someguy2800
Member
I would be interested in seeing a comparison of max range using your criteria of both 2200 ft/s and 1000 ft lbs in the X axis, and bullet weight in the Y axis.
Most "efficient" cartridge for each caliber?
- Thread starter Newtosavage
- Start date
- Status
I would be interested in seeing a comparison of max range using your criteria of both 2200 ft/s and 1000 ft lbs in the X axis, and bullet weight in the Y axis.
someguy2800
Member
Some of us like overanalyzing our choices based on analysis of subjective criteria. I bet I've spent 30 hours over the last week looking at fuel pumps for my race car.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,922
I’m not trying to rain on anyone’s parade here - I love this kind of applied mathematics. A big part of my career has been writing algorithms to arithmetically and statistically evaluate multivariate systems like this. But forgive me if I share my frustration in having observed the failing of application for 20+ years about these things. I’ve built and managed building of these kinds of “calculators” for optimization for a lot of different systems, and as many times as I’ve seen THIS system evaluated, the workflow has ended in the same place every time. I wish it didn’t. Nobody needs to take it personally when someone points out broken math when the conversation is “building math.”
The disappointing part in these discussions when they happen, really, is that multivariate cartridge selectors like this can be created with relatively simple empericisms. Just like a buzz feed quiz - give a 1-5 score to 5-7 parameters like game size, importance of long range reach, recoil tolerance, even nostalgia vs. neophytism, and a few qualitative preferences winnow a matrix of cartridges with assigned qualitative attributes - no math, just qualitative scoring - and we end up with basically the same result as the “mathematical comparisons” we can create. I really want the system to be able to be more definitive than that.
The disappointing part in these discussions when they happen, really, is that multivariate cartridge selectors like this can be created with relatively simple empericisms. Just like a buzz feed quiz - give a 1-5 score to 5-7 parameters like game size, importance of long range reach, recoil tolerance, even nostalgia vs. neophytism, and a few qualitative preferences winnow a matrix of cartridges with assigned qualitative attributes - no math, just qualitative scoring - and we end up with basically the same result as the “mathematical comparisons” we can create. I really want the system to be able to be more definitive than that.
Grumpy_old_Fart
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2021
- Messages
- 261
If you have experience in this, why don't you try your hand at it?
Then we can nitpick your work.
Wombat did at least make an effort.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,922
Why is it so hard for folks to accept that - THIS DOESN’T WORK. It doesn’t matter who writes the math, it always ends up the same, because nobody likes what the math says, so they change it so they like it better…
When you put science to it on a pure efficiency basis, you end up with cartridges nobody wants to use. So you manipulate the math subjectively to tweak the output into more favorable cartridges, and it ends up in the same over defined and subjective non-math. This thread perfectly outlines this practice, as it happens, every. single. time.
“Hey, let’s build a calculator to compare cartridge efficiency”
“Ok, the output shows small case, big bore, high pressure cartridges are most efficient.”
“Really? Well crap, I don’t want to use a small case, big bore cartridge. Ok, I know, I’ll start double counting variables like adding parameters for trajectory or downrange energy until I get a cartridge I like.”
“Ok, fine, but that doesn’t have anything to do with cartridge efficiency, does it?”
“No, but I like it more.”
Guys are getting butthurt like I kicked your mama in the shin… it really ain’t that. It’s just simple - the ask was for math, and the end ain’t math, just because nobody likes what the math has to say… so then pseudoscience is created which sure LOOKS LIKE math, but is really built upon double counted variables and subjective parameter restrictions just to get to the same outcome the user wanted without any math…
When you put science to it on a pure efficiency basis, you end up with cartridges nobody wants to use. So you manipulate the math subjectively to tweak the output into more favorable cartridges, and it ends up in the same over defined and subjective non-math. This thread perfectly outlines this practice, as it happens, every. single. time.
“Hey, let’s build a calculator to compare cartridge efficiency”
“Ok, the output shows small case, big bore, high pressure cartridges are most efficient.”
“Really? Well crap, I don’t want to use a small case, big bore cartridge. Ok, I know, I’ll start double counting variables like adding parameters for trajectory or downrange energy until I get a cartridge I like.”
“Ok, fine, but that doesn’t have anything to do with cartridge efficiency, does it?”
“No, but I like it more.”
