48 replies [Last post]
Tndeerhunter's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Tennessee
Joined: 04/13/2009
Posts: 1110
let's have a lookie-see

Might as well throw some numbers out there, if we're talking efficiency along with personal opinions.

After all, this posting was about KILLING POWER, wasn't it???? 

.243 & 7/08 efficiency vs .338 Fed efficiency (of course, all are based on the SAME case and would have nearly identical volumes):

                      Muzzle energy           200 yds               300 yds

.243 100gr       1945                        1332                  1089

7/08 140gr       2542                        1793                  1490

.338Fed 210gr  3225                         2265                 1880 (@400/1545 surpasses 7/08@300)

As for trajectory: the 210gr .338F falls exactly 2.5" more at 300 yds than the 140gr 7/08, when both are dead on at 200 yds.

 

.270 Win 140gr Hornady Superformance is rated at 3090FPS and 2968 FPE (well less than smaller .338F case)

.35 Whelen (same case as the .270W) 200gr Hornady Superformance is rated at 2910 FPS and 3760 FPE

Larger, more powerful bullets, much more frontal area and bigger holes to leak. 

I know which combos seem most efficient to me. But I also know that not everyone prefers the same cars, planes, houses, rifles and chamberings. That's for darn sure!!  Dancing    

 

 

WesternHunter's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2006
Posts: 2368
338 fed

I don't think anyone is arguing against those ballistics.  No doubt the 338 Federal is going to deliver more energy down range and overall.  No doubt that a 300 Win Mag or 375 H&H is going to deliver more energy overall and punch through denser objects leaving a larger wound channel.  That is not the debate.  I'm only saying that after killing game for the last 3 decades I can't prove or have never seen anything to indicate to me that a larger hole, given the same sized animal, results in more killing power.  Thats all I'm saying.  I'm not at all arguing against the fact these larger caliber high velocity cartridges have a better advantage overall ballistically.  I'm saying that on elk the various .27 caliber or 7mm are not nearly as impotent as we sometimes get led to believe. 

I've watched as various elk fell from a 7mm Mag, 300 Win Mag, and .30-06 Sprngfld.  Then compared the elk who fell and were killed just as efficiently from my .270 Win as they were from the other three more powerful cartridges.  In fact I once watched an elk hit right in the vitals run and linger longer when hit once with a 7mm Mag.  But that just proves that not all animals are the exact same and will react differently.  It's not to say the 7mm Mag is less than any other, that was a one time thing I saw, but no doubt that someone seeing that for the first and only time would precieve it a whole lot differently. 

The fact of the matter is that you do not need cartridges for example like the .300 Win Mag, .35 Whelen, .375 H&H, or .458 Win Mag to bring down an elk efficiently.  Granted I think that cartridges like the 7mm Rem Mag and the .300 Wing Mag are excellent elk cartridges. 

Don Fischer's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Antelope, Ore
Joined: 03/24/2005
Posts: 3183
A larger hole has to deliver

A larger hole has to deliver more killing power, driven at sufficent velocity, because of more frontal area. If that power is necessary or not is another question. Just as an extream exapmle of what frontal area and weight does, run a VW bug and an 80,000 pound truch into a bridge abutment at 60 mph and see which one does more damage to the bridge.

Not really a lot different with bullet's. The only question being how much is really necessary. I think efficency boils down to amount of powder used to gain some certain velocity/energy. Has very little to do with what makes a good hunting cartridge.

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1780
But,

WesternHunter wrote:

I don't think anyone is arguing against those ballistics.  No doubt the 338 Federal is going to deliver more energy down range and overall.  No doubt that a 300 Win Mag or 375 H&H is going to deliver more energy overall and punch through denser objects leaving a larger wound channel.  That is not the debate.  I'm only saying that after killing game for the last 3 decades I can't prove or have never seen anything to indicate to me that a larger hole, given the same sized animal, results in more killing power.  Thats all I'm saying.  I'm not at all arguing against the fact these larger caliber high velocity cartridges have a better advantage overall ballistically.  I'm saying that on elk the various .27 caliber or 7mm are not nearly as impotent as we sometimes get led to believe. 

I've watched as various elk fell from a 7mm Mag, 300 Win Mag, and .30-06 Sprngfld.  Then compared the elk who fell and were killed just as efficiently from my .270 Win as they were from the other three more powerful cartridges.  In fact I once watched an elk hit right in the vitals run and linger longer when hit once with a 7mm Mag.  But that just proves that not all animals are the exact same and will react differently.  It's not to say the 7mm Mag is less than any other, that was a one time thing I saw, but no doubt that someone seeing that for the first and only time would precieve it a whole lot differently. 

The fact of the matter is that you do not need cartridges for example like the .300 Win Mag, .35 Whelen, .375 H&H, or .458 Win Mag to bring down an elk efficiently.  Granted I think that cartridges like the 7mm Rem Mag and the .300 Wing Mag are excellent elk cartridges. 

