It's funny... as caliber wars become more pointless, they become more vocal and partisan...
This seems to actually be BECAUSE the data show the differential between chamberings is small, and has been getting smaller for decades. As datasets get larger, data and data analysis get better, and as ammunition gets better, the differences between common defensive pistol chamberings are progressively smaller, and less meaningful.
Pistols are Pistols, and Rifles are Rifles.
We have a saying "pistols are pistols, and rifles are rifles"; which means that the difference between reasonable defensive pistol chamberings is small, and effectively meaningless, compared to the difference between pistols, and long guns; both shotguns and rifles.
Compared to rifles, pistols are lost in the noise... and looking at the variability between different rifle chamberings, the differences can be greater than most powerful reasonable defensive pistol chamberings, and nothing at all.
In fact... if we just look at muzzle energy numbers, there can be greater variability within a single chambering.. say, something like subsonic .300blackout, and high velocity .300blackout, with something like 900ftlbs of energy difference between them, and the most powerful reasonable defensive pistol chamberings, such as hot and heavy .357 magnum, at something like 750ftlbs.
Pistols are pistols, and rifles are rifles.
When there were thought to be larger differences, one could have clear advantages and disadvantages which could be argued. When the differences are small, it comes down to preference, individual performance, and small optimizations. Now, there can be no clear differentiation.
Because pistols are pistols, and rifles are rifles.
So, the caliber wars rage on
The most recent "major shakeup" has commenced, as many law enforcement agencies ( who moved to .40 and .45 in the late 90s and 2000s, after a series of notable failures in effectiveness of 9mm in the 80s and early 90s) have decided to move back to 9mm.
This is happening, because both ballistic testing, and empirical shooting data, show very little difference in effectiveness with modern high performance ammunition.
9mm has always had a few fairly significant advantages... and these are not controversial... that were thought to be offset by its reduced effectiveness compared to .40 and .45. It costs substantially less, it's smaller and lighter (more rounds in the same size, or smaller and lighter with the same round count); and smaller officers, and those who are less skilled with firearms, and who practice less, generally shoot better with it.
Since police generally open carry, large "duty" pistols, and in general are not good shots, who don't get to train very much, and don't have much money for ammo when training; and because there are more and more women and smaller officers on police forces, 9mm is at its greatest position of advantage, in police duty pistols.
With the data showing that modern high performance ammunition gives little or no effective difference between 9mm, .40, and .45; there is really no reason for police duty weapons NOT to move back to 9mm, and some good reasons to do so.
And so 9mm partisans in the non-police shooting world, believe they have scored a final victory over the dark forces of the .45acp.
... this war having been going on literally for over 100 years now by the way; the chamberings having been been developed in 1901 and 1904 respectively, and having first fought on opposite sides of world war one...
Of course, the police duty carry mission, is different from the many different concealed and open carry missions that non-police defensive pistol carriers have.
So the "decisive victory" is nothing of the sort... it's just another set of data points.
There's caliber wars, and there's actual reasonable argument with data.
Most people wouldn't know what the second is, never mind the third.
... Presuming modern premium defensive JHP ammunition, without restrictions...
Basically there is between a 10%-20% or so spread of expected effectiveness between .380+p and .45+p, depending on exactly which data you look at, presuming a human in standard street clothes, and no barrier penetration. About a 10% spread from 9mm (standard pressure) to .45+p and less than 5% from 9mm+p to .45+p... so...
When you factor in things like heavy clothing, barrier penetration and the like, the numbers get even more murky, and less reliable, and less useful...
Effectively, the differences between reasonable defensive chamberings don't matter.
20% is worth debating... 10% maybe... but not really too much, 5% really not at all. It's margin of error, a slight optimization, or a personal preference.
Is it worth upgrading from .380 to 9mm...?
...Sure, if you can shoot it just as well, and carry it just as well...
Is it worth "upgrading to" .45...?
...Sure, if you can shoot it and carry it just as well...
...and you don't mind 2 or so fewer rounds in the same size package.
Is it worth "downgrading" to 9mm...?
...Sure if you can shoot and carry it just as well...
...and you want the 2 or so more rounds in the same size package.
What about .40?
It almost exactly splits the difference between .45 and 9mm, with none of the advantages of either, and all the disadvantages of both really... With modern ammunition, it's really no longer worth considering (except as a smaller version of 10mm, or the basis for .357sig), except "because I feel like it" or "because I shoot it well"... But it's also probably not worth trading or selling it for either 9mm or .45acp if you like it.
Functionally, the spectrum of defensive chamberings between 9mm+p and .45+p make no difference.
So... what DOES make a difference, and how much?
Ehh... not much, and not much...
Basically, a tiny bit with .357sig and a slight advantage with .357magnum and 10mm... and I don't consider .45lc and and .44magnum to be reasonable defensive chamberings for most people (they're effective, but they're bigger, more expensive, harder to shoot, and harder to carry than most will ever bother with).
There's a little bit of an advantage to .357sig, light .357 mag, and light 10mm over .45acp +p... maybe 5%.
There a slightly bigger advantage to medium .357mag and medium 10mm... a little more than 5% to maybe 10%
There's a slightly bigger advantage to hot .357mag and hot 10mm... a little more than 10% to maybe a little more than 15%, or even 20% under some circumstances (particularly with barrier penetration, and with tougher animals than humans).
However, for all of those upgrades, you get higher cost, more recoil, and its more difficult to shoot well...
In the case of medium and heavy 10mm and .357 in lighter easier to carry guns, it can actually be physically painful to shoot, and most people can't shoot them well at all.
Is it worth the upgrade to magnum class chamberings like these?
Sure, if you can carry and shoot them just as well, don't mind the extra recoil and the extra cost.
Getting the picture here...?
It's not about the chambering... because pistols are pistols...
It's really about how well you can shoot, and carry the gun, in your chosen chambering... and in personal preference, and in small optimizations for particular missions.
So, what do I choose? What do I recommend?
I'm a really big guy, who can carry almost any sized gun reasonably comfortably. I live in a rural, cold, northern state, and at times have had to deal with wild animals.
Most importantly for my chambering selection, I shoot heavy recoiling guns pretty well, and the differences in recoil between 9mm+p and light .357 and 10mm are basically meaningless to me; with only a slight disadvantage to medium and heavy .357 and 10mm loads.
My pocket carry guns are a 5 shot .357 revolver, and a 7 shot .380... I like how both of them carry, and I can empty them both into a 4" or smaller circle at 10 or less yards with deliberate fire, and an 8" or smaller circle as fast as I can recover each shot... though neither have much in the way of sights.
Once I got the small .357 revolver, I pretty much stopped bothering carrying the .380 frankly, because I can shoot the .357 as well, it's no heavier, it carries just as well, and it's more reliable. I occasionally carry the .380, particularly in shorts, because it's a little flatter and slimmer... but that's really it.
My belt carry guns right now, are all 3-5" barreled 7-9 round .45 and 10mm 1911s... But at times have been 7 to 16 round 9mm, .40, and .357sig, and .357 magnum I've never felt insufficiently armed with any of them. I have never felt over armed with any of them. Though a couple have been a little bigger or heavier than ideal.
I don't feel that an 8 round .45 1911 is significantly more or less effective, for my personal defensive needs and missions, than a 13 round 9mm Browning hi-power. I happen to own a couple of good 1911s in .45 and 10mm that I like... I happen to have sold all my 9mm pistols a few years ago, including my 2 BHPs, expecting that I'd buy more, but I haven't been in a position to do so.
The only ones that I thought were in any meaningful way more effective, were the .357 magnums, and the 10mm, in both of which I carried loads suitable to heavier animals than people, because I lived in the north Idaho mountains. If I had to dispatch an elk or a moose, or god forbid deal with a bear, I wanted 158gr to 180gr at 1250-1350fps... The biggest advantages I could get in pistols that I felt like carrying every day, and could shoot well.
... and really... it's only a small advantage...
Because Pistols are Pistols, and Rifles are Rifles.
Showing posts with label Ballistics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ballistics. Show all posts
Monday, January 25, 2016
Monday, April 16, 2012
So you want to write about guns part four: It'll blow your head clean off
So, I was asked a question yesterday, that inspired me to write another "So you want to write about firearms" post; and made me realize I had to write another post that was related, but not exactly the same...
So I decided to combine them both into one, and write them out here today.
The purpose of these posts, is to inform the lay person, who is interested in either learning about or writing about guns; either in a non-fiction context (news reporting for example), or in fiction.
The problem is, most good writers don't know a lot about guns (there are a few exceptions, like Stephen Hunter for example) ; but a lot of them do write in genres that a lot of "gun people" like to read (military and adventure fiction, science fiction, thrillers and mysteries etc...).
The mistakes these authors and writers make are quite jarring to those of us who list guns as a hobby, a passion, or a profession; and they can ruin our enjoyment of the work. And for those who don't know, and aren't interested in guns, it spreads unrealistic, or even silly, stupid, or dangerous, misconceptions about guns.
Importantly, I don't just believe, I know for an absolute certainty; that silly stupid inaccuracies about guns in pop culture, are a large portion of the cause of the silly stupid laws and regulations made around guns; said laws and regulations mostly written by, and voted for by, people who don't know any better.
My hope is, that with posts like these, a simple internet search can help out someone who doesn't understand, and is willing to do some basic research.
For the non gunnnies, I am going to try to make this as clear as possible. I'm going to be pumping out a LOT of information here, and some of it is going to be mathy, and technical, and gun geeky. I'm trying to minimize it, but it's unavoidable; just be assured that if I mention it here, it's something you should probably know, or which will at least be helpful for you to know.
For my readers who are gun hobbyists, I will caution you, I am DELIBERATELY simplifying this stuff.
Yes, some of what I will be saying in this post is generalization, estimation, rounding off etc... Don't blow a gasket because I don't reference the exact mass and velocity of a particular cartridge etc... The people I'm writing this for don't want, or need, to know that extreme detail. What they need to understand is the general concept, enough detail to not make dumb mistakes, and enough specifics to understand WHY (because if you don't understand why something is what it is, you don't know when you're making a mistake). Trying to go deeper than that will just make the whole thing more difficult to read, and serve no real purpose except wanking.
Ok, moving on to the meat of the issue...
So, the question in question (forgive me, I couldn't resist) is VERY common... and in fact I'm surprised it hasn't come up in a way that made me write about it directly, some time in the last 7 years.
I've heard this question a million times, in a million different ways, but yesterday it was phrased thusly:
"What is the biggest, most powerful gun? Can you please tell me the specific make and model"
Whoa boy...
Well...
Now, my readers who know guns probably all just said to themselves something like "well, that's an impossible question to answer"... and as phrased it is.
There is no one "most powerful gun"...
And that is true for a number of reasons.
First, you have to make a distinction between "largest" and "most powerful". They're two very different things. Generally bigger guns are "more powerful" than smaller, but not always, and not necessarily in a consistent or even logical manner.
Then, in "biggest" or "largest", there's no clear answer, because there's a "largest caliber", there's a "heaviest projectile", there's a "longest projectile", there's a "biggest cartridge case", and other factors.
"Most powerful" is very hard to define as well, because you've got both mass, and velocity to account for; and the standard objective power metric of "muzzle energy", isn't necessarily a good predictor of combat, defensive, or hunting effectiveness.
Also in the "most powerful" question is the weighting of multiple rounds on target. A bolt action .50bmg rifle is capable of doing a lot of damage with a single round; but a machine gun in .308 can put 100 rounds downrange before the .50 can put two... and that is certainly more gross damage potential, but is it "more powerful" ?
I think, just to simplify things, we need to exclude machine guns, multibarrel rotary guns etc... from the equation, and just talk about the size and power of a single fired round. Also, we need to exclude things like exploding ammunition, recoilless rifles, rifle grenades etc...
Specifically, the power of a firearm is determined by both its chambering (the designation of the cartridge, generally signifying it's diameter and overall length), and the specific loading of that chambering (the amount and type of powder used in the cartridge, and the weight of the bullet used, both of which can variables in a single chambering).
In general, there are many different weapons, from many different manufacturers, available in most common chamberings. For example, pretty much every major handgun manufacturer makes guns in 9x19 nato (commonly just called 9mm), and .45acp.
As of 2012, these two chamberings are the most commonly available centerfire pistol chamberings in the U.S. ; though both chamberings were originally available in a single firearm, and have been strongly associated with those firearms, such that some people still refer to them as "9mm luger" and ".45 colt" (though both are inaccurate, and the second is ambiguous, because it's also commonly used for a large .45 caliber revolver chambering, developed about 40 years before the .45acp).
Also, in general, there are many different loadings (as I said above, that means different bullet weights, and different powder charges), at many different power levels, for most chamberings.
Further, many people hand load their own ammunition, to be more powerful (or more precise) than factory offerings (which is quite easy to do. Factory ammunition is generally quite conservatively loaded, to avoid product liability; as it may be unsafe to load ammunition "hot" - meaning to a higher power level - in older, or less well made guns).
There are only a few, generally very uncommon (or custom, called "wildcat", and usually not available from a factory other than that of its inventor/developer), chamberings, that are only chambered by one particular make and model of gun.
Finally, there are very big differences in the size, and the power, of revolvers, semi-automatic pistols, shotguns, and rifles; so much so that they are not directly compatible, and need to be taken individually as separate questions.
A few technical notes on ammunition, terminology, math, and physics:
Remember at the beginning of this post where I said I realized that the question asked required me to actually write two posts... well this is that other post.
In the second part post I am going to be talking about the mass, velocity, and energy of projectiles launched from firearms; as well as some details about ammunition.
In discussing these subjects, there are certain specialized conventions in terms and measurements which are unique to the firearms world; as well as some certain basic knowledge about ammunition that is necessary to understand the overall discussion.
I could have split this into two posts, but since I think it's more useful and easier to understand things in context, I decided just to make one very long post.
Sorry.
Ok, so what do you "need to know" about ammunition?
The first thing to note is that individual pieces of ammuniton are not "bullets", though they are often referred to as such; they are properly called either cartridges (for rifles and handguns) or shells (for shotguns).
Many people not familiar with firearms... and even those who are, and are just using it as shorthand (hell, I do it myself fairly commonly)... refer to an entire cartridge as a "bullet". This is technically incorrect, though common usage; and gives rise to the common misconception among the unfamiliar that the entire cartridge is fired from the gun.
The second thing to understand, is the parts of a cartridge or shell (as I have reviewed in detail in other posts; but I'll go over them here again for clarity).
A centerfire or rimfire cartridge has four basic parts, and a shotgun shell has five (which are slightly different than a cartridges parts):
The Bullet: This is the actual projectile that is launched from the firearm. When looking at a cartridge, the bullet is the rounded or pointy bit at the end; usually made of lead, or lead and copper (but sometimes made of other materials such as brass).
An important note: small arms bullets are almost never made of steel; though they may have some steel in them. The term "full metal jacket" (abbreviated as FMJ) is common, and correct; but usually refers to a copper, cupronickel alloy, or brass jacket, not steel. Many people believe that it means the bullets are made of steel, or jacketed with steel, but that is not generally true (though as I said, it sometimes is; notably a lot of eastern European ammo is either steel or steel alloy jacketed, as copper is considerably more expensive, and historically was more difficult to obtain in communist countries). some ammunition may also have a steel core inside the copper and lead, which increases penetration through hard surfaces.
The Case: This is the part of the cartridge that holds the bullet (and the next two parts the propellant charge and the primer). It is generally made of brass, but can also be made of steel or aluminum; or brass plated with nickel. Generally speaking, the case is far longer and and far heavier than the bullet (or in fact, heavier than all the other pieces put together), and may be far larger diameter (frequently they are, in rifles, but rarely in hand guns). It is also often called "the casing", or "the brass".
The case itself has a few parts: The mouth, which is the open end that the bullet is inserted into, and in the case of "bottleneck" cartridges, the neck and shoulder; the walls or body, which are the sides of the case that hold the powder charge, and bear against the firearms chamber (the part of the gun that actually holds the cartridge while it is being fired. It's at the end of the barrel closest to the magazine of the gun); and the head (which includes the primer pocket, and the extractor groove or rim) which is thicker and heavier than the rest of the case to accept the primer, to handle the pressure of firing, and to handle the mechanical stresses of feeding the cartridge and extracting the case after firing.
Cartridge cases are generally marked on their case heads, with the manufacturer of the case, and the chambering the case is designed for. This is called the "headstamp".
Note, I did not say "exploded" or "explosive" I said "ignited" and "propellant", which is an important difference. The powder charge of a modern cartridge doesn't actually explode, it just burns very very quickly in what is called "deflagration". There are many different formulations of modern smokeless gun powder; all of which have different burning characteristics, and produce different levels of energy.
Modern gunpowder is considered "smokeless". Though there is some smoke from modern smokeless powders, it is very little in comparison to traditional "black" powder, which is chemically very different.
