Many of you probably have the new issue of 'Handloader' magazine...

I just browsed through now at the book store and really liked the article on the so-called efficient v.s ineffcient cases.

The author takes a .300WSM (so called efficient) and compares it to a the long. tapered .300 H&H. He matches bullets and loads identically in each, using the same rifle I believe (re-barreled identically per cartridge)

The results?
It seems no conclusive evidence in significant velocity difference (I believe the H&H was faster in some instances?), the old H&H runs at lower pressure than the WSM for the same velocity (understandable) and, the WSM also shows a larger range and variance in chamber pressure than the H$H!


Opinions? - many gun rags/authors for years have triumphed the the superiority of short squat powder columns over 'outdated' long and tapered cases (ITO balistic efficiency, not bolt action reliability). While this one test is hardly 'gospel' it does make for interesting, emperical evidence...

Would be interesting to see this done with other cartridges of same calibre and similar ballistics but very different cases designs for which people may or may not favour as 'efficient' (.375 Ruger vs. H&H !)

Cheers

Well, I will buy into the older cartridges do just fine on their own without these Short Mags floating around....

But today's shooters seem to be more interested in what inspires their testosterone, than what is efficient...

The term efficient don't belong in the ammunition business.....at least sporting ammunition.

For military rounds the efficiency might be important because of the extremely high number of rounds loaded.

I'm really not sure why this word keeps coming up but to me it's like talking about miles per gallon of a D-9 bulldozer.....no one cares!

Numerous experiments over many years have demonstrated that the shape of the combustion chamber, as well as the shape and angle of the shoulder, is irrelavent to cartridge performance. All that matters is the capacity of the combustion chamber.

It is true that a shorter cartridge with an equal volume to a longer cartridge will, all things being equal, deliver very slightly higher velocity out of the same length barrel, however this is a result of the barrel being functionally longer (greater bullet travel) since the bullet starts from further back with the shorter cartridge.

Shorter cartridges also seem to be marginally easier to achieve good concentricity compared to longer cartridges, which is more conducive to good accuracy; but again, this is only marginally different.

The bottom line is that the only way to get more velocity is to either increase the volume of the cartridge or increase the pressure of the load. The latter is the "magical" way that the current crop of short mags achieve their "efficient" performance.

Personally, I would prefer "five down and one up" in a .30-06 for any hunting done with a .30 caliber to "two down and one up" in a .300 WSM. Everything is a trade-off, but trading half your magazine capacity for a receiver that is 3/4 inch shorter seems an unfavorable trade.

It has been a long time since I read anything from a commerical gunwriter about efficient cases. I suppose that was a gunwriter creation, probably before chronographs became cheap enough that you could test theories.

Mr. Barnes, I believe, the author of the article did a good job and presented data that I thought was very interesting. There was however a diffence in the cartridges. The 300 H&H usually produced less pressure for the same velocity at the same powder amount. It was not true in all of the loads that were tested, but usually was. I found that interesting too. I would much rather have an inefficient cartridge if I could get the same velocity, with the same charge, at lower pressures.

quote:

Personally, I would prefer "five down and one up" in a .30-06 for any hunting done with a .30 caliber to "two down and one up" in a .300 WSM. Everything is a trade-off, but trading half your magazine capacity for a receiver that is 3/4 inch shorter seems an unfavorable trade.

The answer was a bit off topic, but perhaps the most convincing way as to why a HUNTER should stick with a 30-06 rather than a short cased .300 WSM that holds less ammo.

Warrior

The only place a special case design influates accuracy is for bench-rest-shooters. In BR, one can actually make use of the small amount of improoved accuracy a type-PPC cartridge gives, but that is lost as soon one is off the bench.

I really do not see the use of fatter cartridges than the '06 case, for calibers smaller than .400.
Make them longer , like my FGC's - still sub MOA precision.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
...Numerous experiments over many years have demonstrated that the shape of the combustion chamber, as well as the shape and angle of the shoulder, is irrelavent to cartridge performance. All that matters is the capacity of the combustion chamber. ...

Hey Stonecreek, I see Bent has addressed that with the PPC comment. Are you just talking about Velocity?

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
...I would prefer "five down and one up" in a .30-06 for any hunting done with a .30 caliber to "two down and one up" in a .300 WSM. ...

What do you do with the "5(or 2) additional" cartridges?

I can see a rarely occasional use for 1 additional cartridge in a 30-06 or 300WSM, but what is the need for all the others?

Good hunting and clean 1-shot kills.

First of all, there are efficient and inefficient cartridges. An efficient cartridge would make the best use of the powder in it as far as returns in velocity was concerned. Take the 300 RUM and the 30-378 WM for instance. For the bullet weights listed in the Hornady reloading manual, 7th edition, there is NO difference in obtainable velocity and yet the 30-378 WM has a much larger case, probably operates at similar if not higher pressure than the 300 RUM and uses a lot more powder. The 300 RUM is definitely more efficient than the 30-378 WM.

