Another excellent article, JB.
A friend, a retired rocket scientist (really), has an old 300 Weatherby that he refuses to use or shoot because it kicks him too hard. But he won't get rid of it because he likes to say he has a 300 Weatherby. I do believe this is fairly common affliction among those of us who grew up poor in the 50's and 60's. You knew you had finally made some sort of success out of yourself when you could at last own a Weatherby, and I mean a Mark V, of course. There were no inexpensive Weatherbys back then, or synthetic stocks.
After reading the article I have one more reason to call my friend "Rocket Man".
A friend of mine has a 257 Wby., an excellent fast stepping cartridge. It shoots flat and is very tractable to handload given its super high performance nature.
But efficiency wise my bolt action 250 Savage beats it by a wide margin, delivering over 80% of the velocity with about 50% of the powder when we're both shooting 100 grain bullets.
I like them both a lot.
m
What magazine is it in fella's?
Brad,
I believe the article in question is on the 'Fire here?
I got an email a few hours ago saying the article was posted?
Maybe I got it mixed up with another article????
Check your e-mail. It may or may not be there yet, because Rick sends them out in batches, I believe.
Got mine via email a couple of hours ago. Good stuff as always John.
Good article from JB as usual.
Great read JB. Something new to ponder, helps explain why I own so many 22 rimfires.
Great article. I wasn't sure it was possible to write an article on the topic without mentioning the 308 Winchester or the 35 Whelen... but now I know it is possible. Dang, that editorial staff sure butchered it to get it in under the 1600 word limit.
The article is
Here On the article page, near the upper right hand corner, is a box that says, "Join Our Mailing List!" Click it and join the list, new articles will come to your mailbox but no spam will.
Stickied at the top of this forum.
During Religious Emphasis Week in 1956, our forestry-school class invited a local rabbi to explicate Judaism. He asked "Which Judaism?" and explained that "wherever there are two Jews, there are three opinions" about everything.
Seems that the same is true about shooters and cartridge efficiency. In Hatcher's Notebook, the general explained that the efficiency of a cartridge is the ratio between (a) the theoretical chemical energy stored in the powder and (b) the kinetic energy delivered by the speeding bullet. The actually delivered energy is such-and-such a percentage of the theoretically stored energy. That's the old more-or-less "official" or technical definition of a cartridge's efficiency.
Other shooters define cartridge efficiency in their own terms � especially when they're talking about relative effectiveness and calling it "efficiency."
To calulate efficiency as General Hatcher defined it, first calculate the chemical energy stored in the powder charge � charge weight in grains times (IIRC) 178 foot-pounds per grain (for IMR powders). Then calculate the percentage of that theoretical total energy that the traveling bullet actually delivers.
Don't be surprised to find that some of the most efficient cartridges are the least effective � the .22 Long Rifle versus the .458 Winchester Magnum, for example.
John has the disgusting habit of stating things in a common sense manner without pontificating. At the same time, his lessons make enjoyable reading.
Indeed he does.
I've settled on the foot-pounds per grain burned formula myself. It does prejudice the result towards the smaller cartridges, but that only proves its validity, I feel.
JB overlooked THE most efficient round: the CB cap. It doesn't churn up the muzzle smoosh, but it does it on less than a grain of priming alone!
I recall Bob Milek writing about cartridge efficiency many moons ago. I find myself going right down the same path. I've killed all my critters this year with a 250AI and a 300 Savage. To me the 250AI about tops out the 25 caliber line. Course it don't mean I won't use a 257 Roy.
Should add I remember thinking many moons ago that Milek was bonkers when talking efficiency, not so much now.
Kinda like when you were 18 and your Dad was the biggest moron on the planet - but he got smarter every day after you turned 30!
I always thought dad was smart, unfortunately he never saw me turn 23, but I follow.
