Find the flaw in my logic .300wm vs .338wm (Benelli R1)

[luv2safari]

Ok, gentlepeoples, I guess I'll put it this way, with the readily available components, is the .338 truly more gooderer enough to stand out against the .300 decisively? I've yet to see this and having used my brother's .338 am having a hard time truly seeing the benefits when it's (to me) noticeably more obnoxious and the components don't seem to be as readily available....also, I know the .338 CAN be utilized for smaller game, but again, the components favor the .300wm so is there enough "awesome" that I'm missing to justify it? A .250 .338 has an SD of .313, a 212 .30 is .319, and s.d. isn't the only deciding factor but they help illustrate "heavy for caliber", 265 accubonds and 275 aframes aren't obtainable at the moment from what I can find. So currently, it's going to require much more effort to get the mostest out of the heavy end of the .338 and without the heavy end, what’s it really have over a premium .300 wm load? That's what I'm not understanding? 200+ gr are in the "plenty heavy" district with proper bullets so is the .03" diameter really that big of a difference? Admittedly I've never seen a reason for anything from .300 to .35/.375??? (I.e. .325 .338, .35 anything)

Have you ever shot anything big and dangerous?

 

[someguy2800]

Ok, gentlepeoples, I guess I'll put it this way, with the readily available components, is the .338 truly more gooderer enough to stand out against the .300 decisively? I've yet to see this and having used my brother's .338 am having a hard time truly seeing the benefits when it's (to me) noticeably more obnoxious and the components don't seem to be as readily available....also, I know the .338 CAN be utilized for smaller game, but again, the components favor the .300wm so is there enough "awesome" that I'm missing to justify it? A .250 .338 has an SD of .313, a 212 .30 is .319, and s.d. isn't the only deciding factor but they help illustrate "heavy for caliber", 265 accubonds and 275 aframes aren't obtainable at the moment from what I can find. So currently, it's going to require much more effort to get the mostest out of the heavy end of the .338 and without the heavy end, what’s it really have over a premium .300 wm load? That's what I'm not understanding? 200+ gr are in the "plenty heavy" district with proper bullets so is the .03" diameter really that big of a difference? Admittedly I've never seen a reason for anything from .300 to .35/.375??? (I.e. .325 .338, .35 anything)

I would have to say I think they are both going to be well on the side of adequate when properly loaded. As Craig noted I don't believe the nonsense argument that 375 is better than 30, but 338 isn't, but you have to draw the line somewhere. I would personally pick 338 even knowing its going to make my life more difficult and expensive than it needs to be, but I couldn't argue in good faith that 300 isn't good enough.

Lets say for sake of argument that we want to pick one bullet for each to go to alaska to hunt. Lets pretend we know that we are going to need to shoot a grizzly bear who is not thrilled with our presence at 50 yards, and the next day we are going to need to shoot a trophy caribou at 500 yards. Are we going to bring one load for both of those hunts or are we going to have two loads and prepare ahead of time to be able to switch from one to the other?

What bullets would you want to have in the 300 win mag when the grizzly bear is close enough to smell? Looking at what's available in 200+ grain 308 bullets I would say a 200 or 220 grain nosler partition, 200 grain Swift A frame, 200 grain Norma Orynx, 220 grain Sierra pro hunter, 200 and 210 grain barnes LRX. Those are all probably okay but I think I would be nervous about the barnes because I have not had great experiences with copper bullets. Now the next day we want to shoot our caribou at 500 yards. Are any of the previously mentioned bullets a good choice for that? Most of them have terrible ballistic coefficients. There are lots of heavy pointy 308 bullets that would be fine for the caribou, but options that I would want to use for both are pretty slim. The only 2 bullets I see over 200 grains that are of tough construction and have a good BC are the 210 grain barnes and maybe the 210 grain accubond long range though I think that will be pretty lightly constructed for the impact velocity at close range. The nolser 200 grain partition or 200 A frame would be decent but pretty mediocre BC for long range shooting. Most of them are either soft frangible bullets like an ELDx or Berger, or they are on the lightish side and will be going way over 3000 fps at the muzzle, which is not what I really want for the bear. I think a two bullet plan would probably be best for the 300 win mag, which means having two different zero's. Not a huge deal, but something to consider.

