For a given cartridge, increasing bullet weight decreases the muzzle velocity. What's the trade off? How low can velocity go before the effectiveness on game begins to fade?



My question is prompted after considering early (ca. 1900) cartridges which went by the wayside. Many of the old rounds had decent, if not spectacular, reputations: 400/360, 9x57, etc. They could all heave a bullet of large SD in the range 1850-1950 fps and were thought competent. Taylor categorized them thus: "all 3 killed game, but failed to satisfy." Satisfy? Whelen rated highly the 9 Mauser with 280 gn at 1850 fps.



In selecting a cartridge for an older style single shot, I need to keep the pressure down. How effective is the heavy and slow recipe? Should one set a minimum on bore for these, eg. 35 caliber? I consider 100 yd to be my range limit and can't see myself ever hunting game over 600 lb.



Just a tyro mulling his options...



Karl

A 55gr .22 caliber accelerator shot from a 30-06 at over 4000fps has 400-500 more foot pounds of energy than a 45-70 shooting a 405gr slug at 1300fps. Which would you rather have in your hands if a big bear was charging?

Comparing foot pounds of energy available from various cartridges is somewhat useful if used with common sense and taken with a grain of salt, but is not a panacea. Since its calculation squares velocity, it tends to favor high velocity cartridges.

With heavy slow moving bullets, momentum is a more meaningful tool that foot pounds of energy. Taylor's KO formula was designed with that in mind.

Click on the this link and play with a few numbers:
Taylor KO Value

Lets assume we are talking about hunting game 100 lbs and above and not about varmit catridges. The question I always ask myself is what is the trajectory needed for the game and area I am hunting. I tend to shoot heavy for caliber bullets because of the penetration and a blood trail. Since most of my shooting is done under 300 yards, a good bullet at 2300-2800 (unless we are talking about DG chamberings)is usually sufficent.

One point about Taylor KO values, these where only for comparing solids and brain shooting elephants.

BigBullet

In "Rifles For Africa", Gregor Woods give a good account of this question and I recommend his book. Very thoughtful and informative. He likes the 9.3x 57 and gives the velocity as 2050 with the 286gr bullet. He says it gives good velocity in short barrels.

He regards the 9.3x62 and the 9.3x74 as "Ideal for large ungulates in the bushveld". He is very high on the 35 Whelan and 358 Winchester.

A friend just got a Marlin in 457 Mag which he intends to use on pigs.

I'm the first to say my experience is limited but I'd be happy with the 9.3x74 in a single shot except as a DGR.

This is a good book if you haven't read it. He updates Taylor's data and perspective.

In the words of David Thomas "How much deader than dead do you want?".

For an old style single shoot it's hard to beat a 45/70.

Even though it moves slow the bullet offers good diameter and has always been and will always be a good game getter within 150y.

Same applies to the 9,3x74, but it's loaded to much higher pressure than the 45/70.

What kind of gun is the cartridge for ??

Bullet construction has added a dimension to terminal ballistics that ballistic tables shed no light on. I'll take a 150gr partition over a 180 gr cup/core any day. For 600lb. game within 100 yds you may choose from many chamberings that with controlled expansion bullets will not handicap you in the least.



In regards to weight vs. velocity the criterion for me is simple because there is only one goal: penetration through the vitals from a deep angle and preferably an exit.



If I feel the penetration will be insufficient, I don't shoot. It may be because of shot angle, excessive range/insufficient velocity or bullet construction. It doesn't matter.



If you choose to hunt with relatively low-power cartridges (as I sometimes do) you will be more limited by range. If you choose cup/core over controlled expansion bullets you will be limited by shot angle. And of course shot angle limits range and range limits shot angle.



When I am serious about eliminating constraints I go with a cartridge that will drive a premium (controlled-expansion) bullet through the vitals at the longest range I will likely need to shoot at the deepest angle I may need to shoot. (Since on game I intend to eat the hindquarters represent the bulk of edible meat the last rib is the deepest I will shoot)



For example on my next elk hunt to the Selway of Idaho I know most of my hunting will be in timber and small parks. Might get a shot at 250 yds. Will I take the Ruger No.1 in .45-70 and 350gr partitions or 300gr X-bullets (heavy and slow) or .300 mag and 200gr partitions (fast and light)? Both meet the shot angle criterion within 250 yds.



