Originally Posted by
Mystro
Ballistic Coefficient is more important than raw powder charge. Its efficiency and powder charge that gives good ballistics. Then go and use Hornadys ballistic catalogue and pick 270, 30-06, 300 win mag ammo you would consider "not" cherry picking. I want to see how your numbers stack up to the ones I picked.
By no means am I being sarcastic or belittling anyone's opinion. I just want to see commercially manufactured ammunition figures in print. The Hornady catalogue is a good benchmark. The old saying goes "figures don't lie" and such...
Hornady has a great selection and is more accurate with their numbers than others.
Actually, you'll find that what you have challenged here, "go and use Hornady's Ballistic Catalog", is EXACTLY what I did in my previous post comparing the two Hornady Super Performance loads for the SST, the original 140grn you mentioned in YOUR post of their catalog, but compared to the 300WM SST Super Perf, rather than the standard.
No cherry picking, perfectly reasonable .270win and .300WM rounds, 140grn and 180grn, high BC with appropriate charge efficiency for both cartridges, AND the same bullet construction (SST), and the same product line (Hornady Super Performance)....
Straight off of Hornady's site right now... Same approx. drop and velocity at 500yrds, ~30% more ENERGY on the .300WM than the .270Win...
Hornady .270 Win 140grn SST Super Performance
Hornady .300 Win Mag 180grn SST Super Performance
It's ok man, you can let it go. It's plain and simple fact if what you said was true about matched trajectory, which it more or less is, then no, the Energy can't be the same, as the .300wm is doing it with~30% heavier bullet. That's simple physics...