quote:

I fell "victim" to the Weatherby mystique through their great catalogs early on. I presently own five of them, made in the US, Japan and Germany. One of my US made ones is one of his early models built on a M98 action that will be going with me elk hunting next week.

While the early FN actioned Weatherby's were marked "Southgate, Ca", that was only the corporate headquarters for Weatherby; no rifles were built there, at least not commercially. The Weatherby's on FN actions were, surprisingly, built by Sako in Finland (although Weatherby apparently tried a number of different contractors, so some FN actioned Weatherby's may have come from some other soure). They were quite similar to the Sako High Power and the FN High Power.

The Mark V action, regardless of who manufactured it, always seemed a clunky, heavy, and unnecessarily complicated action that has to rate near the bottom of turnbolt action designs.

Weatherby ammunition was for many years loaded by Norma using Hornady bullets. That the old Hornady Interlock design held up (reasonably well) to velocities 300 or 400 fps higher than it was fired from the typical cartridge is a testament to its construction.

Weatherby's radiused shoulder was nothing more than a gimmick and provides nothing other than a slightly difficult case to form; Weatherby's other "secret" was simply "pre-eroding" the throat, known as freeboring, so that heavier charges of powder would not create excessive pressures, thereby allowing a bit greater velocity than the displacement of the case would have otherwise yielded.

Not according to the Weatherby book. Low serial number rifles were indeed assembled at South Gate. Mine is completely a 98 action built in 1957.

THanks to everyone for comments on this thread. I find the biographies of early day entrepenuers interesting and RoY Weatherby was one.

I finished the bio of Chris Klineberger as well. He was another ground breaker!

Chris is a personal friend of mine and is very unassuming. One of the nicest guys you would ever meet. You'd never know from talking with him that he's lived the life described in his book, "Gamemasters of the World". He has also written another short book entitled: "Conservation or Preservation".

I have one Weatherby and received it around 1979. It is a Mark V in a left hand 30-06. It was the interest payment on a CD with the Bank of Boulder. If a bank did that today the CEO would probably have to appear in front of Congress.

Not overly accurate, but a neat rifle. I will bring it to Africa one day as my plainsgame rifle.

I have never owned a factory Weatherby, but do have a factory M70 in 300 WBY.

I think Weatherby, his rifles, his company, and his salesmanship are perfect examples of the gun industry , post WWII hunting expansion, and California culture in the 50-70s.

O'l Roy left his mark, no doubt.

And not a bad one IMO.

When I was stationed in the interior of Alaska in the mid-70's, I drew a full-curl Dall sheep permit and hired a guide out of Tok. He had a .300 Weatherby Mark V and praised it highly--although I never saw him shoot anything with it. He took a shot at a running wolf at about 200 yards and missed, but I couldn't have done any better.

When I returned to Alaska in the mid-'80's the guide's admiration of his Weatherby had rubbed off on me, and I acquired a German Mark V in 300 Weatherby magnum, fitted with a Weatherby scope.

Once I finally got it sighted in (not an easy task) it shot OK for the first two rounds, but the third was consistently a flyer. I don't know for sure what the issue was, but I suspect the relatively thin barrel heated up pretty fast and affected accuracy.

Or maybe it was just the shooter.

Anyway, I missed a caribou with it and sold it off in frustration.

It sure was a purty rifle, though.

According to his biography, the scopes were made in Japan by one of the Japanese optics outfits. I do not think it held the quality of the European scopes at that time.


A lot of folks refer to the "German made" Weatherby's but I think that only a very few were made by Sauer and the quality was an issue at the time.

I always loved the custom shop rifles stocked in Mesquite.

Unbelievable contrast in the stock with that wood...

DogCat- My dad had a 257 Mark v that was made in Germany. the quality was fine except that the twist was 1-12" so it grouped 100 grain bullets better than 120s. It had a German Weatherby scope on it that was 6 power. They are recognized by having two adjustment knobs on the top of the scope. One knob has two dials in it, one for windage, the other for elevation. the other knob is focus. the glass quality was very good but they had problems with the seals as the scope was prone to fogging, which was very common with scopes in the early 1960s.

