Big Game Hunting Moose, elk, mulies, caribou, bear, goats, and sheep are all covered here.
 Nosler

Comparing ballistics

Old 05-03-2005, 04:17 PM
  #11  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1,429
Default RE: Comparing ballistics

You all are making my point for me. The major reason I get for using a smaller caliber is for "flatter shooting" When you look at the numbers that dog just don't hunt. I've heard my whole life about how flat shooting this cartridge or that is. Its bs, The trajectory of a 388 is not significantly different from the trajectory of a 270 out to 350 yards. Which one is the more efficient killer? There is no doubt in my mind that the 338 is far superior. For the gentleman that used sectional density as an argument, I think you need to do some research before you make statements.
[link]http://www.rifleshootermag.com/shooting_tips/ballistics_0303/[/link]
ShatoDavis is offline  
Old 05-03-2005, 04:26 PM
  #12  
DM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location:
Posts: 1,813
Default RE: Comparing ballistics

The SD WILL make a "big" difference in the way the bullets will perform once it gets to the animial, and the 180 grain .338 is a poor choise "If" used on a bigger animial like a moose!!

I think one problem with the origional post is, the .338 Win. mag. shouldn't be in your comparison in the first place, as it's really aimed at bigger game than say, a 270 win. is.

Yes i know, some guys always try to use a bigger bore with "too light" of bullets!!

Drilling Man
DM is offline  
Old 05-03-2005, 04:33 PM
  #13  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1,429
Default RE: Comparing ballistics

DM
I see where you were going with that. I guess you lost me for a second. I agree that the 180 gr. is a poor choice in the 338.

A bullet can be aerodynamically shaped, like the 120-grain 7mm bullet , but because of its low Sectional Density or weight for the caliber, it will shed velocity much faster. If launched 500 fps slower than the 120 grain, the 175-grain bullet will have caught up with the 120 at the 500-yard mark due to its higher SD.

My point was more simplistic. That using trajectory as an argument for different calibers is moot.
ShatoDavis is offline  
Old 05-03-2005, 05:26 PM
  #14  
Boone & Crockett
 
James B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wall SD USA & Jamestown ND
Posts: 11,474
Default RE: Comparing ballistics

Which would be the better killer between the 270 and 338 as you stated above, depends much on the bullet used in each. Either could be superior. Caliber out to 300 yards is not nearly as important as the SD and construction of the bullet used. You are comparing two rifles which are both capable of outstanding performance on big game.
James B is offline  
Old 05-03-2005, 10:40 PM
  #15  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location:
Posts: 815
Default RE: Comparing ballistics

shato - good point your trying to make, the problem is some people refuse to admitt facts. the bigger calibers ARE more efficient killers. period. And like you said, the flat shooting calibers are not what theyre cracked up to be. if you look at the ballistics table nearly all calibers pretty much fall out of the air between 300 and 400yds (4-6"drop at 300 to 15"+at 400), so no matter what caliber you shoot your going to HAVE to know it prewtty intimately to go past 300yds.
James B - you still dont get it. the 338 is a "outstanding performer" on big game while the 270 is ...uuuhhh...uuummmm....weeeeellllll.....controvert ial
NVMIKE is offline  
Old 05-03-2005, 10:52 PM
  #16  
Boone & Crockett
 
James B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wall SD USA & Jamestown ND
Posts: 11,474
Default RE: Comparing ballistics

I didn't find out that the 270 was a good elk cartridge by reading some damn book I have used it plenty and anyone who can't cleanly kill elk with a 270 is just not a decent hunter. But as always poor craftsmen often fault the tools. You guys that need the cannons can HAVE at it . I can and have taken elk with the 260 on up and have never lost one or had one go more that 30 yards. Most dropped in their tracks. Its only controversial for those that do not have the ability. Its never failed me.
James B is offline  
Old 05-04-2005, 12:03 AM
  #17  
Giant Nontypical
 
skeeter 7MM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Saskatchewan Canada
Posts: 6,921
Default RE: Comparing ballistics

James tread lightly we may end up with another 20 page post before long! However I agree with you the tools get blamed vs the user. I stated it before and will once more I used the 270 to take elk and moose with no problems, never lost, never tracked just notched tags resulted. I used the proper bullet and knew my limitations, therefore it caused me no grief what so ever. Wait/pause for minute before you start typing a reply saying but..but..but if you used xxx you wouldn't need to limit yourself like you did with the 270, cuz that is my choice end of debate. I personally don't take shots unless I am certain of the outcome, sure things can happens but if the animal doesn't give me the opp I simple don't shoot!

