interesting to look at extreme examples of diminishing returns

[john keyes]

lets load a 125 gr bullet in a .308 Win,

H4895  45.0  2891  49.0C  3127 

hmm, not too shabby....I bet they will be faster in a 30-06, lets take a look

H4895  48.0  2977   53.7  3229 

hey, what happened.....never mind, lets do a .300 Mag, that should get us to the next level

H4895   57.0  3140  62.0  3347     

oh man how did we run out of gas so fast......and look at how much more powder is being used...


alright, well lets try a heavier bullet, a .30 cal 180 gr
in the .308 Win
H4895  40.0  2454   42.5  2595 
in the 30-06

H4895  41.0  2427  46.0  2638 

and now the 300 Win Mag

oops, no H4895 load for this one.  (I would guess that if would finally pay off with a magnum and heavy bullets somewhere down the line....)

[Dezynco]

It's an old discussion.....308 vs 30-06.  There's only a nickle's worth of difference up to 180 grain bullets, give or take a little.  It's just that the 30-06 has been around for so long that you can bet on it.  IF you need a little more umph when you get up to the heavy bullets, the 30-06 will pull ahead a little.  I'm a big fan of both, and have owned both.

With the 300 WinMag, the right powder and bullet combo will give you some extra energy at long ranges, say past 400 yards.  But you're right, it does look like you reach a point of diminishing returns. where you have to put so much more powder just to get that extra few feet per second.  However, the 300 WinMag does have the case capacity if the situation calls for it.  I'm also a fan of the 300 WinMag BTW.

[bilmac]

You gotta change the powder to get the most out of the bigger cases. Then you really start dumping in gobs more powder. The real comparison would be how much does it cost to shoot a 300 vs. a 308. Then the question is what are those few FPS's buying you? Maybe just a few yards of point blank range. I think the real comparison that should be made between magnums and standards is at what point does recoil and muzzle blast cause the shooter to go from a competent shot to a misser.

Maybe the question isn't whether he can control his nerves well enough to pull off an occasional good shot from a good rest. But how much is a guy going to practice with a gun that he doesn't really like to shoot. Is he going to practice some off hand shooting, some rapid fire, some snap shooting? When you throw those kinds of things into the equation, I think the a guy with a 308 may be better off than the guy with the mag that burns a lot of powder.

[stimpylu32]

You gotta change the powder to get the most out of the bigger cases. Then you really start dumping in gobs more powder. The real comparison would be how much does it cost to shoot a 300 vs. a 308. Then the question is what are those few FPS's buying you? Maybe just a few yards of point blank range. I think the real comparison that should be made between magnums and standards is at what point does recoil and muzzle blast cause the shooter to go from a competent shot to a misser.

Maybe the question isn't whether he can control his nerves well enough to pull off an occasional good shot from a good rest. But how much is a guy going to practice with a gun that he doesn't really like to shoot. Is he going to practice some off hand shooting, some rapid fire, some snap shooting? When you throw those kinds of things into the equation, I think the a guy with a 308 may be better off than the guy with the mag that burns a lot of powder.

I totaly agree , to get the real advantage from the larger case's it takes a much slower powder , than what is needed for say the 308 .

stimpy

[Sweetwater]

As everything gets more and more expensive, at some point, hunters are going to go back to hunting like they did before the advent of the big magnums. The standard calibers will come back in to vogue and shooters will be practicing again and more will be stalking to get closer to their quarry. It all hits you in the pocket book and you adjust accordingly so that you can stay in the game.

[KansasPaul]

... this is just an anecdotal note but Guns & Ammo published an article a few years back regarding cartridge efficiency. The premise was to look at the bullet, weight, amount of powder in the cartridge, bullet energy and "kill" factor.  The author, like many others in the shooting/hunting hobby assumed that one of the modern cartridges would take top honors for overall efficiency.  One note in the article was that the .308 cartridge was THE most EFFICIENT cartridge in all of the .30 caliber cartridges.  The "TOP DOG" of all cartridges compared (25 caliber all the way through .500 caliber) was the .35 Wheelan.  Who would have thought that a wildcat cartridge developed about 80 years ago would still take top honors for cartridge efficiency?

[necchi]

I'm still tryin to figure out what the push for velocity is. What good is velocity if the bullet is 4" off the mark?

The wide range of bullet design today allow preformance at ALL ranges of speed, maybe I'm just rouge', but I like accuracy first.

[skb2706]

Whats interesting about using the same exact powder in three totally different cases when in fact it is not an ideal powder for all three. And no mention of barrel length ?

I'm more a of "have your cake and eat it to" kind a guy. I want the velocity and the accuracy, I get both in my .300 Win mags,

[SHOOTALL]

lets load a 125 gr bullet in a .308 Win,

H4895  45.0  2891  49.0C  3127 

hmm, not too shabby....I bet they will be faster in a 30-06, lets take a look

H4895  48.0  2977   53.7  3229 

hey, what happened.....never mind, lets do a .300 Mag, that should get us to the next level

H4895   57.0  3140  62.0  3347     

oh man how did we run out of gas so fast......and look at how much more powder is being used...


alright, well lets try a heavier bullet, a .30 cal 180 gr
in the .308 Win
H4895  40.0  2454   42.5  2595 
in the 30-06

H4895  41.0  2427  46.0  2638 

and now the 300 Win Mag

oops, no H4895 load for this one.  (I would guess that if would finally pay off with a magnum and heavy bullets somewhere down the line....)

