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

[358Win]

Sorry about getting a little hot at the end of my last post.  Surely the 358 can't compete in pure trajectory or power with the 300 Win. Mag., it is NOT intended to.  Those who have special request like Cheesehead for the 358 WSM be of good cheer I think I can use some other software to get some reasonable data and I'll include it in the really big summary of all this data that will be coming up in the next couple of days.  Right now I've got the wife yelling at me to get off the "damn computer" so we can go visit the in-laws.

There were some real surprises in the data like the 240 Weatherby, the 416 Remingtion Magnum, and the 458 Lott.  And in my summary I'll try to put it all in perspective.

[Coyote Hunter]

...  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.

358 Win –

While I understand your feelings about long shots, I don’t agree that they are “foolishness” per se or that they should only be attempted on wounded game. Rather than sidetrack your thread I’ll start a new one as it is an important topic that  and merits discussion.  Any subsequent posts regarding long shots willget moved to the new thread as well.  I’ll call it “Are long shots ethical?”

In the meantime you have posted a great deal of information which I've found rather interesting.  Perhaps I missed it, but did you do the .338 Federal?  I would think it would be right up there with the .358 Win in efficiency.

[Coyote Hunter]

358Win -

As my wife and I were driving into town earlier today, it occurred to me that perhaps the most efficient cartridges in existence are not centerfires at all but rather CB Caps -- .22 primer-powered cartridges using very little and often no powder at all.

For example, consider a 20g bullet at 575fps running on primer power and generating 15fpe -- the powder charge equals 0.0g.  You can't divide the 15fpe by zero, but you can divide by 0.001 or 0.0001 or 0.0000000000001 or whatever (just to have a non-zero number).  Makes centerfires all look pretty danged inefficient if energy per grain is the standard of comparison.   

[nomosendero]

...  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.

358 Win –

While I understand your feelings about long shots, I don’t agree that they are “foolishness” per se or that they should only be attempted on wounded game. Rather than sidetrack your thread I’ll start a new one as it is an important topic that  and merits discussion.  Any subsequent posts regarding long shots willget moved to the new thread as well.  I’ll call it “Are long shots ethical?”

In the meantime you have posted a great deal of information which I've found rather interesting.  Perhaps I missed it, but did you do the .338 Federal?  I would think it would be right up there with the .358 Win in efficiency.

Coyote Hunter, move the post if you must, but I would rather respond here.

358, I have enjoyed your thesis. Even though I would not pick a cartridge with only efficiency in mind, it was a good read.

You don't shoot at a distance much, at least with a 358, because it is the wrong tool for the job. It is still a great cartridge, but it appears you want to tell us that if it is too far for your pet, it is too far to shoot. Some
can shoot better at 500 than others at 200 yards, we have been down this road before. Some think that 300 is the limit, some 400, etc. To pick one yardage as you have done is wrong .

[BigJakeJ1s]

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.

... snip ...

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

CH,

I find it interesting that you used recoil (and other ballistics) figures for among the lightest bullet weights in 7rm (140 gr), and among the heaviest in 358 (250 gr).

The Ruger M77 Hawkeye All-weather is chambered in 358 and 7rm. The 358 is 7 lbs, 42" long (22" tube); the 7 rm is 7.25 lbs, 44.75" (24" tube). That's a difference of 1/4 lb and 2-3/4" length. (don't forget, longer tubes are necessary to get the power out of 7rm)

The Browning BLR is also available in both calibers. The 358 is 6.5 lbs, 40" (20" tube); the 7rm is 7.75 lbs, 45" (24" tube). That's a difference of 1-1/4 lbs and 5 inches in length.

The difference between 3 and 4 (or 4 and 5) rounds may mean something to those of us that hunt hogs!

BTW, given your other cartridge preferences (non-magnum), I think you'll like 8x57.

Andy

[358Win]

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=.334,BC=.371   300   AA 2015   50.0   2,390   2,006   3,804   2,680   53.6   76.1
458 Lott   Barnes .458,SD=.341,BC=.526   500   IMR 7828   81.0   2,349   2,077   6,125   4,789   59.1   75.6
358 Winchester   Barnes .358,SD=.334,BC=.371   300   IMR 4895   43.0   2,208   1,842   3,247   2,260   52.6   75.5
44 Magnum   Barnes .430,SD=.232,BC=.258   300   W 296   20.0   1,505   1,155   1,509   888   44.4   75.4
358 Winchester   Barnes .358,SD=.279,BC=.458   250   AA 2015   43.0   2,415   2,100   3,237   2,448   56.9   75.3
358 Winchester   Barnes .358,SD=.251,BC=.403   225   AA 2015   45.0   2,592   2,221   3,356   2,464   54.8   74.6
458 Win. Mag.   Barnes .458,SD=.341,BC=.526   500   IMR 4895   72.0   2,191   1,930   5,329   4,135   57.4   74.0
458 Win. Mag.   Barnes .458,SC=.238,BC=.402   350   RL 7   66.0   2,490   2,126   4,818   3,512   53.2   73.0
35 Whelen   Barnes .358,SD=.334,BC=.371   300   BLC-2   57.0   2,494   2,101   4,143   2,940   51.6   72.7
358 Winchester   Barnes .358,SD=.223,BC=.346   200   AA 2015   48.0   2,794   2,345   3,466   2,442   50.9   72.2
416 Rem. Mag.   Barnes .416,SD=.289,BC=.521   350   H 4895   80.0   2,722   2,423   5,757   4,562   57.0   72.0
416 Rem. Mag.   Barnes .416,SD=.330,BC=.366   400   RL 15   77.0   2,494   2,096   5,524   3,901   50.7   71.7
308 Winchester   Barnes .308,SD=.339,BC=.595   225   AA 2460   39.5   2,373   2,130   2,813   2,266   57.4   71.2
35 Whelen   Barnes .358,SD=.251,BC=.403   225   AA 2015   55.5   2,804   2,415   3,927   2,913   52.5   70.8
350 Rem. Mag.   Barnes .358,SD=.279,BC=.458   250   AA 2015   54.0   2,612   2,282   3,787   2,890   53.5   70.1