I have seen more animals lost to #of calibers due to the user thinking any bullet out of the cannon would blow through with ease and shoot to what ever a ballistic program or chart states vs. picking the wrong gun itself. This IMHO is not gun error but rather user error. What ever you chose it should be based on your own reasoning not a write up and you should also put considerable thought into your requirements (bullet,game, range,etc) and personal abilities/limitations. In the end if your confident in your combo that is all that really matters bc you have done your homework. This obviously comes from personal experience and as we have seen it will vary greatly depending on the individual(s).
skeeter 7MM is offline  
Old 05-04-2005, 08:24 AM
  #18  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location:
Posts: 549
Default RE: Comparing ballistics

I grew up comparing ballistics. An old hornady loading manual was like my bible. But these guys are right when you consider 3 to 4 inches of drop max at 400yds whats the point in arguing what preforms better. If the man knew his rifle and his drop then he's gonna kill just as efficient as the next guy. If a man only shot at 200yds then the 45-70 would be one of the ulitmate choices based on bullet diameter and energy displacement when it hits the animal. There's no substitute for a big bullet wacking an animal. It just plain hurts them.

But if your a handloader, you know what you can get at the 400 to 500yd mark with other rifle's that don't have a bore size as big as your thumb. I don't worry about the long shots because my handloads have more energy than most of the big boys at that range. And they are alot flatter. But on the other hand it's the close shots where the bullet is traveling alot faster and the impact doesn't have that energy displacement. It just zip's right through, it kills them sure but I get alot better knock downs at 200 plus yards then up close. Because I like a flatter shooting cartridge's then I know I won't be hunting brown bears with the same rifle. In my most honest opinion a man should use what he can shoot well. And it would do all the rifle hunters well to throw them books in the trash and don't read no new article's on what is hot and so much better. Just take ole faithful to the rifle range and practice some more.
cherokee_outfitters is offline  
Old 05-04-2005, 09:25 AM
  #19  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1,429
Default RE: Comparing ballistics

Guys,

I didn't intend for this to be a 270 bashing thread. I like the 270, I think its a great cartridge. Those that know how to shoot it are deadly. That was not my point at all. My point was using the "term Flat shooter" is misleading is all. So just don't use that as a deciding attribute. Felt recoil is a acceptable reason. Versatility is another. And of course the most honest: "I bought it as a deer rifle, and I really don't see the need to buy another rifle". I just wanted to show that bullet drop or lack there of is not a proper argument.

I was more surprised by the minimal difference going to one of the "hot" new ultra mags made. That was more of my intent than to rehash the 270 debate. Look again at the 300 ultra compared to all the rest it just isn't much "flatter". Does it have more energy? yes. Will it make a cleaner kill? Maybe. But, does it have a significantly flatter trajectory? NO not in my humble opinion.
ShatoDavis is offline  
Old 05-04-2005, 09:34 AM
  #20  
DM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location:
Posts: 1,813
Default RE: Comparing ballistics

But on the other hand it's the close shots where the bullet is traveling alot faster and the impact doesn't have that energy displacement. It just zip's right through, it kills them sure but I get alot better knock downs at 200 plus yards then up close.
If this stament is true, then you better find your self a better designed bullet!!!! Notice i said BULLET not caliber!!

Most bullets have the problem of expanding TOO FAST at close range, and this why i like Nosler partitions so much! The nose blows off fairly easily even at longer ranges, (slower speeds) and also expands well in smaller lightly constructrd animials. YET, the rest of the bullet drives on in deep even if the velocity is still high, or you hit a lot of bone and muscle!!!

I use to design and mfg. (swage) std. core and bonded core bullets, but to this day i still like Nosler partitions best!

Drilling Man
DM is offline  

Quick Reply: Comparing ballistics


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.