Thesis: 358 Winchester is the single most ballistically efficient round in exist

[358Win]

Well the subject line is a bit short.  But the subject of my next investigation into modern ballistics is: Is the 358 Winchester the Single Most Efficient Centerfire Caliber in Existence or Not?
I absolutely don't know if this is a fact.  I strongly suspect that this is the case.  I'll be writing a series of articles to see if the Thesis is True or Not.

[Cheesehead]

How about comparing it to a cartridge that does not exist, yet, the 358 WSM.

Cheese

[jdt48653]

I will take a wild guess and say that the 6.5 is ballisticy superior (coefficient)

[deltecs]

In the research, try the 9.3 x 62 Mauser.  You might be surprised.

[handirifle]

There was an article some years back in a magazine, or maybe online, not sure, but it compared a large number a rounds and ended up declaring the 35 Whelen as the most efficient cartridge.  BC was only part of his equation.  I'll look  and see if I can find the article.

[Grumulkin]

By good efficiency, one would mean getting a certain result with the minimum amount of powder.  What result you're looking for would vary depending on the intended use of the gun.  Results one might look for include:

1.  Maximum bullet energy.
2.  Maximum bullet momentum which is probably more important in penetration than energy.
3.  Maximum velocity.

The 358 Winchester would probably do very well efficiency wise in the energy and momentum categories.

[PA-Joe]

Too much bullet for a rabbit or squirrel! I'll stick with the 22LR.

[Casull]

Too bad nobody liked it or wanted to buy it.   

[alien319]

There was an article in the 2007 Guns and Ammo Annual on effiency and they also declared that the .35 whelen and .35 whelen ackley improved were some of the most efficient cartridges in the world.

[Dee]

And the 3030 has killed more north American game than them all. I hope this research effort doesn't get into the hands of the game we hunt. They will refuse to die if shot with such calibers as the 3030, once they find out the real truth.

[Ratltrap]

I'm about to build one on a Rem. 600 action. Either way it's getting built, but I hope you can prove your thesis.

[358Win]

Wow most of my posts don't get anything like this response.  What I will do my research on is Energy per grain of powder burned, at the muzzle, and at 100 yards and at 200 yards.  First off, pull out your reloading manuals and check the 30-06 against the 358 Winchester for Muzzle Velocity with equal bullet weights:

Bullet Weight      30-06      358 Winchester
180 grain           2801fps        2799fps          These are averages of the top loads in Barnes Manual #1
200 grain           2675fps        2679fps           Wow the little 358 is slightly ahead of the famed '06 for raw speed!!!
220/225 grain     2490fps        2496fps            Even with 5 more grains of bullet weight the 358 opens it lead.

I'll soon be ready to publish some of the initial data and it is very interesting.  At the muzzle the smaller the case and the larger the bore the higher the energy per grain.  At the muzzle the hands down winner is the 44 Magnum in a rifle.  Of course this advantage disappears at range.  What I expect to find based on the preliminaries is that cartridges like the 358 Winchester, the 338 Federal, the 35 Whelen and the 9.3x62mm will have real high numbers up close and the ability to retain it at range.

[Casull]

Did my own checking between Speer Manual 13 and Lee Modern Reloading, and here is what I came up with:

30-06                                  .358 Winchester

180 grain - 2753                   180 grain - 2723

200 grain - 2594                   200 grain - 2587

220 grain - 2476                   220 grain - 2468

These numbers represent the top three loads from each manual, with the following exceptions:  Lee lists only one load for the .358 with 180 grain bullet, Speer lists no loads for the .358 with 200 grain bullets, and Speer lists no loads for the 30-06 with 220 grain bullets. 

As you can see, the 30-06 outperforms the .358 Winchester with each bullet weight (albeit by a very small amount).  This is true even though (as far as I know) most or all of the reloading manuals still list max loads for the 30-06 at less pressure than the .308 family of cartridges in deferrence to older actions.  Obviously, loaded to the same pressures, the 30-06 would post some increases over the above.  Further, given the greatly superior ballistic coeficients of the .30 cal bullets over the .35 cal bullets of the same weight, the difference would be much greater (in favor of the 30-06) the further from the muzzle that we measure energies.