I own a few Weatherby rifles, including a “Southgate” built on an FN Mauser Action. I also own similar numbers of Winchester Model 70’s and Sako’s, as well as products of some other manufacturers, so I’m certainly not a brand slave and I have exposure to the products of several manufacturers.

That Weatherby was a fantastic marketer is correct. I don’t think this is a negative. Weatherby offered features that many manufacturers only offered far later and I see nobody saying now that these are gimmicky offerings. I have also read the book and if you are interested I suggest you read it yourself rather than accept the opinion on the reading of the book by one party. It is a fairly engaging read and an entertaining story. I did feel that the book lacked a bit of the technical information I would have liked, but that was hardly the purpose of the book. It is certainly in many respects of story about triumph over adversity.

I could write many pages on Weatherby and his products. As an owner of these rifles I have read about them quite extensively, but I am certain many of you know more and have more experience with them than I. Roy Weatherby set the bar and is in my opinion one of the most influential persons in the development of both hunting rifles and calibres in recent history. Many of the fashions in rifle design, like them or not, originated with Weatherby and were eventually widely copied. The low lift bolt design and interrupted locking lugs, though pioneered by many others like Newton and S&L, are now used by several other manufacturers for example. The Mote Carlo / Hollywood / California stock styling was likewise a widely copied feature for many years and still is to some measure. Accuracy guarantees were offered by Weatherby way before other manufacturers.

The information re testing of the MkV action is an interesting read and you can find it on the net as well if you search.

The calibres were generally only equalled or exceeded in terms of ballistic performance many years, or even decades later, with many of the Weatherby chamberings having been introduced in the mid 1940’s. The performance of the calibres we have available to us today, is in my opinion, attributable largely to the standards set by Weatherby.
I grew up in an era where here in Africa Weatherbys were often not highly regarded. Stories of well-heeled idiots coming to hunt in Africa, unable to hit an elephant broadside at 10m, abounded in magazines and in stories told. Weatherbys were often labelled “Wound-erbys” as a result. There was a strong anti-magnum movement in the 80’s it seemed, some of which no doubt stemmed from the limitations of projectiles available at the time. Nevertheless, pouring over the Speer Number 10 reloading manual as a teenager I could only but be impressed by the velocities attained by the Weatherby cartridges. Blaming cartridges for poor performance when the bullets of the period were not up to the ballistic performance of the cartridges is no longer relevant and in my opinion never really was. I recall an article in a Magnum Magazine in the 80’s (if my memory serves me correctly) written by a PH who said he witnessed a 460 Weatherby run stem to stern on an elephant bull. He added that his 470 (again if I remember the story) could not have done the same. This story struck a chord and I realised that there certainly was a place for these chamberings.

Roy Weatherby received various labels pursuant to his high velocity / hydrostatic shock theory and for example I saw Mr Weatherby referred to as “The High Priest of High Velocity”. I certainly do not judge the performance of my cartridges on the theory, but how well they work in the field. I look forward to using some of my more recent acquisitions in Weatherby calibres on hunts in the near future. I do agree that the book seemed to provide information which was no conclusive on the theory even in the experience of Roy Weatherby, but I should probably reread this part about the African hunts.

The MkV actions are smooth and mine feed well. The rifles are accurate and certainly enough so for virtually any hunting purposes. I have recently purchased an Ultralight on which I will report back at some point as some reports of patchy accuracy with the Ultralights are out there. The fact that many of the globe-trotting hunters of the 60’s and 70’s chose to shoot Weatherbys when they could shoot any factory rifle, or custom rifle, they chose to is in my opinion indicative of how good these rifles actually are.

