375 R vs 416 for guide backup

[mark knapp]

It would be nice if they updated the loads. 3" 12-gauge slug, .35 Whelen 250 or 280 grain, .44 mag. 300 grain. .300 Win mag. with a better bullet selection. I see that the .358 Win. was ranked higher than the .350 Rem. with higher velocity. I wonder if the results would be different with better bullet selection.

The 7600 in .35 Whelen came out in 1988 in .35 Whelen and I snatched the first one I could find. It was my selection as it points the same as my 870 and I am left-handed. It is the fastest pointing rifle I have.

Nice article though. Lots to analyze in there.

It sure would be nice if we could get an up-dated version of the study. One thing to remember is, the bullet choices are all better for all of the rounds, so the ranking of the rounds shown will likely be similar.

Its the newer rounds, that are not shown at all, that's what we just don't know much about. I assume, they fall in where they are expected too. Because the principles of bullet performance have not changed, I'm not sure there are going to be any upsets.

 

[bottom_dweller]

I enjoyed the read. It seemed there is a definite correlation between striking force and bullet decomposition. I would really like to know what the results would have looked like with A frames and barnes x.

 

[SmokeRoss]

The 7600 in .35 Whelen came out in 1988 in .35 Whelen and I snatched the first one I could find. It was my selection as it points the same as my 870 and I am left-handed. It is the fastest pointing rifle I have.

My dad was a lefty and owned a 760 in 30-06. I bought a 760 in .270 in 1975. Still have it and have taken a mountain of animals with it. Dad also had a pump .22, a Winchester 62. I still have that along with his double barrel Nitro Special and a bunch of his lever guns.

 

[s_crockett]

* * * One thing to remember is, the bullet choices are all better for all of the rounds, so the ranking of the rounds shown will likely be similar.

For sure on that.

Bullet technology today is a universe ahead of where it was in the “old days,” and a rising tide - eventually - lifts all boats. Improvements in projectile tech for common calibers tend to cross-pollinate to other less common cartridges. It’s been that way with bullet-tech applied to L.E. service calibers since the late 1990s, especially improving the 9mm‘s terminal performance.

That’s another reason I handload my 404 Jeff to its original and rather sedate specs (2100-2125fps, “sedate” for a 400-class cartridge) instead of to 416 Rigby levels, like Hornady does (2350fps+). The premium bullets we now have will kill as well or better at original velocities.

Anything faster is just more recoil, not more killing power.

 

[rickyw]

Here's an article sent to me by a well read individual that has been following this thread. The article is old and while the principals all apply, there have been some new rounds introduced since it was written.

In my opinion many of the newer rounds that have been introduced give you more speed and a flatter trajectory but not very much more. Some of them amount to just splitting hairs, and are appealing to those shooters that are apt to chase every new round that comes along, just to have one.

Here's the article.

Loading…

www.fs.usda.gov

Lots of good information on here.

Interesting that the 30-06 outranked the 300 win mag at close range. Evidence that sometimes extra velocity decreases penetration due to tissue resistance? For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Now I’ll hide while the eggs begin to be thrown 😜

Edit: the “note on velocity” section in the article goes over this as well

 

[4merguide]

Interesting that the 30-06 outranked the 300 win mag at close range. Evidence that sometimes extra velocity decreases penetration due to tissue resistance? For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Now I’ll hide while the eggs begin to be thrown 😜

Edit: the “note on velocity” section in the article goes over this as well

You'll also notice that the 06' is shooting a heavier slug as well. Bigger slug = deeper penetration.

 

[rickyw]

You'll also notice that the 06' is shooting a heavier slug as well. Bigger slug = deeper penetration.

But it still outranks the 300 win mag when the ‘06 is shooting a 180 grain slug. 220 grain ranks #11. 180 ranks #12

 

[4merguide]

But it still outranks the 300 win mag when the ‘06 is shooting a 180 grain slug. 220 grain ranks #11. 180 ranks #12

Oh yes, I didn't see that 300 wm in 180 down at the very bottom. Interesting...

 

[bottom_dweller]

Interesting that the 30-06 outranked the 300 win mag at close range. Evidence that sometimes extra velocity decreases penetration due to tissue resistance? For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Now I’ll hide while the eggs begin to be thrown 😜

Edit: the “note on velocity” section in the article goes over this as well

I think it’s because the velocity overcomes the bullets integrity. Would an A frame have changed that ranking? Owning a 338 made me wonder about why the 300 and the 200 but not the 250 grain? I don’t follow the logic unless the bullet construction of the 250 was poor.