Well it looks like the 300 grain load in the 350 Rem. Mag. pulls the top spot.  The above are the tier 1 cartridges having >= 70 ft-lbs/grain.
So I think that in terms of a defensive rifle against large bears in Alaska loaded with 310 Woodleigh's the 350 Rem. Mag. will give the most knock down
for the least recoil.

If one is heading for Africa I'm thinking the 458 Lott would have to be the first choice, especially since the 458 Win. Mag. can be fired in the same chamber.
The 416 Remington Magnum in a close second, and with a 350 grain spitzer shoots pretty flat, and has some utility in the America's as well.

As an all around rifle for North American game the 358 Winchester is still pretty much the pick of the litter with 3 loads in the top 7 and 4 in the top 11.

If one was looking for a camp rifle or something the keep varmints up to the size of Black Bears out of the Camper or Cabin a nice 44 Mag Marlin
lever action would be just the ticket.

All of the medium 35's, the 358 Winchester, the 35 Whelen and the 350 Remington Magnum are extremely efficient and really should be more popular
than they are.  None of them are 257 Weatherby's in terms of trajectory, but if you take a close look at the charts they shoot a lot flatter than most
people give them credit for.

[Coyote Hunter]

BigJakeJ1s –

Regarding the choice of bullet weights, I simply used what 358Win had already used.  I much prefer 160g bullets in my 7mm Rem Mag.

If 4 ounces and 2” of barrel length is important, why not just get a Ruger Compact 7mm-08 or .308 Win at 5-3/4 pounds and a 16-1/2” barrel?  But OK, you’ve proven the .358 Win is available in shorter, lighter rifles.

For hog hunting I’ll take my Marlin .45-70 with 6 rounds full up and power the .358 Win can only dream about.   

[BigJakeJ1s]

For hog hunting I’ll take my Marlin .45-70 with 6 rounds full up and power the .358 Win can only dream about.   

Ouch; talk about recoil! That combination of cartridge and light weight rifle has got to be the most vicious recoiling rifle I've ever fired. But I've seen what they do on the other end too. Pretty darned impressive at short range.

Andy

[nomosendero]

For hog hunting I’ll take my Marlin .45-70 with 6 rounds full up and power the .358 Win can only dream about.   

Ouch; talk about recoil! That combination of cartridge and light weight rifle has got to be the most vicious recoiling rifle I've ever fired. But I've seen what they do on the other end too. Pretty darned impressive at short range.

Andy

Not bad at all with my XLR , does good at medium range too!

[Dee]

Gosh, I guess I'll have to stop killing these Tx. hogs with 52 grain match bullet out of my 223, as they are not enough for hogs. Wish someone had told me this 30 years ago.

[JKump]

I know I am jumping in at the end, but, I watched a segment on futureweapons where they where talking about a 405 sniper round.  They developed a sniper system around the 405.  During the show the host engaged a steel target that was just short of the longest confirmed sniper kill in Afgan., A shot that was over a mile.  I don't know about you but that sounds like one highly ballistically efficient round to me.  They where saying if I remember correctly that it falls between the 338 and the 50 cal..  I know this is a military round developed for sniping, not commercial use.

[nomosendero]

Gosh, I guess I'll have to stop killing these Tx. hogs with 52 grain match bullet out of my 223, as they are not enough for hogs. Wish someone had told me this 30 years ago.

[Coyote Hunter]

...  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.

Clearly, it is not the most efficient round in existence.  As noted above, I submit a CB Cap for that honor.

A typical CB Cap uses a 20g bullet at 575fps and generates 15fpe at the muzzle and 5fpe at 200 yards, using only the power provided by the primer.  Since the CB Cap uses NO powder, the efficiency as measured in terms of foot-pounds-energy per grain of powder approaches infinity.  Which would tend to make it INFINITELY MORE EFFICIENT than ANY cartridge that uses ANY powder - including the .358 Win.

While CB Caps are quite suitable for hunting, the size of game on which they are effective is limited, long range trajectory is rather parabolic and maximum range is decidedly limited (although it appears to be over 250 yards).  On the plus side, recoil and noise are almost non-existent.

Of course the CB Cap mentioned above is a rimfire, not a centerfire.  But how about using a centerfire with small amounts of powder – say a .30-30 pushing a 170g bullet to 1261fps using only 7.4g of powder?  (Load data from www.gmdr.com.) 

That’s 600fpe at the muzzle and ‘M eff’ ratings of:
81.1 = M eff @ muzzle
55.3 = M eff @ 200 yards

Folks, WE HAVE A NEW WINNER!   

This only serves to demonstrate that using a single characteristic, like efficiency as measured in terms of foot-pounds-energy per grain of powder, is inadequate to determine a cartridge's suitability for a particular task.

