which is more powerful?
09-11-2005 | 09:20 PM
#22
Typical Buck
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
RE: which is more powerful?
ORIGINAL: stubblejumper
Actually I did read that one paragraph.It simply stated that the hi energy loads would give"a tiny edge over factory fodderin kinetic energy transfer and penetration".The word "tiny" is the actual word used in the article.It stated that for tough game like elk this could be worthwhile,It also stated "of course the rounds must shoot accurately in your rifle,or the extra pop is useless".The section about accuracy also stated that the accuracy of these two hi energy30-06 loads did not meet the accuracy standard that the authors had set.Apparently they don't considergroupsin excess of2" at100 yards "respectable",and for that matter neither do I.You speak of 400 yard trajectories,but at 400 yards that 2+" grouptranslatesmost probably to an8" to 9"or evenlarger group,and that is off of a benchrest.Using field positions that group size will grow even larger which will result in not all bullets strikingthe vital zone of abig game animal.That being the case,I will repeat the words used in the article "the extra pop is useless".
That was kind of the point of the "Exception to the Rule" section of the article. I cant belive you missed that.
Federal High Energy Nosler Partition 180 Gr 3,203 LBS/KE
Federal Premium Nosler Partion 180 Grain2,743 LBS/KE
Yes, according to my calculations that is 460 LBS/ KE more. Are you really going try to say that is a "tiny" difference. It equates to 17% more KE and they are using the same bullet so no excuses there. For the record I did not bring up this article and don't really think much of its accuracy, for instance it says "We had the most samples in the .30-06 180-grain loadings, and we found significant muzzle velocity differences between Federal High Energy and standard loads."
How can the same article come back and say the KE increase is "tiny" when the KE formula uses Speed/Squared in the formula. I always read articles and evalute the rational used, and its accuracy rather that accepting it as gospel. The KE comparison above shows a 17% increase but you call it tiny because thats what the article told you. I am thinking most anyone would agree with me that 17% is not "tiny" gain in killing power.
Regardingaccuracy, as I said eariler the velocity differences of the 06 HE loads are respectable, and that leads me to lean toward the gun not liking that load. If they used more than one gun to test it might carry a little weight with me, but a load from one gun is not enough for me to determine that a load is accurate or not across the board.
In addition only 3 of the 7180 Grain loads meet the accuracy requirements of the article. The HE loads average group is only 1/8" larger, andwith only comparison using the same bullet, the HE 180 Nosler Loads are actually more accurate than the Premium 180 Nosler loads. Like I said I try to evaluate what I read rather than take it as gospel.All the above just tells me the "one gun" is very possibly the problem and notthe many poor performing rounds.
09-11-2005 | 10:44 PM
#24
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,393
Likes: 0
From: Western Nebraska
RE: which is more powerful?
ORIGINAL: Scott Gags
Your right but it is still fun.
Your right but it is still fun.
09-11-2005 | 11:02 PM
#25
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,667
Likes: 0
From: fort mcmurray alberta canada
RE: which is more powerful?
ORIGINAL: Scott Gags
Tiny difference huh, lets look at the numbers shall we:
Federal High Energy Nosler Partition 180 Gr 3,203 LBS/KE
Federal Premium Nosler Partion 180 Grain2,743 LBS/KE
Yes, according to my calculations that is 460 LBS/ KE more. Are you really going try to say that is a "tiny" difference. It equates to 17% more KE and they are using the same bullet so no excuses there. For the record I did not bring up this article and don't really think much of its accuracy, for instance it says "We had the most samples in the .30-06 180-grain loadings, and we found significant muzzle velocity differences between Federal High Energy and standard loads."
How can the same article come back and say the KE increase is "tiny" when the KE formula uses Speed/Squared in the formula. I always read articles and evalute the rational used, and its accuracy rather that accepting it as gospel. The KE comparison above shows a 17% increase but you call it tiny because thats what the article told you. I am thinking most anyone would agree with me that 17% is not "tiny" gain in killing power.