As a layperson and a factory ammo buyer I'm more interested in energy/recoil & muzzleblast instead of energy/grains of powder. That makes the 250 Savage very attractive. As a father of a young boy I can't think of a better starter cartridge that could be an experienced rifleman's cartridge as well.
Ken, I wonder what I would have thought of the 250-3000 as an 18 year old. I bet I would have scoffed at it. I remember wanting a 270 Weatherby 'round that time.
My take too has always been energy delivered/energy input. I'm rich though, so it's not something I worry about with my firearms.
Sort of like the Lady Astor line to justify the gold fixtures in her rail car. "Saves all that polishing."
I think the argument in itself about cartridge efficiency is flawed.
A cartridge is an assembly of components - hull, powder, cap and bullet.
Each component has specific properties. Gearing these components and balancing their properties first only in between themselves and then ultimatly with the driving assembly (chamber, barrel, ultimatly rifle and shooter) decides how well the cartridge performs it task.
One can well argue the efficiency of each component in a given system but comparing two systems means switching more than one component (variable) at once making analysis difficult.
Neat article; no surprise there!
Another way to look at efficiency is energy generated from a given parent case. Getting in over my boots here, but I belive the term "expansion ratio" describes how larger bores are more efficient (at least by this definition).
This is why a .358 will hurl a 200-gn bullet damn near as fast as a .243 will hurl a 100-gn bullet.
The 358 has a lot more area for the gas pressure to work on than a 243. A larger diameter piston, if you will.
Yep.
For gits and shiggles, I'd argue that since most game is killed from 200 on in... and given the efficient nature of the .308 parent case... and .358 is the most efficient use of that case... .358 is the most efficient medium-game cartridge!
John,
I liked your comment on the .250 Savage, and am sorry they aren't as common as when I was young. I have one in a tang safety M77, and was thinking I could make additional grandkid guns by doing a rebarrel on a .22-250 or three.
Which .22-.250 bolt guns do you like for the starting rifle?
please and thank you...jim
Hard to beat the short-action versions of any of the bolt rifles. One of the nicest .250's I've owned was the short-action version of the push-feed Model 70 (can't remember the exact model name) from the 1980's. A short-action M70 Classic would make a real neat one, but then again so would a short Re, 700 or Ruger 77, or any number of others such as the Howa or Sako. Come to think of it, a really nifty litle .250 would result from rebarreling a Remington Model 7.
I just bought a Rem. 700 Classic in .250 and am anxious to wring it out....
My 700 Classic 250 needed some bedding work, but after that it has been fantastic. You're going to love yours.
"Come to think of it, a really nifty litle .250 would result from rebarreling a Remington Model 7."
It does. Did just that, with a "youth model" for my wife. Cool gun.
Good article...BTW.
Jeff
John,
Thanks for the commentary. I have a Rem M7 Youth and a second barrel in .260 Rem. A .250 Savage would work really well on that rifle too.
Now all we need is a .250 Savage is way cool article for each of the magazines you write for, and voila...instant demand!
jim
I have done some writing about the .250 before, but will again!
�Cartridge efficiency� can be defined a lot of different ways. Most of them are of little or no interest to me.
Here�s mine: �Cartridge efficiency is the measurement of a cartridge�s ability to put the bullet of my choice where I want it, with the energy, velocity and recoil level I want.�
It must be the universe, but I just ran into a Remington M799 in .22-250 Rem...jim
It must be the universe, but I just ran into a Remington M799 in .22-250 Rem...jim
I hope you didn't hurt it......yet.
Great article! JB made the not so common sense ,common again.
Thanks!
And, apparently as a reward from The Hunting Gods, I picked up a Rem. 700 Classic in .250 from the 24hour Classifieds that only weighs 7-1/2 pounds with a 2-7x Leupold Compact, despite the standard medium-weight 24" barrel. Any guesses on how it will shoot?
John,
If you touch up the bedding and trigger and the crown is good I'd bet you can get it under 3/4 MOA for five shot groups pretty dang quick.
mathman
Thanks!