[coyotejoe]

According to "Cartridges of the World"  the .458 Whisper runs a custom 600 grain VLD bullet 1107 fps for 1630 ft.lb with only 18 grains of Blue Dot for over 90 ft.lb. per grain of powder at the muzzle. With the VLD bullet it still has over 80 ft.lb per grain at 200 yards. For those folks who care about momentum those numbers will be even more impressive.
 The long and short of it is that maximum efficiency at the muzzle comes from loading small cases at very high pressure with fast burning powders. Best efficiency at long range comes from bullets of high ballistic coefficient.
  This whole discussion reminds me of the 7.62 Nagant revolver. The Russians were so obsessed with the "efficiency" of the gas sealed revolver that they ignored the fact that it was still a pip-squeak cartridge in a revolver with an un-shootable trigger pull, very slow to reload and needlessly complicated. Efficiency per grain of powder was good but efficiency for actual use was ridiculous.

[Dee]

I have had it for about 50 years now, are you two guys saying I should keep my 3030? Are you saying it's alright to hunt with it after all? 
Oh, bless you boys.
 

[Coyote Hunter]

My previous example of an efficient load was rather tongue in cheek, but here’s a load that would be quite suitable for many hunting situations:

.44 Magnum rifle, 185g cast, 6.6g Titegroup, 1248fps, 640fpe.

This load can be found on the Hodgdon web site.

How does it do for efficiency?

96.7 = M eff @ muzzle (640fpe/6.6g)
50.2 = M eff @ 200 yards (331fpe/6.6g)

This load has some other great features as well, including very low recoil (3.3 foot-pounds in a 6.5 pound rifle) and suitability for use in rifles with high-capacity magazines (my Browning B92 is a 10+1 rifle).

Plus, for those that hadn’t noticed, it’s the new ‘M eff’ winner.

[Dee]

I think an article or report on the most versatile cartridge would be more useful. For example, the 3030 Winchester I have been joking about was bought new in 1957. It has been used on everything from big Texas hogs (pushing 400 lbs) to squirrel. About 36 years ago I began reloading the 3030 Winchester using everything from 170 grain flat noses and hard cast, gas checked bullets to 110 grain cast bullets and unique pistol powder. It has proven over the years to be very VERSATILE.
Same with my Model 92 Winchester clone in 357 mag.
Versatile in my opinion far out weighs efficient. With a reloading manual, and a little skill and effort, I believe the 3030 can be used for ANYTHING on the North American continent.  But that's just one old man's opinion, and I know there are probably other cartridges that would do just as well.

[nomosendero]

And better. 

