It has long been my feeling that �caliber� is the least credited factor in assessing the lethality of various cartridges. Velocity, ballistic coefficient and section density have always received the lions� share of attention. Accept, if you will, the premise that .458 caliber offers a detectable increase in effectiveness on heavy game over that of .416 and make note that the chart below indicates an increase of approximately 21% in cross sectional area over the .416, I submit to you that, for the purpose of establishing a basis for this discussion, an increase of roughly 20% in cross sectional area shall constitute a valid and discernable gain in potential effectiveness over a lesser caliber. Factors such as bullet type, properties and velocity will be assumed to be as equitable and representative of caliber and application, as possible.

Cal. Area % Gain
.243 .0463 Baseline
.257 .0518 + 12 %
.264 .0547 + 6 %
.277 .0602 + 10 %
.284 .0633 + 5 %
.308 .0745 + 18 %
.323 .0819 + 10 %
.338 .0897 + 9 %
.358 .1006 + 12 %
.366 .1052 + 4.5 %
.375 .1104 + 5 %
.416 .1359 + 21 %
.424 .1418 + 5 %
.458 .1647 + 16 %
.470 .1734 + 5 %
.510 .2042 + 18 %
.585 .2687 + 32 %
.620 .3019 + 8 %

Within the above stated framework, I would opine that .30 caliber offers clear potential for increased effectiveness over any sub-.30 caliber, via its� minimum of an 18% advantage in cross sectional area over its� closest rival, in .284. With a 21% advantage in cross sectional area over .338, .375 caliber is more effective. A 21% increase for .416 over .375 reflects a similarly detectable performance edge and much the same can be said concerning the .510 - .458 relationship with its� 23% disparity, assuming an appropriate bolt versus bolt or a double versus double, comparison. Ditto this, and then some, with a .510 / .585 comparison, where an undeniable edge of 32% in cross sectional area exists for the latter. I reiterate that I feel that caliber is oftentimes overlooked in general discussion of killing power. I consider it to be the primary constant, an absolute value, one which should, only very rarely, take a back seat to �SD�, �BC� or velocity when speaking of cartridge effectiveness.

[ 06-03-2002, 01:22: Message edited by: Nickudu ]

Nick,

Mike LaGrange in his work Ballistics in Perspective also noted that the .300" bore rifles showed a noticeable gain in killing effect over the smaller bores.

jim dodd

Nick,

I can only apply practical experience to smaller animals and in that area there seems to bea theshold somewhere between 243 and 270. In other words, when measured over lots of animals and over many years of varied components the 270 is clerly superior to the 6mms. But the 6mms do seem to show the same improvement over the 22s.

On bigger animals the success of the 375 might indicate a similar thing with thresholds. The 375 is interesting becasue it did come out at a time when there would have been a lot more shooting and so caliber differences would be more noticeable. The 375 virtually eliminated every other caliber above 30 caliber. I think both rifle weight and price is what allowed the 338 bore back into the scene.

Mike

I am not used to that many big words in one post, but I will try to keep up.

Good work.

Lets see how that relates to Taylor's KO values. It would be impossible to do the chart the same way you have because a 7mm can't shoot a 500 grain bullet so I will take random and reasonable comparisons between two rounds, both guns shooting identical weight bullets with identical velocities.

.284 150 gr 2800 fps TKO=17.04
.308 150 gr 2800 fps TKO=18.48

Your data shows a 18% increase in surface area from a .284 to a .308.
The Taylor KO value increases by 8.45%.

.375 300 grain 2700 fps TKO=43.4
.416 300 grain 2700 fps TKO=48.1

You show a 21% increase in surface area. The TKO value increases by 10.8%

.458 500gr 2100 fps TKO=68.7
.470 500gr 2100 fps TKO=70.5

You show a 5% increase in frontal area. The TKO value increased by 2.62%

Are you seeing the corelation yet? The TKO value will show a 1% increase for every 2% increase in frontal area.

Very interesting. Thanks for providing the data.

I propose adopting the Buffalobwana knockout value.
(frontal area) x weight x velocity/7000 = BKO

Substitute frontal area for caliber and presto, you have another knockout value that is more heavily weighted on caliber than Taylors.

Ok, I guess you should get some credit too Nickudu. I will call it the BNKO value! Probably already been done, but a man can dream can't he?