Guys are getting butthurt like I kicked your mama in the shin… it really ain’t that. It’s just simple - the ask was for math, and the end ain’t math, just because nobody likes what the math has to say… so then pseudoscience is created which sure LOOKS LIKE math, but is really built upon double counted variables and subjective parameter restrictions just to get to the same outcome the user wanted without any math…
Last edited:
You are still confused. So what if I used the term "ethical"? Instead, I can call that "Maximum range at which the bullet will be traveling at 2,200 fps and with 1,000 ft-lbs of energy." There is nothing subjective about that. I presented a framework. Feel free to change the criteria. Why don't you do something constructive and describe the framework you use to determine whether one cartridge is better than another for a given application? You claim that there can be no objective analysis, so how do you decide? Flip a coin? Decide based on your feelings that day? Would you take a .204 ruger elk hunting (if it were legal)? If not, why not?
Let's focus on this part of your quote above: "When you put science to it on a pure efficiency basis, you end up with cartridges nobody wants to use." Except the analysis I presented fits well with the real world and what people actually buy. According to the analyses I presented, it appears that few rounds out perform the .308 win if you are at all concerned about recoil. That's one of the reasons the .308 has become popular (and of course the cheap surplus ammo when it was available).
The reason I presented charts is that there is always a tradeoff. You want to use a larger bore diameter? You'll have more recoil and less range. But how much? There is a reason that 7mm and 6.5mm cartridges are popular. The popular 6.5mms offer significantly greater range with less recoil than .308. Is the smaller diameter acceptable? Only you can decide that, but at least we can understand that tradeoff. The popular 7mms have more recoil than .308, but they offer a greater increase in range than .308. Is the greater range worth the increase in recoil and slightly smaller diameter? Only you can decide that.
Again, please describe the process you use to decide which cartridge to use for a given application.
Newtosavage
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2015
- Messages
- 2,918
Whenever there is a law of diminishing returns, as there is with cartridges (a lot more powder for slightly less performance) then it's up to the user to decide where the limit is for them. We do this with optics, automobiles, clothing, housing and lots of other things. So at least in my simple mind, for each bore diameter there is a point where each of us would say "that's my limit" depending on the variables that are important to us.
For shoulder fired firearms, recoil is always a consideration. So that's a pretty easy one to define, for each person.
Range is another one that is pretty easy to define. We all know, more or less, the ranges at which we intend to or are willing to shoot at our target.
Bullet weight is also fairly easy (but not as easy) for us to put a number on. Depending on the job at hand, there will likely be an acceptable range of bullet weights to get the work done.
After that, it gets a bit more murky but it's still entirely possible to develop a list of criteria that helps us identify the most effective or efficient cartridges that meet our needs. And if graphed out like Wombat has done, the cream will rise to the top.
For shoulder fired firearms, recoil is always a consideration. So that's a pretty easy one to define, for each person.
Range is another one that is pretty easy to define. We all know, more or less, the ranges at which we intend to or are willing to shoot at our target.
Bullet weight is also fairly easy (but not as easy) for us to put a number on. Depending on the job at hand, there will likely be an acceptable range of bullet weights to get the work done.
After that, it gets a bit more murky but it's still entirely possible to develop a list of criteria that helps us identify the most effective or efficient cartridges that meet our needs. And if graphed out like Wombat has done, the cream will rise to the top.
Here you go.
The most interesting thing here is how the 200 gr. .338" bullet is "inefficient" in terms of the tradeoff between bullet weight and range. I used the BC of Nosler Accubonds for all bullets. I used the velocity for the second fastest powder listed in Nosler's load data (unless Nosler's data looked weird when I cross-checked it with Hodgdon; for example Nosler publishes much higher velocities for .35 Whelen than any other source). When compared with the 225 gr bullet, the 200 gr .338 bullet gives you less mass and the range is the same (in the .338-06) or less (.338WM).
The second interesting thing for me is looking at the slope of these lines. If the slope of a line is pretty flat (like .308, 6.5-06, and 6.5 creed) then you gain significant range for a small decrease in mass. A cartridge with a relatively steep line presents a greater tradeoff. So one interpretation is the those with a relatively flat slope may be better with a bullet at the lighter end and those with a relatively steep slope (.300WM, .30-06, 7mms, .270) might be better with a heavier bullet. I'd need to think about this a bit more.
