I have been wondering if there are certain characteristics that make one cartridge more accurate than another. for example shoulder angle, neck dia. compared to case cap., short and fat or long and slender, IS there anything that makes the actually cartridge itself more accurate? Assuming all other things, (shooter, weather, rifle, etc.) are the same.
What makes the actual cartridge accurate
- Thread starter summitsitter
- Start date
yes, some cartridges are more accurate than others. but, with a little time, testing, elbow grease, more testing, your odd ball cartridge could be an extremely accurate round. but, it might take a lot of time and effort to get it to shoot what it likes, unlike just taking the standard 6BR and putting in 30.0 grains of varget behind a 107 smk--some rounds are easier to load and make accurate than others.
The 40 Regular is the most accurate cartridge:
http://www.realguns.com/Commentary/comar5.htm
The 270 Win with long long powder column, means that they are inherently inaccurate, and so obsolete.
The combination of width and length of cartridges combine in series of accurate and inaccurate cartridges. This is known as the fractile series of stylistic decadence. The original mathematical work was done by professor Norman Bedwetter at Penn State.
http://www.realguns.com/Commentary/comar5.htm
The 270 Win with long long powder column, means that they are inherently inaccurate, and so obsolete.
The combination of width and length of cartridges combine in series of accurate and inaccurate cartridges. This is known as the fractile series of stylistic decadence. The original mathematical work was done by professor Norman Bedwetter at Penn State.
Summitsitter, all the above comments are good, however, consider the defination of an accurate cartridge.
No argument, the BR cases in 6mm, 6.5mm 7mm with some number of wildcat variations are the worlds most accurate, proven in the Bench game, and pd fields. short fat works.
There is also another area of "accurate cartridges" those that are work horse use, 280AI, 243, 7-08, 308, 221r, and many others that when tweeked in a well constructed rifle will shoot <.400"-.500" and do it consistantly. this is accurate for a 9 lb gun with a 10-14xscope
so the question is what are you interested in? bench, 1000yd, or 2-500yd hunting/pd shooting.
Bob
No argument, the BR cases in 6mm, 6.5mm 7mm with some number of wildcat variations are the worlds most accurate, proven in the Bench game, and pd fields. short fat works.
There is also another area of "accurate cartridges" those that are work horse use, 280AI, 243, 7-08, 308, 221r, and many others that when tweeked in a well constructed rifle will shoot <.400"-.500" and do it consistantly. this is accurate for a 9 lb gun with a 10-14xscope
so the question is what are you interested in? bench, 1000yd, or 2-500yd hunting/pd shooting.
Bob
I for one believe that efficiency and accuracy potential go hand in hand. Hard to prove but somewhere on this site is an "overbore camparison" chart. I don't think it's a coincidence that the least overbored cartridges are among the most accurate cartridges ever.
http://accurateshooter.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/overbore-cartridges-a-working-definition/
http://accurateshooter.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/overbore-cartridges-a-working-definition/
I second the efficiency theory, but I generally call it "balance". Sort of a good combination of case size to bore size, barrel length and bullet weight. I can't pin it down mathematically, but it seems to be there when you look at a .308/168 x 26", a .30-06/190 x 28", a 6BR/105 x 28", a 6PPC/68 x 22" - they're just balanced and they shoot!
But regardless of balance, you have to have good bullets, they are the single most important ingredient in accuracy. Bullet makers make what people buy, so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that certain calibers which are popular for accuracy become more popular as the bullet choices expand. You can see it in .30, .22, 6mm and 6.5 mm; there are good bullets in other calibers, but not as many.
But regardless of balance, you have to have good bullets, they are the single most important ingredient in accuracy. Bullet makers make what people buy, so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that certain calibers which are popular for accuracy become more popular as the bullet choices expand. You can see it in .30, .22, 6mm and 6.5 mm; there are good bullets in other calibers, but not as many.
