The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Reloading Short/Fat vs. Tall/SkinneyGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Short/Fat vs. Tall/Skinney | Login/Join |
| new member |
There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that short, fat cases (.300 WSM, etc, etc) produce higher velocities than older cases (.300 H&H, etc, etc) with the same powder charge. While the logic seems sound, the only actual test that I have been able to find is the report in "Handloader" magazine, Number 245 (February 2007), page 98. This test was conducted by John Barsness and Charlie Sisk. This test compared the .300 WSM with the .300 H&H using the same barrel and, in fact, the same throat. This was accomplished by chambering a barrel in .300 H&H, then shortening the barrel at the breach end and rechambering for the .300 WSM. The case capacities of the two cartridges are almost identical. The test showed no difference between the two except, possibly, very slightly better accuracy with the .300 H&H! Granted, the .300 WSM didn't have the advantage of a shorter action, but I wouldn't have expected it to be worse in the same action. Statistically, this sample of one is not conclusive. However, I would have expected some increase in performance with the "modern" case, if any of the hype is true. Does anyone have experience with this? With just about everyone jumping on the stubby bandwagon (the Hornady/Ruger .300 and .338 come to mind), are we being sold a bill of goods? Good hunting, Jim | ||
|
one of us |
Experience? No, I don't have any of the new shorties. (Why do you suppose they didn't call them "Fat Magnums?") I do have somewhere around here an old book, Special Topics in Ballistics, (a compendium of presentations at a 1957 conference) that contains an article stating that the ratio of the case body diameter at the shoulder to the bore diameter (or was it the cross sectional areas?) is indeed a factor in the velocity attainable. If I run across it I'll post the info, but don't hold your breath... "A cheerful heart is good medicine." | |||
|
one of us |
I`ve heard some of the Hornagy/Ruger stuff is loaded like Hornadies "Lite Mag" stuff, reloaders aren`t going to get what the factory stuff gives. As long as chamber/bore volume and the powder & charge is the same there should be no difference between them in performance. ------------------------------------ The trouble with the Internet is that it's replacing masturbation as a leisure activity. ~Patrick Murray "Why shouldn`t truth be stranger then fiction? Fiction after all has to make sense." (Samual Clemens) "Saepe errans, numquam dubitans --Frequently in error, never in doubt". | |||
|
one of us |
The short fat will normally give better accuracy. Ask any BR shooter that said I played with a 300Wsm along side a 300Wmag. I saw no gain in accuracy yes they were different rifles but both had no trouble shooting MOA. I could not get the same velocity from the wsm and could not get close to the claims by the manufacturer. Recoils were so close I could not feel the difference. The 300wmag would feed a lot smoother than the WSM in my two rifles. I'm sure there are other with the opposite. I pulled the Wsm barrel and sold it. As to the claim the wsm will allow you to use a shorter action. I've never had an issue with an 06 length action. Yes you might save 3oz in action weight. Yes I hunt high mtns yes I lke a light rifle. 3oz isn't going to make or break a Mtn rifle for me. Leave 1 of those extra 15 just in case rds behind. Anytime the lead item for a new product is "gives you the same performance as the ??" which has been around for 80 yrs I ask "Why is it needed?" As usual just my $.02 Paul K | |||
|
One of Us |
Jim The short fat magnums may or may not be an improvement on any of the “old†cartridges. That doesn’t matter. There are a number of forces involved here. It’s sells, market share, and commissions. Which brings on slick advertisement and getting gun writers to promote them. These are the same forces that made the 7mm Remington Magnum, 300 Winchester Magnum, and a number of Weatherby rounds become expectable back in the 1950s. I can’t blame the gun writers, they’re just trying to put "beans†on the table, like everyone else. Some of the “Short ones†are going to be around for a while and some of them aren’t. | |||
|
| one of us |
I own customs in 300 WSM, 300 Mag and 300 Wby and if I do my part they shoot pretty nice groups which one would expect in a custom rifle. I didn't build the 300 WSM based on any notion that I would get better groups than my 300Mag/300Wby and the new 270 WSM I'm having build I don't expect it to shoot any smaller groups than my custom 270. I didn't pay too much attention to the press hype about the WSM, the case reminded me of the 284 with 35 degree shoulders just shorter and not rebated. I remember in the 80's when Win came back out with the 300 H&H had to have one and it was was hard to get 3000fps. VFW | |||
|
One of Us |