Looking at 338 bullets, I think the Nosler accubond in 250, (or 265 if you could get them) become reasonable choices for bear because the muzzle velocity will be a lot lower than 300 win mag. Nosler Partition in 225 or 250, Nosler E tip in 225 and 250, Barnes 225, 250, and 265 grain options, the 225 Hornady CX, Swift A frame in 225, 250, and 275gr, and maybe the Sciracco in 210gr, Speer grand slam 250, Norma Orynx in 230. Which of those are good choices for both? I think the accubonds would be excellent. The Sciracco would be good but a little on the light side for the bear. The barnes Nosler E tip and Hornady CX would be okay if you are okay with copper bullets. The partitions, A frames, or Speer grand slam would be fine but not the greatest BC so I would have to check to see if they would stay in their expansion window out to 500 yards.

So in my assessment if you want a single load to do it all I think 338 has a little more flexibility. If you are okay with having two specialized loads and two scope zero's they both have workable options. I went through this thought experiment myself and came up with 375 ruger loaded with 260 gr accubonds because it also enables hunting in coutries with a .375" requirement. If the 265 grain 338 accubonds were actually available and I could buy 500+ of them I think I would have probably went with the 338.

 

[horsey300]

I would have to say I think they are both going to be well on the side of adequate when properly loaded. As Craig noted I don't believe the nonsense argument that 375 is better than 30, but 338 isn't, but you have to draw the line somewhere. I would personally pick 338 even knowing its going to make my life more difficult and expensive than it needs to be, but I couldn't argue in good faith that 300 isn't good enough.

Lets say for sake of argument that we want to pick one bullet for each to go to alaska to hunt. Lets pretend we know that we are going to need to shoot a grizzly bear who is not thrilled with our presence at 50 yards, and the next day we are going to need to shoot a trophy caribou at 500 yards. Are we going to bring one load for both of those hunts or are we going to have two loads and prepare ahead of time to be able to switch from one to the other?

What bullets would you want to have in the 300 win mag when the grizzly bear is close enough to smell? Looking at what's available in 200+ grain 308 bullets I would say a 200 or 220 grain nosler partition, 200 grain Swift A frame, 200 grain Norma Orynx, 220 grain Sierra pro hunter, 200 and 210 grain barnes LRX. Those are all probably okay but I think I would be nervous about the barnes because I have not had great experiences with copper bullets. Now the next day we want to shoot our caribou at 500 yards. Are any of the previously mentioned bullets a good choice for that? Most of them have terrible ballistic coefficients. There are lots of heavy pointy 308 bullets that would be fine for the caribou, but the option that I would want to use for both are pretty slim. The only 2 bullets I see over 200 grains, are of tough construction, and have a good BC are the 210 grain barnes and maybe the 210 grain accubond long range though I think that will be pretty lightly constructed for the impact velocity at close range. The nolser 200 grain partition or 200 A frame would be decentb but not a great BC for long range shooting. Most of them are either soft frangible bullet like an ELDx or Berger, or they are on the lightish side and will be going way over 3000 fps at the muzzle, which is not what I really want for the bear. I think a two bullet plan would probably be best for the 300 win mag, which means having two different zero's. Not a huge deal, but something to consider.

Looking at 225+ 338, I think the Nosler accubond in 250, (or 265 if you could get them) become reasonable choices for bear because the muzzle velocity will be a lot lower than 300, Nosler Partition in 225 or 250, Barnes 225, 250, and 265 grain options, the 225 Hornady CX, Swift A frame in 225, 250, and 275gr, and maybe the Sciracco in 210gr, Speer grand slam 250, Norma Orynx in 230. Which of those are good choices for both? I think the accubonds would be excellent. The Sciracco would be good but a little on the light side for the bear. The barnes and Hornady CX would be okay if you are okay with copper bullets. The partitions, A frames, or Speer grand slam would be fine but not the greatest BC so I would have to check to see if they would stay in their expansion window out to 500 yards.

So in my assessment if you want a single load to do it all I think 338 has a little more flexibility. If you are okay with having two specialized loads and two scope zero's they both have workable options. I went through this thought experiment myself and came up with 375 ruger. If the 265 grain 338 accubonds were actually available and I could buy 500+ of them I think I would probably go with the 338.