Regardingaccuracy, as I said eariler the velocity differences of the 06 HE loads are respectable, and that leads me to lean toward the gun not liking that load. If they used more than one gun to test it might carry a little weight with me, but a load from one gun is not enough for me to determine that a load is accurate or not across the board.
In addition only 3 of the 7180 Grain loads meet the accuracy requirements of the article. The HE loads average group is only 1/8" larger, andwith only comparison using the same bullet, the HE 180 Nosler Loads are actually more accurate than the Premium 180 Nosler loads. Like I said I try to evaluate what I read rather than take it as gospel.All the above just tells me the "one gun" is very possibly the problem and notthe many poor performing rounds.
ORIGINAL: stubblejumper
Actually I did read that one paragraph.It simply stated that the hi energy loads would give"a tiny edge over factory fodderin kinetic energy transfer and penetration".The word "tiny" is the actual word used in the article.It stated that for tough game like elk this could be worthwhile,It also stated "of course the rounds must shoot accurately in your rifle,or the extra pop is useless".The section about accuracy also stated that the accuracy of these two hi energy30-06 loads did not meet the accuracy standard that the authors had set.Apparently they don't considergroupsin excess of2" at100 yards "respectable",and for that matter neither do I.You speak of 400 yard trajectories,but at 400 yards that 2+" grouptranslatesmost probably to an8" to 9"or evenlarger group,and that is off of a benchrest.Using field positions that group size will grow even larger which will result in not all bullets strikingthe vital zone of abig game animal.That being the case,I will repeat the words used in the article "the extra pop is useless".
That was kind of the point of the "Exception to the Rule" section of the article. I cant belive you missed that.
Federal High Energy Nosler Partition 180 Gr 3,203 LBS/KE
Federal Premium Nosler Partion 180 Grain2,743 LBS/KE
Yes, according to my calculations that is 460 LBS/ KE more. Are you really going try to say that is a "tiny" difference. It equates to 17% more KE and they are using the same bullet so no excuses there. For the record I did not bring up this article and don't really think much of its accuracy, for instance it says "We had the most samples in the .30-06 180-grain loadings, and we found significant muzzle velocity differences between Federal High Energy and standard loads."
How can the same article come back and say the KE increase is "tiny" when the KE formula uses Speed/Squared in the formula. I always read articles and evalute the rational used, and its accuracy rather that accepting it as gospel. The KE comparison above shows a 17% increase but you call it tiny because thats what the article told you. I am thinking most anyone would agree with me that 17% is not "tiny" gain in killing power.
Regardingaccuracy, as I said eariler the velocity differences of the 06 HE loads are respectable, and that leads me to lean toward the gun not liking that load. If they used more than one gun to test it might carry a little weight with me, but a load from one gun is not enough for me to determine that a load is accurate or not across the board.
In addition only 3 of the 7180 Grain loads meet the accuracy requirements of the article. The HE loads average group is only 1/8" larger, andwith only comparison using the same bullet, the HE 180 Nosler Loads are actually more accurate than the Premium 180 Nosler loads. Like I said I try to evaluate what I read rather than take it as gospel.All the above just tells me the "one gun" is very possibly the problem and notthe many poor performing rounds.
09-12-2005 | 06:37 AM
#26
Typical Buck
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
RE: which is more powerful?
I just need to ask one question is 17%, 460 FPS increase in KE over an already premium ammunition "tiny"? Just a yes no would do.
With regard to your quote below:
"The bottom line is that according to the article,the light magnum and hi energy loads do offer increased velocity over standard loads although they do not by any means live up to the manufacturers claims that you keep quoting."
I have listed manufacturers velocities based on a 24" test barrel. The Federal HE 180 grain bullets in the article are Chronied from a 22" rifle, and they are less than 50 FPS off the published data. That is very respectable infact that is what I would expect how about anyone else out there?
