Comparing ballistics
05-06-2005, 09:59 AM
#31
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1,429
RE: Comparing ballistics
ORIGINAL: rather_be_huntin
DM and myself haven't always agreed but I agree with this statement 100%. On game performance is like having a 3 legged table. Of course you have the ballistics, and we'll include energy in this category, as mentioned in the original post but that's only part of the story.
Edit: I take it back energy is too important to be lumped with ballistics. Energy is an important factor and we now have a 4-legged table but you get the idea.
You also need good bullet contruction and I'll throw in one more, you need enough bullet weight (caliber fits here and you may prefer to plug in cross-sectional density here). Without any one leg it just doesn't hold up. So balistics are a good thing, there's just more to it.
ORIGINAL: DM
Another thing, ALL of the bullets are NOT of the same construction, so NO MATTER what it says on paper they will NOT work the same on an animial!!!!
Drilling Man
Another thing, ALL of the bullets are NOT of the same construction, so NO MATTER what it says on paper they will NOT work the same on an animial!!!!
Drilling Man
DM and myself haven't always agreed but I agree with this statement 100%. On game performance is like having a 3 legged table. Of course you have the ballistics, and we'll include energy in this category, as mentioned in the original post but that's only part of the story.
Edit: I take it back energy is too important to be lumped with ballistics. Energy is an important factor and we now have a 4-legged table but you get the idea.
You also need good bullet contruction and I'll throw in one more, you need enough bullet weight (caliber fits here and you may prefer to plug in cross-sectional density here). Without any one leg it just doesn't hold up. So balistics are a good thing, there's just more to it.
I also want to point out that the only point where I mentioned the 270 was to give its data. My point as I've stated before was that ballistics or better yet the so called "flat shooting" debate really doesn't hold water. It was stated that this debate can compared to a four legged table. I say its more like a infinite legged table. You have to take into consideration 1.personal preference
2. disposable income
3. "what my granpa used"
4. whats already in the closet
5. Perceptions
6. advertising
7. what your favorite manufacturer chambers
etc.
etc.
etc.
05-06-2005, 10:21 AM
#32
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wall SD USA & Jamestown ND
Posts: 11,474
RE: Comparing ballistics
wolf killer. Your rifle should work fine. As will many other calbers. We are never all going to shoot the same thing. I have tried the cannon route many years ago. Now the shoulder is ruined and I have moved down a few steps. Has not changed the way I can kill elk. Although I have a lot of miles on the 270, I prefer the 280 these days.
Good post. Nothing wrong with a little debate. These things get off topic but there is always good info that comes to the surface.
Good post. Nothing wrong with a little debate. These things get off topic but there is always good info that comes to the surface.
05-06-2005, 10:29 AM
#33
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Moccasin, Montana
Posts: 1,835
RE: Comparing ballistics
Shato,
Don't feel bad about starting this thread.
What you have to consider is the era these cartriges were made.We a humans have been trying to devise away to make things go faster,cars,boats,bows,arrows,guns,so on and so on.
Now what we have to look at is when the 270 came into exsitance it was a laser compared to guns at the same time,like the 30-30,45-70,303 brit,30-40 krag.With a 130 gr bullet you could shoot alot farther than your granpa's 32-20,it was FLAT SHOOTING(the 270).
Now step back afew years earlier,with the making of the 30-30(thanks to smokeless powder)it was flat shooting had power,compared to the blackpowder guns of it's time.You go farther than that and compare muskets with rifles muzzel loaders,with rifling,they were more accurate could shoot farther ect...THEY WERE FLAT SHOOTING OF THEIR TIME.Look at Mid-evil bows vs Mid-Evil crossbows,could shoot farther hand more accuracy so on and so on.
So you realy have to look at the era and tecnology they had,or have.We can only push bullets so fast until new tecnology comes around and makes Laser guns.
The cartriges of our time can only go so fast so flat(last 70 years),so that is why you see all these other close reltively minimal gains in the NEW FLAT SHOOTING ROUNDS.Bigger case,smaller bullets,more powder,higher psi= fast hard hitting,a little flat shooting cartrige.
BBJ
Don't feel bad about starting this thread.
What you have to consider is the era these cartriges were made.We a humans have been trying to devise away to make things go faster,cars,boats,bows,arrows,guns,so on and so on.
Now what we have to look at is when the 270 came into exsitance it was a laser compared to guns at the same time,like the 30-30,45-70,303 brit,30-40 krag.With a 130 gr bullet you could shoot alot farther than your granpa's 32-20,it was FLAT SHOOTING(the 270).