Thanks for that perspective! And yes, like I said, the .375 is a have to go for me too. Really for the long range lighter game shots, that "should" be fairly doable with the other rifles available, the .375, 6.5, .270wsm, and 7stw should cover those bases well enough if we each take a pair (me with the 7 and .375) and her with the r1 (.270wsm and .3xx) then all the bases should be covered well enough, in the .300wm we're looking at the 220 prohunter, 212 monos (barnes and Hornady), the 200 gr oryx, and 200 gr aframe.

 

[CraigC]

A couple posts up he says that tissue is damaged by bullets, not energy. He has stated that a number of times over the many years we have been on here, That energy doesn't matter at all. If he backtracks that is a step in the right direction. I am not responding anymore to senseless contrarianism and twisted arguments. He also claims that energy was a falsehood started by Roy Weatherby and gun makers for marketing. Really. Pretty much excludes all history of ballistics since the invention of smokeless powder. Have it your way, I don't care. If the earth is flat for you guys, who am I to care. Also you claimed that I said the opposite of what I said.

I really don't have a clue where you're coming form. What I've said and what you think I've said seem to be two very different things.

I didn't post in this thread to be contrary. I posted in this thread because JMR is wrong and the reasoning is entirely illogical.

In the equation to calculate energy, velocity is squared. Not doubled or tripled but squared. Weight is not. That tells us something. I'll say it again, energy is only useful as a marketing tool for selling velocity.

Case in point, the vaunted .30-06.

150gr at 3100fps = 3200ft-lbs.
220gr at 2400fps = 2800ft-lbs.

That's 400lbs in favor of the lighter bullet. If the 150 is only good for deer but the 220gr is good for any and all on the North American continent and much of Africa, of what use is the energy calculation? It ain't worth jack spit.

Either way the argument makes no sense. A 250gr .338 at 2600fps produces over 900ft-lbs more energy. If you believe in energy figures, why is it not considered a bigger hammer?

Meanwhile, a 300gr .44 at 1450fps produces 1400ft-lbs. Exactly half that of the 220gr .30-06 but is more suitable to critters like this than any .30 caliber rifle. Does it not at least tell us to question the validity of energy as a means to measure terminal effect?

 

[35 Whelen]

I already have an R1, looking at getting a new barrel, ideally this will be capable of going to Alaska with me some day, and many outfitters advertise that they require a minimum .300 win mag (need to actually talk to a few to see how they feel about 7mmstw). This brings it down to .300 vs .338, I don't actually care for either cartridge. That being said, I have never found an instance, hunting, that couldn't be solved by the .300 that the .338 would have solved betterer, especially with bonded/partition/monometal bullets.... soooo is there any REAL reason to go .338? This will only be shot enough to stay proficient, not a regular use rifle.

If you've never found an instance where the .338 was better than the .300, which indicates you have experience with both, then it sounds like you need to use the .300.

At one time I owned 30-06, 338-06 and 35 Whelen at the same time. The more I looked at the numbers and actually shot each of them the more I was convinced the 338 and 35 offered zero advantage and were in fact a disadvantage. You can shoot 200-220 gr loads in the 30-06 while 225-250 gr loads were commonly used in the 33's and 35's.

With similar bullet weights the 33's and 35's are a little faster at the muzzle and show more energy at close range, but the more aerodynamic 30's catch up somewhere around 200 yards. And similar bullet weights in 30 caliber penetrate deeper.

A .358 bullet is less than the thickness of a dime greater in diameter than a .308 bullet. A .338 is roughly 1/2 the thickness of a dime. They don't make a bigger hole. At least not enough to matter if you look at a dime's thickness.

The same logic applies to 300 mag vs 338 and 350 magnums as well as 308 vs 338 Fed and 358.

An article written by Finn Aagard sealed the deal for me. Aagard was a well-respected African PH and gun writer. He tested just about every cartridge ever made on large non-dangerous game in Africa and concluded that 30-06 or 300 WM when loaded heavy outperformed cartridges such as 338 WM, 35 Whelen, and 45-70. He saw no gains in performance over 30-06 until he got to 375 H&H.