Actually, there is something to the efficiency theory, but it needs a bit of expansion to explain. As a general rule, smaller cartridges are more efficient than larger cartridges, i.e., they impart more kinetic energy to the projectile per the potential energy of the powder you put in, than do larger cartridges of the same bore diameter. easy enough to figure, since there's about 178 ft.lbs. of potential energy in a single grain of single base, extruded tubular powder. figure out what the muzzle energy of your load delivers, divided by the potential energy contained in whatever the powder charge is, and that's your "efficiency." Most well designed, or as German said, "balanced" cartridges will return somewhere around 20-25% of that energy, which is pretty good. Some of the larger, high performance rounds will drop this figure by quite a way. Anyway, the smaller cartridges are the more "efficient" in this context.
At Camp Perry many years ago, they used to have competitor's forums where many of the top shooters and industry folks gave seminars and answered questions (shame we don't still do that!). Anyway, the NRA transcribed a series of these and sold them in three different volumes. One of the panelists provided a spreadsheet from Remington's Custom Shop charting the accuracy of their 40-X Match rifles in all the calibers the chambered at that time. The otherwise identical rifles showed a direct corelation between case size and accuracy, with accuracy dropping as capacity increased. In other words, a 308 is more accurate than a 30-06, a 30-06 is more accurate than a 30-338, and a 30-338 is more accurate than a 300 Win Mag, etc.. This was from the histories of literally hundreds of otherwise identical rifles, differing only in chambering, making it an ideal test for this issue. German takes it a bit farther, incorporating bbl length and bullet weights, but you get the idea. I don't know if those books are still in print, but they're a great read.
Kevin Thomas
Lapua USA
At Camp Perry many years ago, they used to have competitor's forums where many of the top shooters and industry folks gave seminars and answered questions (shame we don't still do that!). Anyway, the NRA transcribed a series of these and sold them in three different volumes. One of the panelists provided a spreadsheet from Remington's Custom Shop charting the accuracy of their 40-X Match rifles in all the calibers the chambered at that time. The otherwise identical rifles showed a direct corelation between case size and accuracy, with accuracy dropping as capacity increased. In other words, a 308 is more accurate than a 30-06, a 30-06 is more accurate than a 30-338, and a 30-338 is more accurate than a 300 Win Mag, etc.. This was from the histories of literally hundreds of otherwise identical rifles, differing only in chambering, making it an ideal test for this issue. German takes it a bit farther, incorporating bbl length and bullet weights, but you get the idea. I don't know if those books are still in print, but they're a great read.
Kevin Thomas
Lapua USA
German,
you said, "Bullet makers make what people buy, so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that certain calibers which are popular for accuracy become more popular as the bullet choices expand. You can see it in .30, .22, 6mm and 6.5 mm; there are good bullets in other calibers, but not as many." I've got a story for you. Some years ago, when I worked for particular bullet company, they decided that the only reason that every deer hunter with a 270 Win didn't go to Perry every year, was the lack of a good match bullet. To that end (and agaisnt my strongly worded advice) they introduced a .277" Match bullet into the line. I, mind you, was the only HighPower shooter in the plant by then, and certainly the only one who religiously hit Perry every year.
To this day, I've never seen a single deer hunter with his 270 Win at Perry, using this bullet or any other in their trusty deer guns. I have had but one shooter who ever asked me about that bullet, and that was Mitch Maxberry when it first came out. Mitch approached me on Commercial Row that year, and with a quizzical look on his face just asked, "Why?" Sorry to say, there was no good answer for him. Sadly, as Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up.
Kevin Thomas
Lapua USA
you said, "Bullet makers make what people buy, so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that certain calibers which are popular for accuracy become more popular as the bullet choices expand. You can see it in .30, .22, 6mm and 6.5 mm; there are good bullets in other calibers, but not as many." I've got a story for you. Some years ago, when I worked for particular bullet company, they decided that the only reason that every deer hunter with a 270 Win didn't go to Perry every year, was the lack of a good match bullet. To that end (and agaisnt my strongly worded advice) they introduced a .277" Match bullet into the line. I, mind you, was the only HighPower shooter in the plant by then, and certainly the only one who religiously hit Perry every year.