Black powder actually does explode or rather detonate, rather than just rapidly burning; and it produces an enormous amount of fairly foul smelling smoke as it does so.
Black powder is composed of sulfur, potassium nitrate, and charcoal which is combined into a wet slurry, then allowed to harden and ground down to a fine "kern" or "corn" (which is given a letter grade to denote fineness). Modern smokeless powder is composed of cellulose (plant fiber) which has been dissolved in nitrating compounds (usually nitric acid, or nitric acid and nitroglycerin), mixed with various additives, then extruded and dried into small cylindrical grains, balls, or flakes.
VERY IMPORTANT FOR WRITERS... Modern smokeless powder IS NOT CORDITE.
Many authors who don't know better have read the phrase "the tang of cordite in the air", and then reused it; almost all of them incorrectly and improperly.
Cordite was a specific type of smokeless propellant invented by the British in the late 1880s, used mostly by them (and their colonies and commonwealth members), and only commonly used in small arms ammunition prior to the 1920s (though artillery shells sometimes used cordite up through the 1950s). It was called cordite, because it wasn't actually a powder; it was actually extruded in long yarnlike strings or "cords".
As for the "tang of cordite", the stuff did have a very distinctive aroma of ammonia and potassium when ignited, but the amount ignited in a rifle cartridge is so small that the smell is quite faint (and yes I have fired 90 year old cordite ammunition. You can still buy the stuff that was made for world war one; though it's not particularly reliable, and it's horribly corrosive). It takes the large scale firing of machine guns, or hundreds of rifles, or of an artillery piece (which has the same amount of propellant as hundreds of rifle cartridges), to "taste the tang of cordite in the air".
Black powder was used in the western world from the 14th century, until the early 20th century when it was replaced (except in recreational and "traditional" hunting use) by smokeless powders. The transition from black powder, to smokeless powder, began in the last two decade of the 19th century, and was complete prior to world war 1. These days, people only shoot blackpowder for fun, and because many states have a hunting season limited to blackpowder firearms.
The Primer: Smokeless powder isn't impact sensitive (or at least not significantly so). It isn't set off by the firearms hammer slamming into it; it needs an impact sensitive explosive to ignite it. That is the function of the primer.
The primer is a small metal cup, with a tiny bit of impact sensitive explosive sandwiched into it in between between a couple pieces of thin metal, shown here:
The primer is inserted in the head of the cartridge, which has a tiny hole drilled into it (called the flashhole). Shown here is a primer pocket and flash hole, as well as an expended primer in the case head (both showing the head stamps I mentioned above):
The primer is hit by the firing pin or the striker, which causes the impact sensitive explosive to detonate; and a tiny jet of flame shoots up through the flash hole, igniting the powder charge, and propelling the bullet down the barrel and out the muzzle of the gun (along with a lot of expanding gas, and unburned powder and other residues of gunfire, as so often described on CSI).
Ok, what was that about shotgun ammo?
Shotgun shells are a little bit different. They have five parts, which serve mostly the same functions as in cartridges, but are made a little differently.
Shotgun shells have a powder charge and primer that are largely the same as centerfire cartridges, but there are three basic differences:
The Hull: This is analogous to the case in handguns and rifles, but is slightly different. Modern shotgun hulls are generally made of plastic with a brass base, or "head"; though historically (and currently used in shooting events that recreate historic time periods) they have been made of paper and brass, or even all brass, like a handgun casing.
Also, rather than being capped off with a bullet, shotgun hulls have either a crimp, or a sealing disk of cardboard (crimp shown here as the kinda star shaped thing):
The Load: Shotguns dont fire bullets, they fire either shot, or slugs, and whatever is used as a projectile or projectile is called the load. Shot, is a number of small balls anywhere from as small as 1mm to as large as 9mm across, usually made of lead, but sometimes made of copper, bismuth, tungsten, or steel; and each shell could have as few as five or six, to as many as a couple hundred individual shot pieces (depending on the size of shot, and weight of the load). Slugs, are single large copper, brass, or lead projectiles, which look more like badminton shuttlecocks or salt shakers, than they do bullet; but basically they are just a REALLY big, soft, bullet.
Here are a couple different types of slugs:
And here's a cutaway showing both shot and slugs (as well as the rest of the components):
The Wad (or wad and Cup): In handgun and rifle cartridges, there is nothing between the bullet and the propellant, but air. With shotguns, because they often fire large numbers of small pellets, in order to keep the load all together moving down the barrel, there needs to be a solid buffer between the propellant charge and the shot load. That solid buffer was once almost always a few disks of cardboard or heavy paper (and still sometimes is), but for decades now it has frequently has been a thin plastic cup with a thick plastic base. It flies out the end of the barrel surrounding the load, but because it is very low mass, and has a high surface area, it separates from the load within a few yards, falling to the ground (though sometimes if you are close enough to a paper target, the wad will go through the target).
Here's a picture of an actual wad:
Here's another cutaway diagram showing the wad and cup a bit more clearly:
Now, some more of the terminology:
When we're talking about firearms "power", we need to talk about mass, velocity, and energy. There are lots of terms used in science for these things. In science, mass is generally denominated in grams, velocity in meters per second, and energy in joules for example.
In Europe they sometimes use those terms, but ballistics has been around a lot longer than the metric system, and in the U.S, we generally use the traditional terminology.
The actual caliber of a bullet is just the diameter of the bullet, expressed either in inches (or more commonly in fractions of an inch, as almost all small arms fire projectiles smaller than 1 inch in diameter) such as .45 caliber, or in millimeters, such as 9mm.
It is technically accurate to say something is in "9mm caliber", however it is not commonly done, as in general, when someone hears "caliber", they are expecting to hear an inch measurement.
All that said however, the bullets diameter isn't directly related to the "power" of the firearm; except in that larger diameter bullets tend to be heavier (have more mass), than smaller diameter bullets (though not always, as bullets can be short and stubby, or long and thin).
...Well that, and that bigger bullets tend to make bigger holes in whatever they hit; and bigger holes usually hurt more...
Bullets mass and powder charge are both denominated in grains, abbreviated as gr.
1gr is 1/7000th of a pound, or 437.5gr per ounce.
Note that gr=grains not g=grams.
So, a standard 230gr .45acp bullet weighs a bit more than 1/2 ounce; and a standard 9mm bullet weighs a bit more than 1/4 ounce. What generally surprises folks who aren't familiar with guns, is that the bullet for our standard military rifle, which is chambered in 5.56 nato, is even smaller; at just under 1/4" diameter, and weighing in at right around 1/8 of an ounce.
Smaller... but much more energetic; because kinetic energy is a function of both mass, and velocity. More importantly, energy scales linearly with mass, but exponentially with velocity (so velocity has a much greater weight in the equation as it goes up).
In American practice the custom is to denominate muzzle velocity in feet per second, and energy in foot pounds force, usually just referred to as foot pounds, and marked as ftlbs or ft/lbs.
For those of you using the metric system, 1.35 joules is approximately equal to 1 foot pounds force, and 1 meter per second is approximately equal to 3.28 feet per second.
Now, the physics and the math...
The only really objective and quantifiable measure of firearms "power", is kinetic energy; which is conventionally called "muzzle energy" in ballistics.
Kinetic energy is calculated by the formula K=(1/2)MV^2, however as in any other equation, the units must be dimensionally comparable (remember dimensional analysis from high school?).
Thus, the equations work out as E=M*V^2/450400 for the American system and E=MV^2/2000 for the metric system.
M is bullet mass (denominated in either in grains or grams). V is the bullet velocity (in either ft/sec or m/sec) The constants 450400 for american measurement, and 2000 for metric measurements, are the conversion factors for the dimensional analysis.
Here's a link for a calculator to do the math for you, which prints a nice little graph of total kinetic energy as a function of mass and velocity.
So, a 230gr .45acp bullet travelling at the standard 830 feet per second, has about 350ftlbs of muzzle energy; and a 62gr 5.56 nato bullet (which is the same as a .223 Remington, about half the diameter of the .45) travelling at the standard 3100ft/sec, has about 1300flbs of energy.
That's about four times the energy in the rifle round vs. the pistol round; even though the rifle bullet is only about 1/2 the diameter, and about 1/4 of the mass.
Physics is FUN YAY!!!!
So, all that said, let's make some basic assumptions and generalizations, and talk about some of the most powerful common chamberings, and some of the guns that chamber them.
HANDGUN POWER IN GENERAL:
Both the largest and most powerful handgun chambering is the Smith and Wesson .500 magnum.
It is a true .50 caliber pistol round (which is the largest caliber generally allowed under U.S. sporting arms regulations), with the same muzzle energy as a large magnum rifle. It fires up to a 500gr bullet at up to 1600feet per second for around 3000ftlbs of energy.
As of now, it's only available in the Smith and Wesson x-frame revolver, and a few custom revolvers; mostly because the cartridge itself is both too large (both long and wide) and too powerful, for most other handgun frames.
The most powerful commonly available chambering that fits into a "normal" sized revolver is generally considered to be the .454 casull; which is a .45 caliber round, at up to 400gr, and up to 1500feet per second for up to around 2000ftlbs of energy.
The most powerful chambering that people would actually carry for self defense, is the .44 mganum (.454 is used for hunting, and protecting yourself against bears), or a heavy .45 colt loading; and in general most still would consider those too hot for self defense, and use them generally for hunting.
The most powerful chambering that is commonly carried for self defense in revolvers is .357 magnum. Very heavy, very hot hunting rounds can be had with bullets up to 180gr and at velocities of up to 1500fps, for muzzle energies well over 800ftlbs; but that would be VERY hot ammo, and not safe for firing in most normal guns. The most powerful loads people would actually carry, are somewhere around 160gr at around 1500fps, for around 800ftlbs.
The great thing about .357 magnum revolvers, is that they can shoot the much less powerful (and much cheaper) .38 special ammunition (.357 magnum is basically stretched and overpowered .38spl in a tougher brass case). They can also be made quite small. I have a pocket sized 5 shot .357 magnum revolver that only weighs 10 ounces empty, and about 12 ounces loaded. It goes into my front pants pocket in the morning and doesn't come out until I go to bed; and I barely notice it at all.
semi-automatic pistols are, in general, not able to handle the same power levels as heavy, large framed revolvers, for a number of reasons relating to how semi-autos function. You CAN get very powerful semiautos, but they have to be very large, and very heavy, like the Desert Eagle or the Wildey.
The most powerful commonly available chambering in a semi-automatic pistol is the .50 action express; but it's only available in the Desert Eagle, and some custom guns. It shoots up to a 350gr bullet at up to 1500fps, for up to around 1600ftlps of energy.
There are also a few boutique chamberings like the .45 winchester magnum, the .45 wildey magnum, the .44 automag etc... etc... some of which are as powerful as moderate loadings of the .454 casull, but most of which are under the hottest loadings of the .44 magnum.
The most powerful chambering in semiautomatic pistols people actually CARRY, is probably 10mm (I often carry one myself); which fires up to a 180gr .40 caliber bullet, at up to 1350fps, for around 730ftlbs of energy; somewhere in between the .357 magnum and the .44 magnum revolver rounds (about the same as the much less common .41 magnum).
There are a number of pistols that can chamber rifle rounds; which are generally far more powerful than pistol rounds; but again, those are all rather specialized firearms.
SHOTGUN POWER IN GENERAL:
The most powerful shotgun commonly available is the 10ga, but shotgun "power" is highly dependent on the ammunition you are firing... As it is for all other firearms certainly, but more so for shotguns.
Shotgun loadings are far more variable than handgun or rifle loads, generally because shotguns are used for a broader range of activities than other firearms; and also because shotguns will properly and accurately function with a broader range of ammunition, while rifles and handguns (and semi-automatic shotguns for that matter) need to operate in a fairly narrow range of mass and velocity to function both reliably and accurately.
These shotgun loads can vary from light trap loads, which generally use a shorter 2-1/2" or 2-3/4" shell (or even 1-3/4" in some specialty loads), and launch relatively light loads of very small pellets at a moderate velocity to hit clay targets; to heavy 3.5" magnum slug loads, which launch a single very heavy projectile, at relatively high velocities, for hunting and personal defense.
In general, you would probably categorize the most powerful ammunition options as 3.5" magnum slugs; which are available in 10ga, and 12ga.
A not on shotgun terminology; as with wire gauge, the smaller the gauge, the larger the diameter of the bore size. Shotgun gauge is also sometimes referred to as "bore", which was a measurement dating back to old blackpowder cannons. In this context refers not directly to diameter, but to the number of pure lead spheres of the diameter of the barrel that would fit into a pound of lead. So a 12 bore or 12 gauge shotgun has a bore diameter equal to that of a sphere of lead that weighs 1/12th pound; which corresponds to about .72". A 10ga that of a 1/10th pound lead sphere which is about .77" and so on.
A 10ga 3.5" magnum slug shell fires a .75" diameter slug, weighing approximately 2 ounces (I have seen a 2-1/4" oz slug load, but they are very uncommon. The heaviest common slug load would be 1-3/4oz, at approximately 1300 feet per second, for somewehere around 3000ftlbs of energy (which is about the same as the .500 S&W).
Oh I should have noted, the 2 ounce 10ga slug I mention above is about 875 grains; but traditionally, shotgun loads are denominated in ounces.
RIFLE POWER IN GENERAL:
In rifle terms... there's really no answer to that question, as there are far too many variables.
HOWEVER, IN GENERAL...
The most powerful commonly available chambering is the .50bmg; a round originally designed in 1917 for heavy machineguns, and still used for that today.
There are hundreds of different rifles available in .50bmg; from around $1000, to over $20,000; including both bolt action and semi-automatic options.
It's the largest commonly available, because U.S. sporting arms regulations generally limit modern smokeless powder cartridge firing rifles to .50 caliber or below (there are a few exceptions), and also because more powerful weapons generally generate too much recoil and muzzle blast to be fired from the shoulder, and need to be mounted into the ground or on a vehicle.
There ARE a few rifles chambered in 20mm (which is about .79 caliber, and usually using aircraft cannon type ammunition with a solid projectile instead of an explosive shell) but they are very rare, very expensive, and very very hard to shoot; because of the massive recoil energy and muzzle blast they produce. They are essentially a curiosity.
The use of the .50bmg round in accurate bolt action and semi-automatic rifles however is fairly common these days. It has a fairly long history dating back at least to the 1950's (I'm sure people built .50 caliber bolt action rifles before then, but I can't find any references to it), and could now be considered on the edge of mainstream.
The .50bmg can be accurate at over a mile under the right conditions; and has made kills at far longer ranges (sniper kills at 1.5 miles; machine gun kills from indirect fire at over 2 miles).
The standard load for a .50bmg is an 800 grain bullet, that's .50" wide and over 2" long, at around 3000 feet per second, for around 15,000 ftlbs of energy.
That's about 6 times the power of a common large battle rifle chambering like .308 or .30-06; and about 12 times the power of the standard 5.56 nato assault rifle chambering.
Of course, it's also got about 12 times the recoil (actually, it's about 8 times the recoil impulse, and 11 times the total energy. Here's a calculator to help you determine recoil if you're interested) and needs to be fired in guns that weigh at least 4 or 5 times as much etc... etc...
The most powerful chambering commonly used by both hunters and soldiers, is the .300 winchester magnum, which fires a bullet between 160gr and 220gr at somewhere arounf 3000 feet per second, and somewhere around 4,000 ftlbs of energy.
The .300 winmag is used by snipers, and by long range hunters, as well as long range shooting competitors (my 1000 yard rifles are all in .300 win mag). It's very commonly available, with ammunition and rifles chambered in it both available at your local Wal-Mart in most states.
The .338 lapua is a chambering that has become more common over the past 15 years or so. It's also used by snipers and long range shooters, but not much by hunters; as it doesn't give much advantage over the .300 winmag until you go beyond 1000 yards range. It's got about 50% more energy than the .300, and is good out to past 1500 yards, with a few confirmed kills past 2000 yards; for a HUGE recoil, noise, and cost penalty (almost as much as a .50bmg when you consider it's being shot in rifles that weigh half as much as the .50s do).
There are other very large, very powerful rifle rounds sometimes used by snipers or other long range shooters, often based off of .50bmg cases, but sometimes based off of large magnum rifle rounds; but I wouldn't call any of them common, and none are actually more powerful than the .50bmg.
There ARE however rifles that fire larger diameter bullets, and even heavier bullets; they just fire them at much lower velocities.
These chamberings are the classic african "elephant gun" loadings; which went up as high as .70 caliber (the .700 nitro express), using bullets massing as much as 1000gr, and producing as much as 10,000ftlbs of energy.
Unlike sniper and other long range rifle rounds, these big monsters were designed to shoot at short ranges of under 100 yards (generally 50 yards or less in fact); and to deliver their HUGE bullets, at moderate velocities, to break through the heavy bone structure of African big game like Elephants, Rhinos, and Cape Buffalo.