And, apparently as a reward from The Hunting Gods, I picked up a Rem. 700 Classic in .250 from the 24hour Classifieds that only weighs 7-1/2 pounds with a 2-7x Leupold Compact, despite the standard medium-weight 24" barrel. Any guesses on how it will shoot?
Nothing on the classifieds weighs more than 7 1/2 pounds field-ready and everything shoots at least MOA, if not 1/2 MOA. You know that!
I don't see why people are so wrapped up in cartridge efficiency. I'd like to see everyone out there with "efficient" cartridges and compare them to their vehicles. That would be interesting.
To me, efficiency is the best ratio of pressure to velocity.
If you can get more velocity with less pressure, the load/cartridge is more efficient.
Comparing a so-called Magnum to a so-called Standard cartridge, if the larger Magnum case will get you more velocity, and a flatter trajectory at the SAME pressure, it is more efficient.
The Magnum cartridge does burn more powder, but what do you want? A safe load, with greater performance, or an economical one?
Economy is a desirable thing too, but if you need/want greater performance than 280 Remington, the 7mm Mag. will provide it at the same pressure level as a 280. Or, 280 performance without half trying.
You may prefer the 280 for some other good reasons, including economy, but �efficiency� the same thing as economy, is it?
Smitty of the North
How's that 250 Classic doing John? Inquiring (nosy?) minds need to know.
Haven't even had a chance to shoot it. As a matter of fact, have only had one brief range session in the past month, because it's been so cold. Where the heck is global warming when you need it?
I saw elsewhere you'd been out shooting the 300 H&H. Did you happen to take out the little 250?
mathman
No, unfortunately not. We got a brief break in the winter weather (up to 20 degrees, with no wind!) today, so I made a quick trip to the range and only had time to do some necessary testing. One of the tests was the first range time with the new Leica scope.
But we usually get some nicer weather in February and the .250 will be one of the ones up. I also have acquired a couple of other 700 Classics in recent months, a .221 Fireball and a .350 Rem. Magnum, and they need a workout too. Also just got in another Ruger No. 1, a .450/.400. So little time, so many rifles!
Ye reap what ye sew.
Carry on.
John,
After your hunt with Bill Wilson last weekend I'll bet you have a NEW addition to efficient cartridges. The 6.8X43, better known as the 6.8SPC. A VERY effecient cartridge in a nice light easy to handle package. I can't wait to see what you have to say about it, it's almost like a 'little Bob' (257 Roberts).
Red Monkey,
I was VERY impressed! The 6.8 puts even big pigs down right now with the correct bullet. Am thinking about getting a 6.8 SPC upper for my own AR.
John,
I knew you would like the 6.8!! I haven't gotten to try any of the new 95 gr. Barnes yet but I really like the 110 gr. Accubonds. I took two deer this year with the 110's, one at 175 yds and the other at 125. Both shots were pass throughs, which I like. As Elmer Keith said, "Two holes let out lots of blood and in lots of air." Works for me!
I'm using 29.7 gr. of 10X in SSA small rifle brass under the 110's.
I have a couple of hundred 100 AB to test but I kinda like the extra weight and higher BC of the 110's. I can't decide if I want to take my 6.8 or my .308 if I'm drawn for a Montana combo deer license for next year. The area we hunt is river bottom so shots will be withen 200 yds. max so I'm leaning toward the 6.8. It would be great to take a mulie with my 6.8!!
I miss your input at "Rifle" and "Handloader".
Hal
The guy I hunted with in Texas has both pigs and whitetails on his ranch, and it's in northeast Texas so the deer are somewhat bigger-bodied than further south. He likes the AccuBonds for deer but prefer the TSX's for pigs.
10x is evidently THE powder for heavier bullets in the 6.8.
In a few months my articles will be appearing again in the Wolfe magazines. We reached a new agreement a couple of weeks ago.