To this day, I've never seen a single deer hunter with his 270 Win at Perry, using this bullet or any other in their trusty deer guns. I have had but one shooter who ever asked me about that bullet, and that was Mitch Maxberry when it first came out. Mitch approached me on Commercial Row that year, and with a quizzical look on his face just asked, "Why?" Sorry to say, there was no good answer for him. Sadly, as Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up.
Kevin Thomas
Lapua USA
BoydAllen
Gold $$ Contributor
I think that sometimes, in discussions of this sort, the questioner may not fully appreciate that accuracy is a whole package of factors that is limited in its performance by its weakest link. If you give me bullets that are as good as the best in any caliber, a chamber, FL die, and barrel or equal quality, suitable action, properly bedded in the best sort of stock for accuracy work, with a Benchrest trigger, and scope, and fire it off of front and rear rests commensurate with the rest of the package, and work up loads as do the highest level of competititors, and gunsmithed by the finest there is, we will soon know what the real potential of a particular caliber is. Also what makes for the very best of short range accuracy may be unsuitable for long distances, and vice versa. Given that most of us are of limited means, what usually happens is that we look at the latest match results, and copy what seems to be giving the best results, possibly with some variations to make it ours.
What BoydAllen says is true of many mass market products. The "herd" mentality is to do what everyone else is doing. It takes a "disruptive" technology with clearly demonstrable superiority to change that thinking. When Mike Walker developed the .222 Remington, the benchrest game changed almost immediately. When Dr. Lou Palmisano and Ferris Pindell developed the PPC, another sea change took place. If the improvement is only incremental or the evidence is not compelling, the majority of people will not change.
KevinThomas said:
Back in the mid- to- late 1970s, that graph accompanied an article, by Warren Page, published in FIELD & STREAM, discussing this very topic. I have tried to locate the issue for a LONG time, to no avail. Of note, the Rem. 40X precision graf (average group size for each cartridge - every 40X was test-fired before leaving the Custom Shop) began with the .222 Rem., from which point, along with case capacity & caliber, the group size steadily increased - until, the .308 prove to be THE anomaly: for this cartridge, the average group size PLUMMETED to very nearly as small as the .222!
The next cartridge in line, the 30/06, went back to its 'proper' position on the upward slope . . . If anyone knows the exact issue (probably between 1977 and 1980), I'd be grateful for an arrow pointing in its direction! ;D RG
Last edited:
I was shooting BR with Warren Page, Mike Walker and Jim Stekle, in the time of the Page study, i believe Mike has passed, but i believe Jim (the creator of the Rem BR case) is still around, i do not know where. If any of your can locate him he would surely have a copy of the Page article as Jim was in the Rem custom shop with Walker at that time and would have been involved the the testing of the 40x's.
Bob
Bob
Clark
The combination of width and length of cartridges combine in series of accurate and inaccurate cartridges. This is known as the fractile series of stylistic decadence. The original mathematical work was done by professor Norman Bedwetter at Penn State.
Do you have any more info on the above from Bedwetter.
Albert
The combination of width and length of cartridges combine in series of accurate and inaccurate cartridges. This is known as the fractile series of stylistic decadence. The original mathematical work was done by professor Norman Bedwetter at Penn State.
Do you have any more info on the above from Bedwetter.
Albert
BoydAllen
Gold $$ Contributor
A few more things need to be pointed out. First of all, the standard twist that has been chosen for a caliber has been ignored. Most accuracy comparisons are done at short range where short bullets and slow twists dominate. If you compare the grouping ability of the same caliber with a barrel twist more suited for heavier, longer bullets, and the same caliber with an equal barrel set up for shorter bullets, shorter throat and slower twist, the latter will perform better at short ranges.
Col. C.E. Harris did a major piece of research on this that was published in American Rifleman. In it he worked with Hart barrels in 10 and 12 twist and 30-06 and .308 calibers. The same barrels were chambered alternately in both calibers. The results pointed out that the supposed advantage of the .308 is primarily due to its having a standard twist, 12", that gives better results at shorter ranges. The 10" twist, standard for the '06 showed better at longer ranges. Most accuracy testing is done at shorter ranges. When the '06 was chambered in the 12" twist barrel, and the .308 in the 10', the '06 did better than the .308 at short range. The positions were reversed when the twists were switched.