You continually quote parts of the article which are referring to the poor performance of the other cartridges, not the 06. I am not sure if you realize that or not.
The only HE ammo with the same bullet "180 NP" shows the HE ammo being both more accurate and 211 fps faster. That is the best performing HE load relative to the standard load of all the cartridges shown, and infact exceeds the claims of 150-200 FPS increases used to market HE loads!!!! I dont think you are going convice many people that is a"tiny" improvement
Believe it on or not we actually agree, onone thing, that most HE loads "in general" are not that big of a step up, but the 06 at 211 fps is. It is kind of amusing that you would continue in your denial this long, the rough equivilent of kid sticking his fingers in his ears and saying La La, La La, while hearing something he dosent want to accept.
With regard to your quote below:
"The bottom line is that according to the article,the light magnum and hi energy loads do offer increased velocity over standard loads although they do not by any means live up to the manufacturers claims that you keep quoting."
I have listed manufacturers velocities based on a 24" test barrel. The Federal HE 180 grain bullets in the article are Chronied from a 22" rifle, and they are less than 50 FPS off the published data. That is very respectable infact that is what I would expect how about anyone else out there?
You continually quote parts of the article which are referring to the poor performance of the other cartridges, not the 06. I am not sure if you realize that or not.
The only HE ammo with the same bullet "180 NP" shows the HE ammo being both more accurate and 211 fps faster. That is the best performing HE load relative to the standard load of all the cartridges shown, and infact exceeds the claims of 150-200 FPS increases used to market HE loads!!!! I dont think you are going convice many people that is a"tiny" improvement
Believe it on or not we actually agree, onone thing, that most HE loads "in general" are not that big of a step up, but the 06 at 211 fps is. It is kind of amusing that you would continue in your denial this long, the rough equivilent of kid sticking his fingers in his ears and saying La La, La La, while hearing something he dosent want to accept.
09-30-2005 | 01:09 AM
#28
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,081
Likes: 0
From: New Mexico
RE: which is more powerful?
"Also when it comes to handloads the 06 can deliver over 2000 LBS of energy at 450 yards with the 180 Grain XLC bullet @1000 ft abovesea level. I am pretty confident that is better than any 7MM handloads energy at that distance."
Not to stir this up anymore, but, I handload for my 7mm RM and my 140gr Nosler balistic tip load has (based on PointBlank Balistics program) 2026fpe at 450 yards at 1000 elevation and 70 degrees. The 160 accubonds have 2007fpe at 500 yards, same conditions.
Not to stir this up anymore, but, I handload for my 7mm RM and my 140gr Nosler balistic tip load has (based on PointBlank Balistics program) 2026fpe at 450 yards at 1000 elevation and 70 degrees. The 160 accubonds have 2007fpe at 500 yards, same conditions.
09-30-2005 | 07:50 AM
#29
Typical Buck
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
RE: which is more powerful?
Those numbers seem really high for the 7MM. The 160 would have to leave the muzzle at approx 3250 FPS that is 200 FPS above the loading manuals I looked at. What manual is that load coming from? If it is from a manual I would like to give it to a buddy working up an accubond load for his 7mm.
10-01-2005 | 07:46 PM
#30
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,081
Likes: 0
From: New Mexico
RE: which is more powerful?
Both loads are using IMR 7828 but do not come from any single loading manual. I used several different sources to get a range of what was possible, started working up from below the max and stopped when I started seeing pressure signs, then backed off around a grain. I think the 140 load was listed at the IMR site but I was seeing pressure signs before I got to the max they listed. It shoots .5" groups on a regular basis. Excellent for most any large game, short of bear, you would want to hunt. A friendshot a large cow elk at 220 yards with it, dropped in its tracks and never moved.
I just checked the IMR site and the load they had 3 years ago when I worked up this load has been changed. I don't recall all the other sources I used back then.
I just checked the IMR site and the load they had 3 years ago when I worked up this load has been changed. I don't recall all the other sources I used back then.