 

[rickyw]

I think it’s because the velocity overcomes the bullets integrity. Would an A frame have changed that ranking? Owning a 338 made me wonder about why the 300 and the 200 but not the 250 grain? I don’t follow the logic unless the bullet construction of the 250 was poor.

Definitely a good point

 

[4merguide]

I think it’s because the velocity overcomes the bullets integrity. Would an A frame have changed that ranking?

Or like was mentioned before, a Barnes X? I was wondering how a Nosler Partition would stack up?

 

[mark knapp]

Or like was mentioned before, a Barnes X? I was wondering how a Nosler Partition would stack up?

Nosler partitions had a huge but unwarranted following. The original bullets were not bonded core bullets and the fronts would shed out and leave the shanks in tact, it left a bullet that was half it's weight that acted like a solid. Very poor performance. Now, I hear, they are bonded and much more reliable. we saw a lot of wounded game from the original Noslers. 7 Mag. was the worst because of it's velocity.

In the early days, no one could make a bullet that performed well in an animal at velocities over about 2300 ft/s It's still difficult to find a bullet that performs well over that velocity. They just blow apart.

When Barns X bullets first came out, they were very poor performers. The front peddles would fly off and the backs would act as a solid. Not good. Today, I hear they are better, but I don't know personally.

 

[s_crockett]

Nosler partitions had a huge but unwarranted following. The original bullets were not bonded core bullets and the fronts would shed out and leave the shanks in tact, it left a bullet that was half it's weight that acted like a solid. Very poor performance. Now, I hear, they are bonded and much more reliable. we saw a lot of wounded game from the original Noslers. 7 Mag. was the worst because of it's velocity.
In the early days, no one could make a bullet that performed well in an animal at velocities over about 2300 ft/s It's still difficult to find a bullet that performs well over that velocity. They just blow apart.

When Barns X bullets first came out, they were very poor performers. The front peddles would fly off and the backs would act as a solid. Not good. Today, I hear they are better, but I don't know personally.

Interesting, but not sure what era of Barnes' copper X-Bullets you're referring to.

Just FYI, when I was researching a possible trip to Africa in the early 2000s I read PH Gregor Woods' 2002 book, "Rifles for Africa," cover to cover. Great book and a lot of the rifle and cartridge topics he discusses in detail would still be relevant for someone considering a moose or bear hunt in AK today.

In the chapter titled, "Premium Grade Bullets," Woods raves about the Barners X-Bullets and cites many examples of successful one-shot stops on tough African game, like Water Buffalo. He specifically cites the 270grn X-bullet in the .375 H&H cartridge and the 400grn X-bullet in the .458 Win Mag and Lott cartridges (pp. 119-125).

Woods does note a couple of instances in which a petal or "finger" was found sheared off from a recovered bullet, but it was the exception not the rule according to him. The case or two of isolated shedding was attributed to the projectile being pushed too fast. He basically says Barnes X-bullets are terminally optimal when driven at less than max velocities for a particular cartridge. He also says their best attribute tends to be 100% weight retention.

Great book if you haven't read it, and Woods discusses the ballistics of about every cartridge you might think of using on African game animals, dangerous and non-dangerous. Most of those he touches on are also on that list of cartridges linked in the earlier post above.

 

[bottom_dweller]

Interesting, but not sure what era of Barnes' copper X-Bullets you're referring to.

Just FYI, when I was researching a possible trip to Africa in the early 2000s I read PH Gregor Woods' 2002 book, "Rifles for Africa," cover to cover. Great book and a lot of the rifle and cartridge topics he discusses in detail would still be relevant for someone considering a moose or bear hunt in AK today.

In the chapter titled, "Premium Grade Bullets," Woods raves about the Barners X-Bullets and cites many examples of successful one-shot stops on tough African game, like Water Buffalo. He specifically cites the 270grn X-bullet in the .375 H&H cartridge and the 400grn X-bullet in the .458 Win Mag and Lott cartridges (pp. 119-125).

Woods does note a couple of instances in which a petal or "finger" was found sheared off from a recovered bullet, but it was the exception not the rule according to him. The case or two of isolated shedding was attributed to the projectile being pushed too fast. He basically says Barnes X-bullets are terminally optimal when driven at less than max velocities for a particular cartridge. He also says their best attribute tends to be 100% weight retention.