In a few months my articles will be appearing again in the Wolfe magazines. We reached a new agreement a couple of weeks ago.
_________________________
All right!
JB
"In a few months my articles will be appearing again in the Wolfe magazines. We reached a new agreement a couple of weeks ago."
Now that's some good news, guess I'll renew after all, Phil S is the only reason I'm still subscribed. --- Mel
John,
Great news that you are back at Wolfe. It is certainly good for them. I suspect they realized they had made a big mistake because of lost subscribers when you left.
But it is especially good for us. We get to read more of your articles.
Steve
I just bought a Rem. 700 Classic in .250 and am anxious to wring it out....
Had one a few years back. Four of us used to get together at the club on Wednesday after work and shoot offhand for score @100yards.Low man bought the sodas.
It shot 75gr.Sierras HPs like crazy but 100s and up was a waste of powder.
Barrel twist I suspect.
100 grain bullets shouldn't have been a problem. My 700 Classic makes small groups with 100 grain Hornady Interlocks, Sierra Game Kings and Nosler Ballistic Tips.
Ifelt the same way, however the rifle had other plans.
Coulda been me but that would have tarnished my image.
JB, that is good news with respect to Wolfe. I canceled when you left. Which one will you be in or will it be RIFLE and...?
All three, at least some of the time.
All three, at least some of the time.
After personally experiencing political justice in the business sector here, I am truely glad to see that integrity and competence has risen to the top where it belongs.
Congratulations to you John.
JW
Thanks, JW. Hope all is well with you....
John
It's great that you are back writing for Wolfe. Those were the only guns/hunting magazines worth buying, and when you left they were no longer worth the subscrition price.
I got a subscription offer from them of a free elk target if I subscribed, and sent the offer back to them, explaining that what readers wanted was good content, not free targets. Doubt if anyone caught on, but the fact that you are back there does offer some hope.
I will be renewing my subscriptions now that you are back. My only article request is one on the B-29 Ackley Improved.
Fred
My only article request is one on the B-29 Ackley Improved.
I'd like to see a zero freebore version to get the "Laws of Physics" defying free velocity.
Fred,
I was informed quite firmly after the B-29 article gained so much attention that I would never, ever write anything like that again, partly because the phone lines were tied up for days--and a very high percentage of the callers wanted to know why the letters they sent to various manufacturers mentioned in the article were returned, stamped "Unable to deliver as address." Many of these were to the guy named Ned Nobody.
Would accept as a substitute an article on the .300 Whelen AI?
No, no that won't do. We'll need an article that really gets to the crux of some serious rifle issues, like why a 280 case necked to 277 caliber will out perform the standard 270, due to increased case capacity, or the correct way to attach sling swivels to counter the rotational torque of a right hand twist, or the statistical probability of a bolt handle coming off when you are being charged by a grassland wolverine in eastern Montana.
And when you are done that article, I'd be quite content to have more mundane articles like the old ones that have been worth saving. The ones like you favorite loads and the update, the article about rodent rifles, factors of accuracy.
Fred
Ok, I suppose I can crank out some boring articles about things like handloads that work, but your idea about the prairie wolverines is more intriguing. I have only shot one wolverine in my life, and that was with a break-action single-shot rifle, so have no experience with bolt handles coming off when wolverines charge. Guess I'll have to go out and find a good wolverine town and shoot a few more.
Thanks!
And, apparently as a reward from The Hunting Gods, I picked up a Rem. 700 Classic in .250 from the 24hour Classifieds that only weighs 7-1/2 pounds with a 2-7x Leupold Compact, despite the standard medium-weight 24" barrel. Any guesses on how it will shoot?
Just saw this thread for the first time in quite a while. With the barrel floated and a bedding job, mine shoots 75gr Sierras and V-max consistently sub half inch (three shot groups). 100gr NBTs go into .4" while Hornadys average .6". IMR 4320 and RL15 are the powders I've used.
