"Blessed is the man whose strength" Psalm 84:5

340 Weatherby
185 TSX

84.5g Vht
3267fps

185?

Might has well shoot the 300 Winchester. '

quote:

Originally posted by Big Wonderful Wyoming:
185?

Might has well shoot the 300 Winchester. '

Nope, .338 frontal area

Agree! 338 185 TSX ='s notably bigger hole than 30 CAL.

Mark

If quoting scripture you should quote the whole verse so as not to alter the meaning.
The verse reads
5 Blessed is the man whose strength is in thee; in whose heart are the ways of them

but you need to read the previous and later verses to get the context

Thank you Mr. Von Gruff for reminding us of the layers of human thought and pointing out this verse is about Him not us, not even the mighty .340 W.
"Fortunate indeed is a man who walks along with the 340 Weatherby and 185 TSX as his sword." dmw 2017
There; we can all appreciate that as fellow gun cranks.

quote:

Originally posted by ar corey:

quote:

Originally posted by Big Wonderful Wyoming:
185?

Might has well shoot the 300 Winchester. '

Nope, .338 frontal area

Except the .300 would have significantly better BC & SD

quote:

Originally posted by ar corey:

quote:

Originally posted by Big Wonderful Wyoming:
185?

Might has well shoot the 300 Winchester. '

Nope, .338 frontal area

No critter well know the difference

quote:

No critter well know the difference

At the risk of offending some- I see no real use for the 340 Wby that isn't accomplished better by other rounds; with or without any holy scriptures as support.

Do we still have "sectional density", or have the laws of physics been discontinued?

Though it should be a "hellofa" prairie dog round! memtb

quote:

Originally posted by memtb:
Do we still have "sectional density", or have the laws of physics been discontinued?

Sectional density without the diameter to weight ratio is incomplete.

quote:

Originally posted by Ray B:

quote:

Originally posted by memtb:
Do we still have "sectional density", or have the laws of physics been discontinued?

Sectional density without the diameter to weight ratio is incomplete.

and bullet construction

quote:

At the risk of offending some- I see no real use for the 340 Wby that isn't accomplished better by other rounds; with or without any holy scriptures as support.

So you feel that everyone should get rid of everything larger than a .30-06?????????

As far as I know the '06 has killed EVERY mammalian species that lives on this planet.

quote:

Originally posted by Ray B:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by memtb:
Do we still have "sectional density", or have the laws of physics been discontinued?

I've always (crudely) thought of sectional density as the ability to penetrate, irrespective of caliber, given bullets of identical structure and velocity.

To me, sectional density is simply the ratio of mass to cross-sectional area. And you can't have "cross sectional area" of a bullet (= a circle) without determining the diameter of that circle.

I'm a guppy here, and I'd love to be corrected.

quote:

Originally posted by Ray B:

quote:

Originally posted by memtb:
Do we still have "sectional density", or have the laws of physics been discontinued?

Sectional density without the diameter to weight ratio is incomplete.

Ray, Unless I'm missing something... it was a 185 grain, .338 caliber

The problem with SD by itself is that it gives the average "length" of the bullet. This needs some clarification since bullets (excepting wadcutters) are not flat ended cylinders, but SD is the weight of the bullet divided by the diameter- which isn't actually the area of the base, but is proportional to it. So any bullet that has a sectional density of .250 will have the same average length, whether it is a .224 or a .458;
So the .250 SD .224" bullet would be very long compared to its diameter while the .250 SD .458" bullet would be quite stubby. "Other things being equal" the .224 bullet would encounter less animal resistance due to less frontal area than the .458, while the increased frontal area of the .458 would result in more contact with animal so while it would have greater impact, it would be expected to have less penetration.
In practice it becomes a non-issue because if two bullets are of similar shape, the .458 bullet will have an SD that far exceeds the .224.
As noted the bullet structure is also quite relevant- since the bullet has something of a ballistic coefficient as it is pushing through the animal, whether it changes shape or not. An expanding bullet changes it's frontal area to a flatter shape as well as increased diameter, thus decreasing it's ballistic shape and increasing the amount of animal that needs to be pushed out of the way for the bullet to continue its spending of its momentum & energy.

So,after reading much of the discussion. Am I to believe that the 185 will give as good a penetration as that of say a 225, when pushed faster ( within reasonable velocity expectations) than the 225, pushed at a more sedate velocity? And this is because of bullet shape, material,etc. I understand that degree of expansion will effect penetration, but, it seems if Bullets are of same material, that bullet mass is bullet mass, when diameters are equal. Thanks for expanding my confusion! memtb

I want to thank all involved in contributing to the furtherance of my confusion! I thought that when Bullets of similar construction, same caliber, and somewhat similar shapes, though of different weights: that sectional density between the two would validate a comparison. In this scenario, using the 185 grain bullet compared to, lets say a 225 grain bullet, from same cartridge both pushed to their reasonable maximum velocities with zero expansion; the 225 would penetrate farther due to it's greater mass. If both Bullets expanded, again the heavier projectile would likely penetrate farther/ deeper into a comparable medium! If the 185 (due to it's higher velocity) expanded to a greater degree, it seems that again due to it's mass or lack thereoff and increased frontal area, it would lack the penetration of the similarly constructed 225. Someone please bring this "down" to my level, so I may comprehend. Thanks, memtb

You guys really need to go hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

At the risk of offending some- I see no real use for the 340 Wby that isn't accomplished better by other rounds; with or without any holy scriptures as support.

So you feel that everyone should get rid of everything larger than a .30-06?????????

As far as I know the '06 has killed EVERY mammalian species that lives on this planet.

That isn't what I said. There are other cartridges bigger and smaller that will do better any job the 340 can do.

quote:

Originally posted by Ray B:

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

At the risk of offending some- I see no real use for the 340 Wby that isn't accomplished better by other rounds; with or without any holy scriptures as support.

So you feel that everyone should get rid of everything larger than a .30-06?????????

As far as I know the '06 has killed EVERY mammalian species that lives on this planet.

That isn't what I said. There are other cartridges bigger and smaller that will do better any job the 340 can do.

If I am reading you right that can be said about any cartridge especially when you have 50+ cartridges on either end. If you take your statement literally, virtually none of its true. Fortunately for ar corey he is free to choose, a concept that scares a lot of people shitless on this forum.

ar corey, is the rifle a Weatherby? What is the barrel length?

Can someone/anyone give True and Honest proof that any one particular caliber of rifle can do a "BETTER" job than ANY other caliber?

The only parameters being calibers not NORMALLY used for hunting Elephant/Cape Buffalo/Lion/Hippo or Rhino.

Dead is Dead! Having used quite a fairly good array of calibers over the years, including the .340 Weatherby, I am anxious to find out what cartridges are "BETTER"???????

Additionally, what makes them "BETTER"????????