Also, note that the 7mmRM and .280ai dots are on top of each other.
This is less interesting to me than the charts that incorporate recoil. I'm not terribly recoil sensitive. I hunt whitetail with a .300WM because why not? But, if we ignore recoil, why not hunt with a .50BMG or .338 Lapua? You want to launch a heavy bullet a long ways? You're going to pay for that with a lot of recoil or lugging a heavy rifle.
Last edited:
Newtosavage
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2015
- Messages
- 2,918
Interesting that you have the 7mm-08 listed at 1000 ft. lbs. at just 350 yards. That has not been my experience at all, and I've loaded and shot the cartridge for many years now. Even at sea level, 1k ft. lbs. is easy to obtain at 400 and 500 yards with factory loadings. Also, as bullet weights increase with the 7mm-08, generally that range is extended, not reduced. So the slope of your lines is throwing me off a bit.
Maybe I wasn't clear about "Max Ethical Range." That is the maximum range at which the bullet will have at least 2,200 fps AND 1,000 ft-lbs. It is the velocity requirement that is limiting the "Max Ethical Range" of the 7mm-08. Here's how it works out.
I misreported my methodology earlier. I used the third fastest powder on Nosler's website (not the second) unless Nosler's data looked very different from Hodgdon's. Also, remember I'm restricting this to SD >0.249. So here's what I have for 7mm-08:
150 gr Accubond: SD = 0.266, MV = 2,802, BC = 0.493
160 gr Accubond: SD = 0.283, MV = 2,723, BC = 0.531
I used that data with Hornady's online ballistic calculator to estimate velocity and energy at 25 yard intervals out to 1,000 yards. Double-checking myself just now with the Hornady calculator, the 150 gr Accubond has 2,189 fps at 350 yards (and 1,595 ft-lbs) of energy. The energy is 999 ft-lbs at 650 yards, but the velocity is down to 1,732 fps.
Now this is where Varminterror jumps in and says "See, this is all subjective. Told ya so." No, the analysis is not subjective. You can change the cutoff to wherever you are comfortable, but there is a real difference in bullet performance based on impact velocity. I chose 2,200 fps as the minimum impact velocity I'm willing to accept because I want to ensure significant expansion. Here is the diagram from Nosler's website for Accubond bullets:
Given that there is variation from bullet to bullet and I'm assuming that Nosler probably didn't show us worst case expansion at each velocity, then it's likely that some percentage of the time one would see less expansion at each of these velocities. Therefore, I'm not confident in much or any expansion below 2,000 fps and I added 200 fps for insurance.
Newtosavage
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2015
- Messages
- 2,918
Of course. I see what I missed now - the velocity threshold. Thank you for clarifying.
My threshold for velocity with cup and core bullets is closer to 2k and monos is 2200. My guess is monos are more consistent from bullet to bullet but I don't know that for sure.
But that is aside from the real point here which is there are differences in cartridges that can be measured, and a person CAN establish some reasonable criteria by which they can tease out the best cartridge for their needs. Or at the very least, compare multiple cartridges objectively.
Here's an attempt at a chart of bullet weight vs. range that incorporates colors to denote recoil level.
10 ft-lb ranges are a bit big, but too many different colors would be too busy (as if this isn't already pretty busy). For example, .338-06 and .35 Whelen are falling into two different recoil ranges, but the .35 Whelen has only a few ft-lbs more recoil.
10 ft-lb ranges are a bit big, but too many different colors would be too busy (as if this isn't already pretty busy). For example, .338-06 and .35 Whelen are falling into two different recoil ranges, but the .35 Whelen has only a few ft-lbs more recoil.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,922
That happens because the system is over defined and has 2200 or 2000fps impact velocity AND 1000ft.lbs. It’s a trivial parameter restriction which obviously favors larger cartridges - double counting velocity because the restricting parameters of 2000-2200fps is velocity and 1000ft.lbs. is velocity squared times bullet weight. When you restrict velocity as a parameter limit, then only bullet weight remains variable…
Worse still, we recognize that using kinetic energy as a parameter already double counts velocity, in largely a meaningless way. Velocity squared. Recognizing real world collisions do not conserve kinetic energy, or energy at all. Rather MOMENTUM is conserved. So when we have a parameter of KE which already double counts velocity coupled with a velocity minima, a triple count, then the system becomes triply restricted when we apply limits to BOTH of these interdependent variables.