[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=.212,BC=.239   275   W 296   20.5   1,529   1,149   1,427   806   39.3   69.6
9.3 x 62 mm   Barnes .366,SD=.305,BC=.468   286   H 414   57.0   2,492   2,196   3,943   3,062   53.7   69.2
458 Lott   Barnes .458,SC=.238,BC=.402   350   IMR 4831   85.0   2,741   2,356   5,838   4,313   50.7   68.7
458 Win. Mag.   Barnes .458,SC=.272,BC=.457   400   IMR 4895   74.0   2,391   2,117   5,077   3,980   53.8   68.6
300 Savage   Barnes .308,SD=.339,BC=.595   225   H 4895   36.0   2,218   1,985   2,457   1,968   54.7   68.3
35 Whelen   Barnes .358,SD=.223,BC=.346   200   AA 2015   58.0   2,982   2,514   3,948   2,806   48.4   68.1
458 Lott   Barnes .458,SC=.272,BC=.457   400   RL 22   85.0   2,549   2,223   5,770   4,388   51.6   67.9
8 x 57mm   Barnes .323,SD=.342,BC=.512   250   AA 2520   43.0   2,287   2,012   2,903   2,247   52.3   67.5
358 Winchester   Barnes .358,SD=.200,BC=.311   180   AA 2015   49.0   2,875   2,369   3,303   2,243   45.8   67.4
300 Savage   Barnes .308,SD=.376,BC=.417   250   IMR 4320   34.0   2,028   1,718   2,283   1,638   48.2   67.1
416 Rem. Mag.   Barnes .416,SD=.268,BC=.467   325   RL 15   88.0   2,851   2,889   5,865   6,022   68.4   66.6
444 Marlin   Barnes .430,SD=.232,BC=.258   300   RL 7   46.0   2,141   1,638   3,053   1,787   38.8   66.4
8 x 57mm   Barnes .323,SD=.301,BC=.462   220   AA 2520   46.0   2,492   2,174   3,033   2,308   50.2   65.9
416 Weatherby   Barnes .416,SD=.330,BC=.366   400   RL 22   105.0   2,792   2,366   6,922   4,971   47.3   65.9
350 Rem. Mag.   Barnes .358,SD=.223,BC=.346   200   AA 2015   60.0   2,981   2,513   3,946   2,804   46.7   65.8
45-70 Ruger #1   Barnes .458,SC=.238,BC=.402   350   IMR 4064   58.0   2,213   1,936   3,805   2,912   50.2   65.6
35 Whelen   Barnes .358,SD=.279,BC=.458   250   BLC-2   60.0   2,657   2,324   3,918   2,998   50.0   65.3
35 Whelen   Barnes .358,SD=.200,BC=.311   180   AA 2015   60.0   3,128   2,593   3,910   2,687   44.8   65.2
308 Winchester   Barnes .308,SD=.248,BC=.456   165   W 748   47.0   2,889   2,537   3,057   2,358   50.2   65.1
458 Win. Mag.   Barnes .458,SD=.204,BC=.340   300   RL 7   68.0   2,573   2,138   4,409   3,044   44.8   64.8
300 Savage   Barnes .308,SD=.301,BC=.550   200   H 4895   37.0   2,322   2,063   2,394   1,890   51.1   64.7
9.3 x 62 mm   Barnes .366,SD=.267,BC=.428   250   H 414   60.0   2,644   2,289   3,880   2,908   48.5   64.7
375 H&H   Barnes .375,SD=.305,BC=.555   300   RL 15   72.0   2,645   2,369   4,660   3,738   51.9   64.7
308 Winchester   Barnes .308,SD=.376,BC=.417   250   H 414   44.0   2,264   1,932   2,845   2,072   47.1   64.7
444 Marlin   Barnes .430,SD=.212,BC=.239   275   RL 7   47.0   2,228   1,674   3,031   1,711   36.4   64.5
350 Rem. Mag.   Barnes .358,SD=.251,BC=.403   225   IMR 4064   58.0   2,730   2,347   3,723   2,752   47.4   64.2
416 Rem. Mag.   Barnes .416,SD=.248,BC=.394   300   RL 15   91.0   2,959   2,510   5,831   4,196   46.1   64.1
358 Norma   Barnes .358,SD=.334,BC=.371   300   RL 19   73.0   2,646   2,239   4,663   3,339   45.7   63.9
458 Lott   Barnes .458,SD=.204,BC=.340   300   H 4831   85.0   2,849   2,387   5,406   3,795   44.6   63.6
375 Weatherby   Barnes .375,SD=.274,BC=.503   270   IMR 4064   75.0   2,803   2,488   4,710   3,710   49.5   62.8
375 H&H   Barnes .375,SD=.274,BC=.503   270   IMR 4320   75.0   2,802   2,488   4,706   3,710   49.5   62.7
460 Weatherby   Barnes .458,SD=.341,BC=.526   500   IMR 7828   125.0   2,654   2,363   7,819   6,198   49.6   62.6
308 Winchester   Barnes .308,SD=.226,BC=.386   150   W 748   49.0   3,028   2,602   3,053   2,255   46.0   62.3
375 Weatherby   Barnes .375,SD=.254,BC=.450   250   IMR 4320   79.0   2,974   2,610   4,909   3,781   47.9   62.1
375 H&H   Barnes .375,SD=.239,BC=.400   235   IMR 4895   73.0   2,946   2,541   4,528   3,369   46.1   62.0
350 Rem. Mag.   Barnes .358,SD=.200,BC=.311   180   AA 2015   62.0   3,096   2,565   3,830   2,629   42.4   61.8
8 x 57mm   Barnes .323,SD=.246,BC=.382   180   AA 2520   51.0   2,806   2,396   3,146   2,294   45.0   61.7
358 Norma   Barnes .358,SD=.251,BC=.403   225   H 380   68.0   2,889   2,492   4,169   3,102   45.6   61.3
416 Rigby   Barnes .416,SD=.330,BC=.366   400   H 4350   98.0   2,599   2,191   5,998   4,263   43.5   61.2
308 Winchester   Barnes .308,SD=.301,BC=.550   200   W 760   46.0   2,514   2,244   2,806   2,236   48.6   61.0
375 Weatherby   Barnes .375,SD=.356,BC=.370   350   H 4350   81.0   2,519   2,123   4,931   3,502   43.2   60.9
338 Win Mag   Barnes .338,SD=.375,BC=.416   300   RL 22   71.0   2,542   2,186   4,304   3,183   44.8   60.6
358 STA   Barnes .358,SD=.334,BC=.371   300   BLC-2   85.0   2,780   2,361   5,147   3,713   43.7   60.6
300 Savage   Barnes .308,SD=.271,BC=.511   180   H 4895   39.0   2,431   2,146   2,362   1,840   47.2   60.6
375 H&H   Barnes .375,SD=.254,BC=.450   250   IMR 4320   77.0   2,897   2,539   4,658   3,578   46.5   60.5
375 H&H   Barnes .375,SD=.356,BC=.370   350   H 414   75.0   2,415   2,028   4,532   3,196   42.6   60.4
300 Savage   Barnes .308,SD=.248,BC=.456   165   H 4895   41.0   2,600   2,270   2,476   1,888   46.0   60.4
375 Weatherby   Barnes .375,SD=.239,BC=.400   235   IMR 4320   81.0   3,057   2,877   4,876   4,318   53.3   60.2

From this data set we now have the 2nd group from 60 to 70 ft-lbs/grain of powder.  As one can see right off the bat there is overlap between groups
and of course efficiency is only one of about 20 factors to consider in a firearm.  I for one an enamored with Dee's devotion to the 30-30 that has worked
for him for years.

Won't say anything about the rounds that already showed up in the first group.

The 9.3 x 62 mm is pretty much the bread and butter round in Africa and fills much the same role the 358 Win does here.  It will do for everything in a pinch
without having recoil that will knock you silly.  Did I see someone say the 358 Win kicks hard??? About the same as the 30-06.

The 8x 57mm is another one that doesn't get the praise it deserves.  The 300 Savage and the 308 Win are another pair of efficient game getters that deserve
consideration from those in need of a new rifle.

The 444 Marlin and the 45-70 Gov't are both great cartridges and have lots of juice up fairly close.  The do start to fall off at 200 yards.  But that covers about
90% of the game I seen taken cleanly.