Great book if you haven't read it, and Woods discusses the ballistics of about every cartridge you might think of using on African game animals, dangerous and non-dangerous. Most of those he touches on are also on that list of cartridges linked in the earlier post above.

In the early 2000s I used to hunt with a 454 casull. When I was load developing I did some penetration tests on water filled milk jugs. The pistol x did not fair well. At 15 yards it only penetrated 2 jugs and shed all 6 petals.

 

[mark knapp]

Interesting, but not sure what era of Barnes' copper X-Bullets you're referring to.

Just FYI, when I was researching a possible trip to Africa in the early 2000s I read PH Gregor Woods' 2002 book, "Rifles for Africa," cover to cover. Great book and a lot of the rifle and cartridge topics he discusses in detail would still be relevant for someone considering a moose or bear hunt in AK today.

In the chapter titled, "Premium Grade Bullets," Woods raves about the Barners X-Bullets and cites many examples of successful one-shot stops on tough African game, like Water Buffalo. He specifically cites the 270grn X-bullet in the .375 H&H cartridge and the 400grn X-bullet in the .458 Win Mag and Lott cartridges (pp. 119-125).

Woods does note a couple of instances in which a petal or "finger" was found sheared off from a recovered bullet, but it was the exception not the rule according to him. The case or two of isolated shedding was attributed to the projectile being pushed too fast. He basically says Barnes X-bullets are terminally optimal when driven at less than max velocities for a particular cartridge. He also says their best attribute tends to be 100% weight retention.

Great book if you haven't read it, and Woods discusses the ballistics of about every cartridge you might think of using on African game animals, dangerous and non-dangerous. Most of those he touches on are also on that list of cartridges linked in the earlier post above.

Well, the only thing I can tell you is what I saw. I may be talking about earlier bullets than you are. I quick internet search shows several different models that include improvements through the years. The earliest ones came out in 1989.

Some advocates said, from the start, that Barnes X could do no wrong. I have seen pictures of recovered Barnes X bullets, from the manufacturer that looked really good but that's not what I saw in a very large percentage of bullets that I recovered from actual animals as apposed to those recovered from ballistic jell.

Suffice it to say, no bullet can perform perfectly in all situations. Many hunters load up ammunition to it's highest pressures and velocities. A huge mistake, as that's what causes most bullet failure.

 

[bottom_dweller]

Well, the only thing I can tell you is what I saw. I may be talking about earlier bullets than you are. I quick internet search shows several different models that include improvements through the years. The earliest ones came out in 1989.

Some advocates said, from the start, that Barnes X could do no wrong. I have seen pictures of recovered Barnes X bullets, from the manufacturer that looked really good but that's not what I saw in a very large percentage of bullets that I recovered from actual animals as apposed to those recovered from ballistic jell.

Suffice it to say, no bullet can perform perfectly in all situations. Many hunters load up ammunition to it's highest pressures and velocities. A huge mistake, as that's what causes most bullet failure.

If I guided big bears, I would listen to folks like Mark and disregard bullet or cartridge of the week data. Nothing compares to real life experience. It does sound like Barnes figured it out with the x but after I saw what I saw, I have an aversion to them.

 

[4merguide]

When I first decided to load up some of the original Barnes X bullets for my 8mag I shot them into a couple spruce logs. At near 3k fps. they stayed together and performed flawlessly. Of course, spruce is not bone. I shot a couple animals with them and wasn't able to recover any. The beef that my friends that reload had was saying they didn't like them because they were too hard, ie, didn't believe they were opening up enough before exiting the animal. That was a common complaint back then and Barnes took it to heart when creating the newer stuff. Before and after the Barnes experiment, I was, and still am loading up 200 grn. Nosler Partitions. They have performed very well in my experience, finding many of them, but not all, near totally intact and up against the skin on the opposite side.

 

[SmokeRoss]

When Barns X bullets first came out, they were very poor performers. The front peddles would fly off and the backs would act as a solid. Not good. Today, I hear they are better, but I don't know personally.

The Barnes X bullets I have recovered have been perfect mushrooms and lost almost no weight. I have never found a 'petal' from a Barnes in any of the many critters I have taken with them. Most times I don't recover the slug. It goes all the way through.

 

[dysonrichard801]

Both the .416 and .375 Ruger are popular choices for hunting dangerous game, including bears. The .416 has a reputation for being a powerful cartridge with excellent penetration, while the .375 Ruger is known for its versatility and accuracy.

 

[ykwrangler]

Awesome discussions gentlemen! Thank you!