Other factors are the availability of good brass and bullets for a particular caliber. If you are doing the typical 100 yd. testing of a .270, to get the best brass you will have to reform from another caliber, there are no short bullets of the highest quality, and even if there were, the throat length and twist would limit their performance.
Col. C.E. Harris did a major piece of research on this that was published in American Rifleman. In it he worked with Hart barrels in 10 and 12 twist and 30-06 and .308 calibers. The same barrels were chambered alternately in both calibers. The results pointed out that the supposed advantage of the .308 is primarily due to its having a standard twist, 12", that gives better results at shorter ranges. The 10" twist, standard for the '06 showed better at longer ranges. Most accuracy testing is done at shorter ranges. When the '06 was chambered in the 12" twist barrel, and the .308 in the 10', the '06 did better than the .308 at short range. The positions were reversed when the twists were switched.
Other factors are the availability of good brass and bullets for a particular caliber. If you are doing the typical 100 yd. testing of a .270, to get the best brass you will have to reform from another caliber, there are no short bullets of the highest quality, and even if there were, the throat length and twist would limit their performance.
Not only is Mike Walker still with us, he is still shooting and building rifles. In fact last year he shot in the IBS nationals at 92. He was featured in an article in PS magazine just last month. An amazing individual who advanced precision shooting maybe more than anyone in the 50's-60's.
I agree very much with Boyd on this matter - a great deal of simplistic short, fat case design = invariably good is quoted on the back of the 6PPC, and there are many other factors involved in the mix at long ranges. I DO like small, short, fat cartridges, but I think their benefits are often overstated and there are too many exceptions to the rule to say it's a simple case-shape issue. I'll upset a few more people by invoking one of my pet hates here, the Winchester WSSM cartridges, total failures in my view at least partly down to being too short and too fat.
In my gun cabinet, I have a budget long-range target rifle whose performance often amazes people - it's a Winchester manufactured P'14 ('Enfield') action of WW1 vintage pillar bedded in an old heavy Bishop Match Rifle timber stock and with a secondhand button rifled Maddco 1-12" Palma profile .308W barrel rechambered to .300 H&H Magnum with a minuimum SAAMI no-turn reamer, all work done by Norman Clark one of the UK's top gunsmiths. (The bits came out of his spare parts bin too!) Look at the .300 H&H case and it's got everything wrong with it - long, steep taper, hardly any shoulder, belt. Apart from the belt - headspacing on the shoulder is preferable any day of the week in a target cartridge - it performs amazingly and gives most .300WSM rifles a good run for their money. Since it has identical case capacity to the WSM and an identical SAAMI PMax it gives identical velocities to the modern cartridge using the same powders and bullets. It provides very good accuracy indeed despite the very un-stiff military magazine rifle action, and it produces tiny extreme velocity spreads - and I mean tiny - with 180s, 185s and 190s with Feral 215Ms and H4831sc. Believe the 'short, fat only' thesis, and none of this should happen.
Yes, small cartridges are inherently more efficient than big ones in terms of ft/lbs ME produced per grain weight of powder consumed. That says use the smallest cartridge suitable for the task, not use the smallest / most efficient cartridge per se, in which case we'd use subsonic-velocity .22 Long Rifle or Short for all our shooting irrespective of distance or quarry. I also always understood the Page / Remington accuracy v cartridge size results were at least partly taken to mean that the less powder consumed, muzzle energy produced, resulted in the smallest groups in no small part due to it being easier to shoot small groups off the bench with a mild low-recoiling cartridge like the .222 than it was with a .300 Win Mag, as well as the beneficial effects of the action, barrel and stock having to cope with less energy induced flexing and heating.
Boyd's summary of C E Harris' findings on .308W v .30-06 short-range accuracy once twist rate is taken into account will surely have made German's day! If valid, and I for one wouldn't ever challenge Col. Harris' work lightly, it tells us that one of the great and immutable truths about cartridge and case design that 'everybody knows' is very likely yet another shooting myth - even without German doing his level best to so convince us with his Remington / Eliseo tube gun competition scores.