Just another perspective (with an obvious bias toward the good old 30-06).

[coyotejoe]

I think this is a lot like the long standing and yet unresolved debate as to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!
 It's all a matter of how one rigs the criteria. As mentioned, the most energy per grain of powder at the muzzle would go to some small straight case pistol cartridge loaded to max pressure in a rifle. Then at some point down range it would be surpassed by a bullet with higher ballistic coefficient. So my vote would got to something like the 300 Whisper or 500 whisper which uses a small powder charge to drive a bullet of high ballistic coefficient at subsonic velocities. But all in all, it is a purely academic exercise with no practical out come.

[BigJakeJ1s]

Did my own checking between Speer Manual 13 and Lee Modern Reloading, and here is what I came up with:

30-06                                  .358 Winchester

180 grain - 2753                   180 grain - 2723

200 grain - 2594                   200 grain - 2587

220 grain - 2476                   220 grain - 2468

These numbers represent the top three loads from each manual, with the following exceptions:  Lee lists only one load for the .358 with 180 grain bullet, Speer lists no loads for the .358 with 200 grain bullets, and Speer lists no loads for the 30-06 with 220 grain bullets. 

As you can see, the 30-06 outperforms the .358 Winchester with each bullet weight (albeit by a very small amount).  This is true even though (as far as I know) most or all of the reloading manuals still list max loads for the 30-06 at less pressure than the .308 family of cartridges in deferrence to older actions.  Obviously, loaded to the same pressures, the 30-06 would post some increases over the above.  Further, given the greatly superior ballistic coeficients of the .30 cal bullets over the .35 cal bullets of the same weight, the difference would be much greater (in favor of the 30-06) the further from the muzzle that we measure energies.

Just another perspective (with an obvious bias toward the good old 30-06).

Are those 220 gr 30-06 loads with spitzer bullets, loaded to standard COL? Round nose bullets would not have the BC of the .358 spitzer. And I don't know of many 250 gr loads available in 30-06.

Then there's also the efficiency of the lighter, more rigid short action...

Andy

[358Win]

Hi All:

   I agree that the velocity differences with equal bullet weights are very small.  Basically, the 30-06 and the 358 Winchester are ballistic twins.  While there are many good points to be raised about the 30-06, what is surprising is that the 358 Winchester burns about 8 grains less powder to achieve the same muzzle velocities.  After reading a few remarks about the 358 Win being a "Woods" round, it surely makes me feel better to know that it equals the 30-06, and I don't think that the 30-06 has ever been called a "Woods" caliber.The 358 Win is currently available in the Ruger M77 Mark II and the Browning BLR.  It and the 338 Federal can both be made up in short light quick handling guns.  Note that the Ruger is also available in a left-handed action which is quite nice for lefties like me.

   Don't get me wrong I think the 30-06 is a great round, my very first rifle was a 30-06 M1 Garand.  But the 358 Win gives identical ballistics with less powder, less noise, less muzzle blast, less recoil and a short action.  Also the 358 has readily available 250 grain bullets and bullet weights up to 310 grains.  Swift makes a 280 grain, and Woodleigh makes both solid and round nose 310 grain bullets.  To further add to the flexibility of the 358 Win, it can also use the same bullets you use in your 357 Magnum handgun.  140 grain and 160 grain revolver bullets driven at about 1800fps make wonderful small game loads.

   Factory ammo is hard to come by, but brass is readily available.  Also brass can be made by fire-forming the 338 Federal or 308 Winchester factory ammo.  Brass can also be made from 243 Winchester, 260 Remington, 7mm-08, 308 Winchester, and 338 Federal cases.  I've had no trouble necking up 243 Win cases to 358 just by warming the neck with a lighter, putting Hornady Unique Case Lube on and running the case into the die in one pass.