I think the short fat magnums are way overhyped. The world record bench rest group last I knew was still held by the 222 Remington. Also, in a recent handloader article, the consensus among several rifle builders was that the easiest cartridges to get to shoot accurately in the larger diameter bores were the 308 Winchester and 338 Lapua. All that said, a well built firearm for just about any of the common cartridges should shoot very well. | |||
|
| one of us |
I read the same article by John Barness in the Oct issue seems according to Bob Nosler he consders the 308 the best up to 168gr bullets and uses a 300 WSM for the heavier bullets and he likes the 270 WSM over the standard 270 becasue of the shorter powder column. D'Arcy can get a 300Wby to shoot very well. Kevin Thomas (does Sierra testing) likes the 308 and 338 Laupa same as Bob Nolser comments. One intersting comment from Melvin Forbes who produces several hundred rifles a year and each one is shot before shipping according to what John wrote. Comment by Forbes about "short cases do tend to have more consistent ignition" wasn't really gone into other than mention of the Rem 40x. There was also mention of other calibers 340 Wby,458Lott,7mag. Always funny how things get slanted. VFW | |||
|
| one of us |
VFW | |||
|
| One of Us |
Oh - you're talking about cartridges. I had other things in mind   | |||
|
| one of us |
/ | |||
|
one of us |
I know I cant get the same velocity out of a 300 WSM that I can get with the 300 Win Mag. I do think the WSM kicks less. But it should with less powder.  -------------------- THANOS WAS RIGHT! | |||
|
One of Us |
Lets see: on Women.. Tall & Slender.. on Cartridges: see no reason to re invent the wheel... 308, 223, 30/06, 57mm, 55 mm, 300 and 338 Win Mag cases all do their job just fine in my book... on blue dot loads, I can tell you that Blue Dot seems to prefer short fat cases over long and slender cases...when you go for max velocity potential with that powder... Life Member: The American Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Jan 20, 2009.. Prisoner in Dumocrat 'Occupied America', Partisan in the 'Save America' Underground Beavis..... James Beavis..... Of Her Majesty's Secret Service..... Spell Check Division "Posterity — you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it." John Quincy Adams A reporter did a human-interest piece on the Texas Rangers. The reporter recognized the Colt Model 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him "Why do you carry a 45?" The Ranger responded, "Because they don't make a 46." Duhboy....Nuttier than Squirrel Poop... | |||
|
| new member |
I enjoyed reading all of your opinions. I agree that the firearms industry needs new products to continue growth and to have maintained health. I enjoy reading about new products, even if some "hype" is involved. Like all of you, I'm looking for the better mouse trap, too. I was really just wondering what the difference is when comparing the two case aspect ratios. The Barsness/Sisk test says to me that there isn't much difference when both cases have the same capacity. Their test is the most even handed that I've seen. People have been turning the rims off of the .348 Winchester case for years (the genesis of the .300 WSM, according to Winchester). However, I have never seen any actual test data. Good hunting, Jim | |||
|
| one of us |
Hey Jim, That is an astute observation on your part. In one aspect, "One Sample" is irrelevent. Perhaps it would have been relevant though "if" some HUGE difference had been noted. If I was curious about this, I'd research various Long Distance Bench Rest sites and records. They might have the answer, or it could be skewed by the traditionally better accuracy potential of the Shorter Actions. By that I mean a 100-250fps might not be viewed as important to them as a stiffer action. I completely agree with the first sentence Ramrod posted above. And I can see where there would no doubt be individual rifles that would feed the High Angle Shoulders(any Case including the old 300Sav) very well. If I was Hunting in Dangerous Game country, I'd take a bit more Slope to the Shoulder Angle as my preferance, simply to help avoid a Feed Failure(Shoulder Jam) in a High Stress situation. That would be a more important consideration to me than being able to shoot almost as fast with a few less grains of powder. If I was not Hunting in Dangerous Game country, I might try one that would fit a Short Action Remington. But, I don't see any real advantage to using a Short/Fat Cartridge in a Long Action - for me. ----- I do realize there are specific Cartridge "Internal Volumes" that lend themselves well to a vast array of powders - better than - other Cartridge Designs. The 308Win is a Classic in that regard. Also agree there is some truth to how the Powder is Positioned relative to the Primer during ignition, along with the intensity and burn duration of the Primer affecting the efficiency. It is a real mixed blessing about all the "new" cartridges. Obviously the Factory Folks are putting a lot of thought into the new Cartridges entering the market, but at the same time it will take a very unique Gun Shop to maintain Ammo for "everything". Just imagine the Inventory Cost of ammo for the 308TC, 308Mar, 500S&W, along with the ones you mentioned, setting on the shelf among all the other ammo! Remington hosed everyone that ever had a 5mm Rem. They don't even bother to make a special run every 5 years or so. I never had one, but that is no way to do customers. I seriously doubt all the "new" cartridges will survive 10 years. But at least if it is a Centerfire, the owner can at least rebarrel. | |||