Now step back afew years earlier,with the making of the 30-30(thanks to smokeless powder)it was flat shooting had power,compared to the blackpowder guns of it's time.You go farther than that and compare muskets with rifles muzzel loaders,with rifling,they were more accurate could shoot farther ect...THEY WERE FLAT SHOOTING OF THEIR TIME.Look at Mid-evil bows vs Mid-Evil crossbows,could shoot farther hand more accuracy so on and so on.
So you realy have to look at the era and tecnology they had,or have.We can only push bullets so fast until new tecnology comes around and makes Laser guns.
The cartriges of our time can only go so fast so flat(last 70 years),so that is why you see all these other close reltively minimal gains in the NEW FLAT SHOOTING ROUNDS.Bigger case,smaller bullets,more powder,higher psi= fast hard hitting,a little flat shooting cartrige.
BBJ
05-06-2005, 02:59 PM
#34
Typical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cedar Valley Utah
Posts: 977
RE: Comparing ballistics
ORIGINAL: ShatoDavis
[ It was stated that this debate can compared to a four legged table. I say its more like a infinite legged table. You have to take into consideration 1.personal preference
2. disposable income
3. "what my granpa used"
4. whats already in the closet
5. Perceptions
6. advertising
7. what your favorite manufacturer chambers
etc.
etc.
etc.
[ It was stated that this debate can compared to a four legged table. I say its more like a infinite legged table. You have to take into consideration 1.personal preference
2. disposable income
3. "what my granpa used"
4. whats already in the closet
5. Perceptions
6. advertising
7. what your favorite manufacturer chambers
etc.
etc.
etc.
I agree with what you said above but we have to compare apples to apples. You are basically talking accuracy AND on game performance. I was simply repsonding to the original post that says that certain bullets were equal to others based on ballistics. My only point was to say there is more to the equation than ballistics when we are talking on game performance. Accuracy is a whole other ball of wax. I guess what I'm saying is I was talking about ONLY what happens once the bullet leaves the barrel. What cartridge you decide to shoot isn't what I was refering to.
05-07-2005, 11:04 PM
#35
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location:
Posts: 2,395
RE: Comparing ballistics
wolf killer. Your rifle should work fine. As will many other calbers. We are never all going to shoot the same thing. I have tried the cannon route many years ago. Now the shoulder is ruined and I have moved down a few steps. Has not changed the way I can kill elk. Although I have a lot of miles on the 270, I prefer the 280 these days.
Until then I am going to shoot a cannon just for the fun of it.
05-08-2005, 03:43 PM
#36
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rocky Top Tennessee
Posts: 683
RE: Comparing ballistics
If your bullet has a sectional density of .250 or over you don't have to hide your head. That's just a better'n the 130 grain .270. I prefer the 140 .264s for big stuff with a SD of .284 them puppies will travel a long way through meat and some pretty big bones. The 160s travel well enough to reach an elephants brain, but the smartest guy who tried it said they had a tendency to bend and wander off course. As for range an increase of 200 fps at the muzzle will probably buy you 25 yards greater distance for the same drop. So you can see why a 3100 fps trajectory was considered flat when compared to 2300 fps, its an increase of a whole 100 yards. Shoot even my pop gun .260'll do 2700 with heavy bullets, so I'm only givin' up 50 yards on the surface and with a bullet that is catchin' up all the way, out past 300 yards it'll be goin' faster than that "flat" shooter. Construction is a different matter, but the bullet compaines had 100 years to come up with somethin that'd work at impact velocities of upwards of 3000 fps, and they did a pretty good job. Add RUMs and impact velocities of more'n 3100 fps and they needed to come up with somethin' better that's what all them super premiums are for. You can see I don't have a need for a bullet that'll do that mine'll never go that fast. [8D] Y'all have a nice day.
As for range an increase of 200 fps at the muzzle will probably buy you 25 yards greater distance for the same drop. So you can see why a 3100 fps trajectory was considered flat when compared to 2300 fps, its an increase of a whole 100 yards. Shoot even my pop gun .260'll do 2700 with heavy bullets, so I'm only givin' up 50 yards on the surface and with a bullet that is catchin' up all the way, out past 300 yards it'll be goin' faster than that "flat" shooter. Construction is a different matter, but the bullet compaines had 100 years to come up with somethin that'd work at impact velocities of upwards of 3000 fps, and they did a pretty good job. Add RUMs and impact velocities of more'n 3100 fps and they needed to come up with somethin' better that's what all them super premiums are for. You can see I don't have a need for a bullet that'll do that mine'll never go that fast. [8D] Y'all have a nice day.