There have even been a very small number of even larger rifles made; which shoot bullets so large they are referred to by "bore" rather than caliber, much as shotguns are (shotgun gauge and shotgun bore are technically interchangeable, but "bore" is archaic... though still commonly used among older shooters, and the english).
There have been 8 bore, 4 bore, and even 2 bore rifles; again used by african hunters, and firing projectiles spanning as much as a 1.32 inches diameter, weighing as much as 8 ounces, and producing as much or more energy (from about 1/2 ounce of black powder, which is generally less energetic than modern powders) as a .50bmg (though at much lower velocities of course)
I have heard that a few folks have, in recent years, produced 1 bore rifles as stunts; but I don't think anyone ever actually made them to go after game in Africa... In fact, with a 1 pound projectile at around 1200 feet per second, producing 23,000 ftlbs of energy; when fired from a 20lb gun, I'm pretty sure you couldn't fire one from the shoulder without actually doing damage to yourself. The recoil energy and impulse of such a weapon would be enough to tear your shoulder out of its socket.
These rifles are very rare, very expensive, and very specialized. They are not in common use by any stretch of the imagination; but they are out there.
So then, what IS the biggest, most powerful gun?
Well, given all that I've just said, and since there is no one answer... why don't you tell me?
Like I said, it depends on your definitions of "largest", "most powerful", and "gun".
Hopefully, 6000 words later; I've given you enough information here that, in the context of what you are trying to write, you can figure those out for yourself.
So I decided to combine them both into one, and write them out here today.
The purpose of these posts, is to inform the lay person, who is interested in either learning about or writing about guns; either in a non-fiction context (news reporting for example), or in fiction.
The problem is, most good writers don't know a lot about guns (there are a few exceptions, like Stephen Hunter for example) ; but a lot of them do write in genres that a lot of "gun people" like to read (military and adventure fiction, science fiction, thrillers and mysteries etc...).
The mistakes these authors and writers make are quite jarring to those of us who list guns as a hobby, a passion, or a profession; and they can ruin our enjoyment of the work. And for those who don't know, and aren't interested in guns, it spreads unrealistic, or even silly, stupid, or dangerous, misconceptions about guns.
Importantly, I don't just believe, I know for an absolute certainty; that silly stupid inaccuracies about guns in pop culture, are a large portion of the cause of the silly stupid laws and regulations made around guns; said laws and regulations mostly written by, and voted for by, people who don't know any better.
My hope is, that with posts like these, a simple internet search can help out someone who doesn't understand, and is willing to do some basic research.
For the non gunnnies, I am going to try to make this as clear as possible. I'm going to be pumping out a LOT of information here, and some of it is going to be mathy, and technical, and gun geeky. I'm trying to minimize it, but it's unavoidable; just be assured that if I mention it here, it's something you should probably know, or which will at least be helpful for you to know.
For my readers who are gun hobbyists, I will caution you, I am DELIBERATELY simplifying this stuff.
Yes, some of what I will be saying in this post is generalization, estimation, rounding off etc... Don't blow a gasket because I don't reference the exact mass and velocity of a particular cartridge etc... The people I'm writing this for don't want, or need, to know that extreme detail. What they need to understand is the general concept, enough detail to not make dumb mistakes, and enough specifics to understand WHY (because if you don't understand why something is what it is, you don't know when you're making a mistake). Trying to go deeper than that will just make the whole thing more difficult to read, and serve no real purpose except wanking.
Ok, moving on to the meat of the issue...
So, the question in question (forgive me, I couldn't resist) is VERY common... and in fact I'm surprised it hasn't come up in a way that made me write about it directly, some time in the last 7 years.
I've heard this question a million times, in a million different ways, but yesterday it was phrased thusly:
"What is the biggest, most powerful gun? Can you please tell me the specific make and model"
Whoa boy...
Well...
Now, my readers who know guns probably all just said to themselves something like "well, that's an impossible question to answer"... and as phrased it is.
There is no one "most powerful gun"...
And that is true for a number of reasons.
First, you have to make a distinction between "largest" and "most powerful". They're two very different things. Generally bigger guns are "more powerful" than smaller, but not always, and not necessarily in a consistent or even logical manner.
Then, in "biggest" or "largest", there's no clear answer, because there's a "largest caliber", there's a "heaviest projectile", there's a "longest projectile", there's a "biggest cartridge case", and other factors.
"Most powerful" is very hard to define as well, because you've got both mass, and velocity to account for; and the standard objective power metric of "muzzle energy", isn't necessarily a good predictor of combat, defensive, or hunting effectiveness.
Also in the "most powerful" question is the weighting of multiple rounds on target. A bolt action .50bmg rifle is capable of doing a lot of damage with a single round; but a machine gun in .308 can put 100 rounds downrange before the .50 can put two... and that is certainly more gross damage potential, but is it "more powerful" ?
I think, just to simplify things, we need to exclude machine guns, multibarrel rotary guns etc... from the equation, and just talk about the size and power of a single fired round. Also, we need to exclude things like exploding ammunition, recoilless rifles, rifle grenades etc...
Actually... even before all that, we have to limit ourself somewhat further, and assume that we are talking about "small arms" fireable by a single person without mechanical support; which is what most people mean when they say "guns".So, moving on from that, the question is still basically impossible to answer simply, because the "power" of a firearm is determined not by make and model, or actually anything about the firearm itself; but by the ammunition that it fires.
If you want to include all things defined as "guns", the "most powerful" is going to be either the Gerald Bull "supergun", which though it never fired, would have been about 150 feet long and 16 inches in diameter, but which could fire a projectile into the edge of space; or an artillery piece launching a nuclear weapon. For "biggest" you would probably choose one of the absolutely gigantic 24" to 36" artillery pieces created during WW1 or WW2, which launched projectiles as much as 12 feet long and weighing as much as 15,000lbs.
Specifically, the power of a firearm is determined by both its chambering (the designation of the cartridge, generally signifying it's diameter and overall length), and the specific loading of that chambering (the amount and type of powder used in the cartridge, and the weight of the bullet used, both of which can variables in a single chambering).
In general, there are many different weapons, from many different manufacturers, available in most common chamberings. For example, pretty much every major handgun manufacturer makes guns in 9x19 nato (commonly just called 9mm), and .45acp.
As of 2012, these two chamberings are the most commonly available centerfire pistol chamberings in the U.S. ; though both chamberings were originally available in a single firearm, and have been strongly associated with those firearms, such that some people still refer to them as "9mm luger" and ".45 colt" (though both are inaccurate, and the second is ambiguous, because it's also commonly used for a large .45 caliber revolver chambering, developed about 40 years before the .45acp).
Also, in general, there are many different loadings (as I said above, that means different bullet weights, and different powder charges), at many different power levels, for most chamberings.
Further, many people hand load their own ammunition, to be more powerful (or more precise) than factory offerings (which is quite easy to do. Factory ammunition is generally quite conservatively loaded, to avoid product liability; as it may be unsafe to load ammunition "hot" - meaning to a higher power level - in older, or less well made guns).
There are only a few, generally very uncommon (or custom, called "wildcat", and usually not available from a factory other than that of its inventor/developer), chamberings, that are only chambered by one particular make and model of gun.
Finally, there are very big differences in the size, and the power, of revolvers, semi-automatic pistols, shotguns, and rifles; so much so that they are not directly compatible, and need to be taken individually as separate questions.
A few technical notes on ammunition, terminology, math, and physics:
Remember at the beginning of this post where I said I realized that the question asked required me to actually write two posts... well this is that other post.
In the second part post I am going to be talking about the mass, velocity, and energy of projectiles launched from firearms; as well as some details about ammunition.
In discussing these subjects, there are certain specialized conventions in terms and measurements which are unique to the firearms world; as well as some certain basic knowledge about ammunition that is necessary to understand the overall discussion.
I could have split this into two posts, but since I think it's more useful and easier to understand things in context, I decided just to make one very long post.
Sorry.
Ok, so what do you "need to know" about ammunition?
The first thing to note is that individual pieces of ammuniton are not "bullets", though they are often referred to as such; they are properly called either cartridges (for rifles and handguns) or shells (for shotguns).
Many people not familiar with firearms... and even those who are, and are just using it as shorthand (hell, I do it myself fairly commonly)... refer to an entire cartridge as a "bullet". This is technically incorrect, though common usage; and gives rise to the common misconception among the unfamiliar that the entire cartridge is fired from the gun.
The second thing to understand, is the parts of a cartridge or shell (as I have reviewed in detail in other posts; but I'll go over them here again for clarity).
A centerfire or rimfire cartridge has four basic parts, and a shotgun shell has five (which are slightly different than a cartridges parts):
The Bullet: This is the actual projectile that is launched from the firearm. When looking at a cartridge, the bullet is the rounded or pointy bit at the end; usually made of lead, or lead and copper (but sometimes made of other materials such as brass).
An important note: small arms bullets are almost never made of steel; though they may have some steel in them. The term "full metal jacket" (abbreviated as FMJ) is common, and correct; but usually refers to a copper, cupronickel alloy, or brass jacket, not steel. Many people believe that it means the bullets are made of steel, or jacketed with steel, but that is not generally true (though as I said, it sometimes is; notably a lot of eastern European ammo is either steel or steel alloy jacketed, as copper is considerably more expensive, and historically was more difficult to obtain in communist countries). some ammunition may also have a steel core inside the copper and lead, which increases penetration through hard surfaces.
The Case: This is the part of the cartridge that holds the bullet (and the next two parts the propellant charge and the primer). It is generally made of brass, but can also be made of steel or aluminum; or brass plated with nickel. Generally speaking, the case is far longer and and far heavier than the bullet (or in fact, heavier than all the other pieces put together), and may be far larger diameter (frequently they are, in rifles, but rarely in hand guns). It is also often called "the casing", or "the brass".
The case itself has a few parts: The mouth, which is the open end that the bullet is inserted into, and in the case of "bottleneck" cartridges, the neck and shoulder; the walls or body, which are the sides of the case that hold the powder charge, and bear against the firearms chamber (the part of the gun that actually holds the cartridge while it is being fired. It's at the end of the barrel closest to the magazine of the gun); and the head (which includes the primer pocket, and the extractor groove or rim) which is thicker and heavier than the rest of the case to accept the primer, to handle the pressure of firing, and to handle the mechanical stresses of feeding the cartridge and extracting the case after firing.
Cartridge cases are generally marked on their case heads, with the manufacturer of the case, and the chambering the case is designed for. This is called the "headstamp".
One should note that headstamps are generally accurate and correct for factory produced ammunition; but many people hand load their own ammunition, in custom chamberings, using brass that was originally designed for other chamberings, and as such the actual chambering of a fired case may be different from the headstamp.The Propellant Charge: Also called the powder charge, the charge, or the powder; this is the actual propellant, which is ignited to fire the bullet out of the barrel.
Note, I did not say "exploded" or "explosive" I said "ignited" and "propellant", which is an important difference. The powder charge of a modern cartridge doesn't actually explode, it just burns very very quickly in what is called "deflagration". There are many different formulations of modern smokeless gun powder; all of which have different burning characteristics, and produce different levels of energy.
Modern gunpowder is considered "smokeless". Though there is some smoke from modern smokeless powders, it is very little in comparison to traditional "black" powder, which is chemically very different.
Black powder actually does explode or rather detonate, rather than just rapidly burning; and it produces an enormous amount of fairly foul smelling smoke as it does so.
Black powder is composed of sulfur, potassium nitrate, and charcoal which is combined into a wet slurry, then allowed to harden and ground down to a fine "kern" or "corn" (which is given a letter grade to denote fineness). Modern smokeless powder is composed of cellulose (plant fiber) which has been dissolved in nitrating compounds (usually nitric acid, or nitric acid and nitroglycerin), mixed with various additives, then extruded and dried into small cylindrical grains, balls, or flakes.
VERY IMPORTANT FOR WRITERS... Modern smokeless powder IS NOT CORDITE.
Many authors who don't know better have read the phrase "the tang of cordite in the air", and then reused it; almost all of them incorrectly and improperly.
Cordite was a specific type of smokeless propellant invented by the British in the late 1880s, used mostly by them (and their colonies and commonwealth members), and only commonly used in small arms ammunition prior to the 1920s (though artillery shells sometimes used cordite up through the 1950s). It was called cordite, because it wasn't actually a powder; it was actually extruded in long yarnlike strings or "cords".
As for the "tang of cordite", the stuff did have a very distinctive aroma of ammonia and potassium when ignited, but the amount ignited in a rifle cartridge is so small that the smell is quite faint (and yes I have fired 90 year old cordite ammunition. You can still buy the stuff that was made for world war one; though it's not particularly reliable, and it's horribly corrosive). It takes the large scale firing of machine guns, or hundreds of rifles, or of an artillery piece (which has the same amount of propellant as hundreds of rifle cartridges), to "taste the tang of cordite in the air".
Black powder was used in the western world from the 14th century, until the early 20th century when it was replaced (except in recreational and "traditional" hunting use) by smokeless powders. The transition from black powder, to smokeless powder, began in the last two decade of the 19th century, and was complete prior to world war 1. These days, people only shoot blackpowder for fun, and because many states have a hunting season limited to blackpowder firearms.
The Primer: Smokeless powder isn't impact sensitive (or at least not significantly so). It isn't set off by the firearms hammer slamming into it; it needs an impact sensitive explosive to ignite it. That is the function of the primer.
The primer is a small metal cup, with a tiny bit of impact sensitive explosive sandwiched into it in between between a couple pieces of thin metal, shown here:
The primer is inserted in the head of the cartridge, which has a tiny hole drilled into it (called the flashhole). Shown here is a primer pocket and flash hole, as well as an expended primer in the case head (both showing the head stamps I mentioned above):
The primer is hit by the firing pin or the striker, which causes the impact sensitive explosive to detonate; and a tiny jet of flame shoots up through the flash hole, igniting the powder charge, and propelling the bullet down the barrel and out the muzzle of the gun (along with a lot of expanding gas, and unburned powder and other residues of gunfire, as so often described on CSI).
Ok, what was that about shotgun ammo?
Shotgun shells are a little bit different. They have five parts, which serve mostly the same functions as in cartridges, but are made a little differently.
Shotgun shells have a powder charge and primer that are largely the same as centerfire cartridges, but there are three basic differences:
The Hull: This is analogous to the case in handguns and rifles, but is slightly different. Modern shotgun hulls are generally made of plastic with a brass base, or "head"; though historically (and currently used in shooting events that recreate historic time periods) they have been made of paper and brass, or even all brass, like a handgun casing.
Also, rather than being capped off with a bullet, shotgun hulls have either a crimp, or a sealing disk of cardboard (crimp shown here as the kinda star shaped thing):
The Load: Shotguns dont fire bullets, they fire either shot, or slugs, and whatever is used as a projectile or projectile is called the load. Shot, is a number of small balls anywhere from as small as 1mm to as large as 9mm across, usually made of lead, but sometimes made of copper, bismuth, tungsten, or steel; and each shell could have as few as five or six, to as many as a couple hundred individual shot pieces (depending on the size of shot, and weight of the load). Slugs, are single large copper, brass, or lead projectiles, which look more like badminton shuttlecocks or salt shakers, than they do bullet; but basically they are just a REALLY big, soft, bullet.
Here are a couple different types of slugs:
And here's a cutaway showing both shot and slugs (as well as the rest of the components):
The Wad (or wad and Cup): In handgun and rifle cartridges, there is nothing between the bullet and the propellant, but air. With shotguns, because they often fire large numbers of small pellets, in order to keep the load all together moving down the barrel, there needs to be a solid buffer between the propellant charge and the shot load. That solid buffer was once almost always a few disks of cardboard or heavy paper (and still sometimes is), but for decades now it has frequently has been a thin plastic cup with a thick plastic base. It flies out the end of the barrel surrounding the load, but because it is very low mass, and has a high surface area, it separates from the load within a few yards, falling to the ground (though sometimes if you are close enough to a paper target, the wad will go through the target).
Here's a picture of an actual wad:
Here's another cutaway diagram showing the wad and cup a bit more clearly:
Now, some more of the terminology:
When we're talking about firearms "power", we need to talk about mass, velocity, and energy. There are lots of terms used in science for these things. In science, mass is generally denominated in grams, velocity in meters per second, and energy in joules for example.
In Europe they sometimes use those terms, but ballistics has been around a lot longer than the metric system, and in the U.S, we generally use the traditional terminology.
The actual caliber of a bullet is just the diameter of the bullet, expressed either in inches (or more commonly in fractions of an inch, as almost all small arms fire projectiles smaller than 1 inch in diameter) such as .45 caliber, or in millimeters, such as 9mm.