|
| one of us |
Purely from a powder combustion standpoint, the spherical chamber with central ignition is ideal for rapid flame spread through the charge, and the surface area for the volume is minimum, reducing wasted heat transfer to the chamber walls. The more closely the combustion chamber approaches that, the more efficiently the powder burns and releases its energy. "Short and fat" is closer to this ideal than "Tall and skinny." Transferring the pressure from the chamber into the bore efficiently is another matter, not as easily calculated or modeled as, say, a rocket nozzle, because of the granular propellant of varying shapes and sizes mixed with the flowing gas. Here's an interesting thing to consider, of practical importance to those of us who like to shoot big Magnum cartridges of the long/tall variety packed full of very slow burning powders: Most of the powder does remain in the chamber as the bullet and propellant gas move down the bore, the powder continuing to burn and generate gas in the chamber. In cases such as I mentioned, the powder often is still burning when the bullet leaves the muzzle, perhaps for a time after. But the rate of gas flow down the bore, and the transfer of pressure down the bore from gas generation in the chamber, can't exceed the local sound speed in the hot powder gas. That's in the 5000-6000 FPS range. There's a point in the bullet's travel down the bore where it's reached such a speed that any pressure wave generated in the chamber moving at the powder gas's sound speed will just catch up with the base of the accelerating bullet as it reaches the muzzle. From that point on, the still-burning powder in the chamber CAN'T influence the muzzle velocity of the bullet! The gas generated by further powder burning only contributes to muzzle blast and recoil. If you think about it, this situation is theoretically true of every load in every gun, but it becomes significant with large, slow-burning powder charges and high projectile speeds. It's also interesting to remember that the .300 Winchester Magnum and 7mm Remington Magnum were "Short Magnums" when they were introduced. Wasn't done for claimed ballistic advantage, though, but to make them work in standard .30-06 length actions. Still, at equal pressures it's hard to get noticeably more velocity from a .300 Weatherby Magnum than from a .300 Winchester Magnum. The newest crop of "Short Magnums" remind me of the 8mm Lebel and 7.5mm Swiss, which were designed in the mid-1880s to good shapes for powder burning. Winchester necked down the Swiss round, "Ackley Improved" it by steepening the shoulder and reducing body taper, turned down the rim to fit a standard Mauser size bolt face, and came out with the "innovative" .284 Winchester. Nothing really new, just reverting to good cartridge design practice of 120 years ago.  (Just like, after all the development that went into the 7.62 NATO round, we ended up with the 1891 7.62 Russian cartridge with the rim turned off, neck slightly trimmed and a little less body taper.)  "A cheerful heart is good medicine." | |||
|
| One of Us |
Who said that the powder is still burning when the bullet leaves the muzzle ?. All the info I have seen, including pressure time traces shows the powder burning in the first few inches of travel. There will be hot gas exiting, some of which lack oxygen and will ignite, but the powder has burned. Good Luck! | |||
|
| one of us |
/ | |||
|
| one of us |
Depends on the powder, cartridge and load. What you said is true of many loads; at least that nearly all of the powder that burns burns in the first few inches of barrel. (Many loads leave a good bit of unburned powder, and the pressure has dropped low enough that the burning of remaining powder is very slow when the bullet reaches the muzzle.) But get someone with Quickload to run the numbers on something like a .300 Weatherby Magnum with a 180 grain jacketed bullet and 93 grains of AA8700. There's still powder burning when the bullet exits. And the point where gas pressure generated in the chamber can no longer catch up with the bullet is reached way before the bullet reaches the muzzle. "A cheerful heart is good medicine." | |||
|
| one of us |
Haven't seen tthe need to use any short fat cartridges - or women for that matter. I prefer mine well balanced. A shot not taken is always a miss | |||
|
| one of us |
