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

[358Win]

So far I'm using Barnes Manual #1 for most of my data and that does have some limitations as to calibers.  Once I get all of the basics done, I pledge to look at the 358 WSM, the 6mm BR, and any of the others that I get requests for.  So if any of you want efficiency data for your favorite round, just give me your loading data an I'll run the calculations for you.  I have already done most of the hard part which was getting all of my equations validated and set up in an Excel spreadsheet to do the work.  This would be a full time job if I didn't have all the computer tools at my disposal.

I will also be adding a cartridge of my own design.  Which you can see at: http://ammoguide.com

It is called the 35 Newton Short and is based on the 375 Ruger case shortened to 57mm = 2.244 inches in length and necked down to 35 caliber with a neck length of 0.358 i.e. the neck length and the bore diameter are the same.  This is designed to be made up in an Ultra Light arms 3.0 inch action.  This case has a capacity of 76 grains of water.  The expected performance is 2,400 fps with the Woodleigh 310 grain bullet.  The application is large Alaskan Bears mostly as a defensive round.  The idea would be to load a 310 grain soft with SD=.346 and BC=.458 in the chamber followed by 310 grain solids with SD=.346 and BC=.458.  So both bullets shoot to the same point of aim.  One fact about BC that seems to be not widely known is that BC = SD * Form Factor.  So two bullets with the same SD and the same Form Factor will also always have the same BC.

Unfortunately it is getting late and I've got to get some sleep.  But I did want to point out that there are Assumptions made in all the the Recoil Calculators about the exhaust velocity of the powder gases.  Most of these formulas use some kind of a guess as to what the exhaust velocity of the powder gases will be.  This is actually a function of the pressure at the moment the pressure vessel (i.e. barrel) is uncorked in other words as soon as the bullet exits.  If this estimated exit pressure is close to the actual exit pressure the results of the integral calculus is very accurate.  If the estimated exit pressure is a poor guess then the rocket thrust will not be very accurate.  In general the estimated exit pressure is extrapolated from something like the 30-06 in a 24 inch barrel.  The actual exit pressure is a function of the burn rate of the chosen powder, the expansion ratio which in turn is a function of barrel length and case capacity and bore diameter.  Some of the better programs ask for things like barrel length, case dimensions, twist rate, and bore diameter.  The simpler programs give good results with things like the 270, the 30-06, 338 Win Mag etc.  But for things like high twist rate cartridges with extremely heavy bullets, such as a 264 with a 7 inch twist firing 200 grain bullets in full length 2.850 magnum cases then they don't work as well as one would like.  The same kind of remarks can be made for super high expansion ratio cartridges such as a 454 Casull in a rifle.  But they are still close enough for most purposes.

One last side note.  In most all cases the powder gases are accelerated to a much higher speed than the bullet.  High speed photos are very interesting.  First you see the point of the bullet, then you see the bullet outrunning the powder for a inch or two, then you see the powder gases over take the bullet and begin to fan out.  Finally you see the bullet come out of the cloud and rush down range as the powder gases slow down from atmospheric friction.

[SHOOTALL]

jvs , i just picked up a .356 win. does that count ?

ain't the sky  Carolina blue by the way !  just kidding !

[Country Boy]

I don't really know. But as a game gun for deer,bear it is great ! I've never had a bear or deer move after being shot with my .358 but I've never shot anything (especially bears) very far. I think the blr needs a 21-22" bbl. I did kill a moose and two elk with mine and they needed no tracking.

[RaySendero]

CH,

Would you run numbers for my 9.3x62 rifle with my reload?
Rifle weight is 8 Lbs
Bullet weight is 286 grains.
Powder charge is 56 grains.
Muzzle velocity is 2,400 fps.

Sure.

35.72 foot-pounds @ 16.96 fps recoil velocity

23.7 foot-pounds @ 13.8fps = .30-06 @ 8.0 pounds, 200g @ 2600fps, 54g powder


WOW!!!! - 51% more recoil and 23% more recoil velocity than same weight 06!

Thanks CH.  Just got it back from GS while I'm recovering from neck surgery, So I haven't shot it yet!  Doc says I can't shoot for another 3 weeks.  GS shot it and said that it did not seem to kick as bad as a 300 mag.  Son shot it for me and said it did!

PS: Stock has still has original steel butt plate.

[358Win]

Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   M KE   M Eff
7mm-08   Barnes .284,SD=.247,BC=.436   140   H 414   47.0   2874   2567   54.6
7mm-08   Barnes .284,SD=.283,BC=.508   160   H 414   42.5   2617   2433   57.2
7mm-08   Barnes .284,SD=.309,BD=.530   175   H 414   41.0   2468   2366   57.7
                     
Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   M KE   M Eff
7 x 57mm   Barnes .284,SD=.247,BC=.436   140   RL22   54.0   3021   2837   52.5
7 x 57mm   Barnes .284,SD=.283,BC=.508   160   H 450   53.0   2782   2749   51.9
7 x 57mm   Barnes .284,SD=.309,BD=.530   175   IMR4831   47.0   2655   2739   58.3
                     
Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   M KE   M Eff
284 Win   Barnes .284,SD=.247,BC=.436   140   W 760   53.5   2980   2760   51.6
284 Win   Barnes .284,SD=.283,BC=.508   160   H4831   54.0   2700   2589   48.0
284 Win   Barnes .284,SD=.309,BD=.530   175   IMR 7828   50.0   2586   2598   52.0

Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   M KE   M Eff
280 Remington   Barnes .284,SD=.247,BC=.436   140   RL 22   60.5   3052   2895   47.9
280 Remington   Barnes .284,SD=.283,BC=.508   160   RL 22   55.0   2848   2881   52.4
280 Remington   Barnes .284,SD=.309,BD=.530   175   IMR 7828   55.0   2701   2834   51.5
                     
Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   M KE   M Eff
7mm Rem. Mag.   Barnes .284,SD=.247,BC=.436   140   RL 22   70.0   3207   3197   45.7
7mm Rem. Mag.   Barnes .284,SD=.283,BC=.508   160   H 4831   66.0   2933   3056   46.3
7mm Rem. Mag.   Barnes .284,SD=.309,BD=.530   175   AA8700   77.0   2815   3079   40.0
                      
Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   M KE   M Eff
7mm Weatherby   Barnes .284,SD=.247,BC=.436   140   RL 22   76.0   3386   3563   46.9
7mm Weatherby   Barnes .284,SD=.283,BC=.508   160   IMR 7828   73.0   3118   3453   47.3
7mm Weatherby   Barnes .284,SD=.309,BD=.530   175   IMR 7828   72.0   2993   3480   48.3

Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   M KE   M Eff
7mm STW   Barnes .284,SD=.247,BC=.436   140   IMR7828   80.0   3572   3966   49.6
7mm STW   Barnes .284,SD=.283,BC=.508   160   IMR7828   78.0   3354   3996   51.2
7mm STW   Barnes .284,SD=.309,BD=.530   175   IMR7828   75.0   3152   3860   51.5

Well the 7mm-08 is all around most efficient.  But the 175 grain in the 7 x57mm was a grand design over a 100 years ago, and still hasn't been
beat in this bore diameter to this day.  So far the 6.5x55mm is still on top.  When is comes to down range delivery for the lowest recoil thrust
these two grand old military cartridges show that the designers in the tail end of the 1800's were way ahead of their time.