Mike 375,
Your extensive time afield is invaluable. What better source from which to speculate? We are, as usual,on the same page.

Wendell,
Yes, I see the correlation and I am not surprised because I think most any decent formula will show the import of bullet diameter, if it is factored in fairly. To take things a step further, my contention is that sufficient caliber can enable one to take heavy game reliably, even when accompanied by rather unimpressive velocity and energy figures. It is elementary , it is key and it is free.

Wendell,
Your formula is a good one. Have you perused the "Bwana Saeed Index"? It is a link off our Main Page here, at "FAQ". DaggaRon is its' author.

[ 06-03-2002, 05:46: Message edited by: Nickudu ]

Wendell,

As you know Taylors formula was supposed to something that he felt reproduced his experience with solids used for heads hots on elephants.

I have always felt that by not squaring the bore diamter he was onto something. What everyone forgets is the speed during penetration as opposed to at impact. So, if we we havea 300 solid in 375 anda 300 solid in 416, Taylors formula gives more points for he 416 but not nearly as much as if the bore diameter was squared. Now is such a comparison, if we could chrongraph that the 375 after some penetration t would be going faster than the 416 but with less frontal area of course.

I first became aware of speed during penetration when I was a kid. I was doing lots of shooting with the 270 and was big on Roy Wby etc. But I also obtained my first 375 and mainly used the Hornady round noses as that is all we had.

What use to beat me was how consistently effective the 375 was on chest shots with roos and pigs as compared to the 270 and its very high impact velocity. But then it dawned on me that there were two factors. Firstly the very blunt 375 Hornady needed verly little expansion since it was almost a cylinder to start with. Secondly, while impacting at much lower speed than the 270, its velocity through the animal would have been much higher.

I strongly suspect that if the opportunity to shoot Africna plains animals in the hundreds existed then you would see the 375 having a clear advantage over the 30s and possibly 338 and you would need to go up to at least 45 to get a clear advantage over the 375.

I am inclined to think the 375 is just over a threshold and the next threshold is not crossed until you reach 45. In short, I think this is one of the reasons that 404, 416 and 425 did not make the grade. Another reason, which is related, would be that the 375 was adequate so then there was no reward for more recoil etc. Both Bruce Bertram and Geoff McDonald (woodleigh) have often said to all who will listen that 50 caliber is where you get the big change.

Mike

Oh no, not another performance index! I wish I could have the experience to comment on whether one is good. bad, or ugly, or better than another. From what I have read bigger is better, but I guess that is no surprise.

I tried looking at your "Life is Sweet" post, but this new server is so slow I lost interest! Most importantly, has someone signed this kid up as an NRA Life Member?

Will

Have at it Nick! We can never have enough lethality or performance indices.

When you get done with yours we can multiply it by the BSI and take the square root of it.

We can then call it the NBSI as in "No Bull Sh** Index" or alternatively the "Nickudu-Bwana Saeed Index."

Believe me, guys .. the last thing I had in mind is another Performance Index. Too much math for my liking but I do enjoy studying them to verify my own choices. I'm really looking for input here to help me identify the best way to express the value of "caliber". The clearest example I can think of lies within the .338/.375 comparison. While I have great respect for both calibers and fully appreciate the qualities of both, I "know" the .375 is the better killer. Yet, when looking at all the numbers, it's easy to make an argument for the .338. Just what is it about an additional .037" that makes the difference? That's what I wish to clarify, if only for myself.

Mike 375,
I found your thoughts on the .375 to be most interesting, indeed. You've got a real good handle on this stuff, I think. It's a difficult thing to quantify, isn't it? Where the benefits of velocity and "BC" can be measured and charted, the true value of "SD" starts to get a bit murky and "caliber" is worse, yet. I know my .358 hits harder than my .30-06 but the numbers don't support this opinion. How best to express it?

Nick,

This will be long

On thing where the .037" makes a difference is in bullet weight generally chosen. That I guess is where the square of the diameter comes into play.

Imagine someone posting up that they were getting all geared up to use 300 grainers in 338.

So in general terms and when measured across years of use the larger caliber will involve a bigger bullet being used.

This also invariably means more momentum.

There is one thing that I am absolutely convinced of and that is when kinetic energy is similar and bullet construction is appropriate, then the larger bullet with more momentum will do far more damage to soft fibrous organic material, whether it be animal or tree.

