MachIVshooter said:
>your table does not represent the potential of the other cartridges. The small number of loads currently available for the .460 are all premium hunting loads...
No, half the loads listed for the .460 are
Starting loads, the other half are
Maximum loads, as labeled by Hodgdon. Again, your claim is simply not factual. I am not picking and choosing data to arrive at a certain result, but it appears you may be.
>where the others have many lower-powered loads that you factor in. That would be like suggesting a GM vehicle has less torque than a Ferrari by averaging the torque of every vehicle in each companies line up. It would be foolish to assume that, by this conclusion, a Ferrari would out-pull a GM Kodiak 6500 HD just because GM has so many lower powered vehicles that bring down the average.
Automobiles? I'm afraid I fail to draw the similarity.
>To make an accurate comparison, you have to take the top performers in each category and compare them, which is what I did.
Never heard THAT before. When comparing two objects, it is usually not helpful to consider the extremes in one's available data. Such an approach is vulnerable to specific variations not related to the actual phenomenae under review. For example, a handgun with loose bore, moly'ed bore, tight chambers, etc. - these and other characteristics of a specific handgun will yield different ballistics than another handgun in the same caliber that is at the
other end of the scale. The concept of weighted averages takes into account these other factors to a much greater degree and is a more reliable indication of what the
average shooter can expect.
Besides, the .500 has 60 loads on AmmoGuide, and the .460 has only 12 (so far). It is likely that when the .460 has as many posted, it will include a load that exceed that .500 maximum load you want to hang your hat on as proof. That's another example why comparing exdtremes is not reliable.
>And maximum working pressure as rated by SAAMI does not dictate a more powerful round. The .416 Rigby is more powerful than the .416 Rem mag, despite its lower pressures.
Again, I believe your analysis is flawed. First, the.416 Rigby is a MUCH larger case - 122 gr. H2O vs. 97 gr. H2O. Who is picking and choosing data now? The Accurate Powder Co. would seem to agree with me:
"...Although smaller than the .416 Rigby, the .416 Remington Magnum produces nearly the same ballistics because of its higher working pressure..." It's at
http://www.accuratepowder.com/data/...7.pdf#search='416 Rigby 416 Remington magnum'
Common sense and basic ballistics tell us that, when dealing with similar bore sizes and bullet weights, that a round that develops higher pressure will produce higher velocities and energies. The .460 is simply more powerful because with similar case capcity, it can generate much higher pressures to expel similar-weight bullets than the .500. The .500 has nothing to make up this "edge" because it simply cannot be loaded as hot. When a 300 gr. something whatever leaves the barrel, velocity is determined purely by how much acceleration can be applied to the bullet, not to the caliber stamped on the bottom of the case. That acceleration is determined by the amount of pressure pushing on the base of the bullet (and firearm variations such as friction coefficient of the barrel and other variables INDEPENDANT of the ammunition.)
>The .460
is a powerful round, but
is not more potent than the .500 and
is not half again a .454.[/QUOTE]
That case has yet to be made. It is usually helpful in a discussiont to come up with some verifiable facts rather than stating your opinion as fact. Unfortunately, your opinion violates a few rules of physics as far I can determine.
Both are very powerful rounds, surely the most powerful 2 in the world.
IIRC, One of the local indoor ranges here limits muzzle velocity to 2000 FPS.
![340630.jpg[IMG]](/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hunt101.com%2Fimg%2F340630.jpg%5BIMG%5D&hash=052e8c93e08db2bb7870b42c34e493ac)