It is technically accurate to say something is in "9mm caliber", however it is not commonly done, as in general, when someone hears "caliber", they are expecting to hear an inch measurement.
All that said however, the bullets diameter isn't directly related to the "power" of the firearm; except in that larger diameter bullets tend to be heavier (have more mass), than smaller diameter bullets (though not always, as bullets can be short and stubby, or long and thin).
...Well that, and that bigger bullets tend to make bigger holes in whatever they hit; and bigger holes usually hurt more...
Bullets mass and powder charge are both denominated in grains, abbreviated as gr.
1gr is 1/7000th of a pound, or 437.5gr per ounce.
Note that gr=grains not g=grams.
So, a standard 230gr .45acp bullet weighs a bit more than 1/2 ounce; and a standard 9mm bullet weighs a bit more than 1/4 ounce. What generally surprises folks who aren't familiar with guns, is that the bullet for our standard military rifle, which is chambered in 5.56 nato, is even smaller; at just under 1/4" diameter, and weighing in at right around 1/8 of an ounce.
Smaller... but much more energetic; because kinetic energy is a function of both mass, and velocity. More importantly, energy scales linearly with mass, but exponentially with velocity (so velocity has a much greater weight in the equation as it goes up).
In American practice the custom is to denominate muzzle velocity in feet per second, and energy in foot pounds force, usually just referred to as foot pounds, and marked as ftlbs or ft/lbs.
For those of you using the metric system, 1.35 joules is approximately equal to 1 foot pounds force, and 1 meter per second is approximately equal to 3.28 feet per second.
Now, the physics and the math...
The only really objective and quantifiable measure of firearms "power", is kinetic energy; which is conventionally called "muzzle energy" in ballistics.
Kinetic energy is calculated by the formula K=(1/2)MV^2, however as in any other equation, the units must be dimensionally comparable (remember dimensional analysis from high school?).
Thus, the equations work out as E=M*V^2/450400 for the American system and E=MV^2/2000 for the metric system.
M is bullet mass (denominated in either in grains or grams). V is the bullet velocity (in either ft/sec or m/sec) The constants 450400 for american measurement, and 2000 for metric measurements, are the conversion factors for the dimensional analysis.
Here's a link for a calculator to do the math for you, which prints a nice little graph of total kinetic energy as a function of mass and velocity.
So, a 230gr .45acp bullet travelling at the standard 830 feet per second, has about 350ftlbs of muzzle energy; and a 62gr 5.56 nato bullet (which is the same as a .223 Remington, about half the diameter of the .45) travelling at the standard 3100ft/sec, has about 1300flbs of energy.
That's about four times the energy in the rifle round vs. the pistol round; even though the rifle bullet is only about 1/2 the diameter, and about 1/4 of the mass.
Physics is FUN YAY!!!!
So, all that said, let's make some basic assumptions and generalizations, and talk about some of the most powerful common chamberings, and some of the guns that chamber them.
HANDGUN POWER IN GENERAL:
Both the largest and most powerful handgun chambering is the Smith and Wesson .500 magnum.
It is a true .50 caliber pistol round (which is the largest caliber generally allowed under U.S. sporting arms regulations), with the same muzzle energy as a large magnum rifle. It fires up to a 500gr bullet at up to 1600feet per second for around 3000ftlbs of energy.
As of now, it's only available in the Smith and Wesson x-frame revolver, and a few custom revolvers; mostly because the cartridge itself is both too large (both long and wide) and too powerful, for most other handgun frames.
The most powerful commonly available chambering that fits into a "normal" sized revolver is generally considered to be the .454 casull; which is a .45 caliber round, at up to 400gr, and up to 1500feet per second for up to around 2000ftlbs of energy.
The most powerful chambering that people would actually carry for self defense, is the .44 mganum (.454 is used for hunting, and protecting yourself against bears), or a heavy .45 colt loading; and in general most still would consider those too hot for self defense, and use them generally for hunting.
The most powerful chambering that is commonly carried for self defense in revolvers is .357 magnum. Very heavy, very hot hunting rounds can be had with bullets up to 180gr and at velocities of up to 1500fps, for muzzle energies well over 800ftlbs; but that would be VERY hot ammo, and not safe for firing in most normal guns. The most powerful loads people would actually carry, are somewhere around 160gr at around 1500fps, for around 800ftlbs.
The great thing about .357 magnum revolvers, is that they can shoot the much less powerful (and much cheaper) .38 special ammunition (.357 magnum is basically stretched and overpowered .38spl in a tougher brass case). They can also be made quite small. I have a pocket sized 5 shot .357 magnum revolver that only weighs 10 ounces empty, and about 12 ounces loaded. It goes into my front pants pocket in the morning and doesn't come out until I go to bed; and I barely notice it at all.
semi-automatic pistols are, in general, not able to handle the same power levels as heavy, large framed revolvers, for a number of reasons relating to how semi-autos function. You CAN get very powerful semiautos, but they have to be very large, and very heavy, like the Desert Eagle or the Wildey.
The most powerful commonly available chambering in a semi-automatic pistol is the .50 action express; but it's only available in the Desert Eagle, and some custom guns. It shoots up to a 350gr bullet at up to 1500fps, for up to around 1600ftlps of energy.
There are also a few boutique chamberings like the .45 winchester magnum, the .45 wildey magnum, the .44 automag etc... etc... some of which are as powerful as moderate loadings of the .454 casull, but most of which are under the hottest loadings of the .44 magnum.
The most powerful chambering in semiautomatic pistols people actually CARRY, is probably 10mm (I often carry one myself); which fires up to a 180gr .40 caliber bullet, at up to 1350fps, for around 730ftlbs of energy; somewhere in between the .357 magnum and the .44 magnum revolver rounds (about the same as the much less common .41 magnum).
There are a number of pistols that can chamber rifle rounds; which are generally far more powerful than pistol rounds; but again, those are all rather specialized firearms.
SHOTGUN POWER IN GENERAL:
The most powerful shotgun commonly available is the 10ga, but shotgun "power" is highly dependent on the ammunition you are firing... As it is for all other firearms certainly, but more so for shotguns.
Shotgun loadings are far more variable than handgun or rifle loads, generally because shotguns are used for a broader range of activities than other firearms; and also because shotguns will properly and accurately function with a broader range of ammunition, while rifles and handguns (and semi-automatic shotguns for that matter) need to operate in a fairly narrow range of mass and velocity to function both reliably and accurately.
These shotgun loads can vary from light trap loads, which generally use a shorter 2-1/2" or 2-3/4" shell (or even 1-3/4" in some specialty loads), and launch relatively light loads of very small pellets at a moderate velocity to hit clay targets; to heavy 3.5" magnum slug loads, which launch a single very heavy projectile, at relatively high velocities, for hunting and personal defense.
In general, you would probably categorize the most powerful ammunition options as 3.5" magnum slugs; which are available in 10ga, and 12ga.
A not on shotgun terminology; as with wire gauge, the smaller the gauge, the larger the diameter of the bore size. Shotgun gauge is also sometimes referred to as "bore", which was a measurement dating back to old blackpowder cannons. In this context refers not directly to diameter, but to the number of pure lead spheres of the diameter of the barrel that would fit into a pound of lead. So a 12 bore or 12 gauge shotgun has a bore diameter equal to that of a sphere of lead that weighs 1/12th pound; which corresponds to about .72". A 10ga that of a 1/10th pound lead sphere which is about .77" and so on.
A 10ga 3.5" magnum slug shell fires a .75" diameter slug, weighing approximately 2 ounces (I have seen a 2-1/4" oz slug load, but they are very uncommon. The heaviest common slug load would be 1-3/4oz, at approximately 1300 feet per second, for somewehere around 3000ftlbs of energy (which is about the same as the .500 S&W).
Oh I should have noted, the 2 ounce 10ga slug I mention above is about 875 grains; but traditionally, shotgun loads are denominated in ounces.
RIFLE POWER IN GENERAL:
In rifle terms... there's really no answer to that question, as there are far too many variables.
HOWEVER, IN GENERAL...
The most powerful commonly available chambering is the .50bmg; a round originally designed in 1917 for heavy machineguns, and still used for that today.
There are hundreds of different rifles available in .50bmg; from around $1000, to over $20,000; including both bolt action and semi-automatic options.
It's the largest commonly available, because U.S. sporting arms regulations generally limit modern smokeless powder cartridge firing rifles to .50 caliber or below (there are a few exceptions), and also because more powerful weapons generally generate too much recoil and muzzle blast to be fired from the shoulder, and need to be mounted into the ground or on a vehicle.
There ARE a few rifles chambered in 20mm (which is about .79 caliber, and usually using aircraft cannon type ammunition with a solid projectile instead of an explosive shell) but they are very rare, very expensive, and very very hard to shoot; because of the massive recoil energy and muzzle blast they produce. They are essentially a curiosity.
The use of the .50bmg round in accurate bolt action and semi-automatic rifles however is fairly common these days. It has a fairly long history dating back at least to the 1950's (I'm sure people built .50 caliber bolt action rifles before then, but I can't find any references to it), and could now be considered on the edge of mainstream.
The .50bmg can be accurate at over a mile under the right conditions; and has made kills at far longer ranges (sniper kills at 1.5 miles; machine gun kills from indirect fire at over 2 miles).
The standard load for a .50bmg is an 800 grain bullet, that's .50" wide and over 2" long, at around 3000 feet per second, for around 15,000 ftlbs of energy.
That's about 6 times the power of a common large battle rifle chambering like .308 or .30-06; and about 12 times the power of the standard 5.56 nato assault rifle chambering.
Of course, it's also got about 12 times the recoil (actually, it's about 8 times the recoil impulse, and 11 times the total energy. Here's a calculator to help you determine recoil if you're interested) and needs to be fired in guns that weigh at least 4 or 5 times as much etc... etc...
The most powerful chambering commonly used by both hunters and soldiers, is the .300 winchester magnum, which fires a bullet between 160gr and 220gr at somewhere arounf 3000 feet per second, and somewhere around 4,000 ftlbs of energy.
The .300 winmag is used by snipers, and by long range hunters, as well as long range shooting competitors (my 1000 yard rifles are all in .300 win mag). It's very commonly available, with ammunition and rifles chambered in it both available at your local Wal-Mart in most states.
The .338 lapua is a chambering that has become more common over the past 15 years or so. It's also used by snipers and long range shooters, but not much by hunters; as it doesn't give much advantage over the .300 winmag until you go beyond 1000 yards range. It's got about 50% more energy than the .300, and is good out to past 1500 yards, with a few confirmed kills past 2000 yards; for a HUGE recoil, noise, and cost penalty (almost as much as a .50bmg when you consider it's being shot in rifles that weigh half as much as the .50s do).
There are other very large, very powerful rifle rounds sometimes used by snipers or other long range shooters, often based off of .50bmg cases, but sometimes based off of large magnum rifle rounds; but I wouldn't call any of them common, and none are actually more powerful than the .50bmg.
There ARE however rifles that fire larger diameter bullets, and even heavier bullets; they just fire them at much lower velocities.
These chamberings are the classic african "elephant gun" loadings; which went up as high as .70 caliber (the .700 nitro express), using bullets massing as much as 1000gr, and producing as much as 10,000ftlbs of energy.
Unlike sniper and other long range rifle rounds, these big monsters were designed to shoot at short ranges of under 100 yards (generally 50 yards or less in fact); and to deliver their HUGE bullets, at moderate velocities, to break through the heavy bone structure of African big game like Elephants, Rhinos, and Cape Buffalo.
There have even been a very small number of even larger rifles made; which shoot bullets so large they are referred to by "bore" rather than caliber, much as shotguns are (shotgun gauge and shotgun bore are technically interchangeable, but "bore" is archaic... though still commonly used among older shooters, and the english).
There have been 8 bore, 4 bore, and even 2 bore rifles; again used by african hunters, and firing projectiles spanning as much as a 1.32 inches diameter, weighing as much as 8 ounces, and producing as much or more energy (from about 1/2 ounce of black powder, which is generally less energetic than modern powders) as a .50bmg (though at much lower velocities of course)
I have heard that a few folks have, in recent years, produced 1 bore rifles as stunts; but I don't think anyone ever actually made them to go after game in Africa... In fact, with a 1 pound projectile at around 1200 feet per second, producing 23,000 ftlbs of energy; when fired from a 20lb gun, I'm pretty sure you couldn't fire one from the shoulder without actually doing damage to yourself. The recoil energy and impulse of such a weapon would be enough to tear your shoulder out of its socket.
These rifles are very rare, very expensive, and very specialized. They are not in common use by any stretch of the imagination; but they are out there.
So then, what IS the biggest, most powerful gun?
Well, given all that I've just said, and since there is no one answer... why don't you tell me?
Like I said, it depends on your definitions of "largest", "most powerful", and "gun".
Hopefully, 6000 words later; I've given you enough information here that, in the context of what you are trying to write, you can figure those out for yourself.
Friday, January 14, 2011
The Thousand Yard Conspiracy - Part 4: It's a bird, it's a plane, it's SUPER Magnum
"I want to drive a Berger 210 at 3200 ft/sec --HTRN on "The Guncounter" forums"
For over two years now, I've been working on a long range shooting project, that I've called "The Thousand Yard Conspiracy". Unfortunately, the completion of this project has delayed long past our original date of April 2009... it being January 2011 as I write this. It's been over a year since I addressed the project on my blog at all, because life has... as it is wont to do... made it very clear, that it has other plans for us.
However, this year I am going to boomershoot no matter what, so I took this as an opportune time to restart the series
... and restart the project as a whole (though my main custom gun won't be ready in time for Boomershoot this year).
The point of "the thousand yard conspiracy" is to build a full custom, absolute class of the world, 1000 yard+ capable, field target, and long range tactical competition rifle, with glass, and all the ancillary gear for shooting accurately at that range.
As part of the project, I have written (and in some cases not yet publiched) posts about rifles, actions, stocks, hard parts, optics, shooting acessories, shooting benches, ballistics, chambering selection... any number of topics related to long range shooting.
As I restart the series, I'm going to republish the first few articles that I already put up; then I'm going to move on, to finishing the remaining partially completed posts, and publishing those; until we have finally completed my custom rifle, acquired all the gear, and successfully shot at both boomershoot (now, most likely two different boomershoots), and at 1000 yards (since boomershoot only reaches out to 700.
In part one, and part two of this series, I planned out the basic design of the rifle, chose the action, and selected a chambering.
In part 3, we talked about how to build up a slightly less capable rifle, but one that would still reach out to 1000 yards; and do it for as little as 1/4 the cost of my high end custom.
We also talked quite a bit in all three parts, about selecting a chambering for long range shooting. Part two was entirely about choosing between the .300winmag, and the .300wsm; and in the first sidebar post, we talked about why one would choose .308 or .300wm over .30-06, a superficially similar cartridge.
I chose .300 Winchester magnum for my custom gun (for various reasons as I describe in those posts); but selected .308 Winchester for our economy gun in "going long for cheap"... basically entirely because it is cheaper than the winmag (and in fact had the winmag as the number two option).
Since then, a lot of folks have asked me why I didn't choose one of the even larger magnum chamberings out there, to get even better thousand yard performance... And from day one, people have asked me why I didn't choose the .300wsm (which can be slightly more accurate than the .300wm, while having nearly identical ballistics).
There are a lot of folks out there who love the big boomers. Heck, I'm even one of them; and if you are shooting beyond 1200 yards, there isn't much better... Frankly though, I just don't see the value there for 1000 yard and under shooting, in comparison to more traditional magnum choices.
"Super Magnums" ???
In the last few years, there has been a proliferation of new, or revived, magnum chamberings out there; some of which have been termed by shooters and/or their manufacturers/developers as "super magnums", or in the case of Remington, "Ultra Magnums".
Way to go on the hyperbole trumps there Remington.
These magnums have appeared at both ends of the caliber spectrum, with sub 6mm, and sub 7mm bullets being loaded into fat cases at very high pressures; and with 7mm and above bullets at very heavy weights, being loaded into LOOONG and fat cases.
A couple years back I was largely dismissive of the ultra/super/mega/whatever mags under 7mm... And I pretty much still am.
That said, the long and/or, fat cased 6.5s do have their uses... in long range benchrest competition for example.
Right now, the 6.5-284, and other similar 6mm and 6.5mm wildcats; shooting 140gr bullets with ballistic coefficients in the .630+ range (for G1. or .325+ for the more accurate G7 standard) at 2900+fps for standard chamberings, and as much as 3500fps for short "super" or "ultra" magnums and equivalent wildcats; are making world records at 600 and 1000 yards.
Unfortunately, no matter how ballistically efficient they are (and some of them are EXTREMELY efficient, with ballistic coefficients rivaling or exceeding their 7mm and above 210gr-300gr supermagnum brethren, at even higher velocities); the sub 7mm calibers generally just don't have the mass to retain useful amounts of energy, or to resist wind drift, too much beyond 1000 yards.