Even some of the long range boomers make it into this group like the 375H&H, the 375 Weatherby, the 358 Norma, and the 338 Winchester.  Even the 358 STA
makes it in the group with the 300 grain bullets.

One general observation is that the big cartridges seem to get their best efficiency with the heaviest bullets.  I will say that most of those kick a bit more than I'd like.

I used to have a 45-70 Marlin and while it could be loaded down to be fun, the high efficiency loads really hurt.

[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   1,574   1,140   1,375   721   31.4   59.8
45-70 Ruger #1   Barnes .458,SC=.272,BC=.457   400   H 4895   56.0   1,934   1,659   3,322   2,444   43.6   59.3
460 Weatherby   Barnes .458,SC=.272,BC=.457   400   RL 22   116.0   2,782   2,439   6,873   5,283   45.5   59.2
358 Norma   Barnes .358,SD=.223,BC=.346   200   H 4895   67.0   2,989   2,520   3,967   2,820   42.1   59.2
300 Weatherby   Barnes .308,SD=.376,BC=.417   250   IMR 4831   68.0   2,692   2,324   4,022   2,998   44.1   59.1
6.5 x 55mm Swede   Barnes .264,SD=.287,BC=.522   140   H 4350   45.0   2,924      2,657         59.1
45-70 Ruger #1   Barnes .458,SD=.204,BC=.340   300   H 322   59.0   2,282   1,877   3,468   2,346   39.8   58.8
358 Norma   Barnes .358,SD=.279,BC=.458   250   H 4350   75.0   2,818   2,473   4,407   3,394   45.3   58.8
308 Winchester   Barnes .308,SD=.271,BC=.511   180   AA 2700   49.0   2,674   2,373   2,857   2,250   45.9   58.3
7 x 57mm   Barnes .284,SD=.309,BD=.530   175   IMR4831   47.0   2,655      2,739         58.3
338 Win Mag   Barnes .338,SD=.219,BC=.392   175   RL 15   69.5   3,227   2,788   4,046   3,020   43.5   58.2
375 Weatherby   Barnes .375,SD=.305,BC=.555   300   H 4350   84.0   2,708   2,428   4,884   3,926   46.7   58.1
45-70 Marlin   Barnes .458,SC=.272,BC=.457   400   IMR 4064   51.0   1,826   1,562   2,961   2,167   42.5   58.1
30-06   Barnes .308,SD=.376,BC=.417   250   H 4831   55.0   2,395   2,051   3,184   2,335   42.4   57.9
7mm-08   Barnes .284,SD=.309,BD=.530   175   H 414   41.0   2,468      2,366         57.7
416 Rigby   Barnes .416,SD=.289,BC=.521   350   H 4350   102.0   2,751   2,450   5,881   4,664   45.7   57.7
358 STA   Barnes .358,SD=.251,BC=.403   225   AA 2015   87.0   3,168   2,746   5,013   3,767   43.3   57.6
338 Win Mag   Barnes .338,SD=.313,BC=.521   250   RL 22   75.0   2,789   2,486   4,317   3,430   45.7   57.6
30-06   Barnes .308,SD=.301,BC=.550   200   RL 19   57.0   2,715   2,432   3,273   2,626   46.1   57.4
300 Savage   Barnes .308,SD=.226,BC=.386   150   IMR 4064   43.5   2,735   2,335   2,491   1,816   41.7   57.3
30-06   Barnes .308,SD=.339,BC=.595   225   H 4831   57.5   2,567   2,313   3,292   2,672   46.5   57.2
7mm-08   Barnes .284,SD=.283,BC=.508   160   H 414   42.5   2,617      2,433         57.2
416 Rigby   Barnes .416,SD=.268,BC=.467   325   RL 19   106.0   2,899   2,554   6,064   4,706   44.4   57.2
416 Weatherby   Barnes .416,SD=.289,BC=.521   350   RL 22   120.0   2,967   2,652   6,840   5,465   45.5   57.0
460 Weatherby   Barnes .458,SC=.238,BC=.402   350   IMR 7828   122.0   2,987   2,581   6,933   5,176   42.4   56.8
358 STA   Barnes .358,SD=.279,BC=.458   250   BLC-2   90.0   3,031   2,669   5,099   3,954   43.9   56.7
416 Weatherby   Barnes .416,SD=.268,BC=.467   325   H 4350   116.0   3,011   2,657   6,541   5,094   43.9   56.4
340 Weatherby   Barnes .338,SD=.375,BC=.416   300   RL 22   80.0   2,592   2,232   4,475   3,318   41.5   55.9
338 Win Mag   Barnes .338,SD=.250,BC=.440   200   H 414   73.0   3,028   2,652   4,071   3,123   42.8   55.8
444 Marlin   Barnes .430,SD=.193,BC=.214   250   H 322   54.0   2,328   1,693   3,008   1,591   29.5   55.7