Rifle shooters/enthusiasts/hobbyists/engineers have been messing with cartridge shape and dimensions for more than a hundred years now. Every once in a while, some Einstein comes along and thinks he's invented the wheel. The 7mm Vom Hofe Express used a two-stepped shoulder and claimed all sorts of benefits. Roy Weatherby used a double radiused shoulder and claimed new velocity records (made possible in actuality by his generous freebore and higher-than-standard pressures.) The .300 Savage would "do the same thing" as the much larger .30-06 (so long as "the same thing" was 1906 velocities of 2700 fps with a 150 grain bullet). The same was erroneously claimed of the .308 when it was released in the 50's. Ballisticians have known since the early days of the last century that the shape of the case is irrelavent -- it's the volume of the combustion chamber (which includes the initial few inches of the bore itself) that determines how much velocity can be obtained at a given pressure. The WSM series gets its "extra" velocity the same place any other cartridge does -- from being loaded to a higher pressure. Loaded to the same pressure (with optimal powders) the larger case will always yield more velocity than the smaller case. If you need an action 3/4" shorter and a few ounces lighter (and don't need the two or so rounds of magazine capacity you'll lose), then by all means, the Short-Fats are the ticket for you. | |||
|
| One of Us |
The buzzword "efficiency" strikes my funny bone when applied to rifles. Efficiency is a rifle like the 257 Roberts and Mauser's 6.5X55 and 7X57: you know, one that kills out of proportion to its size. In today's world of $3.00+ gasoline I see no efficiency in driving a couple of hundred miles to blast varmints, nor do I see it in short and sassy cartridges. A few f/s matters little to me. When I need more power, I grab a bigger gun, and therein lies the reason I own a 22-250 and a 220 Swift. Nothing efficient about that, is there? Efficiency aside, I still hunt with an -06 and drive to the far ends of the state to get a critter knowing I can buy beef for less, but I do it anyway because I like and want to, not because it's efficient. | |||
|
One of Us |
Everyone who likes to fiddle with cartridge design should probably re-read this at least once a month. It is the truth, and has been known a L-O-O-O-N-G time!!! Exhaustive experiments and statistical analysis done prior to 1950 (cummulatively by many experimenters) showed that different case shapes contributed less than .0015 of 1% to velocities attained in rifle cartridges shooting the same bullets at the same pressures. The same experimenters verified that case capacity was the important criterion. Short & fat cases WERE included in those tests. Because case shape was NOT significant to rifle velocities, case shapes were decided by other considerations, auch as feeding in rifles (and machine guns), ease of manufacuture using existing technology of the day(s), etc. Prior to about 1900, however, few corporate officials really understood just how powerful a marketing tool anything "new" was. They instead tended to rely on advertising attributes such as "The Original...",or "for over 50 years...", etc. Since the power of "New!" has been discovered (in spades), the commercial "cartridge of the month" is now standard fare for selling rifles and ammo....as well as hand-creams, feminine deodorants, and danged near everything else including computer chips. Anyway, I found the comments above regarding powder gas accelereation and limits interesting, as some projectiles have purportedly been chrono'd at over 10,000 fps muzzle velocity in military experiements. Makes me wonder how bullets can go that fast if the gases pushing them can't.... My country gal's just a moonshiner's daughter, but I love her still. | |||
|
| one of us |
Of course we are. It's called marketing. It's the foundation of our capitalist society. You go to college to major in marketing. You enter the job market. A euphemism is spin. Getting the masses to buy the silk purse you just made from a sow's ear. Think Ginsu knife! | |||
|
| one of us |
Hey AC, I seem to remember something about a fellow who worked with extremely long barrel cannons and his last name was Bull(no joke). He was killed because of his experiments. I believe he used a barrel that allowed more fuel to enter the barrel as the projectile moved forward. Can't remember if it was Gas or Liquid. But I thought of it at the time as being similar to Progressive Diesel Injection. This allowed vast amounts of fuel to be Injected and the Pressure Curve remained very high throughout the Projectiles passage. Been too long ago for me to remember more, but I believe that is the basic concept. | |||
|
| one of us |
HC That concept was being attempted by the Germans in WW-2, but after a few tons of bombs fell on the test site the program was abandoned. In appearance they look like a tree, with the trunk as the barrel, and the "auxiliary chambers" being the branches IIRC the guy your talking about is the one that was building the Iraqi "super gun" before his death. | |||
|
| One of Us |