   I do think the 300 Whisper is a great round.  I'll see if I can find some data and include it in my results.  I doubt that the results of this study will make me run out and buy a new gun, but I might want to use the results the next time I think I need a new rifle.  Right now I'm very happy with the 358 Win BLR I already have. 

   Iit will most likely be Friday when I post next.  I'm planning to show the data and results for at least the 6mm calibers and if I work hard I might get up to the 6.5mm cartridges.  The basic approach will be to run data from 2 or 3 manuals for each of the cartridges with a full range of bullet weights.  The 100 and 200 yard velocities will be calculated using the JBM ballistics calculator.  The Energy and Efficiency in Foot-Pounds of Energy per grain of powder consumed will be shown.  The Efficiency will be shown at the muzzle and at the 100 and 200 yard ranges.  An Excel Spreadsheet will be used to record all the data, and do all the calculations.

   The final ranking will be sorted by the Efficiency at 200 yards.  In order to get consistent results Barnes X bullets will be used.  This minimizes differences due to bullet ogive, and base shape differences.

[Casull]

 Are those 220 gr 30-06 loads with spitzer bullets, loaded to standard COL? Round nose bullets would not have the BC of the .358 spitzer. And I don't know of many 250 gr loads available in 30-06.

Then there's also the efficiency of the lighter, more rigid short action...

Lee doesn't show the type bullet for 220 grain 30-06, and Speer doesn't list a 220 for the 30-06.  But, the 200 grain 30-06 Grand Slam bullet (with a flat tip) has a better ballistic coeficient than the 250 grain spitzer for the .358.  Doesn't take much to infer that a 220 grain 30-06 of whatever type bullet will have a better BC than a 220 grain .358.  So, although the 30-06 is only a little better at the muzzle (energy wise), the farther you get down range, the bigger the difference becomes.  Also, takes 52.0 grains of 748 to get a .358 slug of 220 grains up to 2481 fps, while it takes 56.0 grains of 4831 to get a 220 grain 30-06 slug up to 2490.  I really don't think 4 grains of powder is that big a deal, especially given that the 30-06 will hit harder at hunting distances.

As far as the action length, never bothered me, and never really saw any "efficiency" in a short action.

[lgm270]

Hi All:

   I agree that the velocity differences with equal bullet weights are very small.  Basically, the 30-06 and the 358 Winchester are ballistic twins.  While there are many good points to be raised about the 30-06, what is surprising is that the 358 Winchester burns about 8 grains less powder to achieve the same muzzle velocities.  After reading a few remarks about the 358 Win being a "Woods" round, it surely makes me feel better to know that it equals the 30-06, and I don't think that the 30-06 has ever been called a "Woods" caliber.The 358 Win is currently available in the Ruger M77 Mark II and the Browning BLR.  It and the 338 Federal can both be made up in short light quick handling guns.  Note that the Ruger is also available in a left-handed action which is quite nice for lefties like me.

   Don't get me wrong I think the 30-06 is a great round, my very first rifle was a 30-06 M1 Garand.  But the 358 Win gives identical ballistics with less powder, less noise, less muzzle blast, less recoil and a short action.  Also the 358 has readily available 250 grain bullets and bullet weights up to 310 grains.  Swift makes a 280 grain, and Woodleigh makes both solid and round nose 310 grain bullets.  To further add to the flexibility of the 358 Win, it can also use the same bullets you use in your 357 Magnum handgun.  140 grain and 160 grain revolver bullets driven at about 1800fps make wonderful small game loads.

   Factory ammo is hard to come by, but brass is readily available.  Also brass can be made by fire-forming the 338 Federal or 308 Winchester factory ammo.  Brass can also be made from 243 Winchester, 260 Remington, 7mm-08, 308 Winchester, and 338 Federal cases.  I've had no trouble necking up 243 Win cases to 358 just by warming the neck with a lighter, putting Hornady Unique Case Lube on and running the case into the die in one pass.

   I do think the 300 Whisper is a great round.  I'll see if I can find some data and include it in my results.  I doubt that the results of this study will make me run out and buy a new gun, but I might want to use the results the next time I think I need a new rifle.  Right now I'm very happy with the 358 Win BLR I already have. 