In his testing 300 WM and 30-06 tied. The 300 only offered more performance at longer ranges.

When I was a teenager and new at hunting, I spent countless hours poring over the ballistics tables in the back of my dad's Sierra reloading manual. I was obsessed with bullet energy and such. Then as time passed and I actually shot game, including game such as elk, I realized that "numbers" are pretty meaningless. Killing things with revolvers and cartridges whose bullet energies were less than 500 ft. lbs. really re-enforced the fact that bullet energy doesn't kill anything. If you don't understand the advantages of larger diameter bullets where killing game is concerned, then you haven't spent enough time in the field.

That said, I'd really like to know how one cartridge firing a smaller diameter, lighter weight bullet can "outperform" a bullet of larger diameter and weight when both are running the same velocity. I'm especially curious how a 30-06 outperformed a .338 Winchester. I guess I've read every article written by Finn Aagaard in Handloader and Rifle magazines and I sure don't recall him coming to that conclusion.

35W

 

[luv2safari]

If you've never found an instance where the .338 was better than the .300, which indicates you have experience with both, then it sounds like you need to use the .300.




When I was a teenager and new at hunting, I spent countless hours poring over the ballistics tables in the back of my dad's Sierra reloading manual. I was obsessed with bullet energy and such. Then as time passed and I actually shot game, including game such as elk, I realized that "numbers" are pretty meaningless. Killing things with revolvers and cartridges whose bullet energies were less than 500 ft. lbs. really re-enforced the fact that bullet energy doesn't kill anything. If you don't understand the advantages of larger diameter bullets where killing game is concerned, then you haven't spent enough time in the field.

That said, I'd really like to know how one cartridge firing a smaller diameter, lighter weight bullet can "outperform" a bullet of larger diameter and weight when both are running the same velocity. I'm especially curious how a 30-06 outperformed a .338 Winchester. I guess I've read every article written by Finn Aagaard in Handloader and Rifle magazines and I sure don't recall him coming to that conclusion.

35W

I love the 30-06.

That being said, the 30-06 might eventually kill the bear that killed you, where a 338 with proper bullet might just have stopped it.

I have a badly damaged back because another hunter used a capable round for his Masailand buffalo, but he used a stout TOO LIGHT bullet. I finished the job with a bigger bore and a proper bullet for the Original task, killing the buffalo that fell on me. When cutting up the buffalo for the locals to dry into biltong we saw the four wound channels from the too light bullets. They all deflected within the big tough animal, where the one shot from the 416, a high spine shot straight oncoming, ran the complete length of the spine.

Also, and handgunners often don't like this, shock plays an important role in stopping an animal. I do admire handgun hunters who use a proper tool and have refined skills. I've used a handgun once on a mule deer hunt, using my Ruger Blackhawk 6.5" 41 magnum, and it killed the deer with a 210gr SP heart/lung shot. I'd rather do it with a HP rifle, however.

Trying to convince me that a smaller diameter bullet is "just as good" as a larger diameter bullet, all being equal otherwise, is folly.

 

[BreechFace]

Meanwhile, a 300gr .44 at 1450fps produces 1400ft-lbs. Exactly half that of the 220gr .30-06 but is more suitable to critters like this than any .30 caliber rifle. Does it not at least tell us to question the validity of energy as a means to measure terminal effect?

I'm serious in this question, I'm not being rhetorical. You believe that your 300gr 44 at 1450fps and 1400ft/lbs has a better chance at taking that water buffalo than a 30-06 240gr Woodleigh (the bullet I would probably lean towards for something of that nature)?

You are much more experienced in such things than I. I've recently found a new found respect for large bore cartridges since some short range hunting 80-120yards with the 450 Bushmaster.

 

[CraigC]

Also, and handgunners often don't like this, shock plays an important role in stopping an animal. I do admire handgun hunters who use a proper tool and have refined skills. I've used a handgun once on a mule deer hunt, using my Ruger Blackhawk 6.5" 41 magnum, and it killed the deer with a 210gr SP heart/lung shot. I'd rather do it with a HP rifle, however.