HC- You and tailgunner are both correct. Jerry Bull was a fellow dual citizen (Canadian & U.S.) allowed to have passports of both countries for political convenience. He was also a prime example of a scientest who did not understand the murky political waters into which his research (and stubborness) took him. I believe he was assassinated by the Mossad with the approval, if not the actual collaboration, of the U.S. intelligence community. His research, conducted to a large extent in the U.S. under U.S. government auspices, took place mainly in the U.S. Northeast (New York), though he and fellow American experimenters met and worked in other convenient locales as well. Jerry's main interest was in developing a gun which could launch orbiting vehicles (mainly technical satellites) at about 1/1000th the cost and almost none of the human risk of the American space shuttle system. Of course, that really pissed off the U.S. Congress and NASA, both of which had bought into the launch rockets and shuttles at great, great expense. They could not stand the embarassment of having something as simple as a super gun upstage them. Nor would the military/industrial interests & lobbyists be easily dumped without a LOT of Congress-people losing their precious seats at the pork feast. The American intelligence agencies, of course, had a much more sound (and honourable) reason for wanting Bull's program shut down by whatever means necessary. If he demonstrated that a gun could satidsfactorily launch guided projectiles into orbit, then any third-world country could put weapons into space to strike Israel, the U.S., or anyone else at will. That capability, combined with a nuclear warhead, large or small, home-made or purchased on the black market, could trigger complete chaos in the world. Jerry Bull never really looked closely at his launch system as a weapon, but as an alternative and scientifically better alternative to the U.S. and Russian approaches to space. So, when Saddam Hussein agreed to back his building of a super-gun after Jerry had been kicked out of the U.S., he allowed himself to be duped into seeing it as simply an opportunity to do more research. Saddam, of course, intended to use it to destroy Israel, and thereby achieve his goal of being the dominant leader of the whole Arab world. Net result was Bull's death in the hall at the door of his apartment in Europe, by the hand of a Mossad agent. And the rest of the world's ballisticians got the message. No more public reasearch in THAT area. | |||
|
| One of Us |
AC, Your posts bring a couple of questions to mind; How was velocity measured to ".0015 of 1%"? , and when a satellite is launched at very high velocity from a cannon how does the elecxtronics withstand the very high acceleration?. Good Luck! | |||
|
| one of us |
Hey Tailgunner & AC, You both did a fine job of refreshing my memory. I think you are both correct. Hey Hawkins, I don't think Mr. Bull ever got a Satellite launched, but I'll gladly defer to Tailgunner and AC. Electronics can take some rather severe G-Forces "if" they are intentionally designed with that as a requirement. | |||
|
| one of us |
One can argue the merits / demerits of the 'short & fat vs long & skinny' till the cows come home. It's not going to make me change my MOA .375H&H for a MOA anything else. In fact, I guess I'll hang on to my .308 Win as well. Those calibres have been doing great work for too long to be suddenly upstaged by something that may or may not kill animals deader. My opinion? The marketers need to earn a salary, too | |||
|
| one of us |
/ | |||
|
| one of us |
Alf: When you say "same barrel length", are you saying as conventionally measured to the face of the breech, or measured as the length the bullet travels? If the former, then there is a very slight advantage to the short-fat in that the EFFECTIVE barrel length is longer, thus providing a tad more velocity under the circumstances you describe. In other words, assuming for the moment a WSM case and an H&H case to be of identical volume, then the "same" barrel is about 3/4" longer for the WSM and velocities will be commensurately (though only marginally) higher. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Mr. Hawkins - These are by no means perfect answers to your valid questions, but a first shot at each of them... The reported influence of case shape is like a lot of other things...not necessarily as simple a thing as it appears at first...and not something which is is truly a "law" of ballistics. Velocity need not be measured to that fraction of a % to produce that sort of estimate of its affect....and I would have to assume it was a scientific estimate, not an exact figure written in stone by God and then finally discovered by man. To greatly over-simplify, the process is basically one of registering velociities from different cartridge shapes, using the same components (to the degree we can), then comparing the velocity variations obtained, while allowing for other potential variables which may have affected the test results other than case shapes as the variaables. The differences in velocities from different shapes only come into identifiable play after the differences from other variables are first deducted (eliminated?). The list of other known variables is so extensive, that no completely 100% thorough test can ever really be completed....and it really doesn't need to be. They range through things