A while back Patrick Smith of Kifaru http://www.kifaru.net/forums.htm built a prototype switch barrel rifle with one barrel in 260 Remington
and the other in 358 Winchester.  Now that is my idea of covering all the bases with the minimum amount of equipment.

[Coyote Hunter]

358Win -

Maybe I'm missing something here.  Other than academic interest, I'm still curious - why is efficient so important?

In your example a 7mm-08 drives a 140g bullet 2874fps with a M Eff of 54.6
A 7mm Rem Mag drives the same bullet 3207fps with a M Eff of 45.7.

While the 7mm-08 cartridge is a great one, higher M Eff rankings don't deliver the flat shooting or down-range energy of the 7mm Rem Mag.  In other words, M Eff doesn't say much about down-range performance.  When I want to tow my boat, I don't choose a 80mpg motorcycle.

By the way, The Barnes manuals are full of suspect data.  The 3021fps for the 7x57 140g load is one.  Alliant shows 2790fps with 1.0g less of Reloder 22 and a maximum velocity of 2835fps with Reloder 19.

[Dee]

WOW! Lots of good data here. Nothing so far though to switch off the 3030 Winchester. I still gonna keep reading though.

[SHOOTALL]

wouldn't hunt grizz with a 708 either !

[358Win]

Hi Friends:

   Well I guess when you get right down to the brass tacks, this study of efficiency is mostly an academic exercise.  Energy per grain of powder burned is an indicator of how to get the most bang for the least amount of powder.  As can be seen from the data so far it is a most of the large powder hogs are quite powerful cartridges that are chosen for their power rather than for their efficiency.  An efficient cartridge is usually a fairly small case than can be made up in an extremely light mountain rifle that will get the job done with minimal recoil.  The 6.5 x 55mm and the 7 x 57mm are classic examples of this.  While there are many good reasons to choose cartridges that are in the medium efficiency range, the cartridges that are on the low side typically have more recoil, more muzzle blast and are generally more difficult to shoot with a high degree of accuracy.  The human factor, flinch etc. tend to require a bit more practice than most folks get to become proficient.

   Many years ago I was able to get a copy of P.O. Ackley's "Handbook for Shooters & Reloaders.  He was a big fan of efficient cartridges for the reasons mentioned above and for the fact that barrel life tends to be longer in cartridges that have medium to high efficiency.  For the average hunter this isn't a really big issue, because they generally shoot less than a couple of hundred rounds in several years of hunting.  Folks like myself that often shoot a hundred rounds or more per month are much more concerned with such issues because I want barrel life to exceed 2,000 rounds and 10,000 rounds before having to rebarrel or retire a rifle is preferred.

   About a year and a half ago I purchased a Browning BLR in 358 Winchester.  A grand old round that came out in 1955 when I was about 2 years old.  For reasons that still escape me it was a major sales flop.  I think that it somehow got branded as a short range cartridge and the public mindset equated it to rounds like the 35 Remington.  When in truth it is the ballistic equal of the 30-06 and only lags about 100 fps less than the 35 Whelen and the 350 Remington Magnum.  It also achieves this performance with much less recoil and muzzle blast than its competitors due to its high efficiency.

   I read an article in a magazine a few months back where they came to the conclusion that the 35 Whelen had the highest efficiency in terms of energy per grain of powder.  After pondering on this for a couple of months I decided that I wanted to do this study for myself and see if I came up with the same answers.  So I'm doing it.

   The 30 caliber data is shown below and we have a new winner that greatly exceeds the 59 ft-lbs per grain of the 6.5 x 55mm and the 58 ft-lbs per grain of the 7 x 57mm and the 57 ft-lbs per grain of the 7mm-08.  The 308 Winchester has one load that gets 71 ft-lbs per grain.  The 308 and the 300 Savage both turn in winning performances.

The 30/30 Winchester data comes from the #8 Speer Manual published in 1970.                              
Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
30/30 Winchester   Speer .308,SD=.226,BC=.244   150   IMR 4064   37.0   2415   1732   1942   999   27.0   52.5
30/30 Winchester   Speer .308,SD=.256,BC=.303   170   BLC-2   34.0   2210   1690   1843   1078   31.7   54.2

The rest of the data comes from the #1 Barnes Manual published in 1992.                              
The 200 yard velocities are calculated from the JBM Trajectory Program.                              
Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
300 Savage   Barnes .308,SD=.226,BC=.386   150   IMR 4064   43.5   2735   2335   2491   1816   41.7   57.3
300 Savage   Barnes .308,SD=.248,BC=.456   165   H 4895   41.0   2600   2270   2476   1888   46.0   60.4
300 Savage   Barnes .308,SD=.271,BC=.511   180   H 4895   39.0   2431   2146   2362   1840   47.2   60.6
300 Savage   Barnes .308,SD=.301,BC=.550   200   H 4895   37.0   2322   2063   2394   1890   51.1   64.7
300 Savage   Barnes .308,SD=.339,BC=.595   225   H 4895   36.0   2218   1985   2457   1968   54.7   68.3
300 Savage   Barnes .308,SD=.376,BC=.417   250   IMR 4320   34.0   2028   1718   2283   1638   48.2   67.1

Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
308 Winchester   Barnes .308,SD=.226,BC=.386   150   W 748   49.0   3028   2602   3053   2255   46.0   62.3
308 Winchester   Barnes .308,SD=.248,BC=.456   165   W 748   47.0   2889   2537   3057   2358   50.2   65.1
308 Winchester   Barnes .308,SD=.271,BC=.511   180   AA 2700   49.0   2674   2373   2857   2250   45.9   58.3
308 Winchester   Barnes .308,SD=.301,BC=.550   200   W 760   46.0   2514   2244   2806   2236   48.6   61.0
308 Winchester   Barnes .308,SD=.339,BC=.595   225   AA 2460   39.5   2373   2130   2813   2266   57.4   71.2
308 Winchester   Barnes .308,SD=.376,BC=.417   250   H 414   44.0   2264   1932   2845   2072   47.1   64.7

Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
30-06   Barnes .308,SD=.226,BC=.386   150   H 414   59.0   3078   2647   3155   2333   39.5   53.5
30-06   Barnes .308,SD=.248,BC=.456   165   H 414   57.0   2931   2575   3147   2429   42.6   55.2
30-06   Barnes .308,SD=.271,BC=.511   180   RL 19   59.0   2858   2544   3264   2586   43.8   55.3
30-06   Barnes .308,SD=.301,BC=.550   200   RL 19   57.0   2715   2432   3273   2626   46.1   57.4
30-06   Barnes .308,SD=.339,BC=.595   225   H 4831   57.5   2567   2313   3292   2672   46.5   57.2
30-06   Barnes .308,SD=.376,BC=.417   250   H 4831   55.0   2395   2051   3184   2335   42.4   57.9

Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
300 Win. Mag.   Barnes .308,SD=.226,BC=.386   150   H 4831   80.0   3339   2882   3713   2766   34.6   46.4
300 Win. Mag.   Barnes .308,SD=.248,BC=.456   165   IMR 4831   74.5   3210   2831   3775   2936   39.4   50.7
300 Win. Mag.   Barnes .308,SD=.271,BC=.511   180   RL 22   75.5   3153   2817   3973   3171   42.0   52.6
300 Win. Mag.   Barnes .308,SD=.301,BC=.550   200   IMR 7828   73.5   2932   2635   3817   3083   41.9   51.9
300 Win. Mag.   Barnes .308,SD=.339,BC=.595   225   H 4831   71.5   2773   2507   3841   3139   43.9   53.7
300 Win. Mag.   Barnes .308,SD=.376,BC=.417   250   H 4831   68.0   2574   2216   3677   2726   40.1   54.1

Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
300 Weatherby   Barnes .308,SD=.226,BC=.386   150   H 4831   86.0   3383   2921   3811   2841   33.0   44.3
300 Weatherby   Barnes .308,SD=.248,BC=.456   165   IMR 7828   84.0   3274   2889   3927   3057   36.4   46.7
300 Weatherby   Barnes .308,SD=.271,BC=.511   180   RL 22   80.5   3172   2835   4021   3212   39.9   49.9
300 Weatherby   Barnes .308,SD=.301,BC=.550   200   IMR 7828   79.0   2986   2685   3959   3201   40.5   50.1
300 Weatherby   Barnes .308,SD=.339,BC=.595   225   RL 22   75.0   2844   2574   4040   3310   44.1   53.9
300 Weatherby   Barnes .308,SD=.376,BC=.417   250   IMR 4831   68.0   2692   2324   4022   2998   44.1   59.1

[358Win]

There are some interesting surprises in the 30 caliber data.  The first one I note is that the 30/30 didn't do nearly as well a I would have expected.  The second is the efficiency of the larger case with very heavy bullets.  The 300 Weatherby did as well with a 250 grain at the 6.5 x 55mm which was quite surprising.

As for the accuracy of the Barnes data, I've yet to run into a reloading manual made by any manufacturer that didn't have a few wild fliers in it.  I'm particularly suspect of that top load in the 308 Winchester with the 225 grain bullet.  It is interesting info to say the least.

I'm noting a really steady trend that all the high efficiency rounds were originally designed for military purposes.  When you drop 10 tons of ammo via a cargo plane or a helicopter drop, the efficiency matters.  While the 223 isn't super high in efficiency, it is light and that is about it's only good point.  I still think the military would be best served by the 250 Savage throwing 87 grain slugs.  That would be about 60% heavier that the pipsqueak.

[nomosendero]

There are some interesting surprises in the 30 caliber data.  The first one I note is that the 30/30 didn't do nearly as well a I would have expected.  The second is the efficiency of the larger case with very heavy bullets.  The 300 Weatherby did as well with a 250 grain at the 6.5 x 55mm which was quite surprising.

As for the accuracy of the Barnes data, I've yet to run into a reloading manual made by any manufacturer that didn't have a few wild fliers in it.  I'm particularly suspect of that top load in the 308 Winchester with the 225 grain bullet.  It is interesting info to say the least.

I'm noting a really steady trend that all the high efficiency rounds were originally designed for military purposes.  When you drop 10 tons of ammo via a cargo plane or a helicopter drop, the efficiency matters.  While the 223 isn't super high in efficiency, it is light and that is about it's only good point.  I still think the military would be best served by the 250 Savage throwing 87 grain slugs.  That would be about 60% heavier that the pipsqueak.

358, I agree about the 223 not being the best for Mil, far from it, but I would go with the 6.5 Grendel instead of the 250Sav. The little round will run with a 308 at 1,000 yards & still fit in an AR length clip. It could make the Mil effective with 1 round for Infantry weapon, regular sniper round & machine gun round as opposed to the Mil being forced to a two cart. set up now with the 223 & 308. It is an amazing round. When you get a chance, run those numbers.

[SHOOTALL]

Efficiency ? sort of like the small pick up truck gets more bang for the gal. until you realize ya got to make 2,3 maybe 4 trips to move the same load as a big pu truck ! so i admit  i have yet to shoot a cape Buffalo but would a .358 be as efficient as a .458 on them , how many trips would the .358 have to make ( if it were legal ? ) maybe one , maybe more !
You are doing quite a bit of work , the usefulness of which seems would be better spent in categories , like most efficient ,22 cal. , or most efficent deer rifle etc. Your work is good but in the real world what does it tell us ? how would it be used ? Should we only hunt with the most efficent combo ? ground hogs with a .358 ? should case shape be thrown to the wind ? ( in the old days shape aided extraction of a fired case , or to control pressure !  Has temperature extreme been included since some powders work better at one extreame than the other ? As far as military ammo is altogather different , different tools for different jobs they don't agree on a pistol much less a rifle cart./ machine gun cart.

[jdt48653]

 how Ballistically efficient is the 358 at 500 yards.

[coyotejoe]

Only a die-hard gun buff could come up with so many ways to spin their wheels and chase their tails!

[358Win]

Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
8 x 57mm   Barnes .323,SD=.246,BC=.382   180   AA 2520   51.0   2806   2396   3146   2294   45.0   61.7
8 x 57mm   Barnes .323,SD=.301,BC=.462   220   AA 2520   46.0   2492   2174   3033   2308   50.2   65.9
8 x 57mm   Barnes .323,SD=.342,BC=.512   250   AA 2520   43.0   2287   2012   2903   2247   52.3   67.5
                              
Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
8mm Rem. Mag.   Barnes .323,SD=.246,BC=.382   180   RL 22   87.0   3218   2767   4138   3060   35.2   47.6
8mm Rem. Mag.   Barnes .323,SD=.301,BC=.462   220   IMR 7828   81.0   2906   2557   4125   3193   39.4   50.9
8mm Rem. Mag.   Barnes .323,SD=.342,BC=.512   250   H 4831   78.0   2789   2481   4317   3416   43.8   55.3

Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
338 Win Mag   Barnes .338,SD=.219,BC=.392   175   RL 15   69.5   3227   2788   4046   3020   43.5   58.2
338 Win Mag   Barnes .338,SD=.250,BC=.440   200   H 414   73.0   3028   2652   4071   3123   42.8   55.8
338 Win Mag   Barnes .338,SD=.281,BC=.482   225   RL 22   78.0   2919   2583   4256   3333   42.7   54.6
338 Win Mag   Barnes .338,SD=.313,BC=.521   250   RL 22   75.0   2789   2486   4317   3430   45.7   57.6
338 Win Mag   Barnes .338,SD=.375,BC=.416   300   RL 22   71.0   2542   2186   4304   3183   44.8   60.6

Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
340 Weatherby   Barnes .338,SD=.219,BC=.392   175   W 760   86.0   3326   2877   4298   3216   37.4   50.0
340 Weatherby   Barnes .338,SD=.250,BC=.440   200   RL 22   91.0   3157   2770   4425   3407   37.4   48.6
340 Weatherby   Barnes .338,SD=.281,BC=.482   225   RL 22   88.0   3016   2672   4544   3566   40.5   51.6
340 Weatherby   Barnes .338,SD=.313,BC=.521   250   RL 22   85.0   2897   2587   4658   3714   43.7   54.8
340 Weatherby   Barnes .338,SD=.375,BC=.416   300   RL 22   80.0   2592   2232   4475   3318   41.5   55.9

A bit of pondering let me understand why a good small case like the 30/30 only went into the mid 50's which is still quite high compared to
powder hogs like the 7mm Rem Mag.  Which is a great case opened up a few calibers.

Out of this group no great surprise that the military 8 x 57 is the winner with all loads going into the 60's on ft-lbs of energy per grain of powder.
Much like the 300 Weatherby finally became efficient with a 250 grain bullet the 338 Winchester Mag. breaks into the 60's wtih the 300 grain bullet.
Proving that there is nothing wrong with a huge case if your going to push a real bullet with it.

[358Win]

Good Question on the 358 at 500 yards.  My first guess is that there will be a few more inches of drop to contend with.  But anyone shooting at that range had better be using a range finder to start with.  As to energy delivered at that range it will almost certainly overwhelm weaklings like the 264 Win Mag and the 7mm Rem. Mag.  But I'll run the data and see.

[358Win]

Whoops missed the punch line on the 30/30.  It is the low pressure that it operates at.  If a similar case was cranked up to 52,000 CUP like the 308 it would show even higher efficiency.

[jdt48653]

Good Question on the 358 at 500 yards.  My first guess is that there will be a few more inches of drop to contend with.  But anyone shooting at that range had better be using a range finder to start with.  As to energy delivered at that range it will almost certainly overwhelm weaklings like the 264 Win Mag and the 7mm Rem. Mag.  But I'll run the data and see.

i guess if i can dish it out i can take it!,ha ha- Im thinking that you may have to tape the range finder to
the 358,aim at the moon,then you might make 500 yards. i`ll have to aim at least 2'' high.it will be tough
but i think i can make it!

[358Win]

Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
358 Winchester   Barnes .358,SD=.200,BC=.311   180   AA 2015   49.0   2875   2369   3303   2243   45.8   67.4
358 Winchester   Barnes .358,SD=.223,BC=.346   200   AA 2015   48.0   2794   2345   3466   2442   50.9   72.2
358 Winchester   Barnes .358,SD=.251,BC=.403   225   AA 2015   45.0   2592   2221   3356   2464   54.8   74.6
358 Winchester   Barnes .358,SD=.279,BC=.458   250   AA 2015   43.0   2415   2100   3237   2448   56.9   75.3
358 Winchester   Barnes .358,SD=.334,BC=.371   300   IMR 4895   43.0   2208   1842   3247   2260   52.6   75.5

Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
35 Whelen   Barnes .358,SD=.200,BC=.311   180   AA 2015   60.0   3128   2593   3910   2687   44.8   65.2
35 Whelen   Barnes .358,SD=.223,BC=.346   200   AA 2015   58.0   2982   2514   3948   2806   48.4   68.1
35 Whelen   Barnes .358,SD=.251,BC=.403   225   AA 2015   55.5   2804   2415   3927   2913   52.5   70.8
35 Whelen   Barnes .358,SD=.279,BC=.458   250   BLC-2   60.0   2657   2324   3918   2998   50.0   65.3
35 Whelen   Barnes .358,SD=.334,BC=.371   300   BLC-2   57.0   2494   2101   4143   2940   51.6   72.7

Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
350 Rem. Mag.   Barnes .358,SD=.200,BC=.311   180   AA 2015   62.0   3096   2565   3830   2629   42.4   61.8
350 Rem. Mag.   Barnes .358,SD=.223,BC=.346   200   AA 2015   60.0   2981   2513   3946   2804   46.7   65.8
350 Rem. Mag.   Barnes .358,SD=.251,BC=.403   225   IMR 4064   58.0   2730   2347   3723   2752   47.4   64.2
350 Rem. Mag.   Barnes .358,SD=.279,BC=.458   250   AA 2015   54.0   2612   2282   3787   2890   53.5   70.1
350 Rem. Mag.   Barnes .358,SD=.334,BC=.371   300   AA 2015   50.0   2390   2006   3804   2680   53.6   76.1

Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
358 Norma   Barnes .358,SD=.200,BC=.311   180   H 380   71.0   3125   2591   3902   2683   37.8   55.0
358 Norma   Barnes .358,SD=.223,BC=.346   200   H 4895   67.0   2989   2520   3967   2820   42.1   59.2
358 Norma   Barnes .358,SD=.251,BC=.403   225   H 380   68.0   2889   2492   4169   3102   45.6   61.3
358 Norma   Barnes .358,SD=.279,BC=.458   250   H 4350   75.0   2818   2473   4407   3394   45.3   58.8
358 Norma   Barnes .358,SD=.334,BC=.371   300   RL 19   73.0   2646   2239   4663   3339   45.7   63.9

Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
358 STA   Barnes .358,SD=.200,BC=.311   180   AA 2015   91.0   3346   2785   4474   3099   34.1   49.2
358 STA   Barnes .358,SD=.223,BC=.346   200   AA 2015   89.0   3272   2772   4754   3412   38.3   53.4
358 STA   Barnes .358,SD=.251,BC=.403   225   AA 2015   87.0   3168   2746   5013   3767   43.3   57.6
358 STA   Barnes .358,SD=.279,BC=.458   250   BLC-2   90.0   3031   2669   5099   3954   43.9   56.7
358 STA   Barnes .358,SD=.334,BC=.371   300   BLC-2   85.0   2780   2361   5147   3713   43.7   60.6

As can be seen the 358 Winchester is the clear winner in terms of average muzzle efficiency.  The 350 Rem. Mag. pulls out the #1 spot in terms of single loads at 76.1 ft-lbs
per grain of powder with the 300 grain bullet.  But it isn't over until the fat lady sings.  In this case the fat lady is most likely the 9.3 x 62 mm.  But we will see when we do the numbers.