Shock does play a role. It's the one thing handguns lack. It's why we have to poke a big hole and let the critter bleed out. Big bore revolvers and cast bullets work with boring regularity but it's usually not instant. Aptly desribed as, "like bowhunting with more noise". I think this is the reason why many rifle hunters have the misconception that they don't work well, no bang-flops.

I'm serious in this question, I'm not being rhetorical. You believe that your 300gr 44 at 1450fps and 1400ft/lbs has a better chance at taking that water buffalo than a 30-06 240gr Woodleigh (the bullet I would probably lean towards for something of that nature)?

You are much more experienced in such things than I. I've recently found a new found respect for large bore cartridges since some short range hunting 80-120yards with the 450 Bushmaster.

I believe the big bore revolver gives up nothing but range. If it smashes the shoulder, blasts through the heart/lungs and is found under the side on the off side, what more can we ask for? As the post above alludes to, a rifle might end it quicker due to "hydro-static shock" or whatever you want to call it but the result is the same. On something that big though, there is such a massive volume of blood, the blood pressure and heart rate are so low, it's still going to take time for the effects to be seen. Cape buffalo have been known to absorb multiple big bore rifle hits and not even react.

Some folks will want to argue with this but with the right bullet, the .450BM is a proper dangerous game cartridge. There's nothing on earth you couldn't take with the 300gr Lehigh WFN or 325gr Barnes Buster.

 

[someguy2800]

I got into big bore hard cast with my 444 marlin. I shoot a 320 gr flat nose Montana Bullet Works bullet at 2200 fps and it is absolutely without question the most terminally effective thing I've ever shot an animal with. I tried to capture one in milk jugs once and it went through 10 gallon water jugs and the poplar log I put behind them. It penetrated 4 feet of this guy below and kept on going. I would absolutely trust it to break bone and penetrate deeper than any jacketed expanding bullet. The only limitation is range. Point blank range +/- 2" is like 175 yards. I zero most of my rifles at 100, but I zero this one an inch high at 100 which is like a 125 yard zero and about 5 or 6" low at 200. Anything past that I would really need to use a range finder and dial, and hold for wind but I typically use it for swamp white tails where shots are 50 yards or so. The farthest I've shot anything with it was 240 yards.

 

[wombat13]

How about putting it in %'s? If using a controlled expansion bullet, all things being equal and assuming that all the cartridges will give adequate penetration given their SD, does the below provide a different way to look at it?

a 13% increase in frontal diameter is not nothing when going up from 30 cal to 338.

I do enjoy large caliber straws with my thick malted milkshakes...mmmm, extra malt! 13% can be the difference of passing out before getting any malt to my tastebuds.

View attachment 1187780

Frontal area increases with the square of radius. The .338 is 9.7% larger in diameter but 20.4% larger in frontal area. If they expand the same amount (e.g., 1.5x, 2x, etc.) then the .338 will make a 20% larger hole.

 

[wombat13]

I'll say it again, energy is only useful as a marketing tool for selling velocity.

This is way overstating any case you have and ignores physics. Energy is the ability to do work. Work is Force x Distance. Arguing that energy is not the only or even the most useful measure of cartridge capability is fine, but to say it is only a marketing tool is just ridiculous.

Edited to add: I agree that there is a lot more to terminal effectiveness than energy, but it is not a useless measure.

 

[BreechFace]

Frontal area increases with the square of radius. The .338 is 9.7% larger in diameter but 20.4% larger in frontal area. If they expand the same amount (e.g., 1.5x, 2x, etc.) then the .338 will make a 20% larger hole.

Even better way of putting it than just caliber. As the area of a circle increasing is an even greater example of the improvement of larger calibers.

 

[wombat13]

If energy is a useless calculation and heavy and slow is just as good, why not kill big critters by throwing a bowling ball at them? A 16 lb. bowling thrown at 4 ft/sec has the same momentum as the 300 gr .44 at 1,400 ft/sec.

 

[AJC1]

At one time I owned 30-06, 338-06 and 35 Whelen at the same time. The more I looked at the numbers and actually shot each of them the more I was convinced the 338 and 35 offered zero advantage and were in fact a disadvantage. You can shoot 200-220 gr loads in the 30-06 while 225-250 gr loads were commonly used in the 33's and 35's.