What ya trying to say ?

[PawPaw]

I've always considered a 125 grain bullet to be a novelty in the .30 caliber rifles, whether we're talking about the .30-30 or the .300 WM.

Efficiency is a relative term.  What are you trying to accomplish?  The most efficient way to move bulk freight is by barge, but it's sort of inefficient when you want to go to the Dollar Store for a loaf of bread.

While I have a long, affectionate relationship with .30 caliber rifles, I don't use them for everything.  For bullets in the 125 grain class, the .260 Remington might be a more efficient cartridge.

I agree that the .30 caliber rifles are very versatile, but to my way of thinking they perform better when used with 150-180 grain bullets.

Generally, I try to match the weight of the bullet to the size of the bore.

45-70 grain, I use a .22 cal
80-100 grain, I use a 6mm
100-120 grain, I use a .25 cal
120-140, I use a 7mm
150-180, I use a .30 cal
180-200 grain, I use a .35 cal

These are just illustrations, and no hard-fast rules, but it seems to me that trying to move a little bullet with a large bore might be inefficient.

No doubt, the .35 Whelen is a magnificent cartridge and lots of folks swear by it, but I wouldn't use it to shoot crows.

[temmi]

To be fair you should use the optimum powder for each cartridge in each bullet weight.

While I have not done that exercise… That is how it should be done. 

[Sweetwater]

"No doubt, the .35 Whelen is a magnificent cartridge and lots of folks swear by it, but I wouldn't use it to shoot crows."

Maybe so, but it will definitely put them out of the picture!! LOL

Other ways of looking at efficiency include some form of energy per grain of powder, but the one I like is how it hits my pocket book. Cost per shot is a pretty good indicator of "availability for practicing". When I elk hunt with my Persian Carbine 8x57mm, I have the cost of my primer, 50gr of powder, 200gr Nosler Partition, and I throw in my labor. These are reasonably cheap by today's standard as I bought the bullets a "long" time ago. Now, should I opt for my 32WSpl, which took my last elk, I have the same primer cost, I use 32gr of powder, so about a 40% cost reduction, and a cast bullet, which is difficult for me to figure the electricity for the electric pot and the Wheelweights I'm using are still free though labor intensive, so I'll take $5/100. For the sake of discussion, I'll keep the powder and primers at a relative cost of $3/100 for primers and $22/lb for powder. More some places and less at others, probably, anyway. The Noslers were $27/50; so the elk load for the 8x57 comes in at .157 for powder, .03 for primer and .54 for bullet equals $.727 per shot for the 8x57. By contrast, the elk load in the 32WSpl comes to .10 for powder, .03 for primer, .05 for bullet equals $.18 per shot for the 32WSpl. I can figuratively speaking shoot the 32 four times as much as the 8 for the equivalent cost. The 32 is more efficient. H'mmm, but I need to hunt harder, longer to get a decent shot with the 32 as it has a much shorter range than the 8x57. Oh, so the shot is 55cents cheaper, but the cost of the hunt just skyrocketed!!

Efficiency has to be carefully weighed and not taken too narrowly, or we cut off our nose to spite our face. IF a 275 yard shot presented itself on day #1, the 8x57 would prove very efficient to the cost of the hunt, compared to the 32WSpl, which happen to be the two rifles I've personally used for elk. Especially if a 150 yard shot didn't happen for several days or at all. And a step further, if only 400 plus yard shots were available and no amount of stalking could close the gap, a big magnum just became cheap to shoot. Take your choices and make them happen.

It remains a neat discussion.

[SHOOTALL]

Must consider some only want one gun and different loads for different shooting

[john keyes]

Its only one example, albeit flawed by the effort to characterize the powder as a constant for simplification. 

If you added up the reloading experience of the posters in this thread, I'm pretty sure that we would have gotten >100 years fast.  So of course we would look at slow burning powders as the cartridge volume got bigger.  Some wouldn't ever think about a light bullet in a .300 Mag but I have one in the safe and some 125's so I did wonder how fast I could get it.  But, to get to 4000 will it take TWICE as much powder as it did to get to 3500?  thats the kind of stuff I am talking about...

The smallest round I load is 6 mm Remington and .243 Winchester, so I have no experience with the .223 rounds.  But I am sure there are some examples there where at some point you are putting in a whole lot more powder and not getting too much more fps.  And as mentioned, some cartridges are more efficient than others, and some are suited for particular bullet weights. 

So I'm not really thinking along the lines of "is a .257 wby really that much better than a .25-06 ie the cost of brass etc.."  but instead:  for a partcular round and bullet weight at what point are you putting more in and not getting anything back....

We all have different levels of tolerance.  I'm so lazy I trim brass on a bench grinder then deburr/chamfer it with the little rocketship tool.  I will never weigh cases, sort by lot number, anneal, turn necks, sort bullets (I do mic bullets at times just to see how they are running).  But a lot of people do that and this is  a (I hate to say it....) a hobby and I count the hours that I reload as quality time!

and you know as reloaders we can enjoy thinking about stuff, different than laying out 30 or 40 bucks for a box of factory ammo and saying "well, we are done here".  But those guys think too, they shoot different factory ammo and see how it compares in their guns.   





Again, I agree with everything said.