The one last piece of data for today is 500 yard energy for the 358 Winchester versus a couple of the high capacity powder hogs like the 264 Win. Mag. and the 7mm Rem. Mag.

The 250 grain bullet at 2415 fps from the 358 Winchester   has a Muzzle Efficiency of 75.3 ft-lbs/grain and at 500 yards is still traveling at 1,674 fps and has an energy of 1,556 ft-lbs.
The 120 grain bullet at 3423 fps from the 264 Win. Mag.    has a Muzzle Efficiency of 47.3 ft-lbs/grain and at 500 yards is still traveling at 2,462 fps and has an energy of 1,614 ft-lbs.
The 140 grain bullet at 3207 fps from the 7mm Rem. Mag. has a Muzzle Efficiency of 45.7 ft-lbs/grain and at 500 yards is still traveling at 2,280 fps and has an energy of 1,616 ft-lbs.

The short story of the above is that the energy at 500 yards between the 3 doesn't amount to a hill of beans.  The powder hogs are still dropping 32+ inches in the case of the 7mm
and needs a range finder to be sure of hitting anything.  The 358 is running 60 inches of drop at 500, but at 400 drops 30 inches or less than the 7mm at the extra 100 yards.  All
this assumes a 200 yard zero.  While the energies at 500 yards are almost identical the momentum goes hands down to the 358, and as anyone who has actually tried both has found
the 358 to be a superior killer at these kind of ranges usually leaving an exit wound on Elk and large Bears.  Up close on deer it ruins less meat and is a stunning in the tracks killer.  Often
Deer and Bear shot up close go down so hard that they seem bounce off the ground.  The fact that the 358 Winchester is the most efficient round in existence on top of identical ballistics
with the 30-06 with equal bullet weights just make its weak popularity all that much more odd.  It does kick almost exactly like a 30-06 in terms of recoil velocity and ft-lbs of recoil
but the muzzle blast is less severe and makes a, to me at least, more comfortable "booom" rather than a "carack' like the 30-06 does.

[Dee]

Lot of info here. Now just what do I do with it? Should I sell everything and go buy a 358? Or maybe go hog huntin with my 357mag rifle. Nawwww. I'll take the 3030. :o

[SHOOTALL]

Hey DEE , i think that $ 12.00 a box 30/30 is more EFFICIENT on my wallet than $ 30.00 a box anything !

[Dee]

Hey DEE , i think that $ 12.00 a box 30/30 is more EFFICIENT on my wallet than $ 30.00 a box anything !

Well SHOOTALL, I haven't bought a box of 3030s in about 35 years, but on the shelf down here it's cheaper than $12.00 a box. I have been reloading 150gr round noses at 2400fps for so long I can do it in my sleep almost.
The data here on this thread is impressive, and would do well in a gun magazine. He is quite thorough no doubt. I am just not sure why, other than the challenge or boredom.
In the right environment this type of data will sell guns to those looking for the non-existent perfect all around rifle. If my grandfather were alive now he would be 101 years old this year and would get quite a kick out of all the gun rag hype and the new magnum rifles. He spent his 60 odd years hunting with a Marlin lever-action (with octagon barrel) 22 he found in a clay cave on the banks of the Verdigris River in Oklahoma back in the late teens of 1900, and a single shot 12 gage. My father-in-law hunted who would be about ninety now hunted with a pump 12 gage, and a Savage 99 in 243.
I have numerous rifles for deer and the big Texas hogs we have down here but, I alternate between my 3030 Winchester 94, a Model 92 clone in 357mag, and an M4 A2. All will take a 400 lb hog quite handily if one does his part. Deer and yes, even the mythical Texas tusker are not that hard to kill.
As a side note though I would applaud 358's research on this 358 business, but doubt the projected conclusion will be of any real value in the real world of hunting, as it (data) has no real impact on what actually works best on any given hunting situation.
The crack and the boom thing was interesting though. Bore size certainly makes for a different report from different calibers. The question here I suppose, in such a research of rifles is which is more efficient? The crack of the smaller bore rifle, or the boom of the larger bore one? I personally prefer the boom, but I also have noted that as I age I like older, plumper women better than skinney ones. Perhaps some influence comes from my wife in this category. The plumper ones seem more efficient to me, as they are warmer in winter, put out more shade in the summer, and you don't have to hobble them as they don't seem to stray off as much as the skinney ones. Now this research admittedly is not as technical as the research on the 358, but does seem to this old man more useful.
Now don't cloud up on me 358. I'm not makin fun, I'm just havin fun. Life is short, and an old man has to get it (fun) where he can.

[358Win]

Thanks Dee, for staying in through all the data so far.  Here is another set of data, I was going to finish the 416 calibers, but the boss said she'd like to see me sometime this weekend.

Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
9.3 x 62 mm   Barnes .366,SD=.267,BC=.428   250   H 414   60.0   2644   2289   3880   2908   48.5   64.7
9.3 x 62 mm   Barnes .366,SD=.305,BC=.468   286   H 414   57.0   2492   2196   3943   3062   53.7   69.2
                              
Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
375 H&H   Barnes .375,SD=.239,BC=.400   235   IMR 4895   73.0   2946   2541   4528   3369   46.1   62.0
375 H&H   Barnes .375,SD=.254,BC=.450   250   IMR 4320   77.0   2897   2539   4658   3578   46.5   60.5
375 H&H   Barnes .375,SD=.274,BC=.503   270   IMR 4320   75.0   2802   2488   4706   3710   49.5   62.7
375 H&H   Barnes .375,SD=.305,BC=.555   300   RL 15   72.0   2645   2369   4660   3738   51.9   64.7
375 H&H   Barnes .375,SD=.356,BC=.370   350   H 414   75.0   2415   2028   4532   3196   42.6   60.4

Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
375 Weatherby   Barnes .375,SD=.239,BC=.400   235   IMR 4320   81.0   3057   2877   4876   4318   53.3   60.2
375 Weatherby   Barnes .375,SD=.254,BC=.450   250   IMR 4320   79.0   2974   2610   4909   3781   47.9   62.1
375 Weatherby   Barnes .375,SD=.274,BC=.503   270   IMR 4064   75.0   2803   2488   4710   3710   49.5   62.8
375 Weatherby   Barnes .375,SD=.305,BC=.555   300   H 4350   84.0   2708   2428   4884   3926   46.7   58.1
375 Weatherby   Barnes .375,SD=.356,BC=.370   350   H 4350   81.0   2519   2123   4931   3502   43.2   60.9

Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
378 Weatherby   Barnes .375,SD=.239,BC=.400   235   H 4831   115.0   3201   2773   5346   4012   34.9   46.5
378 Weatherby   Barnes .375,SD=.254,BC=.450   250   RL 22   114.0   3079   2707   5262   4067   35.7   46.2
378 Weatherby   Barnes .375,SD=.274,BC=.503   270   RL 22   111.0   2951   2626   5220   4134   37.2   47.0
378 Weatherby   Barnes .375,SD=.305,BC=.555   300   H 4831   108.0   2818   2531   5289   4267   39.5   49.0
378 Weatherby   Barnes .375,SD=.356,BC=.370   350   H 4831   102.0   2653   2245   5469   3916   38.4   53.6

Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
416 Rem. Mag.   Barnes .416,SD=.248,BC=.394   300   RL 15   91.0   2959   2510   5831   4196   46.1   64.1
416 Rem. Mag.   Barnes .416,SD=.268,BC=.467   325   RL 15   88.0   2851   2889   5865   6022   68.4   66.6
416 Rem. Mag.   Barnes .416,SD=.289,BC=.521   350   H 4895   80.0   2722   2423   5757   4562   57.0   72.0
416 Rem. Mag.   Barnes .416,SD=.330,BC=.366   400   RL 15   77.0   2494   2096   5524   3901   50.7   71.7

Even though the 9.3 x 62 mm got well up into the 60's in ft-lbs/grain I somehow expected better from it.