Anyone who doubts this should compare the 300 Winchester loaded with 130s, 150s or 180s as compared to the 458 with 400 Speer flat points loaded to around 2100. KE is about the same in either case. But momentum and bullet size is of course greater with the 458.

But I also think there is something else and perhaps DaggaRon as a doctor can add something to my observations.

I am not sure how many pigs, roos and trees (and also wombats )I have shot in my life, but it would be many thousands. To me, organic fibrous material seems to have a "stretch" limit and the results are different if you exceed this "stretch" limit as opposed to not exceeding it. In other words the 458 etc. "breaks" the glass.

But I don't think there is a formula except a general one and that is

222 to 243

270 to 30 and maybe 338

375 to 45 or so.

If you were to come to Australia you would find that 98% of the shooters that have shot heaps of animals over many years of varied components (bullets do vary over the years and so on) will all say the 243 is a waste of time and you may as well have a 223 etc. Yet, with 270, 308 or 300 Win, take your choice, will all be the same. In other words, back to thresholds.

One last point which I think also counts and that is the bullets chosen and I refer especially to 300 Mag, 338 Mag and 375.

An observation I have made over the years out here is that many shooters try the 338 and get disappointed. Also see similar with 300 mag. Often the 270 is their reference point. But I think one of the reasons is the bullets chosen.

In 300 and 338 shooters get a lot more caught up with ballistic coefficients etc. But in 375s and 458s they are happy to use blunt bullets.

Do you know that our Hornady agent sells virtually zero 338 200 grain flat points meant for the 33 Winchester. Yet they sell heaps of 220 Flat Point 375s meant for the 375 Winchester and I can assure you that those 220 flat points are not being loaded in the 375 Winchester Big Bore lever gun

Also, they sell heaps of 270 and 300 round nose 375s but not the 250 round nose 338.

I think the 375 is just over a threahold and to help things a long shooters are more inclined to load and use bullets that have the best killing power.

A final point that I have always thought is interesting.

In Australia, almost no one buys a 338 instead of the 375 when the rifles are of similar price, such as Sako or M70 Stainless. Africa also seems to be 375 rather than 338. Now both Australia and Africa are where the most shooting is done. The 338 has its home in America where each shooter kills very few animals.

One other thing which is a long way from 375s (but perhaps not)and I did try and get DaggaRon to factor velocity brackets into his formula and that is the 218 Bee and 222, the 303/25 and 243 and the 303/270 and 270

Nearly everyone out here who has killed heaps of animals over lots of years will all tell you that the 218 Bee, 303/25 and 303/270 were all better than the 222, 243 and 270. The 218 Bees we mainly used were Improved Bees on Martinis. Imporoved to make better use of 4740 powder (Canadian 303 powder similar to 3031) and did around 2650 with Hornady 50 grainers. The 303/25s were also about 2650 with 87 grainers. The 303/270 did about 2800 with 100 grain bullets when loaded over the necked down 303 cordite load. I am firmly convinced that the lead based bullet offers the most killing power (assuming appropriate construction) at somewhere around the 2500 to 2800 level. As you know the 375 defaults right into the 2500 to 2800 level.

A 308 is definitely better than a 270 on pigs and big male roos with low chest shots and both using similar bullets. That is 130s in the 308 with 52 grains of Win 748 which usually does about 2900 plus and 100s and 110s in the 270. When I say definitely better, I mean when measured across hundreds of animals and the difference is not huge, but it is there. The difference can't be too great as both (in my opinion) the 270 and 308 are just above and just below a threshold.

Where all of this might fall apart on big animals weighing 1200 pounds and more is that comparing 375s, 338, 416 etc on those animals is perhaps like comparing 218 Bees and loaded up 25/20s on pigs.

I think on the real big animals the guns are just not powerful enough (perhaps 50 caliber and up might be different) so penetration and shot placement are the key points. My personal belief on Saeed using what amounts to a pair of dressed up 375 H&Hs is that he can get good "squat down" power on the smaller animals with his buffalo loads. Ever notice that the complaints that come in from time to time on bullets being too hard or too soft are with the smaller calibers on lighter game. The 375 is a bit like the V8 6 speed manual in that it still works OK even when in the wrong gear. The small high revving hotted up engine has to be in the right gear...with gear ratio equating to the bullet.

Mike

[ 06-03-2002, 17:51: Message edited by: Mike375 ]

Mike 375,
Your insights are appreciated. I am reminded of just how complex the issue of bullet construction vrs the intended quarry can be. Where I might be tempted to poo-poo a .257 Weatherby or .270 in my attempt to convey the merit of caliber, I am well aware of the quick killing ability of such cartridges on certain classes of game, with lung shots. You have made me realize that, with this particular theme, with its' focus on caliber, I was leaning towards addressing a broader spectrum of shot presentations on heavier animals, where smashing power is preferable to rapid expansion. Where the size and weight of the animal increases the importance of reliable penetration and bone breaking potential. This is not to say, however, that the advantages of larger cross sectional areas do not apply across-the-board.

Nick,

In fact I think it is on the smaller animals where the bigger bullets shows up.

A perfect example is in Australia.

Unlike Americans, Australians are far more likely to go to 375 and up if they want a play thing when moving away from 270 etc. Americans are more likely to head to big 30s etc.

But because so many animals are shot out here, we soon learn that the 458 with the right bullet makes a big 30 pale by comparison on smaller animals. Red male roos will be 200 pounds or so and you are already familair with pigs and goats.

As to formulas and assuming lead core bullets (my experience on Barnes X is too limited) I think the following has to be factored into the equation:

A loss of points when muzzle velocity (not impact velocity) is less than 2400 or more than 2800

Bullet nose shape, with wadcutter having maximum points.

The greater the sectional density the more points.

If the bullet is large in relation to the animal, then the square of he diameter. If the bullet is small in relation to the animal then just the direct diameter increase.

I don't think weight matters because sectional density, diameter will have already included weight etc.

The assumption that bullet construction is suitable for the target in question.

As the animal gets bigger the formula becomes less valid. Think of letting off 10 sticks of dynamite compared to 1 stick of dynamite in the family home. 10 sticks will win no matter where you place it. But things are different if a big building or bridge is involved.

I believe the 375 H&H was designed around the average size animal shot in Africa at that time. On those various antelope it would have proved over many shots to be clearly superior to the other smaller calibers. On the big animals like the buffalo and elephant it proved to be adequate and like the bigger bores it lacked the power for quick kills with chest shots.

I also believe a formula with the ingredients I have suggested would show the superiority of the bigger bores on those average size antelopes that were shot. If we factor in the 2400 to 2800, then the bores bigger than 375 have the big recoil problem.

Mike

Nickkudu,
So what your saying is the big dog sleeps on the poarch!!!

Noone can argue that and I am of that opinnion but only if all things are equal..

Example: A 458 Lott at 2350 will beat a 416 Rem at 2400 no doubt..BUT the 458 Win. at 2000 plus FPS is inferior to the 416 Rem IMHO because all is not equal. Is there a difference in the the 150 gr. 30-06 and the 130 gr. 270 ??? I doubt it unless your agetten real picky pard.

My examples explain why formulas seldom tell the truth. common since is and always will be the best formula for killing power.

Mike...I liked the part about the V 8 with a 6 speed & it working even if in wrong gear. If they didn't understand that part...well..Give Up!
Maybe all this is why I keep using old faitful 30/06 with the 180 Nosler Partitions and have fallen in love with the 9.3 x 62 and the 286 grn bullets...Nothing fancy but they get the job done time and time again.

Of course the larger caliber given adequate sectional density, the same nose shape and similar velocity will produce the larger wound. This will result in a faster blood pressure drop and less time will elaspse before the animal stays down. There is also more energy wasted in expanding smaller bullets given that larger bullets may be tougher and not expand as much as smaller calibers.

An equal case could be made for nose shape.

We could have used your opinions on this thread however. http://www.serveroptions.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=001968

Keep in mind, please: "Factors such as bullet type, properties and velocity will be assumed to be as equitable and representative of caliber and application, as possible".

My thanks to all for sharing your thoughts. I enjoyed this very much. Should anyone come up with better ways to assess the value of moving up in caliber, I'd sure like to hear about it.

Nick - Just as long as you were entertained, that's all that's important to us. Let�s do it again real soon.

Hey, by the way, nice shoes!

Caliber matters in energy also.

This data is from the max loads in Nosler #5

.243 Win 2100 fpe
.260 Rem 2500 "
7mm/08 2700 "
.308 Win 2900 "
.358 Win 3100 "

Great thread.