So while the 7-08 has 1000ft.lbs. at greater distances, it must not have the speed in his selections.
This is one of the examples of my criticisms which simply can’t be rectified.
@wombat13 - I’ve said this over and over: this math always ends up subjective and/or over defined. This is an example where a relatively subjective choice (which eliminates well proven successful cartridges from viability) for objective parameter inputs compounds with a double counting of a given parameter. It’s overdefined, so it inevitably excludes proven cartridges, in an effort to structure the math to output something you like instead of truly objective analysis. Classic cardstacking, whether intentional or not - which in this case, it appears is accidental.
It’s not wholly meaningless, and the work isn’t bad work. It’s just not as meaningful as the pretty presentation appears to offer, and the interdependence of variables and parameters used as independent variables undermines the output quality.
Last edited:
Yes, that's exactly correct. My minimum velocity requirement is the limiting factor for all of these cartridges, because we are looking at relatively heavy bullets (SD > 0.249). If you drop the velocity requirement to 2,000 fps, you'll increase the "max ethical range" for all the cartridges, but it will increase more for those that shoot relative high BC bullets (e.g., the 6.5mms and 7mms).
I'd be happy to do that, but I don't have time today. I have to re-run the Hornady ballistic calculator for each load which takes a couple of hours.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,922
Incorporating your own drag model in excel can be quite quick. Even a very simple single BC formula can get you within the hunt - less than 50yrds error at 1000+ for velocity output, typically. Then you can quickly goal-seek (write a macro to do so if that’s your thing) to allow a threshold velocity range output.
Where you're wrong is that you are interpreting what I've posted about Elk loads, but this framework is applicable more generally. I've done this analysis for Deer Loads, with a sectional density between 0.210 and 0.269. In that case, some loads are limited by energy and some (most) by velocity.
Also, I recognize the problems with energy. That's why one of the charts I posted specifically looks at momentum. Slow down and actually look at what's posted.
I developed an excel drag model for my own handloads. I use the distance/velocity data published by the manufacturer. Then I use my measure MV and can estimate my trajectory and wind drift at any range for my own loads.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,922
What is being posted isn’t so complex to be difficult to understand. The underlying math is high sophomore year high school physics. But the variables you’re presenting in almost every case are not independent. It’s not a personal insult to you, I’m not slapping your mother to point that out, it’s just a fact about the math being done.
The fastest trick in the book for evaluating this kind of analysis: observe the basic units of the slopes of the lines such as those displayed in these last posts. When you end up with indefensible simplified basic units, the relevancy is apparent.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,922
Having that in hand, just roll it into your sheet for this analysis. Eliminate the “few hours” of work you mention for running the Hornady calculator - just embed your own, so you can update one velocity minima cell to update all of the output used in the scatter plots.
Macchina
Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 998
Reading through most of this thread, I have found in my quest for the perfect rifle that it always lies somewhere in the middle. Many seem to agree with this.
For example, 30 caliber:
Ultra efficient is not very effective on game (look at the new 30 Carry in a rifle for this example).
Ultra effective is not very efficient (300 Rem Ultra Mag) and has gone way too far in the other direction.
Somewhere in the middle exists the 30 caliber I am happy with. I picked 30-06 as nostalgia is also important to me in that decision as it was what my Grandpa used and I used that rifle while he was still alive. This is actually my most powerful rifle, so moving up the effectiveness scale (from say .308) gives me a rifle that adds capability to my hunting collection instead of duplicating a role my 7mm-08 already fills.
My main deer rifles are a Ruger 77/357 and a Marlin 1894 in 44 Mag. I hunt thick woods so long range rifles (lightweight bullets at high speed) for these hunts reduces their effectiveness on game at close ranges. I lost a deer to a high speed rifle at 20 yards that I shot in the chest and shoulder 4 times and it got away into a swamp I could not track it through. This is a variable not found in efficiency calculations, however an efficient (high bullet weight, low charge weight) cartridge is proven to be more effective on close shots on game. I find these cartridges in a rifle are not actually at the bottom of effectiveness as their 17 and 24 grain charges of H110 would imply. Power-wise they are in the mid-range of power (1200 ft-lbs and 1700 ft-lbs) and are extremely effective on deer under 150 yards. My rifles are 6 pounds and 7 pounds scoped.