You said, "No doubt that a 300 Win Mag or 375 H&H is going to deliver more energy overall and punch through denser objects leaving a larger wound channel." is that not KILLING POWER? More energy..... larger wound channel?

Just as you've seen countless animals taken with 7mags, 300 Win mags, -06's, and seen no difference from your 270, their are countless hunters who have used 308's, 270's, on elk and then stepped up to larger magnums and have seen a big difference in how elk have reacted when hit (not in a positive way, for the elk). Also, you said most if not all of your kills on big bulls have been within 200 yards and true there's not much difference in a 270 or 7Mag or other similar calibers in that distance. Where magnums or larger calibers shine is out beyond that from 300 on further where they do have more 'killing power' due to heavier weight bullets retaining velocity and energy and hitting harder way out there.

I've talked with many hunters including my dad and uncle who've taken many elk between them recall seeing elk hit with 270's and not show a sign they were hit, no reaction and get away or found after considerable search in addition to DRT with the same caliber. I've also heard them say they've shot or witnessed elk when hit with a 300 mag, a 338 mag, or even a 7Mag, there was no doubt the animal was hit and very sick if not immediately down for the count when hit in the lungs/heart or shoulder.

And, earlier you stated the countless happy hunters you've witnessed killing elk with -06's and 150 gr bullets. But, let me ask you this, would you honestly recommend if someone asked you what bullet weight would be best for their -06 and elk to go with the 150? Or, would you recommend the 180?

And, C'mon now, 458 Win Mag? Were not talking Africa and cape buffalo and elephants now are we?Big smile

Don't mean to harp on this just felt compelled to speak up on the merits of larger calibers due to you seemingly to be down on them and extolling the virtues of lighter cals and bullets for elk.

I personally hunt with an -06, a 7mm Mag, and will be getting here in the near future a 338 Win mag (really looking forward to this) which will be my new elk rifle.

But, that doesn't mean if all I had in my gun safe were a 7mm-08 and or 270 I wouldn't be hunting elk all day with them, Id probably just be a little more conservative with my distance and precise with my placement, like no shoulder shots at 350 yards where I'd take that shot with one of the larger cals. Doesn't mean the lighter cals couldn't do it at that range but I'd feel more confident, confident enough to take the shot with one of the big boys.

WesternHunter's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2006
Posts: 2368
big bore, smaller bore

SoCo, As far as bullet weight from a .30-06 goes, it comes down to more than just weight, consider the bullet construction too and which weight shoots better out of a given rifle.  I personally would not fret over using a 150 grain myself so long as it wasn't too soft a construction.  I've taken 3 elk in years past with a 150 grain bullet from an -06.   Something like a Speer Grand Slam or better will work perfectly well. 

I wouldn't say I'm down on magnums so much as I'm just simply impartial to them for most biggame.  The rest of this paragraph should clarify why.  True, the mangums will shine at distances much beyond the 300 yard mark.  But, what I'd really like to know is who on Earth is taking shots much more beyond 300 yards on elk??  That's just completely unnessesary!  If they are doing it for real, they're either a really excellent shot under real field conditions or they just don't know any better that they are really tempting fate on loosing a wounded animal, it's one or the other.  My adopted philosophy is that if you can't get to within 200 yards of your game animal, then you need to rethink your hunting strategy.  I didn't make that up either. I read that somewhere and can't even tell you how true I've found it to be in the field.

Tndeerhunter's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Tennessee
Joined: 04/13/2009
Posts: 1110
what?
Well, even with that explanation I am still confused as to why you don't consider the .35 Whelen as a worthwhile cartridge. The .35 Whelen uses exactly the same cartridge case as your .270, but delivers a bigger bullet with more energy. There is no "magnumitis" associated with it and it's actually not quite as flat shooting as the .270, simply a heavier hitter and very useful against big critters.
Still confused.   Confused
WesternHunter's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2006
Posts: 2368
35 Whelen

Tndeerhunter wrote:

Well, even with that explanation I am still confused as to why you don't consider the .35 Whelen as a worthwhile cartridge. The .35 Whelen uses exactly the same cartridge case as your .270, but delivers a bigger bullet with more energy. There is no "magnumitis" associated with it and it's actually not quite as flat shooting as the .270, simply a heavier hitter and very useful against big critters.
Still confused.   Confused

I never said I didn't consider the .35 Whelen a worthwile cartridge.  I'm sure it's a great cartridge for biggame.  There are many great cartridges out there for biggame.  As it turns out I can't (and haven't) say anything bad about the .35 Whelen because I have no experience with it.  I have read and heard a lot of good things about it, those who use it really rave about it.  I don't know anyone personally who hunts with one, but I'm sure it's a great cartridge.