8mm Rem. Mag.   Barnes .323,SD=.342,BC=.512   250   H 4831   78.0   2,789   2,481   4,317   3,416   43.8   55.3
30-06   Barnes .308,SD=.271,BC=.511   180   RL 19   59.0   2,858   2,544   3,264   2,586   43.8   55.3
30-06   Barnes .308,SD=.248,BC=.456   165   H 414   57.0   2,931   2,575   3,147   2,429   42.6   55.2
358 Norma   Barnes .358,SD=.200,BC=.311   180   H 380   71.0   3,125   2,591   3,902   2,683   37.8   55.0
6.5 x 55mm Swede   Barnes .264,SD=.246,BC=.441   120   H 4350   47.0   3,111      2,578         54.9
250 Savage   Barnes .257,SD=.249,BC=.429   115   H 414   38.0   2,857      2,084         54.8
340 Weatherby   Barnes .338,SD=.313,BC=.521   250   RL 22   85.0   2,897   2,587   4,658   3,714   43.7   54.8
7mm-08   Barnes .284,SD=.247,BC=.436   140   H 414   47.0   2,874      2,567         54.6
338 Win Mag   Barnes .338,SD=.281,BC=.482   225   RL 22   78.0   2,919   2,583   4,256   3,333   42.7   54.6
30/30 Winchester   Speer .308,SD=.256,BC=.303   170   BLC-2   34.0   2,210   1,690   1,843   1,078   31.7   54.2
300 Win. Mag.   Barnes .308,SD=.376,BC=.417   250   H 4831   68.0   2,574   2,216   3,677   2,726   40.1   54.1
300 Weatherby   Barnes .308,SD=.339,BC=.595   225   RL 22   75.0   2,844   2,574   4,040   3,310   44.1   53.9
300 Win. Mag.   Barnes .308,SD=.339,BC=.595   225   H 4831   71.5   2,773   2,507   3,841   3,139   43.9   53.7
378 Weatherby   Barnes .375,SD=.356,BC=.370   350   H 4831   102.0   2,653   2,245   5,469   3,916   38.4   53.6
416 Rigby   Barnes .416,SD=.248,BC=.394   300   RL 19   109.0   2,961   2,549   5,839   4,327   39.7   53.6
30-06   Barnes .308,SD=.226,BC=.386   150   H 414   59.0   3,078   2,647   3,155   2,333   39.5   53.5
270 Winchester   Barnes .277,SD=.279,BC=.491   150   RL 22   59.5   3,090      3,180         53.4
358 STA   Barnes .358,SD=.223,BC=.346   200   AA 2015   89.0   3,272   2,772   4,754   3,412   38.3   53.4
300 Win. Mag.   Barnes .308,SD=.271,BC=.511   180   RL 22   75.5   3,153   2,817   3,973   3,171   42.0   52.6
416 Weatherby   Barnes .416,SD=.248,BC=.394   300   H 4350   118.0   3,052   2,632   6,204   4,614   39.1   52.6
7 x 57mm   Barnes .284,SD=.247,BC=.436   140   RL22   54.0   3,021      2,837         52.5
30/30 Winchester   Speer .308,SD=.226,BC=.244   150   IMR 4064   37.0   2,415   1,732   1,942   999   27.0   52.5
264 Win. Mag.   Barnes .264,SD=.287,BC=.522   140   H 450   62.0   3,235      3,253         52.5
280 Remington   Barnes .284,SD=.283,BC=.508   160   RL 22   55.0   2,848      2,881         52.4
284 Win   Barnes .284,SD=.309,BD=.530   175   IMR 7828   50.0   2,586      2,598         52.0
300 Win. Mag.   Barnes .308,SD=.301,BC=.550   200   IMR 7828   73.5   2,932   2,635   3,817   3,083   41.9   51.9
7 x 57mm   Barnes .284,SD=.283,BC=.508   160   H 450   53.0   2,782      2,749         51.9
250 Savage   Barnes .257,SD=.216,BC=.401   100   H 414   40.5   3,072      2,095         51.7
340 Weatherby   Barnes .338,SD=.281,BC=.482   225   RL 22   88.0   3,016   2,672   4,544   3,566   40.5   51.6
284 Win   Barnes .284,SD=.247,BC=.436   140   W 760   53.5   2,980      2,760         51.6
280 Remington   Barnes .284,SD=.309,BD=.530   175   IMR 7828   55.0   2,701      2,834         51.5
7mm STW   Barnes .284,SD=.309,BD=.530   175   IMR7828   75.0   3,152      3,860         51.5
6.5 Rem. Mag.   Barnes .264,SD=.287,BC=.522   140   RL 22   56.0   3,041      2,874         51.3
7mm STW   Barnes .284,SD=.283,BC=.508   160   IMR7828   78.0   3,354      3,996         51.2
240 Weatherby   Barnes.243,SD=.242,BC=.406   100   RL 22   49.0   3,361   2,923   2,508   1,897   38.7   51.2
270 Winchester   Barnes .277,SD=.261,BC=.462   140   RL 22   61.0   3,166      3,115         51.1