like the obvious ones (pressure differences, chronograph inconsistencies, case capacity, throat lengths, clearance between cases and chamber walls, individual primer "strength" variations, powder burning rate (and consistency of ignition) variations....to the really, really minor ones (we think) like individual bullet jacket hardness variations, barrel elasticity, bullet core hardness variations, degrees of bullet deformation in the barrel during firing, ambient temps at time of ignition, etc., etc., etc. Only after all those possibilites are deducted, are we left with the velocity differences occasioned by case shape alone. And, of course, any such mathematical figure defining shape influence is really a calculated theoretical one, rather than an absolute. ------------- As to the survival of satellite electronics on launch from a super gun...the acceleration must be within similar ranges, whether launching a huge rocket or a small projectile . The projecticle must get enough velocity, quickly enough, to escape the drag of earth's atmosphere and gravity. Of course, the acceleration period can be longer if the rocket carries enough fuel to burn longer, but as it is having to also carry with it the fuel supply (which the gun does not have to do) it takes more energy (force) to get that additional weight up to the required escape velocity. And everything I've said here is incorrect to the extent it is a vast oversimplification. People do not look in awe at "rocket science" because it is simple, obvious, or easy. I guess the vagueness, lack of absolutes, the "what ifs?", and the possibilites for mental and physical exploration, are what makes science both fun and almost a religion for some folks. Best wishes, AC My country gal's just a moonshiner's daughter, but I love her still. | |||
|
| one of us |
/ | |||
|
| one of us |
A short fat case with bigger shoulders like 300WSM isn't going to be anymore efficient that a 300H&H, supposedly with same case capacity, to same velocity, same bullet. Why -the fat case has to use slower burning powder with more deterrants. The H&H using faster powder will get bullet out at same effiency using faster powder, as it can use faster, without overpressure.Ed MZEE WA SIKU | |||
|
| one of us |
/ | |||
|
| one of us |
I beleive the Short/Fat/High Shoulder Angle Case Shape will actually have a "Different" Powder Preferance for top Performance(Velocity) than will a Narrower, Longer and Lower Shoulder Angle having the same Internal Volume. However(I hate this answer), depending on which Powder each of the two Cases happen to hit their Peak Performance with, will actually determine which one has the best Velocity. Not all Powders are equal in how smooth the Burn Integral(Burn Rate, Peak, and Duration) happens to be. For a separate example, it would take a lot of Testing to design a "new" Case that works as well with as many different Powders as a 308Win. This is relatively easy to see in the Load Manuals if you focus on Velocity Spread over the entire Range of Powders listed. Then compare those same values to a different Cartridge. The 308Win Design gives it a better opportunity to have at least one Powder that works extremely well, from both a Velocity and Accuracy standpoint than many other Case Designs. And of course, Accuracy is dependant on the Harmonic Repetition being close to a Peak Null Spot. The Short/Fat/High Shoulder Angle Design appears to provide the smoothest Burn Integral, so there is a bit less "noise" in the Barrel/Action to deal with, and that will provide the best possible opportunity for outstanding accuracy. That is how I see it - whether it is right or wrong. | |||
|
| one of us |
I have proved it with 20 years of testing.In fact loaded to a certain max pressure limit say 65k, the H&H loaded with powders I would use will outdo theWSM with any powder the promoters of the same would try. My testing that shows this, concerns a 460WEA and my 458HE, both with same case capacity, loaded to a full case max.We tested both. Wea 26" bbl, 458HE 24"- the best WEA load was 2650, 500gr--best 458HE was 2660 500gr Notice 2" less barrel......After testing a 1000 loads in my 24" ,I put on 30" and did another 1000 rounds.And I got 2800fps, with 500gr. A sharp shouldered case is supposed to give the so called venturi affect, but little more of energy is lost to heat fighting against sharp shoulder, whereas a straighter one, less is lost heating and is used to do more pushing. The speed the venturi is to give with sharp shoulder, is gained back in straighter case because you use faster powder.Ed. MZEE WA SIKU | |||
|
One of Us |
Women: tall and skinny pleases my eye. Cartridges: Short and fat pleases my eye. I don't know what it is but I like the look of the short fats. If I need a magnum, it's gonna be a short mag cause it just looks nicer, and so do the shorter action. Better perfomers probably not. A cartridge that just looks right to me, YES. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If the 270 won't do it the .338 will, if the 338 won't I can't afford the hunt! | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia