In the lastest Rifle Shooter magazine they devote many pages and displays to cartridge efficiency. Sadly it looks like a lot of work went into this topic for which I see little or no real world value at all. Although some of the information was at least interesting much of it was questionably presented as a valid comparative. Much of it appeared to be an apples to grapfruit contrast. I hate to be thought of as presenting sour grapes but has anyone else read it and came away with a different impression? If it is valid what purpose would it serve persay in determining what chambering to aquire in a new rifle. If this criteria were used the .22-.250 woud come in close to last. It's Sunday morning and I just watched Meet The Press and I guess I just feel like venting.roger

I have found that many gunwriters and theoretically-driven shooters have a different definition of "efficiency" than I do.

For example, I think the .300 Winchester is a more "efficient" cartridge than the .308 Win. because it shoots flatter and hits harder at all ranges, so it's more versatile when it comes to taking big game. It's poorer velocity/powder consumption ratio is nickle & dime stuff and means nothing to me, especially considering the cost of hunting these days.

I think that so-called "improved" cartridges are anything but efficient, especially since you have to burn powder, primers, and bullets just to fire-form them, then spend valuable time accomplishing same, only to find that there's no ammo available for your suppsedly "efficient" wildcat on the other side of the world.

There's nothing "efficient" about about "effieciency" sometimes, and I think some of these theorists need to pull their head out......

AD

If I was the creator of the next cartridge for the US Military I might consider efficiency as an issue since I'd be buying these things by the ton .....millions at least...
For the decision as to what cartridge to pick as a hunting (or even varmint) cartridge, the issue of efficiency is among the very last things I want to consider.

Performance is far more important than efficiency and then only performance I can use in a package that has recoil I can handle.

We have so many BS issues to deal with and among them is efficiency, flash hole size and uniformity, brass manufacturer, primer pocket uniformity, runout, shoulder angle, belts, body taper, you name it.....

These things get press only because the rags writers have nothing else to write about and when we consider that for at least .30 caliber there hasn't been a significant developement to beat a certain old cartridge in 99 years I can see why they have nothing to write about.

Some cartridges are more efficient, but the differences are usually very small. Less efficient cartridges have more recoil, more throat erosion, and cost more to load. The differences are usually so small that I wouldn't consider trading my 300 Win Mag for a Short Magnum, but if I was buying a new rifle it might influence my decision.

Why buy a 7mm Ultra Mag when the 7mm Weatherby gives the same velocity with 8 lbs less recoil (in a 9 lb rifle)? It also uses 20 grains less powder and is not as hard on barrels. More efficient cartridges are also supposed to be more accurate, because they have lower standard deviation in muzzle velocity.

I think of it as two separate issues: Efficiency, what percent of the chemical energy in the powder is converted to kinetic energy of the bullet? And effectiveness, how well does the cartridge perform the needed task?

Inefficient cartridges can be highly effective. However, as noted, as the cartridge becomes less efficient (more "overbore"), the rifle becomes more finicky, and barrel life become shorter. Somebody recently posted barrel life graphs of the 22-250, and they seem to "shoot out" at about 750 rounds. That's awfully short, but the caliber is exceptionally effective.

If you think about it, a high percentage of people (surely not those on this board) shoot a couple of boxes of factory ammo per year, if that. If that's all you're doing, a 22-250 will last for many years, and is a satisfactory compromise.

If any of you read the article give close attention to the .350 Rem Mag. .35 Whelen and the .35 Whelen improved in the CHART. Pay attention to the ""unexplained"" 1gr. differece in the Whelen and Whelen improved and the corresponding ""velocitities."" ( I think I accidentally coined a new word)

I believe if I read the article right the bullets in the three cartriges were the same. Now look at The differentials between muzzle velocity and 200 yard velocity.

I'll throw one more questionable into it.
The difference in powder charges vs muzzle velocity between the .257 Roberts and the .257 Ackley. The whole chart is just full of this stuff.

I must say though that this rag print was almost as entertaining as Meet the Press. roger

I have not seen the article but the most the common error usually found in these comparisons centres around velocity per grain of powder. This is quite ridiculous because energey increases as the square of the velocity. Thus if we doubled the case capacity and doubled the velocity we would get 4 times the energy!!!

I think in terms of efficiency in other areas. For example, the 270 is much more efficient for Australia than the 280 Remington because the 280 Remington is almost non existant down here and so brass/ammo are not common and thus the extra bullets afforded by the 7mm bore is lost.

Mike

Roger,
Just read the article this PM. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought it a little bit too "numerical". I too noticed the 257R and 257AI numbers, shouldn't the AI rate a higher "score"? Anyway, reminds me of the old saying "Figures don't lie, but liars figure".

...hmmm, the most efficient cartridge? The .22 K-Hornet....

I had som dim-bulb moderator over at shortmags.org trying tell me the 300 WSM was more efficient than the 300 WM because it could shoot a 180 grain bullet at 3,000 fps with less powder than a 300 WM could push the same bullet at 3,000... huh!? Wow, what a revelation... and here I thought the point of a 300 Mag was to juice a 180 as fast as it would safely go.

I pointed out to this starry eyed number cruncher that, using his logic, the same is true of the 300 WSM vs. 30-06 (180 at 2,750), ditto 30-06 vs 308 (180 at 2,625), ditto 308 vs 300 Sav(180 at 2,500). So why not just use a 30 carbine... or better yet, using his logic, quit hunting all together as that would be the most "efficient!"

"Efficiency" is the arena of those heavily involved in the mental gymnastic's... you know, sitting on the toilet at night with a Speer manual and calculator crunching numbers to justify their latest purchase. If you want to talk about less recoil, a smaller, handier and more shootable rifle for the average person then a 308 is more "efficient" than the 300 WM. On the other hand, Allen's view of efficiency is just as valid cause' at some point no matter how much a rifle is carried its ultimate purpose is to put down a critter "efficiently!"

Lord, there are a lot of minutia manager's in our sport... as Twain once said; "There are liar's, damn-liar's and statistician's!"

The pic on pg. 38 is a 300 RUM and a 250-3000, not a 308, like he says. In the right hand pic on pg 37 he has a 257 Roberts where he says there is a 6.5x55. How hard is it to label the pics correctly...

I think this is the same guy that tried to say that the 35 Whelen AI was far superior to the 9.3x62.