And while they're great on thin skinned small game and varmints (140gr bullets at 2900+fps will thoroughly redmist a 'yote or anything smaller at any range you can hit 'em); they just aren't great on large, or thick skinned game, because again, they don't have the mass.
Sometimes, in shooting as in hot rodding, there is no replacement for displacement.
So if you're an F class shooter, or you want a 600 yard 'yote laser... sure, go for it. Otherwise, I just don't think they're the right choice, for field and tactical style long range shooting.
Straddling the line between the super 6mm chamberings, and the traditional .300 and above magnums, is the .300wsm. As I said above, it has the potential for slightly more inherent accuracy and precision than the .300wm. This is because it has a low aspect ratio powder column, which burns more consistently; and because it can be fired from a short action rifle, which can be more rigid, and therefore also more consistent. It is also a non belted case, which makes it easier to reload.
I considered all that, and chose to go with the .300 winmag, because I wanted to use some very long, heavy, high bc bullets; and those bullets are a bit too long to reliably mag feed from a .300wsm in a short action, without seating deeper than I want to.
If I couldnt shoot the round using the bullets I wanted in a short action gun, that killed half the advantages for me right there; but left me with the disadvantage of it being much harder to find good factory ammo for if for some reason I can't handload (a foreign hunt, or lost baggage etc...).
I personally believe that any rifle I take out in the field should pass the wal-mart test. If, in an emergency, I can't find suitable ammunition for what I want to do with the gun, at a local superstore, or sporting goods store, in a gun friendly state; then I dont consider that rifle a field gun.
As of today, .300wsm fails the Wal-Mart test. Although you will occasionally find .300wsm loads in non-specialty stores (here in north Idaho the chambering is very popular for elk, so our local wal-marts do carry some of the midweight hunting loads for it for example), you wont find 180, 190, or 210gr match grade loads for it; whereas you generally can with .300wm (in my region, Wal-mart, Bass-Pro, Cabelas, Sportsmans Warehouse, and Outdoor Outfitters all carry suitable long range loads for .300wm)
If you aren't going to shoot 190-210gr bullets however, the .300wsm does seem to have a small, but definite, advantage over the .300wm.
All that said, for the purposes of this discussion, you can generally take the .300wsm as the ballistic twin of the .300wm.
On the other extreme, the superultramegathumpenblitzenboomer magnums are intended to put a high mass bullet on target, at high velocity, with high retained energy, and excellent resistance to wind drift.
Basically, they're for shooting dangerous predators at 300 yards; elk, bear, and ram, at more than 600 yards (and yes, there are people who take Antelope and the like at 1000 yards. I think they're nuts); or two legged varmints at 1000 yards and more... or for use in competitions that approximate those missions.
The tradeoff, is in cost, barrel life, muzzle blast, recoil, and scarcity of ammunition and components (and a fair bit of accuracy and precision at short range in comparison to the 6.5s, but that's a tradeoff for better accuracy and retained energy past 1000 yards).
However, as with their smaller brethren, I question the advantages MOST of these loadings offer over the more traditional choices of 7mm Remington magnum, and .300 Winchester magnum (or the .300wsm); which have been the standard choices of long range shooters, and large game hunters in North America for the last 40 years.
Not that the advantages don't exist of course; but that they aren't as large as many people seem to think they are... and that they really aren't worth the tradeoffs, for the 1000 yard and under tactical or field shooter.
Which brings me back to that quote from HTRN above:
Let's look at some numbers, shall we?
Conveniently for the purposes of this thought experiment; there are five popular 1000 yard cartridges that can in general use the same basic bullets:
All five use the same diameter of bullet; but with different cases, at different capacities and lengths; and of course at different pressures, with different powder burn profiles, creating different velocities and energy levels (Though, as the .300wsm is functionally ballistically identical to the .300wm, we'll take them as one entry to simplify the numbers a bit)
The 210gr Berger VLD (very low drag), is a popular bullet choice for all the magnum loadings we're going to evaluate; so it makes a useful comparison bullet.
Of course, it doesn't hurt that it's also one of the highest performing .308 caliber bullets (all the loadings above, regardless of name, use .308 caliber bullets) available.
I'm including the .308win here as a baseline, non-magnum chambering; and because the .308 is one of the most popular chambering choices in the world, for hunting, target shooting... really everything.
It is a 1000 yard cartridge... essentially because it IS so popular for everything; though most consider it marginal in the 800-1000 yard range, as it gives up a large performance differential to the higher pressure magnum loadings in the same caliber.
I should note, while a 210gr bullet is certainly shootable with a .308win, 210gr is generally considered the absolute maximum weight for a .308; and even then only in the Berger, which is slightly shorter than other 210gr bullets, but still has a higher BC (another reason to choose the Berger 210 as our comparison bullet).
Bullets that heavy are generally considered suboptimal for the size of powder charge the .308 can burn; and also are difficult to get to feed properly in a magazine fed .308 short action rifle. Most .308 loads top out at 180gr or below.
In general, the optimal weight range for the .308 is considered to be 155-180gr; so I'm going to include the optimal choice from that weight range here as well, along with the 210gr load.
We're also going to be doing some cost calculations (in fact I'm going to do them first), to show the real cost of shooting these various loads
Ok, so, down to calculations.
For purposes of this little thought experiment, I'm going to set the baseline barrel length as 28"; as for some of the loadings we will discuss, that is the minimum length for proper performance, and in no case will that length reduce performance.
The standard .308 length match barrel is 24", and most published data will be from that length. With proper powder selection, velocities from a 28" barrel will be approximately 100fps higher than from a 24" barrel.
The magnum chamberings data may be published at 24", 26", or 28" barrel lengths.
In the smaller cased magnums, you gain appx 100fps going from 24" to 26" and an additional 50fps going to 28". There is little improvement seen moving up from 28", and around 34" improvement zeros out completely.
In the larger magnums, with larger capacities using slower powders, you gain appx 100fps for each 2" increase (up to around 30", and then 50fps per inch up to around 34").
From a cost perspective, we're going to use a standard price for primers, bullets, cost per pound of powder, and the price of mounted match grade barrels; so that the only real variables are the cost for brass and powder, and the barrel life (This isn't totally realistic, but it's close enough that the simplification it provides is worth the slight reduction in accuracy. It's really the substantial cost differentials we're trying to see, not the pennies per hundred)
Setting a baseline on price
As with out ballistic baseline, our price baseline will be the .308 Winchester; and for the same reasons. It is about the most popular all around cartridge out there; and certainly one of the most commonly loaded to match grade standards.
At one point I would have said, "the .308 is CERTAINLY, the cartridge most commonly loaded to match grade standards", but at this point I'm not certain if that's true.
As of today, I'm not sure if there's more .308, or more .223/5.56 being loaded to match standards; since the .308 has been eaten away in the shorter range competitions by AR's, and in the long range benchrest ranks by the 6mms and the 6.5s.
At any rate, there is a very broad range of high quality components out there to choose from; with the very best match grade brass (Lapua, Norma, Nosler) running between $0.70 and $0.90 a case, and the only slightly lower quality Winchester brass (which many folks use, because it's so much cheaper, and when prepped properly produces results nearly as good) at around $0.30-$0.40 a case.
As I said above, we're going to standardize the cost of primers per thousand and powder per pound (which is realistic. The optimal powders and primers in question all run around the same price); and all loads are shooting the exact same bullet. We are also standardizing the cost of a barrel at $600 chambered and mounted (which is about the average of all the gunsmiths I've been dealing with on my 1000 yard rifle project).
The bullet and primer for each load will cost $0.45 together (when purchased in bulk lots). The powder will be Hodgdon (several possibilities, all similarly priced), at a cost of $22 per pound in bulk. The barrels will be $600 including mounting.
From a cost perspective the .308win is hands down, the winner; which is just another reason to use it as our baseline. Barrel life, even in a match rifle, frequently exceeds 10,000 rounds; and the most exacting competitors still expect at least a 5000 round life. Powder charges are low (in the 40-45gr range)... Match case life is typically 5 loads (though many will go to 10 or more), with AT LEAST 5 more practice reloads.
All in all, it's a great value.
So to be conservative, that's:
If we presume a 10,000 round match life for a rifle, the lifetime shooting costs look something like this:
A note on the costs of long range shooting
You should note that over $8500 baseline cost of consumables (and the large magnums are going to be WAY more).
A lot of folks complain about the cost of a good match grade rifle and glass, which can start around $1200 each respectively; and go up into the $5000 each range respectively.
That's between $2400 and say $10,000 dollars (including your first $600 barrel).
$2400, or hell even $10k is NOTHING compared to the cost of the ammo you are going to be shooting through the rifle over its life, plus the cost of travel, training, ancillary gear like spotting scopes, rangefinders, and rifle rests...
Spend your money on GOOD equipment, so you won't need to buy it again when it breaks, or buy better when you outgrow it. Don't WASTE your money buying the most expensive thing, but buy for VALUE, not price.
You are going to get more value in long range shooting, buying the right combination of rifle and glass; than trying to shoot for the lowest possible price.
Admittedly, an extra $2000 or $4000 or however much to spend on ammo would be nice, but not at the cost of buying a rifle, or a scope, that won't get the job done for you, no matter how much you practice.
Setting a baseline on ballistics
Ok, back to our numbers.
The "standard" match .308 loads for long range shooting, are the Sierra 155gr palma at 2850fps (G7BC .229, G1BC .449), the sierra 168gr match king at 2800fps (G7BC .218 G1BC .427.), and the Sierra 180gr match king at 2700fps (G7-BC .247 G1BC .482).
Remember, all numbers are from a 28" barrel, and are in general, approximately 100-150fps higher than would be seen from a 24" barrel. All loads and velocities are from published sources (either hardcopy or online), producing under 1moa claimed accuracy.
All of these loads listed above (or a reasonable approximation thereof) are available from a relatively major manufacturers as factory loaded ammo... Though few serious competitors would use factory ammo; if only because they want control over every possible factor... but also because some loads can be driven to considerably higher performance without accuracy loss (the 168gr match king is capable of well over 2800fps from a 28" barrel without any pressure problems or loss of accuracy for example. The 155.5gr Palma bullet can be pushed to 2900 out of a 28" barrel without pressure or accuracy issues)
Also popular are their Berger equivalents; but Berger bullets are generally only available as factory ammunition from some small, specialty manufacturers. They are more the province of handloaders.
Berger bullets are expensive compared to many major factory bullets (though not really more than their biggest competitors, Sierra), but along with Lapua (who are even MORE expensive), are generally considered to be among the best possible choices for long range shooting.
The Berger loads for comparison would be the 155.5gr "fullbore" palma bullet at 2850fps (G7BC .247 G1BC .464), the 168gr VLD at 2800fps (G7BC .242 G1BC .473), and the 185gr "long range" at 2700fps (G7BC .283 G1BC .553).
Of all those loads, the best 1000 yard performance is actually just about tied, between the Berger "fulbore' palma, and the Berger 185gr "long range". The Palma load has 6" less drop at 1000 yards, but less retained energy; and the "long range" load gives you about another 100 yards range before dropping subsonic.
I think the best load for comparison purposes here would be the 185gr "long range"; as we are comparing it against other long range (well over 1000 yard capable) cartridges.
Oh and just for comparison, looking at the 210 compared to the most popular factory load out there... Well, look at the numbers:
It must of course be noted, that to achieve this level of performance, a .308win rifle will need to be chambered specifically for the longer bullets (it will need a longer lede and throat), which will make it perform poorly with lighter bullets. Also, it is unlikely you will be able to feed these long and heavy rounds from a short action magazine.
However, if you want to mag feed, or don't have a long throat; both the 180gr "long range" load (which should mag load in most rifles) and the 155.5gr Palma load (which should mag load in ANY .308win) both exhibit nearly the same performance as the 210gr (in fact both have less drop at 1000 yards); and of course vastly superior performance to the 168gr SMK (as in 48" less drop at 1000 yards, with more retained energy).
It's also worth noting, Berger has another 210gr high performance bullet, the 210gr "long range boat tail". This bullet has a different profile, and is slightly shorter, but has a slightly worse BC (G7 .320 vs .323).
This bullet may be a better choice for some rifles, because its profile and slightly deeper seating depth, allow for more reliable feeding, and better performance (or for that matter, ANY safe performance without excessive pressures) from rifles without a long lede and throat.
Ok, baselines done, now it's on to the thumpenblitzenboomers
The .300 winchester magnum, is STILL the most popular choice of chambering for long range shooters in the 1000-1200 yard regime (though others, like the .300wsm are gaining on it rapidly). That is one of several reasons I chose .300wm for my 1000 yard rifle project, and also for the mountain gun I'm building (I've decided to standardize on .308 bullets, for my primary "large" rifles; so as to have fewer different bullets and accessories to buy).
It also means, I've done a ton of research, and there's a huge body of work on load development to draw from; and I'm certainly not going to let that go to waste.
So, using Walt Bergers personal load data (really great people the guys at Berger. Brian Litz and Walt helped me out personally), you can push one of their 210s to just under 2,900fps avg velocity (with an under 25fps standard deviation and under 50fps extreme spread) out of a standard .300wm, with better than 1/2moa accuracy, from a 24" barrel; or just under 3000fps from a 26" barrel.
Walt says you can push it over 3,000 from a 26" barrel, but SDs, extreme spread, and as a result the groups, open up a lot (as much as double actually; though when Walt is seeing .8moa at 1000 yards off bags from a field gun, that's still nothing to sneeze at), and even worse from a 24" barrel (because of the increase in unburned powder, and turbulence) so he doesn't. He also said that going up to 28" only gets you another 50fps from the same loads, with no change in observed accuracy.
To be conservative, let's call it 3000fps from a 28" barrel, with best accuracy (so that we can be fair in comparing to the Lapuas and RUM).
As to maximum length, Walt and Brian both recommend 26" or 28". Going to 34" will get you up to 3200fps; but at that length, unless you use a 1.25" or thicker, cylinder profile barrel, the harmonics are awful, and groups are not worth mentioning. Experience shows that going over 34" produces no useful increase in velocity with any load or powder.
Typical barrel life for a .300wm rifle is somewhere north of 5000 rounds, depending on the load. The loads in question are all around 75gr of powder, and let's say they hit the bottom of the barrel life band. Most get better than that, but let's be stingy. To be fair, let's also round up to 75gr of powder (which is 100% powder capacity with the 210gr bullet).
The brass runs somewhere around $1 to $1.50 for best quality match cases (in bulk), and you have an expected MATCH case life of 5 loads, with a practice life of at least 5 more loads.
So that's $1.50 per case (presuming lapua brass in bulk), $0.45 for the primer and bullet, 75gr of powder (93 loads per pound less wastage) at $22 a pound (lets presume Retumbo, as the best performance per dollar powder, for a 28" barrel... it's a SLOOOOW powder; but Walt Berger says he uses it personally for his best .300wm loads) for $0.24 of powder, and 5000 rounds per $600 barrel (including chambering and mounting); to push 210gr at 3000fps from a 28" barrel.
The .300 lapua is another beast entirely.
That same 210gr bullet from a .300 lapua/.300-338 WILL hit 3200, but it needs a 28" barrel to do it (you go down to about 3100 from a 26" barrel). It also requires a longer, and less rigid action than even the .300wm (never mind the short mags), to reliably mag feed. Oh and then there's that non standard bolt face.
The recoil and muzzle blast are absolutely staggering. I personally think it's worse to shoot than a .50 cal. According to several sources, it takes a 38" barrel to fully burn that powder charge to the point where the muzzle blast isn't insane.
Worse though, is the general cost of shooting it. Virgin cases run $2+ a piece, and then still have to be necked down and fireformed. Each shot is 110gr of powder. The expected case life is just TWO loads for match, and MAYBE another 3 for practice.
The killer is though, the chambering has a typical barrel life of 500 to 1000 rounds.
So that's $2 a case, $0.45 for bullet and primer, 110gr of powder for 63 rounds per pound less wastage at $0.35 a round, and 1000 rounds per $600 barrel; for 210gr at 3200fps.
The .300rum splits the difference between the two.
It will push the same 210gr bullet to 3100fps from a 28" barrel (actually, people load it hotter than that, but that's the published data). Match grade brass runs $1.20-$1.50 (though it's not as good as the match grade .300wm or .338. Give it a couple years and the brassmakers will catch up). The 3100fps load with a 210gr bullet is 100gr of powder.
The expected case life on the RUM is also 5 match rounds, and 10 practice.
The real kicker compared to the Lapua though, is the barrel life. Where the Lapua maxes out at 1000 rounds, RUM shooters are reporting 2000 rounds plus.
I should note, there are guys pushing 110gr compressed loads with the 210gr bullets claiming 3250fps from 28" barrels; but that's going to WELL exceed the maximum pressure limit, and those loads will probably eat barrels just as bad as the Lapua does.