   Iit will most likely be Friday when I post next.  I'm planning to show the data and results for at least the 6mm calibers and if I work hard I might get up to the 6.5mm cartridges.  The basic approach will be to run data from 2 or 3 manuals for each of the cartridges with a full range of bullet weights.  The 100 and 200 yard velocities will be calculated using the JBM ballistics calculator.  The Energy and Efficiency in Foot-Pounds of Energy per grain of powder consumed will be shown.  The Efficiency will be shown at the muzzle and at the 100 and 200 yard ranges.  An Excel Spreadsheet will be used to record all the data, and do all the calculations.

   The final ranking will be sorted by the Efficiency at 200 yards.  In order to get consistent results Barnes X bullets will be used.  This minimizes differences due to bullet ogive, and base shape differences.

You make me want to go out and buy one.

[Rev Buck]

Me too!   

[Coyote Hunter]

Well the subject line is a bit short.  But the subject of my next investigation into modern ballistics is: Is the 358 Winchester the Single Most Efficient Centerfire Caliber in Existence or Not?

I will be interested in what you write but I have to say  have never chosen a cartridge on the basis of its efficiency.  Doubt that I ever will, either.

That's not to say I would chose a .22 wildcat based on a .458 Lott case, so I guess efficiency plays SOME role in my decision making. 

Bullet diameter/velocity/construction, rifle make/model/weight/materials, application, what rifles I already have and a host of other factors weigh more heavily for me than efficiency, but I'm curious if you can make your case.

[Dee]

I'm still stickin with the 3030. It don't hurt on the back side of the shell casing and with a good shot it still kills. Cheap ammo, and plentiful, though admittedly not a magnum and not very exotic. I suppose not very macho, or romantic either. Well, maybe a little romantic in a western sort of way.

[BigJakeJ1s]

Lee doesn't show the type bullet for 220 grain 30-06, and Speer doesn't list a 220 for the 30-06.  But, the 200 grain 30-06 Grand Slam bullet (with a flat tip) has a better ballistic coeficient than the 250 grain spitzer for the .358.  Doesn't take much to infer that a 220 grain 30-06 of whatever type bullet will have a better BC than a 220 grain .358.  So, although the 30-06 is only a little better at the muzzle (energy wise), the farther you get down range, the bigger the difference becomes.  Also, takes 52.0 grains of 748 to get a .358 slug of 220 grains up to 2481 fps, while it takes 56.0 grains of 4831 to get a 220 grain 30-06 slug up to 2490.  I really don't think 4 grains of powder is that big a deal, especially given that the 30-06 will hit harder at hunting distances.

The 30 cal 200 gr GS is a soft point bullet with a very slightly flattened point (NOT a flat nose) with a BC very close to what a true spitzer would have (.448). On the other hand Hornady's only 30 cal, 220 gr bullet is indeed a round nose, and has a BC of only .300, much less than that of a 35 cal 225 gr partition (neither GS nor Hornady 35 cal available in ~220 gr weigt) has a BC of .430. Tell me again how that 220 gr 30 cal load performs better at distance than the .358?

And then there are no 30-06 loads with 250 gr or heavier bullets...

Comparing efficiency of loads with different powders is meaningless because you don't know the relative energy content per grain in different powders.

Andy

[nomosendero]

I am glad some care so much about efficiency, it makes for a more balanced world. But efficiency ALONE does not a 500 yd. Varmit round make.

Although, a 6mmbr & a few others can qualify. But still, I have some rounds that will do what a 358 Win cannot do in a practical way, so it is not relevant in those cases.

Nice round though.

[Casull]

The 30 cal 200 gr GS is a soft point bullet with a very slightly flattened point (NOT a flat nose) with a BC very close to what a true spitzer would have (.448). On the other hand Hornady's only 30 cal, 220 gr bullet is indeed a round nose, and has a BC of only .300, much less than that of a 35 cal 225 gr partition (neither GS nor Hornady 35 cal available in ~220 gr weigt) has a BC of .430. Tell me again how that 220 gr 30 cal load performs better at distance than the .358?