The 3rd tier which covers from 60 down to 51 ft-lbs/grain of powder seems to cover most of the really common cartridges.  Again I won't spend too much
time on the ones that have been covered earlier.

This group includes a whole bunch of really usefull cartridges like the 6.5x55mm Swede, and the 7x57, the 30-06, the 7mm-08, the 250 Savage, the 340 Weatherby,
the 270 Win, the 284 Win, the 280 Remington, the 30/30, the 7mm STW, the 6.5 Rem. Mag., and the 240 Weatherby.

While there are a lot of good rounds in this group, I PERSONALLY, probably wouldn't go out of my way to buy one of these myself.  Even though I've owned a 30-06
and a 270 Win I don't have either of these rifles now.  But if any of these are your favorite, hang on to them they all work just fine.

[358Win]

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   3,062   2,578   6,245   4,426   35.7   50.4
243 Winchester   Barnes.243,SD=.242,BC=.406   100   RL 19   45.0   3,192   2,770   2,262   1,703   37.9   50.3
300 Weatherby   Barnes .308,SD=.301,BC=.550   200   IMR 7828   79.0   2,986   2,685   3,959   3,201   40.5   50.1
340 Weatherby   Barnes .338,SD=.219,BC=.392   175   W 760   86.0   3,326   2,877   4,298   3,216   37.4   50.0
300 Weatherby   Barnes .308,SD=.271,BC=.511   180   RL 22   80.5   3,172   2,835   4,021   3,212   39.9   49.9
7mm STW   Barnes .284,SD=.247,BC=.436   140   IMR7828   80.0   3,572      3,966         49.6
270 Winchester   Barnes .277,SD=.223,BC=.406   120   H 4350   58.0   3,284      2,873         49.5
270 Winchester   Barnes .277,SD=.242,BC=.428   130   RL 22   62.0   3,254      3,056         49.3
257 Roberts   Barnes .257,SD=.162,BC=.289   75   H 4895   45.0   3,648      2,216         49.2
358 STA   Barnes .358,SD=.200,BC=.311   180   AA 2015   91.0   3,346   2,785   4,474   3,099   34.1   49.2
6mm Remington   Barnes.243,SD=.242,BC=.406   100   RL 22   47.0   3,225   2,800   2,309   1,741   37.0   49.1
378 Weatherby   Barnes .375,SD=.305,BC=.555   300   H 4831   108.0   2,818   2,531   5,289   4,267   39.5   49.0
340 Weatherby   Barnes .338,SD=.250,BC=.440   200   RL 22   91.0   3,157   2,770   4,425   3,407   37.4   48.6
7mm Weatherby   Barnes .284,SD=.309,BD=.530   175   IMR 7828   72.0   2,993      3,480         48.3
6.5 Rem. Mag.   Barnes .264,SD=.246,BC=.441   120   H 4831   59.0   3,265      2,840         48.1
284 Win   Barnes .284,SD=.283,BC=.508   160   H4831   54.0   2,700      2,589         48.0
280 Remington   Barnes .284,SD=.247,BC=.436   140   RL 22   60.5   3,052      2,895         47.9
8mm Rem. Mag.   Barnes .323,SD=.246,BC=.382   180   RL 22   87.0   3,218   2,767   4,138   3,060   35.2   47.6
250 Savage   Barnes .257,SD=.184,BC=.309   85   H 414   42.5   3,268      2,015         47.4
7mm Weatherby   Barnes .284,SD=.283,BC=.508   160   IMR 7828   73.0   3,118      3,453         47.3
264 Win. Mag.   Barnes .264,SD=.246,BC=.441   120   H 450   66.0   3,423      3,121         47.3
378 Weatherby   Barnes .375,SD=.274,BC=.503   270   RL 22   111.0   2,951   2,626   5,220   4,134   37.2   47.0
7mm Weatherby   Barnes .284,SD=.247,BC=.436   140   RL 22   76.0   3,386      3,563         46.9
300 Weatherby   Barnes .308,SD=.248,BC=.456   165   IMR 7828   84.0   3,274   2,889   3,927   3,057   36.4   46.7
240 Weatherby   Barnes.243,SD=.218,BC=.382   90   RL 19   56.0   3,619   3,126   2,617   1,952   34.9   46.7
378 Weatherby   Barnes .375,SD=.239,BC=.400   235   H 4831   115.0   3,201   2,773   5,346   4,012   34.9   46.5
243 Winchester   Barnes .243,SD=.218,BC=.382   90   RL 22   48.0   3,341   2,879   2,230   1,656   34.5   46.5
300 Win. Mag.   Barnes .308,SD=.226,BC=.386   150   H 4831   80.0   3,339   2,882   3,713   2,766   34.6   46.4
6mm Remington   Barnes.243,SD=.218,BC=.382   90   RL 22   48.5   3,353   2,890   2,246   1,669   34.4   46.3
25-06 Remington   Barnes .257,SD=.249,BC=.429   115   RL 22   52.5   3,086      2,431         46.3
7mm Rem. Mag.   Barnes .284,SD=.283,BC=.508   160   H 4831   66.0   2,933      3,056         46.3
378 Weatherby   Barnes .375,SD=.254,BC=.450   250   RL 22   114.0   3,079   2,707   5,262   4,067   35.7   46.2
270 Weatherby   Barnes .257,SD=.279,BC=.491   150   IMR 7828   69.0   3,092      3,184         46.1
257 Roberts   Barnes .257,SD=.249,BC=.429   115   RL 22   49.0   2,975      2,260         46.1
240 Weatherby   Barnes.243,SD=.181,BC=.307   75   H 414   54.5   3,879   3,237   2,505   1,745   32.0   46.0
250 Savage   Barnes .257,SD=.162,BC=.289   75   H 414   44.0   3,477      2,013         45.7
7mm Rem. Mag.   Barnes .284,SD=.247,BC=.436   140   RL 22   70.0   3,207      3,197         45.7
25-06 Remington   Barnes .257,SD=.216,BC=.401   100   RL 19   55.0   3,354      2,497         45.4
257 Roberts   Barnes .257,SD=.184,BC=.309   85   H 414   50.0   3,454      2,251         45.0
6mm Remington   Barnes.243,SD=.181,BC=.307   75   IMR 4831   49.0   3,639   3,031   2,205   1,530   31.2   45.0
257 Roberts   Barnes .257,SD=.216,BC=.401   100   RL 19   50.0   3,183      2,249         45.0
25-06 Remington   Barnes .257,SD=.162,BC=.289   75   RL 15   50.0   3,674      2,248         45.0
270 Weatherby   Barnes .277,SD=.223,BC=.406   120   H 4350   68.0   3,372      3,029         44.5
243 Winchester   Barnes .243,SD=.181,BC=.307   75   IMR 4831   48.5   3,595   2,994   2,152   1,493   30.8   44.4
270 Weatherby   Barnes .257,SD=.261,BC=.462   140   IMR 7828   70.0   3,161      3,106         44.4
300 Weatherby   Barnes .308,SD=.226,BC=.386   150   H 4831   86.0   3,383   2,921   3,811   2,841   33.0   44.3
270 Weatherby   Barnes .277,SD=.242,BC=.428   130   IMR 4831   68.0   3,225      3,002         44.1
257 Weatherby   Barnes .257,SD=.249,BC=.429   115   RL 22   69.0   3,371      2,901         42.0
25-06 Remington   Barnes .257,SD=.184,BC=.309   85   RL 19   57.5   3,511      2,326         40.5
7mm Rem. Mag.   Barnes .284,SD=.309,BD=.530   175   AA8700   77.0   2,815      3,079         40.0
257 Weatherby   Barnes .257,SD=.216,BC=.401   100   RL 22   72.0   3,564      2,820         39.2
257 Weatherby   Barnes .257,SD=.184,BC=.309   85   H 450   70.0   3,779      2,695         38.5
257 Weatherby   Barnes .257,SD=.162,BC=.289   75   RL 22   76.0   4,012      2,680         35.3

