8mm v. 7mm v. .308 v. .270, etc....


PDA






leadcounsel
June 18, 2012, 08:13 PM
Just seems like such a trivial difference between the size of these cartridges and their shell and powder...

Why do they perform differently, or dramatically different?

If you enjoyed reading about "8mm v. 7mm v. .308 v. .270, etc...." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
rcmodel
June 18, 2012, 08:19 PM
Velocity differances, bullet weight differances, bullet Ballistic Cofficient differances, etc.

For instance a 130 grain .270 bullet has a much better BC then a 150 grain 8mm bullet and can be driven at higher velocity.

So in effect it is more streamlined, starts out faster, and will not loose speed and drop as much at longer range.

rc

meanmrmustard
June 18, 2012, 08:19 PM
Pressure, bullet weight, BC, powder capacity, and bullet design.

If I remember, the 280 and 7/08 are quite similar.

firesky101
June 18, 2012, 08:20 PM
I do not believe any caliber is inherently accurate. Enough time and research and you can make just about anything perform top notch. As far a power... speed+mass=good.

jmr40
June 18, 2012, 09:07 PM
Why do they perform differently, or dramatically different?


They don't.

With modern loads there isn't enough difference between any of them to matter when bullets hit hide. With the best loads very few people can shoot well enough to ever notice any tiny bit of difference in trajectory.

Some are older rounds and traditional loads for them were limited to the technology, bullets and powder of the day. Newer chamberings take advantage of newer technology, but if the newer technology is applied to the older rounds they will often equal or beat the newer chamberings. At least come close enough to not matter.

Haxby
June 18, 2012, 09:11 PM
"dramatically different?"
No dramatic difference there.

meanmrmustard
June 18, 2012, 09:12 PM
They don't.

With modern loads there isn't enough difference between any of them to matter when bullets hit hide. With the best loads very few people can shoot well enough to ever notice any tiny bit of difference in trajectory.

Some are older rounds and traditional loads for them were limited to the technology, bullets and powder of the day. Newer chamberings take advantage of newer technology, but if the newer technology is applied to the older rounds they will often equal or beat the newer chamberings. At least come close enough to not matter.
Pish posh. Are you saying that the trajectory difference between the .308 Win and 300 win mag, bullet style and weight being equally, will have similar flight paths? I think not.

What chambering are you referring to that is antiquated but superior to modern loading with all else being equal? I'd love to hear this.

Haxby
June 18, 2012, 09:30 PM
I have no business speaking for jmr40, but if he was thinking of a 7X57 compared to a 7mm-08, or a 7X64 and a 280 Remington, or a 300 H&H and a 300 WSM, or a 8mm Brenneke and a 325 WSM, I'd say he has a good point.

meanmrmustard
June 18, 2012, 09:38 PM
I have no business speaking for jmr40, but if he was thinking of a 7X57 compared to a 7mm-08, or a 7X64 and a 280 Remington, or a 300 H&H and a 300 WSM, or a 8mm Brenneke and a 325 WSM, I'd say he has a good point.
In essence, correct. But his wording means to me, by your example, that a 7x57 vs a 7/08, with powders, brass, and bullets being equal, the elder chambering would be superior.

In a modern rifle with higher pressure tolerance, the 7x57 may indeed be better, but unnoticeably so and for higher cost. Basically, you'd need a modern rifle with a hot rod load to be only marginally better for more money per round. There is no point to be seen.

browningguy
June 18, 2012, 09:42 PM
Indeed Haxby, and you can add the classic 45-70 to that bunch.

So while I agree with that point I disagree that cartridge selection makes no difference because of modern technology. I'd still rather have a big heavy bullet for big gme hunting , and the bigger the beast the bigger the bullet I want. For example if hunting the bigger bears I would much prefer a 180 gr. 30-06 to a 130-140 gr. .270 Winchester, and a .250 gr. .338 Winchester wouldn't feel like too much gun.

saturno_v
June 18, 2012, 09:49 PM
Some are older rounds and traditional loads for them were limited to the technology, bullets and powder of the day. Newer chamberings take advantage of newer technology, but if the newer technology is applied to the older rounds they will often equal or beat the newer chamberings. At least come close enough to not matter.

Very good point...the 30-06 started life as a 150 gr. 2700 fps cartridge....nowadays the best 30-06 loadings, within pressure specs, surpass 3000 fps with the same 150 gr. pill....basically I do not see any practical difference between a 30-06 and the 300 Magnums (especially the 300 Win Mag) which came several decades later....

The supposedly new Short Magnum cartridges in reality rehash the idea (short fat case) introduced with the venerable 7,62x54R (the Mosin round) almost 120 years ago.

I believe that in terms of traditional ammunition technology (gunpowder and metallic case) technology has truly peaked......

Art Eatman
June 18, 2012, 10:19 PM
meanmrmustard, you look at the data for what are typically called "deer cartridges" and you won't see all that much difference in the common loadings.

Anything faster than a .30-30, except the really hot magnums: Zero for two inches high at 100 yards and you'll be right at dead-on at 200. About five or six inches low at 300. Roughly two feet low at 400, give or take a couple or three inches and about four-ish feet low at 500.

Sure, a 7mm or .300 maggie is gonna be a bit flatter, but not enough to really matter. An inch or so at 200 or 300 is too trivial to care about, assuming the shooter is halfway smart enough to learn how the silly thing shoots...

OrangePwrx9
June 19, 2012, 02:23 PM
Just seems like such a trivial difference between the size of these cartridges and their shell and powder...

Why do they perform differently, or dramatically different?
Because the devil's in the ballistic details:
--the .308 is inherently accurate
--the .270 shoots flat at longer ranges
--the .30-06 is the do-it-all big game cartridge that others are judged by

There's more to this than X grs. bullet weight over Y grs. of powder Z. The engineers know, but don't have time to explain/debate it all.

adelbridge
June 19, 2012, 02:33 PM
I truly believe that bullet construction/type mean more than caliber in most white tail or smaller game animals. I prefer .30 or larger because I want bigger blood trails. There are 100 different calibers because it make more business sense than hunting sense. Most anything larger than 30-30 is going to blow right through a deer without stopping, it all comes down to what the bullet does in that nanosecond it is in the animal.
I have my pets, I love 7mm rem mag and .30-06. Sometimes I bring two guns in the blind, one semi auto for close up and one bolt action for long range precision shots.

If you enjoyed reading about "8mm v. 7mm v. .308 v. .270, etc...." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!