With similar bullet weights the 33's and 35's are a little faster at the muzzle and show more energy at close range, but the more aerodynamic 30's catch up somewhere around 200 yards. And similar bullet weights in 30 caliber penetrate deeper.

A .358 bullet is less than the thickness of a dime greater in diameter than a .308 bullet. A .338 is roughly 1/2 the thickness of a dime. They don't make a bigger hole. At least not enough to matter if you look at a dime's thickness.

The same logic applies to 300 mag vs 338 and 350 magnums as well as 308 vs 338 Fed and 358.

An article written by Finn Aagard sealed the deal for me. Aagard was a well-respected African PH and gun writer. He tested just about every cartridge ever made on large non-dangerous game in Africa and concluded that 30-06 or 300 WM when loaded heavy outperformed cartridges such as 338 WM, 35 Whelen, and 45-70. He saw no gains in performance over 30-06 until he got to 375 H&H.

In his testing 300 WM and 30-06 tied. The 300 only offered more performance at longer ranges.

Why would 45-70 be the benchmark for comparison not 458 mag. Did the 45 caliber need to be hamstrung but 60 years of innovation to be removed?

 

[CraigC]

This is way overstating any case you have and ignores physics. Energy is the ability to do work. Work is Force x Distance. Arguing that energy is not the only or even the most useful measure of cartridge capability is fine, but to say it is only a marketing tool is just ridiculous.

Edited to add: I agree that there is a lot more to terminal effectiveness than energy, but it is not a useless measure.

No it isn't, look at the examples I gave. What do the energy figures in the .30-06 examples tell you? Absolutely nothing. Using energy to somehow quantify how effective a cartridge is ignores physics because it is a gross over simplification.

Until we are able to distinguish how much energy is used to destroy tissue, versus what is simply absorbed by the body, lost in heat and friction and subsequently on the dirt on the far side, the total generated at the muzzle is meaningless.

Velocity is squared. Mass is not. Diameter, sectional density and construction are ignored. If you want to sell velocity, energy is a very good tool in doing that.

If energy is a useless calculation and heavy and slow is just as good, why not kill big critters by throwing a bowling ball at them? A 16 lb. bowling thrown at 4 ft/sec has the same momentum as the 300 gr .44 at 1,400 ft/sec.

Then why not use tiny bullets at unbelievable speed for elephant??? Both concepts are grossly simplistic and ignore the most important factors. Momentum, sectional density, bullet shape and construction, etc.. There has to be enough velocity to get the job done but there also has to be a properly shaped, properly constructed bullet of appropriate diameter and weight, specifically the balance of weight and diameter, i.e. sectional density.

 

[wombat13]

There is no one metric that is commonly published that we can use to determine the best cartridge for a given game animal, imho. I think a useful approach is to answer a few questions:

1. How much killing will the critter require? A whole lot of killing will dictate a large diameter bullet with a high sectional density. Very little killing needed allows use of a small diameter, low sectional density bullet.

2. Once we know the bullet we want to use, how fast does it need to impact to allow for full expansion (assuming we are using expanding bullets)?

3. What is the maximum likely range from which I will need to make the shot?

4. What cartridge will allow me to deliver the bullet from Q1 at the velocity from Q2 from the range from Q3?

To simplify matters, I like Barnes TTSX bullets and 2,200 fps is the minimum velocity that will guarantee full expansion. So all I need to think about is how big of a TTSX do I need and from what range, then I could pick the cartridge.

 

[wombat13]

No it isn't, look at the examples I gave. What do the energy figures in the .30-06 examples tell you? Absolutely nothing. Using energy to somehow quantify how effective a cartridge is ignores physics because it is a gross over simplification.

Until we are able to distinguish how much energy is used to destroy tissue, versus what is simply absorbed by the body, lost in heat and friction and subsequently on the dirt on the far side, the total generated at the muzzle is meaningless.

Velocity is squared. Mass is not. Diameter, sectional density and construction are ignored. If you want to sell velocity, energy is a very good tool in doing that.



Then why not use tiny bullets at unbelievable speed for elephant??? Both concepts are grossly simplistic and ignore the most important factors. Momentum, sectional density, bullet shape and construction, etc.. There has to be enough velocity to get the job done but there also has to be a properly shaped, properly constructed bullet of appropriate diameter and weight, specifically the balance of weight and diameter, i.e. sectional density.