I find this has also become true for me in shotguns. I have found the 20ga 1oz game load at 1220 FPS to perform exactly the same as the 12ga 1-1/8oz game load. I can carry a pound lighter gun (20ga guns are especially lighter in double barrels), noticeably smaller and lighter ammo, and in the hunt actually be slightly more efficient because of the slightly lighter load. I where I hunt small game, I'll walk miles of forest and it is noticeable.
For example, 30 caliber:
Ultra efficient is not very effective on game (look at the new 30 Carry in a rifle for this example).
Ultra effective is not very efficient (300 Rem Ultra Mag) and has gone way too far in the other direction.
Somewhere in the middle exists the 30 caliber I am happy with. I picked 30-06 as nostalgia is also important to me in that decision as it was what my Grandpa used and I used that rifle while he was still alive. This is actually my most powerful rifle, so moving up the effectiveness scale (from say .308) gives me a rifle that adds capability to my hunting collection instead of duplicating a role my 7mm-08 already fills.
My main deer rifles are a Ruger 77/357 and a Marlin 1894 in 44 Mag. I hunt thick woods so long range rifles (lightweight bullets at high speed) for these hunts reduces their effectiveness on game at close ranges. I lost a deer to a high speed rifle at 20 yards that I shot in the chest and shoulder 4 times and it got away into a swamp I could not track it through. This is a variable not found in efficiency calculations, however an efficient (high bullet weight, low charge weight) cartridge is proven to be more effective on close shots on game. I find these cartridges in a rifle are not actually at the bottom of effectiveness as their 17 and 24 grain charges of H110 would imply. Power-wise they are in the mid-range of power (1200 ft-lbs and 1700 ft-lbs) and are extremely effective on deer under 150 yards. My rifles are 6 pounds and 7 pounds scoped.
I find this has also become true for me in shotguns. I have found the 20ga 1oz game load at 1220 FPS to perform exactly the same as the 12ga 1-1/8oz game load. I can carry a pound lighter gun (20ga guns are especially lighter in double barrels), noticeably smaller and lighter ammo, and in the hunt actually be slightly more efficient because of the slightly lighter load. I where I hunt small game, I'll walk miles of forest and it is noticeable.
Last edited:
someguy2800
Member
Thanks! I was expecting to see a hook shaped curve like the 338. I think in all those cartridges there will be a point where the lighter bullets loose range because your trading ballistic coefficient for muzzle velocity. Say if you went from like 220 to 125 grain in 30-06, or from 100 to 160 grain in 7mm-08. I think that would be a good visual of what bullet weight balances muzzle velocity with staying in the expansion window of the bullets in each cartridge.
I don’t particularly care about recoil in a hunting rifle, it just doesn’t bother me, but I don’t like overly heavy or long rifles so I kind of draw the line on max cartridge size when it mean I need a heavier rifle to house it. I have 2 338’s, the only reason I don’t have a 375 ruger is because it’s another pound heavier than my 338
I never claimed that this was complicated and I'd be happy to learn something new. Would you explain what you mean by the last couple sentences above and use an example from what I posted?
someguy2800
Member
I said this on another thread in here once but I can find a fondness for pretty much any rifle that needs a powder in the burn rate between CFE BLK and 4350. If it needs reloader 19 or slower to reach its full potential I’m probably not interested in it. And I will always choose big and heavy and wide whenever the range reasonably allows for it. I’ve been disappoint by small and fast, but big and slow has never let me down in term of terminal affect. I definitely relate to your story about loosing the deer in the swamp. Finding deer in the tall slough grass where I hunt is like finding a needle in a haystack. Above all else I need a blood trail.
My first center-fire rifle was an M1 Garand. My second center-fire rifle, and first proper big game rifle was a .300WM. I then started amassing different powders in the appropriate burn rate range for .300WM as I got into handloading. Now I kind of find myself financially committed to cartridges in that burn rate range. So I gravitate to rounds like .25-06, .280ai, etc. Luckily 6.5 creed overlaps in powders with those for .30-06 to .300WM, so I might pick up one of those.
I'd rather be focused on cartridges that are in the .30-06 burn rate range and faster.
- Status