This is the bottom group from 51ft-lb/grain on down.  These rifles are all specialty rigs, at least with these loads that sacrifice efficiency for
extremely flat trajectory.  For those with young eyes and a really good rest they will all do fine to 300 yards or so which IMHO is about as
far as shots at live game should be taken on game that is not already wounded.

[358Win]

I've learned a lot doing this study.  Some cartridges that I would have never guessed have very high efficiency.  Like the 458 Lott and the 416 Remington.  Even though I don't have any real use for either.  On the other hand the 358 Winchester, the 35 Whelen, the 350 Rem. Mag. and the 9.3 x 62mm all did really well as I expected.  The 358 Winchester being the lightest kicker of those 4 wins as my efficient all around rifle.  It is too bad I didn't really have any data for the new 338 Federal as I expect it to be all but a twin for the 358 Winchester.  I also learned the the 6.5 Grendel is probably the best military cartridge under current development.

But I'm sure I'll hang on to my 357 Mag pistol, and my Kahr P40 the lightest backpacking gun in existence in that power range.  Of course my 358 Winchester BLR will stay with me for life.  As for rifles I'd still like to buy a Marlin 44 Magnum lever action with ghost ring sights will be added.  I'm also looking for a reasonably cheap left handed 22 K-Hornet.  If I ever have more money than I know what to do with a 9.3x62mm and a 8x57mm would be the next two on the list.  If some real money ever comes my way a 6.5 Grendel AR would be a boat load of fun too.

I hope this was half as much fun for all of my friends as it was for me.  Have a Great Week!!!  Chat at ya' all later.

[Cheesehead]

WOW!!!  Very ambitious and interesting. Good job 358Win.

Cheese

[Coyote Hunter]

358Win –

You have done a great job in comparing the various cartridges but your question, after all, was only about efficiency with no other requirements – meaning all types of loads should be considered.

I suggested two loads using published data, a .30-30 light load which had a M eff of 85.1 at the muzzle and 55.3 at 200 yards, and the .44 Magnum light load with a M eff of 96.7 at the muzzle and 50.2 at 200 yards. 

Here is another load to consider, a maximum .44 Mag 300g load from the Hodgdon web site and a very legitimate hunting load.

Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
44 Magnum    Hornady .430,SD=.232,BC=.245   300   H110   19.0   1,473   1,108   1,445   818   43.1   76.1

So, even considering only hunting loads and the data available so far, the .44 Magnum is king.   

[SHOOTALL]

how will the king fare at a 350 yd shot on a ground hog ?

[Dee]

I think all of this has been not only extensive, and at times interesting, but well constructed. I don't particularly see it useful in real world, but a good read. 358 is all this your work?

[SHOOTALL]

Hey i can use all the charts to convince the wife why i need more guns for different ranges etc. !
thanks !

[Coyote Hunter]

how will the king fare at a 350 yd shot on a ground hog ?

Not as well as many less efficient cartridges, to be sure, which only highlights the folly of using a single characteristic to choose a rifle for a particular purpose. 

Your question is not in any way related to the original question, which dealt only with efficiency as measured in terms of energy per grain of powder.  Using that as the sole criteria, the .30-30 and .44 Mag in a rifle beat every competitor.  The others weren't even close.

Dee suggested a thread on the most 'versatile' cartridge, which I think is a good idea.  Perhaps you should start one on the best 350-yard groundhog cartridge.

[Coyote Hunter]

Here's another top contender - it should make #11 on the list (or #14 if the .30-30 and .44 Mag loads I listed are considered).

The data source is Accurate Arms #1 reloading manual.

Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   200 Vel   M KE   200 KE   200 Eff   M Eff
.375 Win    Hornady .375,SD=.223,BC=.217   220   AA1680   38.0   2,372   1,693   2,748   1,399   36.8   72.3

[SHOOTALL]

Sorry !
by the way for this exercise to be useful would you not have to use the same powder since each has a different burning rate /efficiency ? the old apples to orange thing ?