On the twist rate matter, there is a discussion going on about this matter for .308 Win on another forum at the moment with results quoted from two Australian ballisticians' work that I've seen elsewehere too (and would like to get hold of a copy of the book).
http://www.usrifleteams.com/lrforum/index.php?showtopic=7877
It makes exactly the same point and the correspondent ('poster'?) there quotes some results from their work that says the optimal twist rate for the old 155gn SMK is 1-15" to 1-16" at 300yd, but 1-13" at 1,000yd; that for the 190gn SMK varies from 1-13/14" at short range to 1-10"/11"/12" at 1,000 and no less than 1-9" at 1,200yd.
Incidentally, is your post for real Albert? There used to be a humorous / satirical column in a UK daily newspaper years ago inhabited by (fictional) characters with names like Professor Norman Bedwetter and lovely real-sounding but nonsensical theories akin to "the fractile series of stylistic decadence". Now I might have thought that was a theory that explained modern art and why non-representational paintings or female Brit 'artist' Tracey Emins' celebrated work including an unmade bed complete with soiled panties sells to rich but stupid people for vast sums of money!
Laurie,
York, England
In my gun cabinet, I have a budget long-range target rifle whose performance often amazes people - it's a Winchester manufactured P'14 ('Enfield') action of WW1 vintage pillar bedded in an old heavy Bishop Match Rifle timber stock and with a secondhand button rifled Maddco 1-12" Palma profile .308W barrel rechambered to .300 H&H Magnum with a minuimum SAAMI no-turn reamer, all work done by Norman Clark one of the UK's top gunsmiths. (The bits came out of his spare parts bin too!) Look at the .300 H&H case and it's got everything wrong with it - long, steep taper, hardly any shoulder, belt. Apart from the belt - headspacing on the shoulder is preferable any day of the week in a target cartridge - it performs amazingly and gives most .300WSM rifles a good run for their money. Since it has identical case capacity to the WSM and an identical SAAMI PMax it gives identical velocities to the modern cartridge using the same powders and bullets. It provides very good accuracy indeed despite the very un-stiff military magazine rifle action, and it produces tiny extreme velocity spreads - and I mean tiny - with 180s, 185s and 190s with Feral 215Ms and H4831sc. Believe the 'short, fat only' thesis, and none of this should happen.
Yes, small cartridges are inherently more efficient than big ones in terms of ft/lbs ME produced per grain weight of powder consumed. That says use the smallest cartridge suitable for the task, not use the smallest / most efficient cartridge per se, in which case we'd use subsonic-velocity .22 Long Rifle or Short for all our shooting irrespective of distance or quarry. I also always understood the Page / Remington accuracy v cartridge size results were at least partly taken to mean that the less powder consumed, muzzle energy produced, resulted in the smallest groups in no small part due to it being easier to shoot small groups off the bench with a mild low-recoiling cartridge like the .222 than it was with a .300 Win Mag, as well as the beneficial effects of the action, barrel and stock having to cope with less energy induced flexing and heating.
Boyd's summary of C E Harris' findings on .308W v .30-06 short-range accuracy once twist rate is taken into account will surely have made German's day! If valid, and I for one wouldn't ever challenge Col. Harris' work lightly, it tells us that one of the great and immutable truths about cartridge and case design that 'everybody knows' is very likely yet another shooting myth - even without German doing his level best to so convince us with his Remington / Eliseo tube gun competition scores.
On the twist rate matter, there is a discussion going on about this matter for .308 Win on another forum at the moment with results quoted from two Australian ballisticians' work that I've seen elsewehere too (and would like to get hold of a copy of the book).
http://www.usrifleteams.com/lrforum/index.php?showtopic=7877
It makes exactly the same point and the correspondent ('poster'?) there quotes some results from their work that says the optimal twist rate for the old 155gn SMK is 1-15" to 1-16" at 300yd, but 1-13" at 1,000yd; that for the 190gn SMK varies from 1-13/14" at short range to 1-10"/11"/12" at 1,000 and no less than 1-9" at 1,200yd.