Why it is so, I don't know but there are cartridges that are easier to get accurate reloads for than others. Maybe this shouldn't be called efficiency but rather uniformity. In .22 caliber centerfires, several proverbial for good inherent accuracy and easy reloading would be the 222 Rem., the 22-250 Rem. and the 22-250 Rem. The 222 Rem. is not a short squat case, by the way. While excellent accuracy is obtainable with the 223 Rem. and 220 Swift, one has to work a bit harder at it.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
The term efficient don't belong in the ammunition business.....at least sporting ammunition.....

I'm really not sure why this word keeps coming up but to me it's like talking about miles per gallon of a D-9 bulldozer.....no one cares!

I agree!

We spend thousands of dollars on hunts, thousands on custom rifles & scopes not to mention all the money on all the other gear and the licenses to boot. Then we worry about the extra 10 cents of powder that it might take to load a 300 H&H vs a 300 WSM which ammortized over the life of the rifle might come out to $50. It just doesn't make any difference! Shoot the one that suits you best, don't worry about the "efficency", it's peanuts in comparison to the rest of the stuff!

I read an article by Terry Wieland and he explains basically if say a 30-06 with a 180gr pill needs 55 grains of X powder to achieve 2800 fps and the 30-378 needs double the charge to add only 800 fps that would be inneficient.

For the guy who may shoot a box or two a year, then yes, who cares but guys like myself who shoot an average of a box or two a week, then recoil is a factor, and the biggest pain is the downtime of re-barelling which is about 500 rounds in a 30-378. And what if your "new" barrel doesn't shoot as well as the old one, or doesn't like the same load. You have to start over.

That part of it I don't care for.

I know much has been said about the shape of the powder column affecting the performance of the cartridge. I never really bought into that philosophy, but I am curious if the shape of the powder charge affects the way the rifle reacts when fired (i.e. felt recoil).

I know John Lazzeroni has made this claim numerous times (it's on his website) about his short mag rounds. Does anyone have any evidence the shape or 'efficiency' of the case has anything to do with recoil?

Stonecreek,

Does the shape of the combustion chamber affect the pressure-time curve of a cartridge? i.e. a 25-06 Remington vs a 25 WSSM where both have very similar velocity but very different shaped combuston chambers.

I'm asking because of the total dominance of the 6 PPC and 22 PPC in Benchrest and combustion chamber shape of these cartridges. Also, does the combustion chamber shape impact powder ignition uniformity?

Thanks.

I do not have a problem with the supposedly inefficient cartridges. There are times, after all, where an outsized case is rather handy, like for example when one is wearing gloves. Can you imagine fumbling with a 3" version of the 50 BMG while hunting something that might eat you?

There won't be any WSMs, or SAUMs in my house if I can help it!

A friend once told me: "...anything that holds more powder than a 22 Hornet is inefficient...". Until I have to sell my Dodge Cummins Turbo and get a Yugo because of fuel costs, I could care less about efficiency. I own a 22-378WAI. Case shape can affect accuracy, hence the benchrest saying RE case design "...short and fat is where it's at...". Rule 17A: "...build just what YOU want and be happy...".

Rich
DRSS

Well, there's efficient vs inefficient comparisons like 308 vs 308 Baer, and then there's two cases shooting the same diameter and weight bullet at the same velocity with different powder charges (or same charge, different speed.)
The first one is a matter of "need." The second one is a no-brainer. If you want an X g bullet to go Y fps, then find the case that does it with the least powder.
And apples-to-apples, you have to look at the best-case scenario for each round. One could find powders, e.g., that would make a bullet go faster in a 7x57 than in a 7mm Ultra, but there's only one choice if you want the one that best sends a 140g at 3200 fps. Factor in the cost of an action, and the Ultra is more efficient every time.

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
QUOTE]What do you do with the "5(or 2) additional" cartridges?

I can see a rarely occasional use for 1 additional cartridge in a 30-06 or 300WSM, but what is the need for all the others?

I was always tought to shoot 1 less deer than I had rounds in the rifle. That way if you need a follow up shot it's available.

It might not be the case in the US but in the UK multiples are pretty frequent. A roe doe and twin fawns requires a magazine capacity of 4 if the above rule is adhered to. This was the reason I sold a Tikka which with it's single stack magazine had only 3 round capacity. I also hate pratting around manual feeding rounds into chambers.

quote:

One could find powders, e.g., that would make a bullet go faster in a 7x57 than in a 7mm Ultra

This is a new one to me.

People will buy what they like or pick a long or short-range caliber for a need, regardless of whether one case is more efficient than the other.