Mike375, thank you very much for your thoughtful comments. In just a couple of posts you presented more real world stuff than the rags present in a year. Love this forum

John

Hatchers original formula, frontal area (rather than caliber) x energy (rather than momentum) x form factor was pretty close to the real deal and alot closer to reality than Taylor which makes a black powder slug or large rock look pretty impressive.

This was common sense as Ray says, in 1900 and is still pretty good advice today.

Andy

Now that I have ruined by New Memebr status...

I believe you can get similar results from looking at the percentage increase in nominal bullet weight from one caliber to another, which is what Taylor accounted for to some extent, assuming similar bullet velocities, etc.

I would hate to seciond guess Taylor, as he probably dropped more game in his time than everyone combined on this forum x 10.

Will

It appears that one could get similar percentage increases from the increases in nominal bullet weight for the caliber.

Taylor accounted for this in part in his KO values. More bullet weight correlates to increase in diameter (frontal area). I would hate to second-guess Taylor too much, as he probably dropped more game in his time than the sum of this forum x 10 or so.

Will

I haven't tried it on game to see the difference, but a 300 gr. 375 bullet at 2550 fps is the energy equivalent of a 400 gr. 416 at 2200 fps.

My "guess" would be that the 416 at 400 gr is a much better performer on game (2200 fps is the approximate muzzle vels. for the 450/400 and the 404 Jeffery factory velocities. Historically, it has been said that these two were much preferred over the 375. The basic difference? Bullet weight and frontal area. Take your pick).

Will

Ah, but the 300 grain .375 bullet has a sectional density of only .305.

The 450/400 has a .408 caliber 400 grain bullet with SD = .343.

If one will go to the FAQ section and take a gander at the "Bwana Saeed Index" BSI values, one will find:

.375" 300 grain bullet (SD = .305) at 2500 fps, BSI = 102

and

.408" 400 grain bullet (SD = .343) at 2150 fps, BSI = 143

I new it would only be a matter of time. Eventually the genius of the BSI will be understood by all!

ALL HAIL THE BWANA SAEED INDEX!

Uh, Mike375, as to the complications of animal tissue consistencies, animal states of excitement, and the effects of bullet form and construction ... I don't want to go there. Too complicated for me, or anyone else!

Maybe we could sic Todd E on the science along with Harald and see if they could come up with something better.

I am happy with measuring rifle "whomp" in units of BSI. It is not rocket science, but it is close, and better than the TKO value in real world validity, and not limited only to brain shooting elephants with solids only.

I rest again. Soon the mortal realm will come to understand the truth and beauty of the Bwana Saeed Index.

TA TA

Andy,
I would change only one word of your post:

"This was common sense as Ray SAID in 1900 and is still pretty good advice today.

Don Martin 29 - That's a telling analogy, all based on the same case. Very good.

Will - No doubt, the .416/400 @ 2,200 would be superior.

DaggaRon - You crack me up.

Mike, I think those are some of the best posts you've ever written... good information and insight there!

For what I hunt here in the northern Rockies, I'm still, essentially, a 270 Win/338 Win Mag man. Of course we don't have your Asiatic Buffalo, though we do have bears that bite.

I really believe that one reason the 338 Win Mag is more popular here is it's available in generally lighter rifles... I'd be willing to bet that guns here are carried in much steeper and more difficult terrain than the average 375 H&H in Australia. Also, the 338 is, well, American! The 375 Holland is thoroughly British! With Australia being a "Crown" country, it's not surprising it's so popular with you Aussies.

None of that has anything to do with the 338 Win Mag vs. the 375 H&H... I am convinsed the 375 has the edge, though for the stuff we do here, it's an edge that is meaningless.

Brad

Brad

Brad,

I did say in one of the posts:

I think both rifle weight and price is what allowed the 338 bore back into the scene

Actually I think one of the reasons that the 375 got a good foothold here is the BRNO, which we had imported for all time whereas I think you blokes were not getting it when the communist bloc was operating. Rifles like BRNOs (and also Sakos) are much cheaper here when compared to Model 70s than in the USA because we have import duties on all the rifles. Out here a Sako does not cost a whole lot more than Model 70 or Rem 700. By the way, Sako 375s are quite plentiful here and have been for many years. So a shooter could buy a 375 in BRNO or Sako. In recent years the 338 has come on with the Ruger Stainless as they are very low in price here, similar to Howa and the Ruger Stainless is now the biggest selling rifle as it has been for some time.