Of course heavy and fast is an option if you care to carry that much gun under hunting conditions.



I'd lean toward the .300 on long-range penetration alone except the Ruger is so wonderfully short and light and those hills are so darn steep.



(Oops...more variables. Rifle weight and terrain.)



I suggest .45-70 as a classic chambering. The 300gr .45-70 spire pointed X-bullet will serve admirably well beyond 100 yds. Barnes claims it needs 1600fps to expand well. Or one of the partitions or even a hard-cast solid. Then let the velocity and your shooting ability limit your range. Whether light and fast or heavy and slow, remember you only have to get through the vitals.

http://www.mindspring.com/~ulfhere1/methods.html

Lots of ballistic questions answered here.

Go check out the threads on cast bullets for game in the Cast Bullets forum. Slow moving lead alloy bullets still work quite effectively.

I have shot and seen too many elk and Bison and even a few Cape Buffalo shot with 45-70, 45-90 and big black powder 50s to ever consider using one on game anymore. That is the biggest misconception in todays hunting world...I learned it the hard way as will those who toast them.

These guns wound more game than they kill, people just don't tell anyone about that, only the one shot kills that happen now and then..

Last year I saw two nice bulls take multiple hits with a 45-70 in the shoulder and they traveled one hell of a long ways and left no blood trail...I have those hits and walk offs on film. Hot loaded Noslers, and the bullets expanded and went to the off side skin, performance was good, but they didn't die.

This year I tracked a Bison hit twice with a 50 shooting 500 plus grain bullets at 1800 FPS (a soft and a solid) in the heart lung area for a half to 3/4s of a mile in a snow storm and very little blood, the snow was covering it and we were having to sweep the snow to find blood droplets and we found the animal dead but that tracking job took 3 or 4 hours I suspect, and we damn near froze to death....This also was filmed...

That is 3 experiences in a row and they about match the rest of such experiences that I have witnessed. I also used a 1886 45-90 for a time until it left me cold...

I also can guarentee what you see on the outdoor channal is not always the way a kill went down. I know one thats coming up that not the way it went down.

That last Bison was the last straw, I am a confirmed non believer in any big game rifle that cannot shoot a bullet at 2150, which my minimum...

I won't argue my opinnion here, as I have stated what I believe, if you wish to risk an expensive hunt on one of these old calibers, then you have been forewarned and I wish you all the success in the world, as I hate to see game get lost..

Ray,
Do you have any experience shooting or seeing shot the 450 Barnes X out of the 458 WM and what were you impressions. Specificaly buff.
BigBullet

I grew up and began to work in the mountains and hunt north of your location, in the Kootenays of B.C. and am some 12 yrs. younger than you are. I have a bit of hunting experience as well as a little bush experience and I am a bit confused concerning your opinions re; 45-70s, et. al.

As I understand it, you represent an Alaskan Master Guide, Phil Shoemaker who frequently writes about using two 45-70 rifles as protection guns against the enormous Grizzlies of his guiding area. I have and use exactly the same two rifles as he and his family use and my loads are identical to one of his, a 400 gr. Kodiak at close to 2000 fps. muzzle velocity, I also use a 400 gr. Swift A-Frame at the same approx. velocity.

Shoemaker writes that he has obtained some 5 ft. of penetration in the chest cavity of a wounded Grizzly or Alaska Brown Bear with these rifles and loads. Now, if you represent him as an agent, do you also agree with this load and if so, why and if not, why? I am honestly curious here as I think that this combo is very good for bear protection and much easier to pack around than my old Mod. 70s in .375 H&H, my previous all-time favourites.

I have found your posts on this and other forums to be really interesting and you obviously know whereof you speak, so, if you have time, I would appreciate a detailed reply. I have never been an advocate of using outdated technology of any sort and most of the real mountain men I learned from during the first 10-15 yrs. of my experience had started "bushwhacking" before WW1 in the wilderness of B.C.; they ALL prefered .30-06s, then .300H&Hs and even a few, belated .338s over the old calibers they started with. Many of these men shot more than 200 head of BIG game including scores of Grizzlies during their lives and so I listened when they spoke.