Would a MkV be my first choice for a DG rifle? No. Does that mean it is a poor product? Certainly not, but I bought into the whole argument of controlled round feed actions for DG rifles. That is quite possibly also a marketing story more than reality and I would add that my PH’s over the years have used CRF and PF designs in about equal proportions.
Were all of Weatherby’s ideas original? Hardly, but the product was and remains in my opinion a great combination of great features and well executed. It does seem that the double radius design was possibly more to keep the calibres proprietary, than due to the real benefit. Weatherby is said to have acquired one of the PMV chambered cartridges and that he got the diea there. The interrupted locking lug design was no doubt conceived after using the S&L actions and so on.

What else can once say about the Weatherbys? When it seems that with cost saving a big theme and with most manufacturers in a race to the bottom with regard to finish and appearance, a wood stocked Mark V still seems to stand out as a better executed product than many others. Are a few limited other examples good too? Of course, but across the board a MkV is generally a good bet. Whilst I’ve not needed it, all I see indicates that Weatherby after sales service is great, but your mileage may vary and personal experience is everything I guess.

I believe Roy Weatherby was a man with vision and with the ability to market himself and his product well. As hunters we owe a great deal of what we have to the decisions made and risks taken by that man who grew up the kid of a small scale farmer in Middle America.

A most excellent post! Weatherby cartridges simply outpaced bullet technology at the time, at least until the Nosler Partition became available and to a lesser extent the Hornady Interlock. I am a firm believer in all things being equal, SPEED does indeed kill and for me, nothing exemplifies this better than the 257 Weatherby with 100gr pills on deer. Not ONE that I've shot with this rifle/caliber combo has ever taken a step. Leaving on my elk hunt Saturday and my weapon of choice will once again be my 300 Weatherby, only this time with 180gr TTSXs.

quote:

Originally posted by jorge:
Not according to the Weatherby book. Low serial number rifles were indeed assembled at South Gate. Mine is completely a 98 action built in 1957.

Some stocks, particularly the ones of custom wood like mesquite, may have been fitted in the U.S. (at Southgate or some other location).

However, the barreled actions appear to have come from Sako where Sako barreled FN Mausers with Sako barrels chambered for Weatherby cartridges. The Sako factory sales records show 111 "Sako-Mauser Weatherby .300" rifles (or barreled actions) shipped to Firearms International (Sako's U.S. importer) in 1957. There were also 17 .270 Weatherbys and 1 .257 Weatherby shipped in 1957, with many others shipped in subsequent years of the 1950's.

Be proud that your "Southgate Weatherby" has a genuine Sako barrel on it, which probably makes it a superior shooter to most others.

I owned a Southgate Weatherby briefly once, which I never fired. Had I known at the time that it sported a Sako barrel I would have undoubtedly kept it. Ce la vie.

Thanks for all the great info. I sent you my serial number.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
How is the recoil and muzzle blast in the .257 and .270 Weatherby rifles?

I've got both. Recoil with the .257 might be compared with a .270 Win, and recoil of the .270 'bee with a 7 Rem or 30-06. They aren't light guns, and I'm not even sure if the .257 will bounce on a sandbag.You can free recoil either one. Nothing quiet about either, but there's worse.

Never was a fan of the Weatherby rifles, too "outlandish" looking for my taste with the high comb and 45 degree forends.

I do have a 300 weatherby chambered rifle, not my choice in caliber though (excellent deal on a used Rifles Inc, Strata). If I ever shoot out the barrel, I will probably go to 300 Win. On the other hand, their ammo is great albeit expensive.

I have just one Weatherby. A 257 Weatherby from their custom shop that a friend of mine sold to me brand new from his gun shop. I mounted a nice Leupold scope on it. It is the typical Weatherby stock design but with a bluish/gray/silver wood laminated stock, a stainless fluted barrel and muzzle brake. Nice looking rifle, but I have yet to take it hunting.

A lot of people criticize their stock design. While I personally own custom classic Mausers in classic british design from well known makers I actually becme a bit bored and like the Weatherby stock for being different. Additionally, I consider the stock being close to perfect for precision shooting. I like them.

I seem to remember the very early Weatherby rifles were advertised as having Timken barrels. Anybody else remember that?

Yep, barrels stamped with a T inside a circle. Mr. Timken (Timken Roller Bearings) was also a Weatherby investor.