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1780
Hmm

" But, what I'd really like to know is who on Earth is taking shots much more beyond 300 yards on elk??  That's just completely unnessesary!  If they are doing it for real, they're either a really excellent shot under real field conditions or they just don't know any better that they are really tempting fate on loosing a wounded animal, it's one or the other.  My adopted philosophy is that if you can't get to within 200 yards of your game animal, then you need to rethink your hunting strategy"

I'm no advocate of extreme long range shooting, for me personally anyway. But, limiting oneself to 200 yards shots only while elk hunting during rifle season is severely and unneededly handicapping oneself IMO. Id, only do that if hunting with a 444 Marlin sized cal. An elk is a huge animal and a not an extremelly difficult target for an experienced marksmen at 300 to 350/400 yards who shoots often. Hell, we know there are guys who take 500 to 600 yard shots routinely who for which a 300 yard shot is a chip shot. Again while I respect your discipline for holding out on any shot over 200 yards, I in no way think it diminshes a hunters stalking skill if at times they can't get any closer then this range (300 to 400). I think this range is well within the acceptable ethical and common sense reach of an experienced and practiced marksmen and hunter. Obviously not for some nimrod excitedly throwing volumes of lead at moving animals at that distance, but this type of individual prolly wouldn't be any better at 200 or less in terms of properly hitting an animal to killl it.

But, alas, under your standards and self imposed limitations (200 yds or less) entry level, smaller, heck, whatever label one wants to use and lighter bullet weights are solid performers. But, I personally want to use a caliber and complimentary bullet weight that takes advantage of my marksmanship skill and velocity of the caliber and will solidy break an animal down out to 400 yards if necessay although I will always try and get closer if at all possible.

Anyway it's been fun, take care!

WesternHunter's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2006
Posts: 2368
work the numbers

SoCo, it has definitely been fun.  You know what's going to be even more fun? Lets work some numbers here.  And I do this for the benefit of Jim Boys who asked the question.  I have no arguments that larger heavier high velocity bullets will often retain mor energy and have a better advantage out at farther distances.  Now, the original question was Jim Boyd asking about his 7mm-08 with a 140 grain bullet and can it be used to cleanly take elk?

Given - Many states require that you need at least 1000 ft/lbs of energy to (but preferably 1300 ft/lbs) to take an elk.

Note: the closest my book gives to Jim Boyds bullet is a 145 grains, not the 140 grains.

According to pages 227 of the Speer realoading manual #13:

*7mm-08 145 grain Speer Spitz SoftPoint has a ballistic coefficient of 0.457. 

* You can go concervative and get velocities of 2850ft/sec to a bit over 2900ft/sec  

According to the tables on page 709 of the same manual:

*Ballistic coefficient of 0.46

*Muzzle Velocity of 2900 ft/sec, but 2132 ft/sec @ 400 yards

*Energy in Ft/Lbs per grain = 10.09 @ 400 yards

Lets do some math?  10.09 X 145 grains = 1463.05 ft/lbs of energy @ 400 yards.

You see SoCo, even with a 7mm-08 using a 145 grain bullet you don't even have to stick with what you called my self-imposed or entry level or handicapped limitations to cleanly take an elk out to 400 yards with that 7mm-08 Dancing

By the way here's some number for you when you get that new .338 Win Mag

*Ballistic coefficient of 0.431 for an average 250 grain bullet

*Typical muzzle velocity of 2600 ft/sec, but 1836 ft/sec @ 400 yards

*Energy in Ft/Lbs per grain = 7.48 @ 400 yards

Lets do some math?  7.48 X 250 grains = 1870 ft/lbs of energy @ 400 yards.  Thats pretty good! You have an extra 200 yard advantage with that cartridge.

You actually get more energy using a 200 grain bullet with a BC of 0.448, velocity of about 2900 ft/sec at muzzle and 2116 ft/sec @ 400 yards with 9.94 ft-lbs per grain @ 400 yards. 

I wouldn't go much beyond 500 yards with that .338 Win Mag though.  The kinetic energy on target drops off pretty signifigantly beyond 500 yards with those heavy magnum bullets, (in fact they looks pretty much along the same lines or worse than the 7mm-08 Rem or .270 Win does @ 400 yards)  Whistling

jim boyd's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Joined: 07/06/2010
Posts: 889
Wow - Western Hunter - if I

Wow - Western Hunter - if I read this correctly - with the 145 grain bullet traveling at 2850 at the muzzle - this round would be a reliable offering to take an elk at 400 yards?

With that said - and if yes - that is probably further than I would ever shoot - likely my figure is closer to 300 yards...

I do genuinely appreciate all the time and effort you folks put into this debate.

I planned to add a 30 caliber rifle this summer - and may still - but I am very comfrotable with the 7-08...

I think I misspoke earlier too... it is a 24" barrel and not a 22".

It has great glass on it and also has a muzzle break so it is VERY comfortable to shoot.

Wow - great news - thanks!!!! 

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
Thoughts on Advanced Hunter Program?Wazzu07610/07/2006 19:58 pm
What caliber for this creature?WesternHunter3306/25/2009 21:32 pm
power belts and a wolfhunter12009/23/2011 06:58 am
Hunting Van for SalePaRu1007/13/2007 20:33 pm
sighting in varible scopesSJ1311/05/2006 12:57 pm