You are also right about mountains etc. In fact Australians who shoot Sambar deer, which is a big deer and in heavy scrub country, often choose the Ruger 338 and ligh weight is a prime reason.

Although I still think that the 338 sells well because of price. Go back a few years and there was no stainless M70 and the M70 in 375 was much more expensive than the 338 as is the case today if you want blue/wood.

In fact your American gun makers must believe the 375 has a greater "desire" factor than the 338 because of how the rifles are made and marketed. Put simply, the 375 will bear a bigger price for rifle, ammo and bullets. Just look at Ruger price and rifle in 338 and 375.

Also, until a few years ago, even the Rem 700 only came in their safari grade.

But recoil and weight are an issue. Many years ago we had Sakos caller "Hunter" come in and I had two of them in 375. Light rifles with 22 inch barrels and they definitely had the "jolt factor" in their recoil. I think a Ruger Stainless in 338 that could suddenly become a 375 would jolt you around a bit. Not the ideal spotlighting gun.

But when you look at the total domination the 338 and 375 have in the over 30 caliber area, a story is being told.

I tend to think of the 338 and 375 as hot cars that you can still register for road use and use to go shopping. I guess many other people agree.

The 338 was desinged and marketed as a bigger version of the 30/06 and it comes in the same rifle.

From my personal point of view I find the 375 is a more relaxing caliber than the 338. Maybe that tapered case. A few years ago I gave the 338 a good run but it did not look right with round noses in it. I also found I could not fire off a few shots and then have a cup of tea and a smoke. There was always more to be done with the 338.

Calibers have personalities. I could not count the number of times I have seen shooters in the field and at the range worrying about ballistic coefficients and the last 3 f/s of velocity etc with 300, 270 and 338 etc. but are are happy to shoot blunt bullets from a 375 under the same conditions and for the same purposes.

On smaller calibers I think the 308 and 30/06 are also probably relaxing calibers.

But having said all of that, I can see where Americans with their shooting conditions would prefer the lighter 338. By the way, a Toyota Lancruiser can't notice the difference between the weight of a 338 and 375

And if ever you come down this way you will see that the 223 and 22/250 are just the most efficient things in the spotlight but the 375s, 458s and 460s provided the fun factor. A 458 with 300 Hornady Hollow points or 400 grain Speer Flat point takes hydraulic shock to a level way beyond the 270 and 300

Mike

[ 06-05-2002, 11:48: Message edited by: Mike375 ]

More good thoughts there Mike.

You're obviously correct about the 375's dominance having nothing to do with being a "Crown" country for all the practical reasons stated.

I also agree, "cartridges have personalities." I'd never thought to express it that way, but I totally understand and agree with that sentiment. The 308 is, perhaps (though I don't curretly own one) my favorite cartridge because, as you call it, its "relaxation factor." It's also eager to please and has tremendous game killing ability in proportion to its "ballistics." I have an aquaintance in Africa that thinks the 308 coupled with a 375 is THE battery... hard to argue with that!

You mentioned how the 338 Win Mag was marketed. Honestly, I'm too young to remember or know (40). Heck, cartridges are barely marketed here at all anymore... they get a bit of press buzz, then show up in the catalog's. Winchester finally got the marketing down with its 300 WSM though!

You mention the 30-06 and 338 Win Mag in the same breath... that the 338 was marketed as a bigger version of the 06.' I can't say how it was marketed, but I've always thought of the 338 Win Mag as just that, a "bigger 30-06." That is, it pushes bigger, heavier bullets with similar BC's and SD's at similar velocities with similar trajectories. That's not bad company to be in!

Unfortunately I don't have a Land Cruiser to carry me around, though sometimes during late season elk hunts, when they're down from the mountains in the meadows, I'll go over to a friends ranch and cruise around. This rancher friend of mine refers to manual-crank windows as a "hardship hunt!"

Brad

Wheooooo
that is sure some headdy stuff.
Keep up the good work and information all.

Very good stuff

Greg

Nick,

I stand corrected on Rays birthdate.

Rons concept of adequacy is sound though I am not impressed with the need for SD since premium expanding bullets have really changed all of that.

The TKO shows a 1 - 1 1/4 ounce slug from a 12 ga at about 63 - 72 TKO depending on caliber of slug and barrel length. A 375 is only 40. The reduced velocity (400 at 2200) 416 is only 52 TKO. A 458 at 2050 fps is only 67 TKO.

