fps./2719 fpe.
200 - 2424 fps./2349 fpe.
300 - 2248 fps./2020 fpe.
400 - 2079 fps./1728 fpe.

300 Win. Mag., 180 gr. Nosler Part. at 3100 fps. MV/3840 fpe:

Velocity/energy
100 - 2895 fps./3349 fpe.
200 - 2699 fps./2911 fpe.
300 - 2512 fps./2521 fpe.
400 - 2332 fps./2172 fpe.

338 Win. Mag., 225 gr. Nosler Part. at 2800 fps. MV/3916 fpe:

Velocity/energy
100 - 2600 fps./3376 fpe.
200 - 2408 fps./2896 fpe.
300 - 2224 fps./2471 fpe.
400 - 2049 fps./2096 fpe.

375 H&H, 300 gr. Nosler Partition at 2500 fps. MV/4163 fpe:
100 - 2287 fps./3484 fpe.
200 - 2085 fps./2895 fpe.
300 - 1892 fps./2385 fpe.
400 - 1714 fps./1956 fpe.

As you can see, according to the numbers and in line with what I've stated that my observations from the field are, the 300 Win. Mag. delivers substantially MORE energy at all hunting ranges than does the 30-06 with the same bullet, and at least as far as energy is concerned, it delivers very similar numbers to the 375 H&H and 338 Win. Mag. with bullets of a very similar ballistic profile (Nosler Partition) and of the weights I've used in the field -- especially down-range (where the game is!) and not at the muzzle.

Inconsistent, huh?

Try again!

AD

John55, that is a very interesting anecdote about the pair of Colorado elk. However, my guess is that your elk was hit ight under the spine--due to his going down first in the rear. This is a common reaction to high lung hits, a temporary paralysis that puts the animal down, whereupon it then dies from the lung shot before it recovers.

Again, these are "examples of one," which fail to prove anything. We hasve regressed again to anecdotal evidence. Though I must say that my experience with eland does mesh with yours and Allen's, except that I have also found a .30-06 is plenty. I suspect the reason many PH's insist on a .375 is the old story of mediocre bullets having been used too long over there.

But we have regressed again to anecdotal evidence, something that could on and on, wandering into the the twilight with no conclusion. I could go on at leangth about the Namibian PH I know who thinks the .30-06 is the greatest cartridge ever, and hates all magnums, especially the .300's, but I won't. We have beaten this one into its perhaps inevitably nebulous form, so I will say good-bye.

JB

From Noslers web site for the 375 H&H and 300 grain Partion,
http://www.nosler.com/index.php?p=15&b=375cal&s=335
BC of .398 at sea level

Powder: W760
Charge Weight (in grains) Muzzle Velocity (fps) Load Density
78.0* 2600 fps 99%


Muzzle energy is 4502 FPE
100 yard energy is 3779 FPE
200 yard energy is 3150 FPE
300 yard energy is 2608 FPE


For the 338 Mag and the 225 grain,
http://www.nosler.com/index.php?p=15&b=338cal&s=380
Powder: IMR4350
Charge Weight (in grains) Muzzle Velocity (fps) Load Density
71.5* 2882 fps 94%
BC of .454 at sea level

Muzzle energy is 4149 FPE
100 yard energy is 3582 FPE
200 yard energy is 3080 FPE
300 yard energy is 2634 FPE


300 Win Mag 180 Partion
http://www.nosler.com/index.php?p=15&b=30cal&s=349
Charge Weight (in grains) Muzzle Velocity (fps) Load Density
75.5* 3118 fps 98%


Muzzle energy is 3582 FPE
100 yard energy is 3388 FPE
200 yard energy is 2945 FPE
300 yard energy is 2551 FPE



While they are not Earth shattering differences the 338 & 375 have the most energy at all ranges plus a larger diameter projectile.....

I'm not sure we've gotten anywhere with this but it's interesting to hear each ones take.

I've killed just under ten bull elk but all but one have been taken with my 340 at from 150 to 470 yds. One was hit around the edges - my fault - with my '06 and my friend sorted it out for me a couple minutes later. But the bulls hit with the 340 took not step one out of their tracks with one exception who fell in his after a he ran a tight, little circle back to where he originally stood. Several went down so fast in brush or grass I couldn't see them and didn't know what happened until my friend told me. On the other hand I once killed a whitetail buck at about 15 steps as he was quartering away from me by putting the arrow behind the short ribs angling for the off shoulder. The arrow hit no bone or spinal column just lungs and vessels. His reaction? You'd expect a short dash of some sort or at least a couple of staggers but he went down as if he were hit by the 340 - in his tracks. I can't explain it physiologically but have thought of it often. I know these are one and a few observations and we must look at large numbers but it has made me think there are many variables at work that we can't see, know, or appreciate at the time that contribute to how that animal reacts at that instant.

Gdv

This thread has mostly been a waste of time, and I'm done with it myself. Guys are going to believe what they want to believe, and a lot of guys are going to buy into various theories without any real experience of their own to backup their position. I call that phenomenon 'Gunstore Mentality'.

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion STILL.........

AD

So, then, I could choose a .30-06, a .300 H&H, or a .300 Win Mag, and be relatively sure that with a double lung shot an elk would be dead within 50-100 yards? Kindof sounds like my Hoyt bow.....

Or a 44 special loaded with a 250gr Keith bullet at 1200fps.

It's refreshing to know that even after 101 years we can still get over 300 posts on an inane hair splitting topic involving the .30-06 versus whatever.

Almost can't wait another 100 years for the heated debate about the .30-06 vs. plasma rifles in the 40 watt range. Now that one will be a doozy...

Everyone knows that particle beams hit harder than plasma! The Partition Particle has been killing truckloads of game since 2012, and you can't tell me that the Barnes Triple Wave Plasma is going to match that!

Cup and core plasma is perectly adequate if kept below 9900 FPS.