Frontal area vs. Velocity
 

I was just wondering where all you guys stand on this topic. I' m looking to get a gun for elk, moose, and some day maybe even brown bear. Do you think I would be better off with something fast like a 300 Ultra Mag. or would I do better with a larger caliber like a .338 Win Mag? I know both of these rounds will do a good job, but if you had to pick between speed or mass, which would you choose? I don' t have very much experience with the larger calibers, so I don' t know how effective a larger frontal area is on big game. I would really appreciate any comments on the subject. Thanks!

RE: Frontal area vs. Velocity
 

With an expanding bullet the performance of the bullet means more than a few hundredths of an inch in caliber.I use two 300ultramags myself but I would never recomend them for anyone that does not reload and does not have other guns to practise with.Factory loads are very mild and barrel life is limited so shooting a few hundred rounds practising each year will result in a new barrel every three or four years.

RE: Frontal area vs. Velocity
 

My opinion probably will not be popular because I don' t worship at the alter that says velocity is king. The larger the game the more important caliber and weight become. Hunting elk, moose and especially brown bear I would feel much comfortable with a 338 Win Mag than any 300 mag. I notice a differance even on deer and black bears when I make a kill with my 338-06 over my other lighter and faster rifles. I' m not saying that velocity isn' t important but don' t underestimate the effect of a larger and heavier bullet.

[Deleted]
 

[Deleted by Admins]

RE: Frontal area vs. Velocity
 

.338 Win. Mag. Good luck.

RE: Frontal area vs. Velocity
 

That debate is as old as guns. My tthought goes with the heavy bullet crowd and I would not hesitate to hunt any of the above with some good 47-70 Handloads. Of course that would limit the range. I used a 416 Rem mag on the first Bear hunt and the 45-70 after that. I have shot quite a bit of game with the 338 and really was just never impressed with it compared to the 300 Mag with heavy bullets.

RE: Frontal area vs. Velocity
 

i think it comes down to bullet placment. but you might want to look into the 8mm-06 or the 35whelen. two fine rounds.

RE: Frontal area vs. Velocity
 

I remember reading a magazine article on this last fall. The author claimed an old hunting guide in Texas wouldn' t let anyone hunt on his ranch without plenty of black on the tip of their bullets. In other words he wanted his hunters hunting with large softnosed bullets because of his belief they expanded better on game. I can' t disagree but to answer your question if you think bullet drop is more important than bullet performance then you' re already hunting your large big game behind the 8 ball.

RE: Frontal area vs. Velocity
 

I wouldn' t consider the REm. 300 ultra unless you want a gun that you won' t be able to find bullets for 3-5 years form now. i don' t think any of the new rem. rounds will be around long.

the most radical i' d get would be the WSM' s and they are not yet proven but more popular by many different gun makers.

go with the traditional rounds .338, .300

RE: Frontal area vs. Velocity
 

IMO most of the trick of the year cartridges won' t last long.
I like a big bullet,more initial shock and you don' t have to worry about expansion.
Around here you rarely have to make a " long shot" . If you do you don' t much about hunting and stalking. I know alot of areas ar differant but if a good hunter can shoot a pronghorn in the wide open spaces of the prairie with a pistol or ML, why cant hunters use tactics to get close to there quary and not have to shoot long distances.
I' m from the old school, if the old timers could bring meat to the dinner table with what they had to use we should be able to do so too.
How many of us really should be taking 400 and 500 yard shots.
These are my thoughts and I hope I haven' t stepped on any toes.

RE: Frontal area vs. Velocity
 

Elk, moose, .300 OK!! Brown Bear, .338 better, .375-.416 even better!!


" It seems very difficult to impress most reloaders with the fact that every rifle is an individual, and what proves to be a maximum load in one may be quite mild in another, and vice versa." Bob Hagel, GAME LOADS AND PRACTICAL BALLISTICS FOR THE AMERICAN HUNTER, 1977

RE: Frontal area vs. Velocity
 

.338 Win Mag....

RE: Frontal area vs. Velocity
 

aunsaber- I think you better re-read my question. I never said anything about taking 400-500yd shots. I' m not very comfortable shooting much past 200-250yds, let alone 500. I was simply wondering what people think is more effective, high velocity creating lots of ft/lbs, or heavier bullets with larger frontal area.

RE: Frontal area vs. Velocity
 

Rangerlab: I know what your question is, and I commend you for setting limits that you are comfortable with.
The 400 to 500 yard shot was in referance to some other responses and what as been said on this forum in the past.
Like I said before, I don' t mean to step on anyones toes.
I' m sorry if you took it that way.

RE: Frontal area vs. Velocity
 

aunsaber- No problem. I just didn' t want to turn this into an arguement about how guns like the 300 Ultra Mag encourage hunters to take shots longer than they should, that' s another topic alltogether.

RE: Frontal area vs. Velocity
 

.300 win mag with 200gr controlled expansion bullet like swift a frame, x bullet, partition. That would be (and is) my personal choice.

on the other hand.....

I have never hunted the big bears but believe those with experience in that area may tell you it is a big step up in power requirement from hunting moose and elk.

Maybe with a .338 you could use 210 partitions for elk and moose and then a 250 grainer for the big bears.
Just throwing out some thoughts.