As to what to do with all this data absorb the lessons to be learned, and if you really need a new all around big game rifle for North America
and you are willing to load your own ammo you can't do any better than either a Ruger Hawkeye or a Browning BLR in 358 Winchester.

I really wish I had some good data to run on the new 338 Federal as I suspect it is just about as good.  If one was going to build a 4 rifle battery for the world shy of the 505 double your
guide should be carrying if you ever get the chance to hunt Elephant I'd probably recommend:

A 22 K-Hornet which will send a 45 grain down the road at 2893 fps with 13.2 grains of Hodgon Lil-Gun giving an energy of 836 ft-lbs and an efficiency of 63.3 ft-lbs/grain; then
A 6.5mm Grendel with a 120 grain bullet at 2490 fps with 26.3 grains of AA2230 giving an energy of 1652 ft-lbs and an efficiency of 62.8 ft-lbs/grain; then
A 358 Winchester BLR shooting a 225 grain bullet at 2592 fps with 45 grains of AA2015 with an energy of 3356 ft-lbs and an efficiency of 74.6 ft-lbs/grain; and finally
A 416 Remingtion shooting a 350 grain spitzer at 2722 fps with 80 grains of H4895 and an energy of 5757 ft-lbs and an efficiency of 72.0 ft-lbs/grain.

I loved the bit about plumper women at my age 54, having been married to the same woman for 33 years I agree with your analysis completely.

But all of the efficiency stuff aside, I could be completely happy with a 22 LR rifle, a 357 Magnum revolver, a 358 Winchester rifle and a nice 16 gauge side by side for the rest of my life.
The 358 Win can be loaded with 140 grain revolver bullets for the 357 at 1,800 fps for a small game load, for deer it will drive a 180 at the same speed as the 30-06 and the difference in BC doesn't
matter until way past 250 yards which is about as far as I ever shoot unless it is a wounded game situation,
the 225 or 250 is awesome on Elk and Moose.  The 250 is really all you need for Bears but if it was a defensive situation in Alaska you could always go with a 310 Woodleigh Soft followed by 310 grain Woodleigh solids.  For the man with one rifle the 358 is the King and Reigning Champion.

[DakotaElkSlayer]

But all of the efficiency stuff aside, I could be completely happy with a 22 LR rifle, a 357 Magnum revolver, a 358 Winchester rifle and a nice 16 gauge side by side for the rest of my life.

What, all this talk of efficiency, and you shoot a 16ga. instead of the efficient 28ga?

Jim

[358Win]

Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
416 Rem. Mag.   Barnes .416,SD=.248,BC=.394   300   RL 15   91.0   2959   2510   5831   4196   46.1   64.1
416 Rem. Mag.   Barnes .416,SD=.268,BC=.467   325   RL 15   88.0   2851   2889   5865   6022   68.4   66.6
416 Rem. Mag.   Barnes .416,SD=.289,BC=.521   350   H 4895   80.0   2722   2423   5757   4562   57.0   72.0
416 Rem. Mag.   Barnes .416,SD=.330,BC=.366   400   RL 15   77.0   2494   2096   5524   3901   50.7   71.7

Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
416 Rigby   Barnes .416,SD=.248,BC=.394   300   RL 19   109.0   2961   2549   5839   4327   39.7   53.6
416 Rigby   Barnes .416,SD=.268,BC=.467   325   RL 19   106.0   2899   2554   6064   4706   44.4   57.2
416 Rigby   Barnes .416,SD=.289,BC=.521   350   H 4350   102.0   2751   2450   5881   4664   45.7   57.7
416 Rigby   Barnes .416,SD=.330,BC=.366   400   H 4350   98.0   2599   2191   5998   4263   43.5   61.2

Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
416 Weatherby   Barnes .416,SD=.248,BC=.394   300   H 4350   118.0   3052   2632   6204   4614   39.1   52.6
416 Weatherby   Barnes .416,SD=.268,BC=.467   325   H 4350   116.0   3011   2657   6541   5094   43.9   56.4
416 Weatherby   Barnes .416,SD=.289,BC=.521   350   RL 22   120.0   2967   2652   6840   5465   45.5   57.0
416 Weatherby   Barnes .416,SD=.330,BC=.366   400   RL 22   105.0   2792   2366   6922   4971   47.3   65.9

Here is the rest of the 416 data.  The 350 grain spitzer out of the 416 Rem. Mag. has an amazing efficiency of 72.0 ft-lbs/grain runs right up there with the best of
the best.  If I were going to spend a lot of time in Alaska or Africa this would certainly be a rifle of first choice among the heavy calibers.

I agree that the 28 gauge shotgun is more efficient than the 16 gauge.  Both of them suffer from such a short supply of cheap ammo for either I'd probably end up with
a 20 gauge Franchi semi-auto.  But I've always had a sweet spot in my heart for the 16 gauge.  While there is a little waterfowl hunting here in Utah, I'm much more interested
in Upland Birds: Pheasant, Partridge and Quail.  The 28 in Franchi 28 guage semi-auto is awesome.

While I believe efficiency is important.  It is only one of many factors that figure in to a gun purchase.  I surely wouldn't choose to shoot a Cape Buffalo with a 22 K-Hornet, when the even
more efficient 416 Remington Magnum would be the choice in that case.

Have a Great Day and seek truth always.

[Coyote Hunter]

358Win –

You have done yeomans work presenting data, but I couldn’t let some of you r statements go unchallenged.  Facts are facts, as we shall see.

First, I apologize for combining a couple of your posts into one quote.  It is not intended to deceive in any way but rather to keep things simple.  Let’s start with your data:

“Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   M KE   M Eff
7mm Rem. Mag.   Barnes .284,SD=.247,BC=.436   140   RL 22   70.0   3207   3197   45.7

Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
300 Win. Mag.   Barnes .308,SD=.271,BC=.511   180   RL22   75.5   3153   2817   3973   3171   42.0   52.6

Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
358 Winchester   Barnes .358,SD=.279,BC=.458   250   AA 2015   43.0   2415   2100   3237   2448   56.9   75.3

Your velocity and energy numbers come out higher than the ballistic program “Point Blank” calculates them, but close enough for our purposes here.