I mostly agree with you except that energy is not a useless metric. It is much more complicated than any one metric can capture. I do agree that muzzle energy is not terribly relevant. The energy the bullet has at impact is relevant, not determinative, but relevant.

 

[CraigC]

I mostly agree with you except that energy is not a useless metric. It is much more complicated than any one metric can capture. I do agree that muzzle energy is not terribly relevant. The energy the bullet has at impact is relevant, not determinative, but relevant.

It's utterly useless. Again I ask, what does it tell us? Use my .30-06 numbers as an example.

 

[Roverguy]

Unless your outfitter is oddly insistent on one one of the Magnum cartridges, the 30-06 is the way to go. Given the recoil of the magnums, and the fact that a 220 grain bullet from 30-06 offers only a slightly lesser bullet weight than the 338, relatively limited loss of power/less optimal trajectory at reasonable hunting distances, and the versatility to load down and use the rifle on lesser game as well, the 30-06 represents a good balance. But I suppose it depends on what your current chambering is.

If your current barrel is in something like 270 Win/.308 Win, then it may be worth it to go all the way to 338.

 

[d2wing]

If it helps, by the 1860 big game was scarce and many disappeared from the East and Midwest. I just read the journal of a fur trader from 1804 at Pembina, Minnesota. That area had large herds of Elk, Moose, Deer, Caribou and Buffalo herds of 100,000. Also Wolves, Black bear and Grizzly bear. Hides were traded with Native tribes on a large scale as well and traders employing both native and European hunters and trappers. Before that French Voyagers traded for a Century of more. By 1862, the Sioux uprising was caused by no game, and the gold annuity being late. All those animals were either wiped out or scarce due to hunting with muzzle loaders. Later cartridge guns did in the Buffalo. Black power guns required mass to provide as velocity was limited.
It doesn't take that much to kill North American animals. Cannons not needed. A 30-06 will do everything needed.

 

[someguy2800]

This is way overstating any case you have and ignores physics. Energy is the ability to do work. Work is Force x Distance. Arguing that energy is not the only or even the most useful measure of cartridge capability is fine, but to say it is only a marketing tool is just ridiculous.

Edited to add: I agree that there is a lot more to terminal effectiveness than energy, but it is not a useless measure.

We all know that, but how is energy useful in comparing two projectiles? I remember people used to often write that you needed 1000 ft lbs of energy for deer and 2000 ft lbs for elk or bear. Well a 55 grain .224 bullet at 4050 fps is 2000 ft lbs of energy. A 300 grain 44 mag bullet at 1400 fps is only 1300 ft lbs. So tell me again how energy is a useful metric for determining what is a good hunting projectile? Yes kinetic energy is required to perform work, but how does the number help us make a choice?

 

[d2wing]

On the farm, we and our neighbors regularly killed animals up to 1000 #s with a .22LR. Usually Holstein cattle. I still have the rifle. I know it's not relevant to the question, but the point is you need to put whatever bullet in the right place. WM. Bell used Bullets on elephants that many of you wouldn't use for big game at all.

 

[CraigC]

On the farm, we and our neighbors regularly killed animals up to 1000 #s with a .22LR. Usually Holstein cattle. I still have the rifle. I know it's not relevant to the question, but the point is you need to put whatever bullet in the right place. WM. Bell used Bullets on elephants that many of you wouldn't use for big game at all.

And that is useless anecdotal information.

Shot placement is important but doesn't count for jack crap if you choose the wrong bullet that doesn't do what it needs to. We're back at the 150gr vs 220gr .30-06 example.

Bell used a 7x57 for most of his culling with a very heavy for caliber bullet. Which kinda shoots to crap the nonsense about energy. He also could pick & choose his shots and only took brain shots he knew he could perfectly place. Because he also understood that the cartridge he was using had a very low TKO rating and wouldn't be enough to knock the critter out if he missed the brain and he'd have a pissed off elephant that knew where the shot came from. You're right though, most people wouldn't use a 7mm non-expanding solid on big game.

 

[d2wing]

Ok, LOL.

 

[CraigC]

Ok, LOL.

Not much on actual discussion, huh?