quote:

"Efficiency" was invented by the guy worried he is losing an argument with another over which cartridge is the best.

You nailed it!

The first and most extensive use of the word “efficiency” is in the reloading articles of Ken Warner. He also used the terms “over bore”.

One of the tricks of marketing is to make differences where none exist. Gun writers have to invent terms, meaning less distinctions, to sell the product, to fill a page with words.

Really who cares? Have we not learned that if you want 500 HP from your V-8 you are going to have a big fuel bill? If you want to push a bullet XX fps, you are going to have to burn powder. You want to push it faster, you are going to have to increase the pressure radically, or you are going to have to burn more powder.

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:
HC is in the building so it's fixing to turn into a che and pre argument any moment now.

Actually I find Vapo has a very good thread without needing to bring up the very best Pressure Detections ever devised - CHE & PRE.

When I think of Efficiency(what happened to i before e, except after c?) as it relates to firearms, I tend to think of Killing Efficiency instead of trying to use a weenie Load in a real cartridge, or a weenie, inadequate cartridge to start with.

quote:

Originally posted by Lamar:
we only had one candle for the whole house when i was a kid.

I would consider that extremely Efficient.

If efficiency had anything to do with rifles, Roy Weatherby would have never sold his first rifle.

well it was a kinda big candle.
we also recycled the drippings to smelt lead with to flux the dross back in the melt.
and lit it [the wax smoke] on fire to help warm the house some.

Efficiancy = less recoil for the performance (generally). Thats why I care.

Perhaps the new Hornady super performance ammo will fulfill many's dreams on this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:
300 WSM not efficient compared to 300 WM if you have to keep typing it out though.

+1

The WSM's are loaded hotter. Can't really call 2000-3000 more psi efficient.

quote:

Originally posted by Wayfaring Stranger:
Efficiancy = less recoil for the performance (generally). Thats why I care.

I would prefer to shoot a little more recoil with decreased pressure.

Part of my fear of recoil is that the rifle will fail. That is why I like down loading so much. A 338 Win. Mag. at 50,000 psi gives me a good sense of security.

I would much rather shoot a belted magnum case at 50,000 psi than a regular case at 65,000 psi.

quote:

Originally posted by ar corey:

quote:

Originally posted by Wayfaring Stranger:
Efficiancy = less recoil for the performance (generally). Thats why I care.

I would prefer to shoot a little more recoil with decreased pressure.

Part of my fear of recoil is that the rifle will fail. That is why I like down loading so much. A 338 Win. Mag. at 50,000 psi gives me a good sense of security.

I would much rather shoot a belted magnum case at 50,000 psi than a regular case at 65,000 psi.

Capacity over Pressure??? HECK! The only thing you have on your side is logic and wisdom. roger

To me, an overlooked part of the puzzle is a cartridge's friendliness to the handloader. I like flexibility in bullets and powders. I also like to be able to meet or possibly exceed published specs. These parts of the puzzle are sadly lacking in most of the current "efficient" rounds.....

"Efficient" seems to me to often be linked to those new creations that do poorly with long or heavy bullets, and limited flexibility in powder choices....

While everyone has different things that make their ideal round, I am surprised that ease and flexibility in reloading was slow to be mentioned here on AR!

Cheers,

Dan

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:

quote:

Originally posted by ar corey:

quote:

Originally posted by Wayfaring Stranger:
Efficiancy = less recoil for the performance (generally). Thats why I care.

I would prefer to shoot a little more recoil with decreased pressure.

Part of my fear of recoil is that the rifle will fail. That is why I like down loading so much. A 338 Win. Mag. at 50,000 psi gives me a good sense of security.

I would much rather shoot a belted magnum case at 50,000 psi than a regular case at 65,000 psi.

Capacity over Pressure??? HECK! The only thing you have on your side is logic and wisdom. roger

do you necessarily need high pressurefor efficiency?? I'm thinkin say .308 case vs '06 lenght giving you 95% of the performance with less powder & recoil?

Vapodog brings up an interesting subject and shooters have an endless supply of justifications for what they shoot.
My stress free view is if it feels right to you then do it and don't worry about the Jones's.

quote:

IMO performance is the criteria and efficiency is a very distant issue in the choice of a cartridge/chambering.

Well, it really sounds intellectual. ??

The most "effecient" cartridge normally available is the .22 RF Short. Not much good, but it sure is effecient.

"Efficiency" is the perfect solution to a non-existent problem. I have several rifles and while some are considered "efficient", some are "overbore". I don't care. I do care about sufficient accuracy to place a shot through the vitals and ample "horsepower" to get the job done at hand given the terrain and circumstances with a sporter rifle.

A friend of mine is wanting to start back up deer hunting but is concerned that all he has is a .300 Win Mag. My answer to him was "There is only one degree of dead"

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
.....
But cartridge efficiency (power generated per unit of propellant) has NEVER, not even once, entered into my decisions as to what to carry or shoot.
.....

I had never thought about efficieny quite like he mentioned.

But, Got to agree w/ AC one this issue - Cartridge efficiency has never entered into my decisions as to what to carry or to shoot (or, I'll add, "what to buy").

best dollars for DESIRED results .. we ALL do that ..