He ultimately had a falling out with the Timken folks and shuffled to another barrel maker. This was a reoccurring pattern in his business relationships.

He sold, bought, resold and bought his own company a few times. It was an interesting way to raise money. The only person to get all of their money back was Herb Klein, his primary first investor.

quote:

Originally posted by jorge:
A most excellent post! Weatherby cartridges simply outpaced bullet technology at the time, at least until the Nosler Partition became available and to a lesser extent the Hornady Interlock. I am a firm believer in all things being equal, SPEED does indeed kill and for me, nothing exemplifies this better than the 257 Weatherby with 100gr pills on deer. Not ONE that I've shot with this rifle/caliber combo has ever taken a step. Leaving on my elk hunt Saturday and my weapon of choice will once again be my 300 Weatherby, only this time with 180gr TTSXs.

Jorge, I hope you have a great elk hunt (today!).
Excellent choice in rifle, cartridge, and bullet!

quote:

Originally posted by Sevens:
Never was a fan of the Weatherby rifles, too "outlandish" looking for my taste with the high comb and 45 degree forends.

I do have a 300 weatherby chambered rifle, not my choice in caliber though (excellent deal on a used Rifles Inc, Strata). If I ever shoot out the barrel, I will probably go to 300 Win. On the other hand, their ammo is great albeit expensive.

Different strokes for different folks.

I've stocked or re-stocked 6 of my rifles, beginning with my first centerfire rifle, a .30-06 barreled action and a semi-finished walnut blank that I bought from Herter's back in 1966.

I pretty much copied the Weatherby design on each of these stocks with high roll over combs and a 45* rosewood forearm tips.

My most recent rifle (in this same design) is a .300 Weatherby Vanguard that I built in 2009. It quickly became my favorite rifle and has made most of my other rifles "safe queens."

quote:

Originally posted by jaegerfrank:
A lot of people criticize their stock design. While I personally own custom classic Mausers in classic british design from well known makers I actually becme a bit bored and like the Weatherby stock for being different. Additionally, I consider the stock being close to perfect for precision shooting. I like them.

one of the best stock for sure. if not well shouldered you cant shoot it well and off sights. so for that well design.

Good luck Jorge! Elk hunting is something special

Checked the 257 barrel. the proof marks are the standard German nitro proof and the Kiel Oakleaf indicating that it was made in 1961 in Eckernfoerde Germany. In addition it is stamped Made In Germany. Not sure where the stocks were made, but appears that the barreled action was made in Germany by a firearms maker.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
I just finished reading Roy Weatherby's biography written in 1992 by Grits and Tom Gresham. I have never owned a Weatherby rifle and only shot a couple, so I thought, what the heck, I will get "learned up" on him and his famous rifles.

Honestly, after reading this book, I would be hesitant to own one of those rifles. Reading the trials and trevails of this one time AAA club salesman and insurance peddler turned high powered rifle manufacturer is eye opening and a bit scary.

Weatherby was a salesman, pure and simple. He is portrayed in the book as an idea guy but not much of a businessman. He was raised in the Depression and had a lifelong fear of failing and being broke. He was at the edge of that fear several times but that did not seem to keep him from chasing a variety of expensive hobbies (collecting classics cars or coins or stamps or remote controlled airplanes and many others). His idea, not unlike John "Pondoro" Taylor was that velocity kills - i.e. what he called hydrostatic shock of a high velocity, light weight bullet hitting tissue causing a shock wave that destroys tissue and kills the animal. In the book, he goes to Kenya for 3 months to test this and comes away with his beliefs somewhat intact, however, he learned that "where" the bullet hit was pretty important as well.

His descriptions of Africa are fun to read but a little much like the first time hunter that goes to South Africa and has the "greatest PH ever" and is now an expert. Overall, he came back advocating his .300 Weatherby as a serious dangerous game cartridge but liked the .375 HH too.

I learned a lot about that time period (late 1940's to 1980's) in the hunting business and how the business was conducted. He farmed out his guns to be made in Japan and Europe. He always struggled to get a reliable source for ammo and ended up suing Speer over bad ammo.

He sold scopes as well, all made in Japan. He made shotguns, made in Europe and Japan under his label.

He had many partners and bought and sold pieces of his company to raise money regularly. His key partner to start up was Herb Klein of Dallas fame and the first Weatherby Award winner.

Oh, by the way, the Weatherby Award was originally a sales gimmick to draw attention to his gun of the future.

He did not get alone well with Jack O'Connor yet considered him a friend. I doubt anyone got along with O'Connor.

In the end, I came away feeling that this is a gun (those made in 1950's to late 1980's) a never want any part of due to the various makers, quality issues and overall problems this guy had in holding his company together. I have no clue how the company is doing today, I hope it is better.

Anyone out there have any thoughts on Weatherby and his guns?

John Taylor was not an advocate of high velocity.

His theory was 'Knockout Value', was based on bullet weight, caliber and velocity.

He created his own theoretical calculation, based on caliber size and velocity so that he could assign a 'Knockout Value' to any cartridge/caliber.

http://www.outdoorlife.com/art...ys-seem-flatten-game

THE LIGHTS-OUT METHOD

Technically speaking, near-absolute knockdown effect can be achieved with about any caliber cartridge by what we can call the "lights-out" method, which is either a brain shot or a shot that shatters the neck vertebrae and spinal cord. The old-time deer hunters I grew up with were great believers in the neck shot because it minimized meat loss and, more important, usually dropped the animal in its tracks. Those were the days when calibers such as the .30/30 and .35 Remington ruled the woods, still-hunting was practiced by almost everyone, 50 yards was a long shot and open sights were the norm. Today, with much-changed hunting techniques and equipment, we don't hear nearly as much about hunters favoring neck or brain shots. This is just as well, because aiming at the smaller parts of an animal's anatomy is, literally, a hit-or-miss proposition.

Another approach to knockdown power is simply to overwhelm the animal with bullet size--the "bulldozer effect" I suppose it might be called.

Historically, there have been many proponents of big heavy bullets, and none more so than John Taylor, a gun and ballistic disciple of considerable African experience. Believing that the formula for calculating bullet energy is skewed too heavily in favor of velocity (I tend to agree with him on this, by the way), Taylor concocted a system for calculating what he called the Knock-Out Value of various calibers.

TAYLOR'S THEORY

Since he was mainly interested in ivory hunting, Taylor was concerned about the concussion effect of various cartridges on head-shot elephants when the brain itself was missed. According to his tables, a pachyderm would be unconscious for about half an hour when knocked out by a 900-grain slug from a .600 Nitro Express, whereas the beast would remain unconscious only about 20 minutes when hit by the 720-grain bullet from a .577 Nitro--a difference that no doubt has altered the course of history.

While logic and observation make it clear that big calibers can have an overwhelming effect on game--e.g., whitetails shot with a .375 H&H--the strength of the evidence begins to wane when we factor in the unmentionable sin of declining marksmanship. Some (dare I say many?) hunters are not comfortable with hard-kicking rifles and are liable to flinch and jerk when they touch one off, which of course results in poor shot placement.

WEATHERBY'S TAKE

On the other side of the aisle are those who argue that game animals are more likely to be instantly poleaxed by high-velocity bullets that transmit a shockwave through the nervous system. The leading apostle of this gospel was none other than Roy Weatherby, who preached long and hard on the velocity theme and won many converts. The term usually applied to the circuit-breaking effect of high-velocity impact is "hydrostatic shock," but I think hydrodynamic shock is more apt.

Of course, we can rightly figure that by combining the opposing elements of the debate and firing big, heavy bullets at sizzling velocities we get a double dose of knockdown power. But anyone who fires, say, a .460 Weatherby Magnum (about 85 foot-pounds of recoil) instantly realizes that this sword cuts both ways.

Regardless of which side of the debate you cheer for, there remain many examples of game well hit with any caliber you wish to name that wasn't knocked off its feet in an instant.

Its funny how everyone remembers Taylor's Knock out theory about braining elephants but forgets everything else he wrote.

How about this one?

.300 Magnum Holland and Holland. This and the Rigby .275 No2 are my favorites amongst the small bores. Firing its 150-gr slug the .300 Magnum is unbelievably deadly. I can't remember ever having to give a beast a second of them-they're sure dynamite.
John Taylor

There's many references to high velocity, shock and the advantages of bullets that stay inside; quite the opposite of what people claim he stood for.

http://www.hallowellco.com/Tay...nock-out%20power.htm

If you look at the Taylor Knockout Value chart, it favors all the large caliber, moderate velocity rounds.

I'm not reading from his book (which I do have at home), but referring to the published chart from it; all the top Knockout Value cartridges are the big, slow heavy thumpers.

Yes, velocity is obviously an important part of the equation, but mass of the projectile is the far more important factor.

.600NE is at the top... the .300H&H and .275Rigby are way down the list, so not sure where you're coming from Dogleg?

I have a Weatherby Ultralightweight in .300 Wby. So far as I know, it's the lightest rifle you can get in this caliber with a 26" barrel. I've shot only 180 grain Partitions, handloaded with the maximum amount of 4831 in the Hornady and Sierra manuals, and never had to fire a second shot if I hit the animal. Only one bullet failed to exit and was recovered. Recoil feels worse than my (heavier) .375 but I carry it a lot more than I shoot it. Except for DG, I would not hunt with any other.

I agree that a lot of the bad rap comes from novice hunters who read the propaganda and buy Weatherbys without knowing anything about shooting. I helped one guy sight in a custom Ed White rifle in .300. He'd had the maker set the trigger at only several ounces "for extra accuracy" and showed up with about 10 boxes of various factory ammo because "you're supposed to find out what shoots the best." He could not hold a 12" group from the bench.

Another novice bought a MkV with special stock and engraving. We were shooting at the military "A" target, measuring 6 feet by 8 feet, at 200 yards. He often hit the adjacent target, and the scope kept hitting his eyebrow. He said this was OK because "African animals are very large compared to animals in North America." So it goes.

I have a 1961 Weatherby catalog wherein Roy Weatherby wrote an article about instantly killing a Cape Buffalo with one shot in the ham from a .257 Wby. He theorized that the shock was transmitted to the front of the animal. He then argued that the best cartridge for Alaska brown bear would be his .257 with an 87 grain bullet at 4000 fps.

Incidentally this catalog listed handloads for all his cartridges. all used IMR 4350 powder.

Weatherby truly made "tomorrow's rifles today" and both Remington and Winchester were foolish for not chambering their rifles, which cost about 1/2 as much, for the Weatherby cartridges. As far as bullets blowing up, Nosler Partitions were available, each one lathe-turned,at least for handloaders, as far back as 1960 and they did not blow up.

quote:

He sold scopes as well, all made in Japan. He made shotguns, made in Europe and Japan under his label.

All three of the Weatherby scopes I have owned were marked made in Germany and were great scopes.

shane

quote:

Originally posted by Demonical:
http://www.hallowellco.com/Tay...nock-out%20power.htm

If you look at the Taylor Knockout Value chart, it favors all the large caliber, moderate velocity rounds.

I'm not reading from his book (which I do have at home), but referring to the published chart from it; all the top Knockout Value cartridges are the big, slow heavy thumpers.

Yes, velocity is obviously an important part of the equation, but mass of the projectile is the far more important factor.

.600NE is at the top... the .300H&H and .275Rigby are way down the list, so not sure where you're coming from Dogleg?

.

Where I'm coming from was the knock out index was never meant to be anything except a prediction of results of failed brain shots on elephants. On thin skinned game he actually comes in on the speed kills end of the spectrum.

I think I need to read his book again...

On a point of order: ( and not to berate the excellent book by Taylor)

Taylor's knock out value is a momentum based theorem. His formula reads KO = mass x velocity X caliber or simply momentum x caliber.

The laws of physics dictate that the rules of collisions are upheld during penetration of the animal target and as such no correlation exists between momentum and the reaction of the target.