So $1.20 a case, $0.45 bullet and primer, 100gr of powder for 70 rounds per pound less wastage or $0.32 a round, and 2000 rounds per $600 barrel; to push 210gr to 3100fps.
Let us assume a match life for a particular rifle of 10,000 rounds; presuming 2000 rounds a year for five years.
Given this lifetime, let's look at the cost of shooting all three:
Of course, if the ballistic performance justifies it, I suppose it could be worth it...
Let's check those numbers too:
That's pretty cool actually. .300rum almost exactly splits the difference between .300lapua and .300 winmag, for only about 20% more cost.
Given the cost of shooting the Lapua though... It just doesn't make sense.
Honestly though, given the "walmart test", I can't even see justifying the additional cost of the .300rum; excepting that it's not a belted magnum case, and so it's less of a pain to reload.
If you're going to do it, you might as well go all the way...
We've been comparing, relatively standard sized chamberings; and as I said, they don't really seem to make sense in comparison to the .300wm, for the 1000 yard and under shooting mission.
That said, we were deliberately choosing all loads using the same .308 caliber 210gr bullet; and you would expect that to reduce variation somewhat.
What about going for one of the chamberings created for over 1200 yard shooting; and for anti-materiel purposes?
For example, the current popularity king of the super long range chmaberings, is the .338 lapua. It's a purpose built sniping cartridge, designed to perform out past 1200 yards, with sufficient retained energy at 1500 yards to do whatever you might ask of it.
With the .300gr scenars, the .338 will see 2800fps from that same 28" barrel. That's a lot of energy moving down range.
Basically, it's an entirely different class of chambering. Whereas .308 is best out to 800 and is stretching out to 1000, with an absolute max range of about 1200 yards; .338 is really comfortable all the way out to 1500+ yards... though it's performance drops off rapidly past the 1650 yard mark.
When compared against the .300wm, it's a lot closer at 1000 yards than the .308.
The .338 actually has 16" more drop at 1000 yards with 625ftlbs more energy, 16" more drop at 1500 yards with 430 ftlbs more energy, it's got a 350 yard range advantage at 1000ftlbs, and a 150 yard subsonic range advantage, with 288" more drop at its subsonic range, and only sports a 228ftlb energy differential for it.
The numbers show that in fact, the .300wm is somewhat more precise at the same ranges than the .338; though again, the .338 has an energy advantage at all ranges, and has an overall advantage in extreme range.
Also, what the numbers don't reflect is how that big heavy (comparatively speaking) .338 bullet, deals with adverse conditions past 1200 yards... Where really, the .338s realworld advantages outweigh the relatively small numeric advantage. It's just going to kill the badguy better at those ranges. Enough better that it's rapidly becoming the standard for over 1000 yard sniping, across the globe.
The bigger difference though, isn't the extreme range performance... It's the EXTREME COST of shooting the damn thing; plus the EXTREME pain, fatigue, and wear and tear caused by shooting it.
The .338 is just plain big, and still relatively rare. Thus, it's expensive to shoot, and it requires expensive guns to shoot it, and expensive gear to load for it.
Factory match grade loads for the .338 start at around $4 a round, and run to around $9. Virgin cases run $2.50, and bullets run $0.85 each. You're lucky to get 2, maybe 3 reloads for a single case; and it uses a rather large volume of powder, resulting in a barrel life of just 1000 rounds.
So that's $2.50 a case, $0.90 for bullet and primer, 110gr of powder for 63 rounds per pound less wastage at $0.35 a round, and 1000 rounds per $600 barrel.
So for that same 10,000 round match life we get:
And of course, then there's shooting it.
It's loud (louder than a .50bmg) with a truly punishing and fatiguing muzzle blast; and it also has punishing recoil (not as much energy as a .50, but a faster impulse, making the pain sharper).
Seriously, the muzzle blast and report are something you have to experience to believe. Plugs and muffs, and it's still painful; especially with a muzzle brake. It just beats you down sonically, until after 210 rounds, you just want to stop shooting.
The recoil is the same. I have no problem shooting a 24lb bolt action .50bmg for as long as my wallet will hold out. With the .338 lapua...
I can (and have) shoot a .300wm all day long; shooting a couple hundred rounds over the course of say, six or eight hours. 20 rounds of .338 lapua and I won't be able to shoot for a week. 10 rounds is about my limit with a good muzzlebreak, and a thick recoil pad, in a 13+lb gun. Any lighter, without a brake, or with anything less than a limb saver or decelerator... 5 rounds tops.
So... if my mission including shooting at 1200 to 1500 yards, and primarily more than 100 yards... yeah, I'd swallow the pain and the cost and go with a .338; but otherwise no thanks.
Alright... what about dedicated "anti-materiel" chamberings?
Every publicly acknowledged, confirmed, sniper kill at ranges beyond 1250 yards, has been with either a .338 lapua (2707 yards) , or a .50bmg (2657 yards). The longest kill from anything smaller, was 1250 yards (SSgt Jim Gilliland, with an M24 firing 7.62nato)
Oficially, we don't shoot .50bmg sniper rifles at people... they're 'anti-materiel" rifles; used for taking out light vehicles, shooting the doors of bunkers, destroying gas tanks and fuel pumps etc....
... but they're right nifty for killing bad guys from WAAAAAY far away.
So, obviously, the .50 offers some serious long range shooting capabilities. Why not choose a .50?
Well, the ballistics ARE great (G1 model estimate. see my note on G1 vs G7 ballistic estimates below):
Case life is also good, if you've got a tight match grade chamber, and you anneal your brass; with match grade, virgin commercial brass going 3-5 reloads, and another couple times in practice (I know more than a couple guys who reload the same .50 cases 10 times, 5 match, and 5 practice; but they inspect each case carefully with each reload).
Components are not cheap, but aren't as much as one might think; with match grade bullets running about $1.50 to $2 each in bulk, primed cases are also running about $1.50 to $2 a piece in bulk, and with powder loads of 235gr of h50bmg at $22 a pound, that's 28 rounds per pound, for a cost of about $0.79 powder per.
So for that same 10,000 round match life we get:
Frankly, I don't see why someone interested in tactical 1200 yard plus shooting, would bother with the .338; unless they don't like the weight of the .50. It ends up costing the same to shoot, and .50 bmg rifles, while expensive, aren't THAT much more than .338 rifles.Plus the .50 is just more fun to shoot.
If you want a real tackdriver, ok, don't get the .50; but for the extreme range and extreme energy, it walks all over the .338.
That said, there's no point to the things for under 1200 yards; where the .300 class magnums will give you more precision, for far less money, and far less fatigue.
Finally, I want to talk about a highly specialized competitor to the .50bmg; the .408 Chey-Tac.
Now, I've spoken about the .408 unfavorably before. It's not that I dislike the chambering... It's actually one of the most accurate, and most ballisitically efficient chamberings ever developed; I just have my doubts about the company pushing it.
The .408 tries to outdo both the .338 and the .50 in all ways; while simultaneously being softer shooting than either, easier to shoot accurately, and in theory, lower cost.
At least on the accuracy front, it seems to achieve those goals.
The Ballistics of the .408 Chey-Tac are even better than those of the .50bmg at truly extreme ranges, because the bullets are so extremely ballistically efficient. As far as I know, the .408 419gr copper solid has the highest ballistic coefficient of any available bullet in any chambering; with a G1BC of 1.12. No, they don't mass nearly as much as the .50bmg, so retained energy at any given range is less; but the drop differences are substantial:
The .408 is just plain more accurate and precise at any range, than the .50 is, all the way out to subsonic; and it delivers sufficient energy at any range, to be indistinguishable in effect on soft tissue (both are going to tear it up real dam good). Yes, the .50 is going to be a more effective anti-materiel tool; but the .408 is the better snipers weapon.
What about cost though?
Factory ammo costs (if you can find it. There are only three or four small manufacturers loading for it) are pretty comparable to the .50; with factory match grade loads running between $6 and $9 in bulk.
Component cost is certainly high, with cases running about $3.50 each, bullets running around $2, and with 135gr powder charges, for 50 rounds per pound $22 a pound, a powder cost of $0.44 per round.
The barrel life is probably about 2000 rounds (I haven't heard of anyone shooting their .408 through a barrel yet. It's a relatively new chambering, and not particularly popular) and as with the .50 barrels are likely to cost $1000 or so.
Case life is also good, if you've got a tight match grade chamber, and you anneal your brass; with match brass going 3-5 reloads.
So for that same 10,000 round match life we get:
I would say that if you plan on shooting "soft targets", or tactical competitons, at 1200-2200 yards; a rifle in .408 cheytac is the best way to do it, of the three.
But again, given the dramatically higher cost per shot, the higher cost for the rifles, the increased shooter fatigue, the doubled weight; if you're shooting 1200 yards or under, there really is no reason to go with anything bigger than one of the .300 class magnums.
If you're shooting at 1200 yards or less, my recommendation for .300 Winchester Magnum stands firm. It is the best all around choice for tactical shooting in the under 1200 yard mission space.
A note about numbers
For everyone looking at those extreme 3000 yard range numbers for .408 and .50bmg, and thinking "that's just not possible" you're right, it isn't.
These are numbers out of the JBM ballistic calculator (widely considered the best in the business), using the industry standard G! ballistic coefficients and drag models. These are not actual downrange numbers; and as such, at the extreme ranges they're more in the nature of "theory" than reality.
In the real world, ballistic coefficient changes with the velocity of the bullet, and air is never perfect and standard; so the ACTUAL range you're going to see to subsonic, is generally considerably less for these 1500 yard plus cartridges, than the theoretical numbers would suggest.
Anything past about 1500 yards, and a conventional ballistic calculator is going to diverge substantially from reality; especially using the G1 ballistics model. The G7 model is substantially more accurate out to about 2000 yards. Anything beyond that... well...
I was able to run the numbers for the .300 magnums, and the .338 using the more accurate G7 native drag model; as Brian Litz publishes data for all those bullets.
Unfortunately, there are no official published empirically tested G7 numbers for the .408 or the 750gr a-max; only estimates based on modeling and conversion factors.
That said, the G7 estimate is still likely to be more accurate at range than the G1 modeling. I'll re-run the G7 numbers for both here, so you can compare.
.408 CheyTac modeled with G7 estimates:
Even the G7 estimate isn't perfect of course. Real world numbers are still generally a fair bit less than the models ideal would predict.
In the real world, the .338 lapua has a best range to subsonic of right at 1900-2000 yards, under ideal conditions (using the JDM J40 profile bullet, not the Lapua Scenar as I refer to above. That bullet is not generally commercially available, so I didn't use it).
The .50bmg has a best range to subsonic of about 2100-2200 yards under ideal conditions, using the a-max launched at 2800fps from a 34" barrel.
The .408 has a best range to subsonic of about 2200-2300 yards, using the 419gr bullet at 2890fps from a 29" barrel.
Those are using the best possible bullets, at the highest possible velocities, from the longest barrels etc...
For over two years now, I've been working on a long range shooting project, that I've called "The Thousand Yard Conspiracy". Unfortunately, the completion of this project has delayed long past our original date of April 2009... it being January 2011 as I write this. It's been over a year since I addressed the project on my blog at all, because life has... as it is wont to do... made it very clear, that it has other plans for us.
However, this year I am going to boomershoot no matter what, so I took this as an opportune time to restart the series
... and restart the project as a whole (though my main custom gun won't be ready in time for Boomershoot this year).
The point of "the thousand yard conspiracy" is to build a full custom, absolute class of the world, 1000 yard+ capable, field target, and long range tactical competition rifle, with glass, and all the ancillary gear for shooting accurately at that range.
As part of the project, I have written (and in some cases not yet publiched) posts about rifles, actions, stocks, hard parts, optics, shooting acessories, shooting benches, ballistics, chambering selection... any number of topics related to long range shooting.
As I restart the series, I'm going to republish the first few articles that I already put up; then I'm going to move on, to finishing the remaining partially completed posts, and publishing those; until we have finally completed my custom rifle, acquired all the gear, and successfully shot at both boomershoot (now, most likely two different boomershoots), and at 1000 yards (since boomershoot only reaches out to 700.
In part one, and part two of this series, I planned out the basic design of the rifle, chose the action, and selected a chambering.
In part 3, we talked about how to build up a slightly less capable rifle, but one that would still reach out to 1000 yards; and do it for as little as 1/4 the cost of my high end custom.
We also talked quite a bit in all three parts, about selecting a chambering for long range shooting. Part two was entirely about choosing between the .300winmag, and the .300wsm; and in the first sidebar post, we talked about why one would choose .308 or .300wm over .30-06, a superficially similar cartridge.
I chose .300 Winchester magnum for my custom gun (for various reasons as I describe in those posts); but selected .308 Winchester for our economy gun in "going long for cheap"... basically entirely because it is cheaper than the winmag (and in fact had the winmag as the number two option).
Since then, a lot of folks have asked me why I didn't choose one of the even larger magnum chamberings out there, to get even better thousand yard performance... And from day one, people have asked me why I didn't choose the .300wsm (which can be slightly more accurate than the .300wm, while having nearly identical ballistics).
There are a lot of folks out there who love the big boomers. Heck, I'm even one of them; and if you are shooting beyond 1200 yards, there isn't much better... Frankly though, I just don't see the value there for 1000 yard and under shooting, in comparison to more traditional magnum choices.
"Super Magnums" ???
In the last few years, there has been a proliferation of new, or revived, magnum chamberings out there; some of which have been termed by shooters and/or their manufacturers/developers as "super magnums", or in the case of Remington, "Ultra Magnums".
Way to go on the hyperbole trumps there Remington.
These magnums have appeared at both ends of the caliber spectrum, with sub 6mm, and sub 7mm bullets being loaded into fat cases at very high pressures; and with 7mm and above bullets at very heavy weights, being loaded into LOOONG and fat cases.
A couple years back I was largely dismissive of the ultra/super/mega/whatever mags under 7mm... And I pretty much still am.
That said, the long and/or, fat cased 6.5s do have their uses... in long range benchrest competition for example.
Right now, the 6.5-284, and other similar 6mm and 6.5mm wildcats; shooting 140gr bullets with ballistic coefficients in the .630+ range (for G1. or .325+ for the more accurate G7 standard) at 2900+fps for standard chamberings, and as much as 3500fps for short "super" or "ultra" magnums and equivalent wildcats; are making world records at 600 and 1000 yards.
Unfortunately, no matter how ballistically efficient they are (and some of them are EXTREMELY efficient, with ballistic coefficients rivaling or exceeding their 7mm and above 210gr-300gr supermagnum brethren, at even higher velocities); the sub 7mm calibers generally just don't have the mass to retain useful amounts of energy, or to resist wind drift, too much beyond 1000 yards.
And while they're great on thin skinned small game and varmints (140gr bullets at 2900+fps will thoroughly redmist a 'yote or anything smaller at any range you can hit 'em); they just aren't great on large, or thick skinned game, because again, they don't have the mass.
Sometimes, in shooting as in hot rodding, there is no replacement for displacement.
So if you're an F class shooter, or you want a 600 yard 'yote laser... sure, go for it. Otherwise, I just don't think they're the right choice, for field and tactical style long range shooting.
Straddling the line between the super 6mm chamberings, and the traditional .300 and above magnums, is the .300wsm. As I said above, it has the potential for slightly more inherent accuracy and precision than the .300wm. This is because it has a low aspect ratio powder column, which burns more consistently; and because it can be fired from a short action rifle, which can be more rigid, and therefore also more consistent. It is also a non belted case, which makes it easier to reload.
I considered all that, and chose to go with the .300 winmag, because I wanted to use some very long, heavy, high bc bullets; and those bullets are a bit too long to reliably mag feed from a .300wsm in a short action, without seating deeper than I want to.
If I couldnt shoot the round using the bullets I wanted in a short action gun, that killed half the advantages for me right there; but left me with the disadvantage of it being much harder to find good factory ammo for if for some reason I can't handload (a foreign hunt, or lost baggage etc...).
I personally believe that any rifle I take out in the field should pass the wal-mart test. If, in an emergency, I can't find suitable ammunition for what I want to do with the gun, at a local superstore, or sporting goods store, in a gun friendly state; then I dont consider that rifle a field gun.
As of today, .300wsm fails the Wal-Mart test. Although you will occasionally find .300wsm loads in non-specialty stores (here in north Idaho the chambering is very popular for elk, so our local wal-marts do carry some of the midweight hunting loads for it for example), you wont find 180, 190, or 210gr match grade loads for it; whereas you generally can with .300wm (in my region, Wal-mart, Bass-Pro, Cabelas, Sportsmans Warehouse, and Outdoor Outfitters all carry suitable long range loads for .300wm)
If you aren't going to shoot 190-210gr bullets however, the .300wsm does seem to have a small, but definite, advantage over the .300wm.