Wow! Great news, John. Everyone was "greatly distressed" about your rift with Wolfe. I called and added my two cents, for what that was worth. Let's leave it at I'm very glad your back writing where I can find you.
Marty
GREAT news!! I'm looking forward to reading you again in "Rifle" and "Handloader". IMHO they are THE two best shooting mags in print. You, Brian Pearce and Mike Venturino are ALWAYS interesting and informative to read. Brian sold me on the .45 Colt and you confirmed my use of a hunting MV of 2700 FPS, it just flat works. Keep up the good work and thanks for keeping it interesting and fresh. I, and I'm sure I speak for the other readers, really appreciate the hard work that you guys do in order to meet deadlines each month.
Thanks again,
Hal
In a few months my articles will be appearing again in the Wolfe magazines. We reached a new agreement a couple of weeks ago.
THIS is the BEST news I've heard in quite some time!!!
That's GREAT John!!!
I've held onto my digital subscriptions in the hope that this would happen!
$bob$
Hi JB,
Just got back from testing some loads in my Rem. pump, '06. I partial re-sized, as in your article. An elder gentleman said that he thought cartridges for pumps should be fully resized.
So.... Partial, or Full sizing on my previously fired brass in my Rem. 7600, pump??
Thanks!! Ken
Ok I like the weatherby also, however, it is not best 30 cal magnum by a long shot. The only advantage it has over the 300 WSM is the ability to push the heavier bullets.
For example it was quoted that the writers weatherby runs the 168 Barnes TTSX at 3269 fps into a 1.5" group using 90 plus grains of powder. Well my 26" 300 WSM happens to run the same 168 TTSX at 3253 into .5 inches and in a much lighter short action gun using 60 plus grains of powder. That is measured over a Oehler 35 with 8ft screen spacing and multiple measurements so no fluke.
So basically same MV for 1/3rd less powder. Now thats efficiancy!
I shoot LR BR and have used both the 300 Weatherby and the 300 WSM. Both are great shooters and very close in accuracy and MV. We routinely run 210 JLK and Bergers at 2950-3000 fps in the WSM. Now the Weatherby will run them 3050-3100 tops.
Plus, mosty importantly I get 2-4x the barrel life in a WSM. Danny Brooks 2008 Shooter of the Year for 1k in IBS won with a WSM that had 4000 rounds in it at the end of the Nationals. NO other 30 cal magnum has ever done that. My first barrel had over 2600 rds before I pulled it and still winning. My weatherby barrels were toast at 1200 rounds max.
Once again the WSM is more efficiant cost wise in components and barrel life.
Is the 300 Weatherby the best magnum, not IMO but still very good.
BH
John,
Check out the July issue of Rifle, especially 'Straight Talk' by Ron Spomer. He really GOOF on the 6.8 SPC big time!! He said it's a "necked up .223 Remington case", and puts little value in the 115 gr. bullet for deer. Read the article for yourself, you have hands on experience with the 6.8 and know what it will do. We're still waiting for your article on the 6.8X43!!!
Hal
hi could you tell me is there much differents between 45 grain winchester hollow points and 55 grain hollow points i am only shooting foxes
JB, I'm new to the campfire so maybe I have missed the topic. What are your thoughts on the 223 and 22-250 for deer and lopes?
MD--Bear with me, I know practically nothing about reloading--but I'm curious about a couple of things. I've used the Hornady light mags and thought they were agood round--now they've come out with the "Superformance" ammo. It appears to be about the same as the light-mag without the additional recoil(from what I've read--have not tried them yet). I'm curious in two ways 1) if I pulled the sst bullet out of the super round and substituted a tougher bullet of the same shape and weight--would the bullet perform the same,(mv, energy, traj , etc.) 2) what would be the inherant problems if I stuck in a lighter bullet ( pull a 140g 270 and replace with a 110g 270)? Thanks--Bill
If you have the reloading equipment that will allow you to start substituting components why are you not developing your own loads? At your level of experience I don't think it would be wise to start experimenting on your own. For example, in your second question about substituting lighter bullets the powder in the case may not be well suited to the lighter weight of bullet. It might work, but then again it might not and if so, what have you gotten for your efforts?