The "throw back phenomenon " ie a body being thrown back when struck by a bullet does not exist, not even with a very heavy bullet.

The notion that somehow a bullet with large momentum will knock down a animal "better" than a bullet of low momentum belongs in Dirty Harry movies ! or perhaps in the pages of lay ballistics experts writings. ( but fear not, one could hardly fault Taylor when other likely more imminent authorities believed the same like Hatchers Relative Stopping Power of 1935 another momentum based theorem. Hatchers earlier 1927 theorem interestingly was a energy based theorem.)

Weatherby's obsession with velocity underlies what is grouped together as energy based theorems of bullet effectiveness.

The first was these that of the Swiss surgeon and Nobel prize winner Theodor Kocher who correctly identified kinetic energy as a factor in wounding.

The British war surgeon Professor Charles George Spencer expanded on this principle a correctly deducted that only energy that did work on the target was responsible for the wound.

Sadly the voices of lay experts overtook reason and years of junk science ruled until the 80's when a new order in ballistics science was resurrected and Spencer vindicated.

Bullet velocity and by implication then bullet kinetic energy does not equate to actual damage!

The reason is that there is a physical difference between bullet kinetic energy, energy transferred to the target, energy received by the target and finally energy that actually does work on the target.

Only the latter actually causes a wound ! the rest is lost in the clamour of magnum mania

Interesting theory. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you you but in my experience velocity and bullet diameter/weight depends on the animal.

A good example would be deer and moose. A deer IMO goes down quicker from a fast bullet and a moose is more effected by a larger slower bullet. That's the variable that studies on human trauma can't utilize. Humans obviously have the same physiology with only relatively small differences in size. So broad statements on velocity vs momentum doesnt work across the board for all animals.

Where we all agree is the object of any chosen cartridge is to create adequate trauma on the target animal. But there's often more than one way to do this. For example I went black bear hunting this spring in northern Alberta and took two bears, one with a .300 Weatherby and one with a 45-70. They both worked as intended and both animals died quickly. I like to bear hunt and have taken a fair amount through the years and from my experience a larger slower bullet works better on them. So why then did the .300 magnum work as well? Because at more then 3200 feet per second the 180 grain bullet overwhelmed the advantage that a bigger/slower 325 grain bullet might have had, created more trauma so the end result was pretty much the same.

As I said in the beginning from what I've seen some animals like 'em fast and some like 'big and slow. That's one reason why we have so many choices to use and they all have merit.

How about using small,fast,light and soft bullets on small,fast,light and soft animals?

Naturally it follows that big,heavy,hard,and slower bullets are a good match for big,heavy,hard and slow animals.

Being an engineer, I have a basic understanding of force, momentum and "energy". The basic Newton equation of Force = mass x acceleration applies to bullets and dropped objects and thrown objects.

I appreciate Taylor's ideas but they are not mathematically sound. They are intuitive and somewhat made up.

Bullets penetrate due to the F =M x A equation. Ballistic coefficient is part of this as well.

Speed and mass of projectile are all that really matter in this.

The construct of the bullet matters but does not affect the F = M x A force equation as the bullet slows dramatically when it hits an obstruction.

All of you know this.

For Weatherby, his ideas on "hydrostatic shock" are not truly measurable but are intuitive. Taken to the max, assuming an infinite velocity with a tiny mass (of a bullet) or extremely low velocity but an infinitely large mass gives the same result!

So, bullets are a balance of the two. We need velocity and mass to accomplish our purpose. Weatherby leaned toward velocity. Others lean toward mass of bullet. Both work and work well.

I think the key is the balance of the two. 3000 feet per second coupled with mass between 100gr and 300 grains seems to do the job of punching a significant hole in an animal made up of 90% liquid and some solid materials.

I think we have come to the final point - hit the target in the correct killing spot, and you will be successful!!!! But, use a bullet fit for purpose propelled at a velocity somewhere about 2000 feet per second and you should do well!!!!

Weatherby carved out a unique niche in the bullet/gun world and sold it well.