The one last piece of data for today is 500 yard energy for the 358 Winchester versus a couple of the high capacity powder hogs like the 264 Win. Mag. and the 7mm Rem. Mag.

I’m going to skip the .264 Win Mag and use the .300 Win Mag instead, with your numbers.

The 250 grain bullet at 2415 fps from the 358 Winchester   has a Muzzle Efficiency of 75.3 ft-lbs/grain and at 500 yards is still traveling at 1,674 fps and has an energy of 1,556 ft-lbs.
The 120 grain bullet at 3423 fps from the 264 Win. Mag.    has a Muzzle Efficiency of 47.3 ft-lbs/grain and at 500 yards is still traveling at 2,462 fps and has an energy of 1,614 ft-lbs.
The 140 grain bullet at 3207 fps from the 7mm Rem. Mag. has a Muzzle Efficiency of 45.7 ft-lbs/grain and at 500 yards is still traveling at 2,280 fps and has an energy of 1,616 ft-lbs.

To add the .300 Win Mag:
The 180 grain bullet at 31537 fps from the .300 Win. Mag. has a Muzzle Efficiency of 52.6 ft-lbs/grain and at 500 yards is still traveling at 2295 fps and has an energy of 2104 ft-lbs.

To summarize at 500 yards, using your numbers for the 7mm Rem and .358 Win:
140g 7mm Rem = 1616fpe (I calculate 1512fpe)
180g .300 Win = 2104fpe (my calculations)
250g .358 Win = 1556fpe (I calculate 1452fpe)

The short story of the above is that the energy at 500 yards between the 3 doesn't amount to a hill of beans. 

Using your numbers for the .358 Win the difference between it and the .300 Win Mag is 548fps.  Using the numbers I calculate for the .358 Win the difference is 652fpe.

By way of comparison, pushing a 250g bullet at 994fps generates 548fpe at the muzzle, the difference based on your .358 Win numbers.  That same bullet has to be pushed to 1084fps to equal the 652fpe I calculate as the difference.

Or looking at it this way, in Colorado you can hunt big game with a handgun but the bullet must retain 550fpe at 50 yards. A .357 Magnum with a 158g bullet struggles to reach that level at the muzzle.

In my opinion that is somewhat more than “a hill of beans”.

The powder hogs are still dropping 32+ inches in the case of the 7mm and needs a range finder to be sure of hitting anything. 

Not true, but you do need accurate range estimation.  A good rifleman can easily learn to use the Duplex reticle in his scope as a crude rangefinder, one that is more than adequate for this task.  As you mention in your next sentence the .358 Win has a drop of around 60” at 500 yards.  (I calculate 63”.)  It takes much more accurate range estimation to hit with the 358 Win at 500 yards than it does with the .300 Win Mag.  The .358 Win drops 38” between 450 yards and 550 yards compared to only 19.9” for the .300 Win Mag.

The 358 is running 60 inches of drop at 500, but at 400 drops 30 inches or less than the 7mm at the extra 100 yards.  All
this assumes a 200 yard zero. 

That’s pretty much apples to oranges. 

Apples to apples, by my calculations, the 7mm Rem 140g is down 16.6” at 400 yards and the .300 Win Mag 180g is down 16.5” at 400 yards - compared to the .358 Win’s drop of 33.0”.

While the energies at 500 yards are almost identical the momentum goes hands down to the 358, ...

As shown above the .300 Win Mag has considerably more energy at 500 yards (47% by my calculations) than does the .358 Win Mag.  So I would challenge the first half of your statement. 

Also, while the .358 Win has 31% more momentum than the 7mm Rem Mag 140g load at 500 yards, the 180g .300 Win Mag load beats the .358 Win load by 2%.

I’m going to go watch a movie with my wife now, but when I come back I’ll talk a little about the differences in MPBR for the 7mm, .300 and .358.

[Coyote Hunter]

358Win –

As promised, the subject of MPBR (Maximum Point Blank Range).

Let’s start with your data:

“Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   M KE   M Eff
7mm Rem. Mag.   Barnes .284,SD=.247,BC=.436   140   RL 22   70.0   3207   3197   45.7

Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
300 Win. Mag.   Barnes .308,SD=.271,BC=.511   180   RL22   75.5   3153   2817   3973   3171   42.0   52.6

Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
358 Winchester   Barnes .358,SD=.279,BC=.458   250   AA 2015   43.0   2415   2100   3237   2448   56.9   75.3

OK, the first thing I notice is the velocity for the .300 Win Mag is too high. My Barnes #3 says 3103fps with the 180g XFB and Re22, so I’ll use that number.

I normally zero my rifles for Maximum Point Blank Range for a 6” diameter circle, meaning the bullet is never more than 3” above or below line of sight from the muzzle to MPBR range.  For the loads I question, here are the zero and MPBR ranges.

7mm 140g @ 3207fps = 268 yard zero, 315 yard MPBR
.300 Win Mag 180g @ 3103fps = 263 yard zero, 310 yard MPBR
.358 Win 250g @ 2415fps = 206 yard zero, 243 yard MPBR

While we’re at it, I also find a -10” drop useful in comparing cartridges.  Using the same loads and MPBR zeros:
7mm 140g @ -10” = 390 yards
.300 180g @ -10” = 385 yards
.358 Win 250g @ -10” = 300 yards

Or how about 1500fpe?
7mm 140g @ 1500fpe = 505 yards
.300 180g @ 1500fpe = 710 yards
.358 Win 250g @ 1500fpe = 480 yards

If we use MPBR range as the point of comparison, the .300 Win Mag has a 62.7% advantage over the .358 Win in terms of area within the circle inscribed by MPBR.  The 7mm Mag stretches the advantage to 68.0%.  For reference, the 7mm Mag’s advantage equates to the area of a circle with a radius of 200.4 yards. The .300 Win falls just short at 192.5 yards.

If we use the -10” range as the point of comparison, the .300 Win Mag has a 65% advantage in range and the 7mm Rem Mag has a 69% advantage.  For the 7mm Rem Mag that advantage is equates to the area inside a circle with a radius of 249.2 yards and 241.3 yards for the .300 Win Mag.

If we use the 1500fpe range as the point of comparison it really gets wild – while the 7mm Rem Mag only has an 11% advantage, the .300 Win Mag has a 119% advantage, which equates to a circle with a radius of 523 yards.

While people don’t normally hunt in full circles, the relative advantage of the .300 and 7mm Rem Mag hold valid for any segment of a circle.  In other words, when it comes time to reach out and touch something the .358 Win might not be the best choice.