All that said, for the purposes of this discussion, you can generally take the .300wsm as the ballistic twin of the .300wm.
On the other extreme, the superultramegathumpenblitzenboomer magnums are intended to put a high mass bullet on target, at high velocity, with high retained energy, and excellent resistance to wind drift.
Basically, they're for shooting dangerous predators at 300 yards; elk, bear, and ram, at more than 600 yards (and yes, there are people who take Antelope and the like at 1000 yards. I think they're nuts); or two legged varmints at 1000 yards and more... or for use in competitions that approximate those missions.
The tradeoff, is in cost, barrel life, muzzle blast, recoil, and scarcity of ammunition and components (and a fair bit of accuracy and precision at short range in comparison to the 6.5s, but that's a tradeoff for better accuracy and retained energy past 1000 yards).
However, as with their smaller brethren, I question the advantages MOST of these loadings offer over the more traditional choices of 7mm Remington magnum, and .300 Winchester magnum (or the .300wsm); which have been the standard choices of long range shooters, and large game hunters in North America for the last 40 years.
Not that the advantages don't exist of course; but that they aren't as large as many people seem to think they are... and that they really aren't worth the tradeoffs, for the 1000 yard and under tactical or field shooter.
Which brings me back to that quote from HTRN above:
"I want to drive a Berger 210 at 3200 ft/sec --HTRN"Well, I want to do that to; I just don't think the advantage an extra 200-250fps gives you over a hot .300 winchester magnum, is worth the cost of doing so.
Let's look at some numbers, shall we?
Conveniently for the purposes of this thought experiment; there are five popular 1000 yard cartridges that can in general use the same basic bullets:
- the .308 Winchester (.308win)
- the .300 Winchester magnum (.300wm)
- the .300 Winchester short magnum (.300wsm, the ballistic twin of the .300wm)
- the .300 Remington Ultra Mag (.300 rum)
- the .300-338, which is also known as the .300 lapua magnum (.300 lapua)
All five use the same diameter of bullet; but with different cases, at different capacities and lengths; and of course at different pressures, with different powder burn profiles, creating different velocities and energy levels (Though, as the .300wsm is functionally ballistically identical to the .300wm, we'll take them as one entry to simplify the numbers a bit)
The 210gr Berger VLD (very low drag), is a popular bullet choice for all the magnum loadings we're going to evaluate; so it makes a useful comparison bullet.
Of course, it doesn't hurt that it's also one of the highest performing .308 caliber bullets (all the loadings above, regardless of name, use .308 caliber bullets) available.
I'm including the .308win here as a baseline, non-magnum chambering; and because the .308 is one of the most popular chambering choices in the world, for hunting, target shooting... really everything.
It is a 1000 yard cartridge... essentially because it IS so popular for everything; though most consider it marginal in the 800-1000 yard range, as it gives up a large performance differential to the higher pressure magnum loadings in the same caliber.
I should note, while a 210gr bullet is certainly shootable with a .308win, 210gr is generally considered the absolute maximum weight for a .308; and even then only in the Berger, which is slightly shorter than other 210gr bullets, but still has a higher BC (another reason to choose the Berger 210 as our comparison bullet).
Bullets that heavy are generally considered suboptimal for the size of powder charge the .308 can burn; and also are difficult to get to feed properly in a magazine fed .308 short action rifle. Most .308 loads top out at 180gr or below.
In general, the optimal weight range for the .308 is considered to be 155-180gr; so I'm going to include the optimal choice from that weight range here as well, along with the 210gr load.
We're also going to be doing some cost calculations (in fact I'm going to do them first), to show the real cost of shooting these various loads
Ok, so, down to calculations.
For purposes of this little thought experiment, I'm going to set the baseline barrel length as 28"; as for some of the loadings we will discuss, that is the minimum length for proper performance, and in no case will that length reduce performance.
The standard .308 length match barrel is 24", and most published data will be from that length. With proper powder selection, velocities from a 28" barrel will be approximately 100fps higher than from a 24" barrel.
The magnum chamberings data may be published at 24", 26", or 28" barrel lengths.
In the smaller cased magnums, you gain appx 100fps going from 24" to 26" and an additional 50fps going to 28". There is little improvement seen moving up from 28", and around 34" improvement zeros out completely.
In the larger magnums, with larger capacities using slower powders, you gain appx 100fps for each 2" increase (up to around 30", and then 50fps per inch up to around 34").
From a cost perspective, we're going to use a standard price for primers, bullets, cost per pound of powder, and the price of mounted match grade barrels; so that the only real variables are the cost for brass and powder, and the barrel life (This isn't totally realistic, but it's close enough that the simplification it provides is worth the slight reduction in accuracy. It's really the substantial cost differentials we're trying to see, not the pennies per hundred)
Setting a baseline on price
As with out ballistic baseline, our price baseline will be the .308 Winchester; and for the same reasons. It is about the most popular all around cartridge out there; and certainly one of the most commonly loaded to match grade standards.
At one point I would have said, "the .308 is CERTAINLY, the cartridge most commonly loaded to match grade standards", but at this point I'm not certain if that's true.
As of today, I'm not sure if there's more .308, or more .223/5.56 being loaded to match standards; since the .308 has been eaten away in the shorter range competitions by AR's, and in the long range benchrest ranks by the 6mms and the 6.5s.
At any rate, there is a very broad range of high quality components out there to choose from; with the very best match grade brass (Lapua, Norma, Nosler) running between $0.70 and $0.90 a case, and the only slightly lower quality Winchester brass (which many folks use, because it's so much cheaper, and when prepped properly produces results nearly as good) at around $0.30-$0.40 a case.
As I said above, we're going to standardize the cost of primers per thousand and powder per pound (which is realistic. The optimal powders and primers in question all run around the same price); and all loads are shooting the exact same bullet. We are also standardizing the cost of a barrel at $600 chambered and mounted (which is about the average of all the gunsmiths I've been dealing with on my 1000 yard rifle project).
The bullet and primer for each load will cost $0.45 together (when purchased in bulk lots). The powder will be Hodgdon (several possibilities, all similarly priced), at a cost of $22 per pound in bulk. The barrels will be $600 including mounting.
From a cost perspective the .308win is hands down, the winner; which is just another reason to use it as our baseline. Barrel life, even in a match rifle, frequently exceeds 10,000 rounds; and the most exacting competitors still expect at least a 5000 round life. Powder charges are low (in the 40-45gr range)... Match case life is typically 5 loads (though many will go to 10 or more), with AT LEAST 5 more practice reloads.
All in all, it's a great value.
So to be conservative, that's:
- $0.70 per case (lets presume match brass)
- $0.45 for the primer and bullet
- 45gr of powder (155 loads per pound less wastage) at $22 a pound for $0.14 of powder
- 5,000 rounds per $600 barrel (including chambering and mounting)
If we presume a 10,000 round match life for a rifle, the lifetime shooting costs look something like this:
.308win, 210gr Berger VLD, 10,000 round match life$0.85 a round total cost, for serious match grade shooting... that's a great deal all around.
Total .308win = $8,530
- 2000 cases, $1,400
- 10,000 bullets and primers, $4,500
- 65 pounds of powder, $1,430.
- 2 barrel, $1200.
Per round .308win = $0.85
A note on the costs of long range shooting
You should note that over $8500 baseline cost of consumables (and the large magnums are going to be WAY more).
A lot of folks complain about the cost of a good match grade rifle and glass, which can start around $1200 each respectively; and go up into the $5000 each range respectively.
That's between $2400 and say $10,000 dollars (including your first $600 barrel).
$2400, or hell even $10k is NOTHING compared to the cost of the ammo you are going to be shooting through the rifle over its life, plus the cost of travel, training, ancillary gear like spotting scopes, rangefinders, and rifle rests...
Spend your money on GOOD equipment, so you won't need to buy it again when it breaks, or buy better when you outgrow it. Don't WASTE your money buying the most expensive thing, but buy for VALUE, not price.
You are going to get more value in long range shooting, buying the right combination of rifle and glass; than trying to shoot for the lowest possible price.
Admittedly, an extra $2000 or $4000 or however much to spend on ammo would be nice, but not at the cost of buying a rifle, or a scope, that won't get the job done for you, no matter how much you practice.
Setting a baseline on ballistics
Ok, back to our numbers.
The "standard" match .308 loads for long range shooting, are the Sierra 155gr palma at 2850fps (G7BC .229, G1BC .449), the sierra 168gr match king at 2800fps (G7BC .218 G1BC .427.), and the Sierra 180gr match king at 2700fps (G7-BC .247 G1BC .482).
Remember, all numbers are from a 28" barrel, and are in general, approximately 100-150fps higher than would be seen from a 24" barrel. All loads and velocities are from published sources (either hardcopy or online), producing under 1moa claimed accuracy.
All of these loads listed above (or a reasonable approximation thereof) are available from a relatively major manufacturers as factory loaded ammo... Though few serious competitors would use factory ammo; if only because they want control over every possible factor... but also because some loads can be driven to considerably higher performance without accuracy loss (the 168gr match king is capable of well over 2800fps from a 28" barrel without any pressure problems or loss of accuracy for example. The 155.5gr Palma bullet can be pushed to 2900 out of a 28" barrel without pressure or accuracy issues)
Also popular are their Berger equivalents; but Berger bullets are generally only available as factory ammunition from some small, specialty manufacturers. They are more the province of handloaders.
Berger bullets are expensive compared to many major factory bullets (though not really more than their biggest competitors, Sierra), but along with Lapua (who are even MORE expensive), are generally considered to be among the best possible choices for long range shooting.
The Berger loads for comparison would be the 155.5gr "fullbore" palma bullet at 2850fps (G7BC .247 G1BC .464), the 168gr VLD at 2800fps (G7BC .242 G1BC .473), and the 185gr "long range" at 2700fps (G7BC .283 G1BC .553).
Of all those loads, the best 1000 yard performance is actually just about tied, between the Berger "fulbore' palma, and the Berger 185gr "long range". The Palma load has 6" less drop at 1000 yards, but less retained energy; and the "long range" load gives you about another 100 yards range before dropping subsonic.
I think the best load for comparison purposes here would be the 185gr "long range"; as we are comparing it against other long range (well over 1000 yard capable) cartridges.
.308 win, 185gr Berger "long range"The 210gr VLD performance suffers somewhat, because it can only be driven to about 2550fps from a 28" .308 without exceeding pressure limits. That is below the optimal velocity regime for a bullet of that weight range.
.283 G7-BC (G1BC .553) at 2700fps and a 300yd zero:
2992ftlbs muzzle energy
-301.35" at 1000 yards with 731ftlbs retained energy
-1084.09" at 1500yards, 398ftlbs retained energy
Drops below 1000ftlbs of retained energy at 825 yards
Drops subsonic at 1250 yards, with 528.77" of drop and 515 ftlbs of retained energy
.308 win, 210gr Berger VLDHonestly... there isn't that much to distinguish the two loads in performance. The 185gr load has slightly lower drop, but because of the mass, and high ballistic efficiency, the 210gr is within a few inches at any useful range; while carrying more energy, and having a very slightly longer maximum range.
.323 G7-BC (.631 G1-BC) at 2550fps and a 300yd zero:
3029ftlbs muzzle energy
-314.96" at 1000 yards with 873ftlbs retained energy
-1081.77" at 1500yards, 478ftlbs retained energy
Drops below 1000ftlbs of retained energy at 900 yards
Drops subsonic at 1275 yards, with 652" of drop and 584 ftlbs of retained energy
Oh and just for comparison, looking at the 210 compared to the most popular factory load out there... Well, look at the numbers:
"Federal Gold Medal Match"In this case, because of its ballistic efficiency, there is no real question whether "light and fast" or "heavy and slow" is the winner. The 210gr Berger outperforms the 168gr SMK in all measures.
168gr Sierra Match King at 2800fps from a 28" barrel
the 210gr Berger has:
100ftlbs more muzzle energy
32" less drop with 430ftlbs more retained energy at 1000 yards
275 yards more range at 1000ftlbs or higher
300 yards more supersonic range, with 220ftlbs more retained energy
It must of course be noted, that to achieve this level of performance, a .308win rifle will need to be chambered specifically for the longer bullets (it will need a longer lede and throat), which will make it perform poorly with lighter bullets. Also, it is unlikely you will be able to feed these long and heavy rounds from a short action magazine.
However, if you want to mag feed, or don't have a long throat; both the 180gr "long range" load (which should mag load in most rifles) and the 155.5gr Palma load (which should mag load in ANY .308win) both exhibit nearly the same performance as the 210gr (in fact both have less drop at 1000 yards); and of course vastly superior performance to the 168gr SMK (as in 48" less drop at 1000 yards, with more retained energy).
It's also worth noting, Berger has another 210gr high performance bullet, the 210gr "long range boat tail". This bullet has a different profile, and is slightly shorter, but has a slightly worse BC (G7 .320 vs .323).
This bullet may be a better choice for some rifles, because its profile and slightly deeper seating depth, allow for more reliable feeding, and better performance (or for that matter, ANY safe performance without excessive pressures) from rifles without a long lede and throat.
Ok, baselines done, now it's on to the thumpenblitzenboomers
The .300 winchester magnum, is STILL the most popular choice of chambering for long range shooters in the 1000-1200 yard regime (though others, like the .300wsm are gaining on it rapidly). That is one of several reasons I chose .300wm for my 1000 yard rifle project, and also for the mountain gun I'm building (I've decided to standardize on .308 bullets, for my primary "large" rifles; so as to have fewer different bullets and accessories to buy).
It also means, I've done a ton of research, and there's a huge body of work on load development to draw from; and I'm certainly not going to let that go to waste.
So, using Walt Bergers personal load data (really great people the guys at Berger. Brian Litz and Walt helped me out personally), you can push one of their 210s to just under 2,900fps avg velocity (with an under 25fps standard deviation and under 50fps extreme spread) out of a standard .300wm, with better than 1/2moa accuracy, from a 24" barrel; or just under 3000fps from a 26" barrel.
Walt says you can push it over 3,000 from a 26" barrel, but SDs, extreme spread, and as a result the groups, open up a lot (as much as double actually; though when Walt is seeing .8moa at 1000 yards off bags from a field gun, that's still nothing to sneeze at), and even worse from a 24" barrel (because of the increase in unburned powder, and turbulence) so he doesn't. He also said that going up to 28" only gets you another 50fps from the same loads, with no change in observed accuracy.
To be conservative, let's call it 3000fps from a 28" barrel, with best accuracy (so that we can be fair in comparing to the Lapuas and RUM).
As to maximum length, Walt and Brian both recommend 26" or 28". Going to 34" will get you up to 3200fps; but at that length, unless you use a 1.25" or thicker, cylinder profile barrel, the harmonics are awful, and groups are not worth mentioning. Experience shows that going over 34" produces no useful increase in velocity with any load or powder.
Typical barrel life for a .300wm rifle is somewhere north of 5000 rounds, depending on the load. The loads in question are all around 75gr of powder, and let's say they hit the bottom of the barrel life band. Most get better than that, but let's be stingy. To be fair, let's also round up to 75gr of powder (which is 100% powder capacity with the 210gr bullet).
The brass runs somewhere around $1 to $1.50 for best quality match cases (in bulk), and you have an expected MATCH case life of 5 loads, with a practice life of at least 5 more loads.
So that's $1.50 per case (presuming lapua brass in bulk), $0.45 for the primer and bullet, 75gr of powder (93 loads per pound less wastage) at $22 a pound (lets presume Retumbo, as the best performance per dollar powder, for a 28" barrel... it's a SLOOOOW powder; but Walt Berger says he uses it personally for his best .300wm loads) for $0.24 of powder, and 5000 rounds per $600 barrel (including chambering and mounting); to push 210gr at 3000fps from a 28" barrel.
The .300 lapua is another beast entirely.
That same 210gr bullet from a .300 lapua/.300-338 WILL hit 3200, but it needs a 28" barrel to do it (you go down to about 3100 from a 26" barrel). It also requires a longer, and less rigid action than even the .300wm (never mind the short mags), to reliably mag feed. Oh and then there's that non standard bolt face.
The recoil and muzzle blast are absolutely staggering. I personally think it's worse to shoot than a .50 cal. According to several sources, it takes a 38" barrel to fully burn that powder charge to the point where the muzzle blast isn't insane.
Worse though, is the general cost of shooting it. Virgin cases run $2+ a piece, and then still have to be necked down and fireformed. Each shot is 110gr of powder. The expected case life is just TWO loads for match, and MAYBE another 3 for practice.
The killer is though, the chambering has a typical barrel life of 500 to 1000 rounds.
So that's $2 a case, $0.45 for bullet and primer, 110gr of powder for 63 rounds per pound less wastage at $0.35 a round, and 1000 rounds per $600 barrel; for 210gr at 3200fps.