Incidentally, is your post for real Albert? There used to be a humorous / satirical column in a UK daily newspaper years ago inhabited by (fictional) characters with names like Professor Norman Bedwetter and lovely real-sounding but nonsensical theories akin to "the fractile series of stylistic decadence". Now I might have thought that was a theory that explained modern art and why non-representational paintings or female Brit 'artist' Tracey Emins' celebrated work including an unmade bed complete with soiled panties sells to rich but stupid people for vast sums of money!
Laurie,
York, England
I have the NRA books with the graphs referred to here, and although I have a very complete collection of the American Rifleman, if someone can point me in the direction of the Harris article on twist, I would appreciate it.
Laurie, you and I think alike in many things, I believe. I rekindled my interest in the .30-06 a few years ago after switching to the 6BR and 6XC for a while. The 6 mm cartridges are amazing, but I was left thinking that if I'd only put that level of effort into the .30-06, the results might be similarly good. So far, I believe that to be reasonably true.
I now have .30-06 rifles with barrels of 1:10", 1:11" and 1:13" twist rates. The 1:13" has astounded me with its accuracy, far more than I ever saw in any .30-06. I need to do more work with it, especially to see how it shoots my usual 185 and 190 bullets (if it stabilizes them at all). So far, all of that shooting has been at 300 and 500 yards, the faster twist barrels have proven themselves at 300 to 1000 quite well but there is still more work to be done on all of them.
ONe of my projects for this summer will be to do a comparison of all three twists with a common load (maybe the 175 Berger) at 200, 300 and 500 yards. I can't go further until November when our 600 to 1000 yd range opens again for the season.
To come back to the main topic, while case shape in an interesting topic, I think brass quality is a more important measure of the usefulness of a given cartridge for accuracy purposes. The .220 Russian and 6BR cases are of exceptional quality, but they are not the only good cases out there. With an understanding of how to check cases, how to prep them and how to properly resize them, many other cases can give equal performance in many disciplines.
I am not a Benchrest shooter and don't make any claims for what can be done in that discipline, but in Highpower shooting, 300 Meter shooting and in the many forms of informal target shooting in which many enthusiasts participate, the choice of usefully accurate cartridges is actually quite broad. Oh, I also share your distaste for those WSSM cartridges, the quality of those I've checked is not exciting and the thickness of the brass brings a whole new set of problems that I see no reason to deal with when there are so many good alternatives.
Since you like the .300 H&H, here's something for you: http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com/2009/09/history-ben-comfort-1935-wimbledon-cup.html
Enjoy!
Laurie, you and I think alike in many things, I believe. I rekindled my interest in the .30-06 a few years ago after switching to the 6BR and 6XC for a while. The 6 mm cartridges are amazing, but I was left thinking that if I'd only put that level of effort into the .30-06, the results might be similarly good. So far, I believe that to be reasonably true.
I now have .30-06 rifles with barrels of 1:10", 1:11" and 1:13" twist rates. The 1:13" has astounded me with its accuracy, far more than I ever saw in any .30-06. I need to do more work with it, especially to see how it shoots my usual 185 and 190 bullets (if it stabilizes them at all). So far, all of that shooting has been at 300 and 500 yards, the faster twist barrels have proven themselves at 300 to 1000 quite well but there is still more work to be done on all of them.
ONe of my projects for this summer will be to do a comparison of all three twists with a common load (maybe the 175 Berger) at 200, 300 and 500 yards. I can't go further until November when our 600 to 1000 yd range opens again for the season.
To come back to the main topic, while case shape in an interesting topic, I think brass quality is a more important measure of the usefulness of a given cartridge for accuracy purposes. The .220 Russian and 6BR cases are of exceptional quality, but they are not the only good cases out there. With an understanding of how to check cases, how to prep them and how to properly resize them, many other cases can give equal performance in many disciplines.