I think you have to make a choice. Either stick to factory ammo or else get into reloading, read and understand the manuals and develope the experience to tune ammo to your gun.
Just remember, the advice may be worth just what you paid for it.
Jim
BTT--for MD or someone who might have an opinion about my questions--Bill
I read with interest the comments regarding the .257 and .300 Weatherby, several years ago i borrowed a friend's .257WM to deer hunt with and found it to be a really nice rifle and cartridge. Can't say the same thing about the .300WM, that rifle was just plain ornery and kicked the snot out of me every time I squeezed the trigger. My elk rifle is a pre '64 Winchester M/70 which I regularly shoot 275gr. handloads with wo I am acquainted with rifles that kick hard. That .300WM had recoil that I just found to be untolerable, the guy that it belonged to used to get a bloody lip from the thing ramming his thumb into his lip just about every time he fired it. Not my idea of an ideal rifle by a long shot.
My intent is not to offend anyone, but a legitimate [to me at least] question. What is the advantage of a fast twist [1in8] 22 centerfire...223, .223AI,etc.? I fully understand it allows one to shoot heavier bullets [longer bearing surface] I certainly enjoy the .22 centerfire [I have and shoot/hunt with, .204, .222, 22-250, 22-250AI] However, I've always shot lighter bullets...typically 36gr, 53gr for coyotes, 53gr TSX,60gr. NPT's for deer or perhaps longer distances. If I want to shoot heavier bullets, i.e., 70 to 80gr. I shoot a 6mm Rem, .25 WSSM [HORRORS] My 6mm is a Ruger #1 and a 26" barrel and will shoot 75gr bullets pretty fast and is accurate enough to hit a coyote @ 400yds if it's not too windy and I manage to do my part. Are the fast twist .22's an economy issue? a recoil issue? a noise issue? Again this is not an argument..maybe I need a fast twist .22 centerfire? Thanks for advice and council. I might add, the very best reason to own/shoot a cartdrige is just because we like it.
The advantage to shooting heavier bullets for a given caliber is a higher ballistic coefficient. This doesn't always equate to a flatter trajectory, as velocity will be reduced, but it seems to help considerably with wind-drift. I also like 22 center fires, particularly the .22 BR, and there is no comparing the wind-drift of a typical 50 grain bullet to that of an 80 grainer fired from it.
John,
I have a lot of respect for your opinions based on your practical and knowledgeable posts that I've read since joining the campfire. As pertaining to this topic, I've hunted deer most of my life and admittedly, I'm smitten with Whitetail (any deer) hunting. I love the challenge of hunting a mature buck who kicks my azz most of the time. I cut my teeth on 270 wins and 30-06's. In the past 5 years, I've come to enjoy more moderate calibers for deer such as, 6.5x55, 7mm-08, 7x57. Partly, because they're more fun to shoot and I enjoy the challenge "of catching larger fish on reasonable lighter tackle" but also, I want my young son who has the hunting bug to start out with effective calibers that he can handle and learn good shooting technique. Currently, I'm on a 6.5x55, 7mm-08 and 7x57 kick and have a few rifles in each. I'll hunt with them, learn about their effectiveness and ultimately weed a few out to make room for a few other interesting calibers. I'm interested in your opinion on 257 Roberts versus 25-06 (already know about the limited availability of factory ammo for the 257, I currently don't reload but have access) or any other recommendations that you have. Thanks for your time.
MCT3,
Thanks for the kind comments.
In my experience, the .257 Roberts is just as effective at killing whitetails as any of the rounds you mention.