The .300rum splits the difference between the two.
It will push the same 210gr bullet to 3100fps from a 28" barrel (actually, people load it hotter than that, but that's the published data). Match grade brass runs $1.20-$1.50 (though it's not as good as the match grade .300wm or .338. Give it a couple years and the brassmakers will catch up). The 3100fps load with a 210gr bullet is 100gr of powder.
The expected case life on the RUM is also 5 match rounds, and 10 practice.
The real kicker compared to the Lapua though, is the barrel life. Where the Lapua maxes out at 1000 rounds, RUM shooters are reporting 2000 rounds plus.
I should note, there are guys pushing 110gr compressed loads with the 210gr bullets claiming 3250fps from 28" barrels; but that's going to WELL exceed the maximum pressure limit, and those loads will probably eat barrels just as bad as the Lapua does.
So $1.20 a case, $0.45 bullet and primer, 100gr of powder for 70 rounds per pound less wastage or $0.32 a round, and 2000 rounds per $600 barrel; to push 210gr to 3100fps.
Let us assume a match life for a particular rifle of 10,000 rounds; presuming 2000 rounds a year for five years.
Given this lifetime, let's look at the cost of shooting all three:
- .300wm: 2000 cases, $3,000. 10,000 bullets and primers, $4,500. 108 pounds of powder, $2,376. 2 barrels, $1,200.
- Total .300wm = $11,076
- .300 lapua: 5000 cases, $10,000. 10,000 bullets and primers, $4,500. 159 pounds of powder, $3,498. 10 barrels, $6,000.
- Total .300 lapua = $23,998
- .300RUM: 2000 cases, $3,000. 10,000 bullets and primers, $4,500. 143 pounds of powder, $3,146. 5 barrels, $3,000.
- Total .300rum = $13,646
Of course, if the ballistic performance justifies it, I suppose it could be worth it...
Let's check those numbers too:
- .300wm, 210gr Berger with .323 G7-BC (.631 G1-BC) at 3000fps and a 300yd zero:
- 4193ftlbs muzzle energy.
- -216.75" at 1000 yards with 1348ftlbs retained energy.
- -724" at 1500yards, 655ftlbs retained energy.
- Drops below 1000ftlbs of retained energy at 1225 yards.
- Drops subsonic at 1575 yards, with 840" of drop and 584 ftlbs of retained energy.
- .300 lapua, 210gr Berger with .323 G7-BC (.631 G1-BC) at 3200fps and a 300 yard zero:
- 4771ftlbs muzzle energy.
- -186.74" at 1000 yards with 1596ftlbs retained energy.
- -617" at 1500yards, 802ftlbs retained energy.
- Drops below 1000ftlbs of retained energy at 1350 yards.
- Drops subsonic at 1700 yards, with 914.66" of drop and 584ftlbs of retained energy.
- .300rum, 210gr Berger with .323 G7-BC (.631 G1-BC) at 3100fps and a 300 yard zero:
- 4477ftlbs muzzle energy.
- -200.97" at 1000 yards with 1469ftlbs retained energy.
- -667.45" at 1500yards, 726ftlbs retained energy.
- Drops below 1000ftlbs of retained energy at 1275 yards.
- Drops subsonic at 1625 yards, with 860" of drop and 584ftlbs of retained energy.
That's pretty cool actually. .300rum almost exactly splits the difference between .300lapua and .300 winmag, for only about 20% more cost.
Given the cost of shooting the Lapua though... It just doesn't make sense.
Honestly though, given the "walmart test", I can't even see justifying the additional cost of the .300rum; excepting that it's not a belted magnum case, and so it's less of a pain to reload.
If you're going to do it, you might as well go all the way...
Which brings us to the REALLY big boys
We've been comparing, relatively standard sized chamberings; and as I said, they don't really seem to make sense in comparison to the .300wm, for the 1000 yard and under shooting mission.
That said, we were deliberately choosing all loads using the same .308 caliber 210gr bullet; and you would expect that to reduce variation somewhat.
What about going for one of the chamberings created for over 1200 yard shooting; and for anti-materiel purposes?
For example, the current popularity king of the super long range chmaberings, is the .338 lapua. It's a purpose built sniping cartridge, designed to perform out past 1200 yards, with sufficient retained energy at 1500 yards to do whatever you might ask of it.
With the .300gr scenars, the .338 will see 2800fps from that same 28" barrel. That's a lot of energy moving down range.
- .338 lapua, 300gr Lapua Scenar with .382 G7-BC (.747 G1-BC) at 2800fps and a 300 yard zero:
- 5218ftlbs muzzle energy (holy!!!!).
- -232.38" at 1000 yards with 1973ftlbs retained energy.
- -740" at 1500yards, 1085ftlbs retained energy.
- Drops below 1000ftlbs of retained energy at 1575 yards.
- Drops subsonic at 1725 yards, with 1127.88" of drop and 812ftlbs of retained energy.
Basically, it's an entirely different class of chambering. Whereas .308 is best out to 800 and is stretching out to 1000, with an absolute max range of about 1200 yards; .338 is really comfortable all the way out to 1500+ yards... though it's performance drops off rapidly past the 1650 yard mark.
When compared against the .300wm, it's a lot closer at 1000 yards than the .308.
The .338 actually has 16" more drop at 1000 yards with 625ftlbs more energy, 16" more drop at 1500 yards with 430 ftlbs more energy, it's got a 350 yard range advantage at 1000ftlbs, and a 150 yard subsonic range advantage, with 288" more drop at its subsonic range, and only sports a 228ftlb energy differential for it.
The numbers show that in fact, the .300wm is somewhat more precise at the same ranges than the .338; though again, the .338 has an energy advantage at all ranges, and has an overall advantage in extreme range.
Also, what the numbers don't reflect is how that big heavy (comparatively speaking) .338 bullet, deals with adverse conditions past 1200 yards... Where really, the .338s realworld advantages outweigh the relatively small numeric advantage. It's just going to kill the badguy better at those ranges. Enough better that it's rapidly becoming the standard for over 1000 yard sniping, across the globe.
The bigger difference though, isn't the extreme range performance... It's the EXTREME COST of shooting the damn thing; plus the EXTREME pain, fatigue, and wear and tear caused by shooting it.
The .338 is just plain big, and still relatively rare. Thus, it's expensive to shoot, and it requires expensive guns to shoot it, and expensive gear to load for it.
Factory match grade loads for the .338 start at around $4 a round, and run to around $9. Virgin cases run $2.50, and bullets run $0.85 each. You're lucky to get 2, maybe 3 reloads for a single case; and it uses a rather large volume of powder, resulting in a barrel life of just 1000 rounds.
So that's $2.50 a case, $0.90 for bullet and primer, 110gr of powder for 63 rounds per pound less wastage at $0.35 a round, and 1000 rounds per $600 barrel.
So for that same 10,000 round match life we get:
- .338 lapua: 5000 cases, $12,500. 10,000 bullets and primers, $9,000. 159 pounds of powder, $3,498. 10 barrels, $6,000.
- Total .338 lapua = $30,998
- Cost per shot = $3.10
And of course, then there's shooting it.
It's loud (louder than a .50bmg) with a truly punishing and fatiguing muzzle blast; and it also has punishing recoil (not as much energy as a .50, but a faster impulse, making the pain sharper).
Seriously, the muzzle blast and report are something you have to experience to believe. Plugs and muffs, and it's still painful; especially with a muzzle brake. It just beats you down sonically, until after 210 rounds, you just want to stop shooting.
The recoil is the same. I have no problem shooting a 24lb bolt action .50bmg for as long as my wallet will hold out. With the .338 lapua...
I can (and have) shoot a .300wm all day long; shooting a couple hundred rounds over the course of say, six or eight hours. 20 rounds of .338 lapua and I won't be able to shoot for a week. 10 rounds is about my limit with a good muzzlebreak, and a thick recoil pad, in a 13+lb gun. Any lighter, without a brake, or with anything less than a limb saver or decelerator... 5 rounds tops.
So... if my mission including shooting at 1200 to 1500 yards, and primarily more than 100 yards... yeah, I'd swallow the pain and the cost and go with a .338; but otherwise no thanks.
Every publicly acknowledged, confirmed, sniper kill at ranges beyond 1250 yards, has been with either a .338 lapua (2707 yards) , or a .50bmg (2657 yards). The longest kill from anything smaller, was 1250 yards (SSgt Jim Gilliland, with an M24 firing 7.62nato)
Oficially, we don't shoot .50bmg sniper rifles at people... they're 'anti-materiel" rifles; used for taking out light vehicles, shooting the doors of bunkers, destroying gas tanks and fuel pumps etc....
... but they're right nifty for killing bad guys from WAAAAAY far away.
So, obviously, the .50 offers some serious long range shooting capabilities. Why not choose a .50?
Well, the ballistics ARE great (G1 model estimate. see my note on G1 vs G7 ballistic estimates below):
- .50BMG, 750gr Hornady A-Max with .518 G7-BC (1.050 G1-BC) at 2820fps and a 300 yard zero:
- 13,232ftlbs muzzle energy (Holy!!!! Holy!!!! Holy!!!).
- -201.77" at 1000 yards with 6699ftlbs retained energy.
- -598" at 1500yards, 4581ftlbs retained energy.
- Drops below 1000ftlbs of retained energy at 3700 yards.
- Drops subsonic at 3000 yards, with 4352" of drop and 1714ftlbs of retained energy.
Case life is also good, if you've got a tight match grade chamber, and you anneal your brass; with match grade, virgin commercial brass going 3-5 reloads, and another couple times in practice (I know more than a couple guys who reload the same .50 cases 10 times, 5 match, and 5 practice; but they inspect each case carefully with each reload).
Components are not cheap, but aren't as much as one might think; with match grade bullets running about $1.50 to $2 each in bulk, primed cases are also running about $1.50 to $2 a piece in bulk, and with powder loads of 235gr of h50bmg at $22 a pound, that's 28 rounds per pound, for a cost of about $0.79 powder per.
So for that same 10,000 round match life we get:
- .50 BMG: 2000 cases, $4000. 10,000 bullets and primers, $20,000. 357 pounds of powder, $7854. 5 barrels, $5000.
- Total .50bmg = $36,854
- Cost per shot = $3.69
Frankly, I don't see why someone interested in tactical 1200 yard plus shooting, would bother with the .338; unless they don't like the weight of the .50. It ends up costing the same to shoot, and .50 bmg rifles, while expensive, aren't THAT much more than .338 rifles.Plus the .50 is just more fun to shoot.
If you want a real tackdriver, ok, don't get the .50; but for the extreme range and extreme energy, it walks all over the .338.
That said, there's no point to the things for under 1200 yards; where the .300 class magnums will give you more precision, for far less money, and far less fatigue.
The "Specialist"
Finally, I want to talk about a highly specialized competitor to the .50bmg; the .408 Chey-Tac.
Now, I've spoken about the .408 unfavorably before. It's not that I dislike the chambering... It's actually one of the most accurate, and most ballisitically efficient chamberings ever developed; I just have my doubts about the company pushing it.
The .408 tries to outdo both the .338 and the .50 in all ways; while simultaneously being softer shooting than either, easier to shoot accurately, and in theory, lower cost.
At least on the accuracy front, it seems to achieve those goals.
The Ballistics of the .408 Chey-Tac are even better than those of the .50bmg at truly extreme ranges, because the bullets are so extremely ballistically efficient. As far as I know, the .408 419gr copper solid has the highest ballistic coefficient of any available bullet in any chambering; with a G1BC of 1.12. No, they don't mass nearly as much as the .50bmg, so retained energy at any given range is less; but the drop differences are substantial:
- .408 Chey-Tac, 419gr copper solid with .552 G7-BC (1.12 G1-BC) at 2890fps and a 300 yard zero:
- 7764ftlbs muzzle energy.
- -187.57" at 1000 yards with 4143ftlbs retained energy.
- -549" at 1500yards, 2921ftlbs retained energy.
- Drops below 1000ftlbs of retained energy at 3100 yards.
- Drops subsonic at 3100 yards, with 3852" of drop and 1000ftlbs of retained energy.
The .408 is just plain more accurate and precise at any range, than the .50 is, all the way out to subsonic; and it delivers sufficient energy at any range, to be indistinguishable in effect on soft tissue (both are going to tear it up real dam good). Yes, the .50 is going to be a more effective anti-materiel tool; but the .408 is the better snipers weapon.
What about cost though?
Factory ammo costs (if you can find it. There are only three or four small manufacturers loading for it) are pretty comparable to the .50; with factory match grade loads running between $6 and $9 in bulk.
Component cost is certainly high, with cases running about $3.50 each, bullets running around $2, and with 135gr powder charges, for 50 rounds per pound $22 a pound, a powder cost of $0.44 per round.
The barrel life is probably about 2000 rounds (I haven't heard of anyone shooting their .408 through a barrel yet. It's a relatively new chambering, and not particularly popular) and as with the .50 barrels are likely to cost $1000 or so.
Case life is also good, if you've got a tight match grade chamber, and you anneal your brass; with match brass going 3-5 reloads.
So for that same 10,000 round match life we get:
- .408 cheytac: 2000 cases, $7,000. 10,000 bullets and primers, $20,000. 200 pounds of powder, $4400 5 barrels, $5000.
- Total .338 lapua = $36,400
- Cost per shot = $3.64
I would say that if you plan on shooting "soft targets", or tactical competitons, at 1200-2200 yards; a rifle in .408 cheytac is the best way to do it, of the three.
But again, given the dramatically higher cost per shot, the higher cost for the rifles, the increased shooter fatigue, the doubled weight; if you're shooting 1200 yards or under, there really is no reason to go with anything bigger than one of the .300 class magnums.
If you're shooting at 1200 yards or less, my recommendation for .300 Winchester Magnum stands firm. It is the best all around choice for tactical shooting in the under 1200 yard mission space.
A note about numbers
For everyone looking at those extreme 3000 yard range numbers for .408 and .50bmg, and thinking "that's just not possible" you're right, it isn't.
These are numbers out of the JBM ballistic calculator (widely considered the best in the business), using the industry standard G! ballistic coefficients and drag models. These are not actual downrange numbers; and as such, at the extreme ranges they're more in the nature of "theory" than reality.
In the real world, ballistic coefficient changes with the velocity of the bullet, and air is never perfect and standard; so the ACTUAL range you're going to see to subsonic, is generally considerably less for these 1500 yard plus cartridges, than the theoretical numbers would suggest.
Anything past about 1500 yards, and a conventional ballistic calculator is going to diverge substantially from reality; especially using the G1 ballistics model. The G7 model is substantially more accurate out to about 2000 yards. Anything beyond that... well...
I was able to run the numbers for the .300 magnums, and the .338 using the more accurate G7 native drag model; as Brian Litz publishes data for all those bullets.
Unfortunately, there are no official published empirically tested G7 numbers for the .408 or the 750gr a-max; only estimates based on modeling and conversion factors.
That said, the G7 estimate is still likely to be more accurate at range than the G1 modeling. I'll re-run the G7 numbers for both here, so you can compare.
.408 CheyTac modeled with G7 estimates:
- .408 Chey-Tac, 419gr copper solid with .552 G7-BC (1.12 G1-BC) at 2890fps and a 300 yard zero:
- 7764ftlbs muzzle energy.
- -188.54" at 1000 yards with 4092ftlbs retained energy.
- -553.4" at 1500yards, 2855ftlbs retained energy.
- Drops below 1000ftlbs of retained energy at 2800 yards.
- Drops subsonic at 2550 yards, with 2429" of drop and 1180ftlbs of retained energy.
- .50BMG, 750gr Hornady A-Max with .518 G7-BC (1.050 G1-BC) at 2820fps and a 300 yard zero:
- 13,232ftlbs muzzle energy (Holy!!!! Holy!!!! Holy!!!).
- -202.95" at 1000 yards with 6611ftlbs retained energy.
- -603" at 1500yards, 4450ftlbs retained energy.
- Drops below 1000ftlbs of retained energy at 3400 yards.
- Drops subsonic at 2300 yards, with 2006" of drop and 2143ftlbs of retained energy.
Even the G7 estimate isn't perfect of course. Real world numbers are still generally a fair bit less than the models ideal would predict.
In the real world, the .338 lapua has a best range to subsonic of right at 1900-2000 yards, under ideal conditions (using the JDM J40 profile bullet, not the Lapua Scenar as I refer to above. That bullet is not generally commercially available, so I didn't use it).
The .50bmg has a best range to subsonic of about 2100-2200 yards under ideal conditions, using the a-max launched at 2800fps from a 34" barrel.
The .408 has a best range to subsonic of about 2200-2300 yards, using the 419gr bullet at 2890fps from a 29" barrel.
Those are using the best possible bullets, at the highest possible velocities, from the longest barrels etc...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)