However, there are marginal differences between cases in terms of the combustion process; for example the ever so popular short & fat cased 6mm PPC & others based on similar design. BR shooters wil take note though.

As a general rule, over-bore cartridges are relatively speaking "inefficient" and the standard calibers are more "efficient". What is of more importance to the hunter is to do what you have to do with lower recoil and less throat erosion. Little wonder the 308 Win and 30-06 are so popular, because you don't really need more for general game hunting - just vary the bullet weight according to your needs. We can scrap a good 50% of all calibers and still do fine.

Warrior

I had an argument with a guy at a store the other day. he was trying to tell me I should but a .257 WSSM and how much better it was then my 25,06.
My agument was prety simple my custom 25,06 put 3 rounds into about a half an inch at 100 yards with several loads.
that is exactly what I want it to do.
How can the short fatround do any more,
Some people think to much.
The 300 Win mag is a great cartridge, and all the so called advantages of the WSMs are theoreticle. Is a slightly shorter action a significant improvment, wow I can cycle it .1 seconds faster. ?
It is what a quarter lb lighter , At the end of a long hunt you willbe what 99.5% as tired.
The shorter action is suposadly on avarage a little more acurate.
well if you blue print the action put a top dollar barrel and scope on it , and are a great shot you just might be able to prove it.
off set that with the Fact that every rifle & round remington and winchester has built since the WSM and saum nonsence came about , has anadded price to pay for the R&D , the tooling costs, the advertising , The designing
and probably a few things I can't think of.
If I can't kill it with a .243, an 06 or a .338, witch short mag will save the day,
trying to solv a problem that does not exsist.
...tj3006

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:

quote:

One could find powders, e.g., that would make a bullet go faster in a 7x57 than in a 7mm Ultra

This is a new one to me.
Warrior

Sorry, Warrior, I wasn't being clear. A given powder/charge/bullet combo may go faster in a 7x57 than an Ultra, the U;tra not being designed to burn only 40g of powder.

Bwana-be,

Thanks for clearing up bud.
Please give me the "english" of your postscript.

Warrior

quote:

One could find powders, e.g., that would make a bullet go faster in a 7x57 than in a 7mm Ultra, but there's only one choice if you want the one that best sends a 140g at 3200 fps. Factor in the cost of an action, and the Ultra is more efficient every time.

I believe I'm not reading this in the context it was intended.....but it's not statement that can stand alone.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

Personally, I would prefer "five down and one up" in a .30-06 for any hunting done with a .30 caliber to "two down and one up" in a .300 WSM. Everything is a trade-off, but trading half your magazine capacity for a receiver that is 3/4 inch shorter seems an unfavorable trade.

This pretty much sums it up.

Not quite sums it up or else you could do away with the .300 H&H, .308 Norma, .300 Win Mag, .300 Weatherby, .300 RUM, .30-338 Weatherby and all the rest of the higher velocity .308 calibers.

It's about trajectory needs.

Cartridge efficiency has always struck me as more of a marketing term than an engineering term. There are simply too many cartridges that work and worked far too long before the arrival of the WSM's and SAUM's.

Since most of us can't shoot accurately out past 300 yards, a 30-06 will kill most of what we'll hunt and do it just as "efficiently" as one of the new highly studied/over-engineered efficient cartridges the sporting arms manufacturers are promoting.

The 7x57 Mauser worked long before the arrival of many cartridges chambered for bolt action rifles. So what?

Most of the shooters on this forum shoot accurately out past 300 yards.

Flatter trajectory means less holdover = less guesswork.

quote:

Most of the shooters on this forum shoot accurately out past 300 yards.

Mind if I ask how you came to this conclusion? This is, after all, the internet, where more 1\4" groups are fired then in actual benchrest competition.

No Dave, I don't mind if you ask how I came to that conclusion.

This is a quality website. Read the posts and you will understand the level of skill and accomplishments of the people that post here. I shoot very accurately out past 300 yards. A rifleman understands that is not magic.

Let me know if I havn't answered your question.

Man you can tell from some of the statements here who has experience with the super magnums and who does not. Some of these statements are just absolute BS!

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

quote:

One could find powders, e.g., that would make a bullet go faster in a 7x57 than in a 7mm Ultra, but there's only one choice if you want the one that best sends a 140g at 3200 fps. Factor in the cost of an action, and the Ultra is more efficient every time.

I believe I'm not reading this in the context it was intended.....but it's not statement that can stand alone.

I promise I wasn't being purposefully vague.
What I was trying to say is that each cartridge should be taken on the merits of it's design.
A 7x57 can more efficiently use 40g of powder than can an Ultra, but an Ultra can more efficiently make a 160g scream. By the time you factor in how much it costs to blow an action, the 7x57 just isn't all the efficient.
Hope that clears it up a bit.