I am not a Benchrest shooter and don't make any claims for what can be done in that discipline, but in Highpower shooting, 300 Meter shooting and in the many forms of informal target shooting in which many enthusiasts participate, the choice of usefully accurate cartridges is actually quite broad. Oh, I also share your distaste for those WSSM cartridges, the quality of those I've checked is not exciting and the thickness of the brass brings a whole new set of problems that I see no reason to deal with when there are so many good alternatives.
Since you like the .300 H&H, here's something for you: http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com/2009/09/history-ben-comfort-1935-wimbledon-cup.html
Enjoy!
I look forward to seeing your results, German.
Thnak you for the link to your blog post on the 1935 Wimbledon Cup - I really must read my way through the 'Journal' from start to finish. Talking about the 'Journal' and brass quality, which we partly are here, I emailed the maker of the case concentricity gauge you mentioned in another post / entry in the Rifleman's Journal that allows brass wall thickness to be measured, (cannot now remember the name) to see if he would supply one to the UK, but sadly no reply to date.
Incidentally, on the budget .300 H&H, it's had its 1,000 rounds or so, and I'm considering rebarrelling - an action which all my friends tell me would be madness to 'waste money' by putting a good and expensive barrel on a P'14 action. I'm not so sure, and the rifle would still be cheap as I got it in its current form effectvely free. I seriously considered .30-06 which would have required finding an M1917 bolt - no great hassle as long as there are still 1st generation 7.62mm 'Target Rifle' rifles around built on M1917 actions and which are effectively valueless today. After a lot of consideration I've decided to go ahead but in .300 Rem SAUM form - a decision I'm sure you'll disagree with, and I'm still open to persuasion! (The rifle's builder, Norman Clark is another .30-06 fan and has built the odd F-Class rifle so chambered too, but it's following a lost cause in the UK.)
Laurie,
York, England
Laurie, I had to break out my SAAMI manual to see what the dimensions are on the Rem. .300 SAUM, I see that it is essentially a very fat .308. The cartridge base is the same as your .300 H&H so that makes the conversion simpler, and if pressure is maintained at the same level, bolt thrust will remain the same.
Glancing through the latest reloading data manual from Hodgdon, I see the Remington at about 2750 fps with a 200 gr. bullet and the H&H at 2930 with a 200 gr. bullet (both with H4831). The Sierra manual shows about the same for the Remington but stops 5 grains lower than Hodgdon for the H&H and thus only gets to 2800 fps with the old cartridge. Either way, it appears the H&H has more potential than the Remington.
If it were me, I would either stick to the H&H or possibly go "modern" with the .308 Norma Magnum (into which you can easily reform your H&H brass). Of course, if you can find a standard bolt, then the .30-06 comes right back into play; you'll lose some MV (about 150 fps from the H&H), but your barrel life will more than double.
The cost of a cartridge conversion is sometimes significant. I remember that when I set up for 6XC, it cost me nearly $1000 in dies, reamer, various tools, some brass, etc. I've been leery of new calibers ever since! Finally, let's be realistic, until the RSAUM has had 100 years or so to get the kinks worked out, can it really be trusted?
Glancing through the latest reloading data manual from Hodgdon, I see the Remington at about 2750 fps with a 200 gr. bullet and the H&H at 2930 with a 200 gr. bullet (both with H4831). The Sierra manual shows about the same for the Remington but stops 5 grains lower than Hodgdon for the H&H and thus only gets to 2800 fps with the old cartridge. Either way, it appears the H&H has more potential than the Remington.
If it were me, I would either stick to the H&H or possibly go "modern" with the .308 Norma Magnum (into which you can easily reform your H&H brass). Of course, if you can find a standard bolt, then the .30-06 comes right back into play; you'll lose some MV (about 150 fps from the H&H), but your barrel life will more than double.
The cost of a cartridge conversion is sometimes significant. I remember that when I set up for 6XC, it cost me nearly $1000 in dies, reamer, various tools, some brass, etc. I've been leery of new calibers ever since! Finally, let's be realistic, until the RSAUM has had 100 years or so to get the kinks worked out, can it really be trusted?
Similar threads
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.