Ive shot a few deer with the 1 1/4 ounce and a bison with the 1 ounce and I can tell you it is not humane on bison where the 375 and above is a killer. I would rate the slug gun as good as a 270 winchester on deer however. This is a TKO of 15.

the TKO works within a narrow range of big bores shooting FMJ's but does not model to the entire range of velocity and caliber and adding SD does not correct this.

there are better formulas (MacPherson) to calculate penetration that corrlate to emperical data. His formula works very well with my stop box test by the way!

Cheers, Andy

O.K. Andy, you have just illustrated how the BSI is much better than the TKO, and yes, sectional density is important, but is better with a good bullet than a mini fragmentation grenade, of course.

We shall compare three different loads to see which is closer to reality, the TKO or the BSI.

1. 12 guage slug approximation: .700"/437.5 grains (one ounce)/1400 fps/SD = 0.128

2. 30-06: .308"/220 grains/2400 fps/SD = 0.331

3. 375 H&H: .375"/300 grains/2500 fps/SD = 0.305

Calculated ... TKO ... BSI
1. 12 g ... 64 ... 65
2. 30-06 ... 23 ... 61
3. 375H&H ... 40 ... 102

See how the BSI is art that imitates life much better than TKO regarding "whomp" comparisons?

These BSI numbers refer to muzzle whomp.

My belief is unshakable!

ALL HAIL THE BWANA SAEED INDEX!

THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!

What a great thread...thanks guys.

Tim

I believe the reasons why the .338WM is so popular are as follows:

The . 338WM was introduced as "The Alaskan" by an American company to hunt the largest game in the US. It was introduced in 1958, a great number of years after the .375H&H. The .338WM has had to prove itself through the years as an elk cartridge, and in Alaska alone it outsells the .375H&H by approximately 10 to 1. Another selling point for the .338WM is that its case length is much like the beloved .30-06's.

The more one compares the .338WM to the .375H&H, the more popular the .338 becomes, because it is a fact that the relatively small ".30-06 look alike" .338 case produces enough power to wallop any game in the US, and it is a fact that .338 bullets have great BC and SD.

A couple of friends of mine use .375's and .338's, and I can't tell which one kills our game deader than the other. In fact, in the past seven years I have only recovered one .33 bullet from moose. Both the .375H&H and the .338WM bullets usually pass right through moose. Since I already know the .338WM has enough power to produce one-shot kill on the North American game I hunt , I use this one.

In my view, the person using the gun has the greatest influence in the outcome of a kill than gun size alone. Gun proficiency and game knowledge is the key, coupled to shot placement. Those formulas are meaningless when compared to these facts.

Hi Ray, Alaska,
No need to defend the .338, my friend. It's a wonderful round, period. Just looking for a clear way to give due credit to caliber. A way to express the dividends I feel a greater frontal area provides.

I agree with what Mike .375 has written, and of the game I have shot to date with the rifles I own the 30/06 was the superiour killer. For a start there is a marked improvemnt in killing power from a .222-243 cal to a .30. I then bought a 45/70 and noticed a marked improvement in killing power, so much so that my other two shooting mates who owned 30/06's bought one as well. Ballistics on paper do not support this (also note I am talking out to 100 yards) and a lot of game is shot out to this range more so than at longer ranges I beleive. I am also adamant that of all the game I have shot with different bullet styles it is blunt noses bullets that have provided the best performance. I sometimes feel that pointier style bullets can slip through without as much tissue displacement and therefore carry a lot of there energy with them.

This year when I head away to N.S.W. in 4 weeks I will have the chance to see how the .416 peforms on the game I shoot in comparison with the 45/70.

I realise what I have written is not very techniqual and I do not have the expertise of others on this froum, but there my observations for what there worth.

Jeffeosso,
I think you meant to respond to the person quoted?
Anyway, I can't think of anything more chuck full of variables than rates of expansion and I'd not attempt to incorporate them into a formula of any kind. Just my opinion.

I think WILL is of the best train of thought in mentioning the added weight gained with each step up in caliber, assuming the maintenance of appropriate sectional density numbers. I am thinking along the lines that a caliber increase, with it's greater cross sectional area, adds to the effect of momentum. It may be just as simple as that but I'd still like a less abstract way to express it in colloquial terms.