And then there are no 30-06 loads with 250 gr or heavier bullets...

Comparing efficiency of loads with different powders is meaningless because you don't know the relative energy content per grain in different powders.

Well, first of all the .30 cal 200 GS is not very close in BC to a .30 cal 200 grain spitzer (.448 compared to .556).  Secondly, if I was creating a heavy, distance load for the 30-06, I would be concentrating on the 200 grain spitzer.  By comparison, even a 250 grain spitzer .358 slug only has a BC of .446, far behind the .30 cal 200 grain spitzer with its .556 BC (unless you don't think 25% is significant, and that with a heavier bullet that the .358 can't push as fast).  For example, a 200 grain 30-06 spitzer at 2600 fps will hit with 2036 fpe at 300 yards, compared with a 250 grain .358 spitzer at 2350 fps which will hit at 300 yards with 1837 fpe, and with a 100 yard zero, the .358 will drop about a half foot more than the 30-06.  Accordingly, the 30-06 will have less recoil, shoot flatter and hit with about 10% more energy.  The 200 grain 30-06 load would also give greater penetration with its .301 sectional density, compared to the 250 grain .358 sectional density of .279

As to the 30-06 having no loads with the 250 grain bullet, I don't buy factory ammo anyway.  If I want a 250 grain bullet, I'll simply load some.  In fact, I have an old Shooting Times issue with a 250 grain 30-06 load producing about 2450 fps.

Finally, as to comparing loads with different powders, I merely took the top load for each and compared weight of powder.  If you are wanting to talk efficiency, it would seem that you want to know how much powder to achieve the desired results, regardless of which particular powder works best for either cartridge.

[Cheesehead]

Penetration is more reliant on bullet construction than sectional density. A soft bullet will penetrate less than a bullet of heavy construction regardless of sectional density. For example a Sierra Game King compared to a Barnes TSX.



"The 200 grain 30-06 load would also give greater penetration with its .301 sectional density, compared to the 250 grain .358 sectional density of .279"

Cheese

[coyotejoe]

You nailed it Cheesehead.  Sectional density is a meaningless term as applied to expanding bullets since, after impact the diameter is radically increased and most often the weight is reduced as well. Sectional density is useful only as a step toward determining the ballistic coefficient.

[Dee]

I wonder how people chose a rifle before they knew about ballistic coefficient, sectional density, hydrostatic shock and so on?

[Casull]

Penetration is more reliant on bullet construction than sectional density. A soft bullet will penetrate less than a bullet of heavy construction regardless of sectional density. For example a Sierra Game King compared to a Barnes TSX.

Really.  I just didn't think anyone would think that I was comparing a copper solid slug with a relatively soft lead tipped thin jacketed bullet.  Well, I was using a Speer manual, so you think just maybe we're looking at two Speer spitzer style bullets.  In that case, sectional density would certainly make a difference.  A longer bullet (for caliber) of similar construction is just plain going to penetrate better than a shorter bullet of that same construction.  I believe I'll stand by what I wrote.

[SHOOTALL]

Gee wish there was a way to see what bullet , rifle , cartridge combo put the most meat on the table for the least cost per pound , per shot ! my guess it would be a Walmart box of cheap 30/30's in a used handi rifle ! then again an old mauser in some old big bore killing an elephant ! but i'm guessing !
Your quest is Nobel but you have no way to account for suitability of the round for all game which dictates the needed ballistics to start with ! how do ya compare a .358 , 458 or 223 realistically ?
do ya use the same powder ? primer etc. ?  I never did like paper work anyway , good luck !

[jvs]

psssssst......... the .35 Remington has been around for years.   And whatever the .35 Remington can't do, the .35 Whelen can.  There have been big believers in the 35 caliber gang for years, including myself.

( the readily available 35's already have all of the virtues you believe needs explaining in a Thesis about the .358 Win )

And since I am already a fan of the .35's, this thread was fun.  A 35 should be in everybodys collection.