Efficiency can be a great thing at times, but sometimes the most efficient option doesn’t get the job done.  I tow my boat with a F250 diesel, not a diesel-engined Volkswagon Rabbit.

I’m not knocking the .358 Win, but for most work a .30-06 will do as well, with less recoil, and when it won’t I’m reaching for my .45-70 heavies, efficiency be dammed.

Just my opinion, though.

[BigJakeJ1s]

CH,

You've succeeded in proving that with much more powder, recoil, longer/heavier actions and fewer rounds in the same magazine, 7rm and 300wm have better ballistic performance than 358 win.

I've just got a soft spot for those underdog rounds out there (8x57, 358 win, et al).

Andy

[Coyote Hunter]

CH,

You've succeeded in proving that with much more powder, recoil, longer/heavier actions and fewer rounds in the same magazine, 7rm and 300wm have better ballistic performance than 358 win.

I've just got a soft spot for those underdog rounds out there (8x57, 358 win, et al).

Andy

Actually, the 7mm Rem Mag has less recoil than the .358 Win, given the loads considered above.

Using an 8.3 pound rifle and scope combo:

23.1 foot-pounds = 7mm, 140g @ 3207fps, 70.0g powder
24.8 foot-pounds = .358 Win, 250g @ 2415fps, 43.0g powder

Besides, for 99.9% of the shots taken (and every shot I’ve ever taken) a .308 Win or .270 Win would have done nicely – with even less recoil than the 7mm Mag.

As to magazine capacity, 3x 7mm Rem Mags or .300 Win Mags versus 4x .358 Win cartridges isn't such a bad deal.. Consider a loaded chamber and you're looking at 4 rounds versus 5.  If you need 3 shots, let alone 4 or 5, chances are very good you're doing something wrong.

As to the rifles being heavier, not necessarily true – much depends on the particular rifles.  That is provided, of course, that you can even find a .358 Win to compare to.

If availability counts for anything, I’ll go with a .30-06. Or any one of many cartridges before I’d choose a .358 Win.

Again, I’m not putting down the .358 Win, just looking at the subject from another point of view – that efficiency not only isn’t everything it often isn’t even important.  The fact that a .358 Win is not my choice doesn’t make it a wrong choice for others.  It may sound like I’m a magnum advocate, but that is not particularly true, either – I shoot a variety of cartridges including the .30-30, .375 Win, .45-70, .257 Roberts, .308 Win and .30-06.  Come to think of it, my only Magnums are a 7mm Rem and a .300 Win.

Is the .358 Win an efficient cartridge?  In terms of energy per grain of powder, yes.  In terms of trajectory and downrange energy, not so much.  In addition there are other equally valid (if not more so) criteria by which to judge a cartridge.  Availability of firearms and ammunition comes to mind, as does ammunition costs and variety.  A .308 Win will do for almost every job a .358 Win can do, and when it can’t there are probably better options than the .358 Win.

By the way, although I don’t own one yet, the 8x57 is on my want list.

[358Win]

Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
44 Magnum   Barnes .430,SD=.193,BC=.214   250   W 296   23.0   1574   1140   1375   721   31.4   59.8
44 Magnum   Barnes .430,SD=.212,BC=.239   275   W 296   20.5   1529   1149   1427   806   39.3   69.6
44 Magnum   Barnes .430,SD=.232,BC=.258   300   W 296   20.0   1505   1155   1509   888   44.4   75.4
                              
Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
444 Marlin   Barnes .430,SD=.193,BC=.214   250   H 322   54.0   2328   1693   3008   1591   29.5   55.7
444 Marlin   Barnes .430,SD=.212,BC=.239   275   RL 7   47.0   2228   1674   3031   1711   36.4   64.5
444 Marlin   Barnes .430,SD=.232,BC=.258   300   RL 7   46.0   2141   1638   3053   1787   38.8   66.4
                              
Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
45-70 Marlin   Barnes .458,SC=.272,BC=.457   400   IMR 4064   51.0   1826   1562   2961   2167   42.5   58.1
45-70 Ruger #1   Barnes .458,SD=.204,BC=.340   300   H 322   59.0   2282   1877   3468   2346   39.8   58.8
45-70 Ruger #1   Barnes .458,SC=.238,BC=.402   350   IMR 4064   58.0   2213   1936   3805   2912   50.2   65.6
45-70 Ruger #1   Barnes .458,SC=.272,BC=.457   400   H 4895   56.0   1934   1659   3322   2444   43.6   59.3

Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
458 Win. Mag.   Barnes .458,SD=.204,BC=.340   300   RL 7   68.0   2573   2138   4409   3044   44.8   64.8
458 Win. Mag.   Barnes .458,SC=.238,BC=.402   350   RL 7   66.0   2490   2126   4818   3512   53.2   73.0
458 Win. Mag.   Barnes .458,SC=.272,BC=.457   400   IMR 4895   74.0   2391   2117   5077   3980   53.8   68.6
458 Win. Mag.   Barnes .458,SD=.341,BC=.526   500   IMR 4895   72.0   2191   1930   5329   4135   57.4   74.0
                              
Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
458 Lott   Barnes .458,SD=.204,BC=.340   300   H 4831   85.0   2849   2387   5406   3795   44.6   63.6
458 Lott   Barnes .458,SC=.238,BC=.402   350   IMR 4831   85.0   2741   2356   5838   4313   50.7   68.7
458 Lott   Barnes .458,SC=.272,BC=.457   400   RL 22   85.0   2549   2223   5770   4388   51.6   67.9
458 Lott   Barnes .458,SD=.341,BC=.526   500   IMR 7828   81.0   2349   2077   6125   4789   59.1   75.6

Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
460 Weatherby   Barnes .458,SD=.204,BC=.340   300   H 4831   124.0   3062   2578   6245   4426   35.7   50.4
460 Weatherby   Barnes .458,SC=.238,BC=.402   350   IMR 7828   122.0   2987   2581   6933   5176   42.4   56.8
460 Weatherby   Barnes .458,SC=.272,BC=.457   400   RL 22   116.0   2782   2439   6873   5283   45.5   59.2
460 Weatherby   Barnes .458,SD=.341,BC=.526   500   IMR 7828   125.0   2654   2363   7819   6198   49.6   62.6


Don't have time to respond to nit-picking right now.  But it does look like the 458 Lott is way up there on the efficiency scale.

At to my remarks and anyone else's about shots at 500 yards.  Any fool who tries that on live game should be put in jail for at least
a month or so to really think about what he is doing.  The only time such foolishness should ever be attempted is in the case of an
already wounded animal.  That was probably shot at 300 yards the first time instead of holding your shot at live game down to 200
or 250 at the very most.  Most people can't hold a 4 inch group at 100 yards in the field unless using a bipod and shooting from the
prone position.  That works out to 8 inches at 200, 10 at 250, and 20+ inch groups at 500 yards.  So those discussions are even
more academic than worrying about such trivia as efficiency.