The most efficient big game cartridges you didn't know you needed!!!

[Tug]

G'day gents,

Lately, I've been humming and hawing about the most logical spread of big game cartridges to own for one's collection. After much deliberation, I've decided to create a spreadsheet calculation of the efficiency percentage of all the most popular hunting cartridges. Why should we worry ourselves about the most "efficient" cartridge? Efficient cartridges can output more energy to the bullet with less powder consumed, less recoil and less muzzle blast to the shooter which will improve his performance as a hunter.

90 per cent of the numbers for my data come from NORMA, I don't have reloading books at this time to add their data as well. Generally, I have tried to pick common bullet weights and powders with the least amount of powder used for the highest velocity for any one cartridge. This Data is not complete nor should my results be taken as absolute fact or definitive but as a general overview. I have learnt that reloading data if anything is more finicky and speculative rather than scientific and precise, even from reloading companies.

Cartridge	bullet weight GRAINS	Powder weight	powders energy ft/lbs	Velocity	Energy of bullet ft/lbs	Efficienty of bullet %
30-06 Springfield	180	53.4	10680	2723	2963.020762	0.2774364009​
7x57mm Mauser	160	46.3	9260	2556	2320.644353​	0.2506095414
308 Winchester	180	41.7	8340	2553	2604.600032	0.3123021621​

Firstly I would like to start comparing some plain game cartridges and I have to say the 308 is the KING baby, with 31 per cent efficiency it is 3 per cent higher than 30-06 and 7 percent more than 7mm Mauser. The 308 also has the least amount of powder burnt and theoretically the least amount of muzzle blast, (comparing similar barrel length ofc). If you want a smooth shooter with plenty of killing power the 308 is the answer.

Next Dangerous Game

Cartridge	bullet weight GRAINS	powder weight	powders energy ft/lbs	Velocity FPS	energy of bullet ft/lbs	efficienty of bullet %
416 Remington Magnum	400	73.4	14680	2346	4887.456598	0.3329330107
404 Jeffery	400	81.5	16300	2371​	4992.177357​	0.3062685495​
375 Remington Ultra Magnum	300	88	17600	2720	4927.492474	0.2799711633
375 Holland & Holland Magnum	300	64.5​	12900​	2520	4229.502082	0.3278683785
375 Weatherby Magnum	300	81.8​	16360	2720​	4927.492474	0.3011914715​
416 Rigby	400	94.3	18860	2356​	4929.211697​	0.2613579903​

I just want to say ouch!!! The 416 Rigby is a cartridge built for the cameras, not built for work! The 404 Jeffery data I had to get from Barnes because Norma only had data for the 450grain bullet which has quite poor performance. The 416 Remington Magnum was the most efficient of the bunch with 33 percent efficiency!!! Right behind it was the 375 Holland & Holland Magnum with 32 per cent. Even though the Remingtion is burning a lot more powder it's still more efficient than the 375 H&H. I believe it is because the 416 Remington Magnum case design is more efficient with its 25-degree shoulder angle allowing it to impart more energy into the bullet. The 375 Weatherby Magnum was also surprising in that it wasn't less efficient in keeping up with the 404 Jeffery and not too bad compared to its smaller bore (which means less surface area to impact energy on the bullet) and same powder charge, an efficient case design!

P.S It might be even more efficient with the 40degree straight shoulders of the AI version

Cartridge	bullet weight GRAINS	powder weight	powders energy ft/lbs	Velocity FPS	energy of bullet ft/lbs	efficiency of bullet %
375 Weatherby Magnum	270	81​	16200	2864​	4916.733831	0.3035020883
338 Winchester Magnum	225	63.7​	12740​	2786​	3877.141481	0.3043282167
7mm Remington Magnum	160	58.6	11720	2949	3089.131775	0.2635777965​
300 Winchester Magnum	180	71.3	14260	3025	3656.707057	0.2564310699

Lastly, I wanted to create this table, to ask one final question. If you have a 375H&H improved does it even make sense to own these other calibres? The bullets all have similar sectional densities! and the trajectories will all be close enough its not going to bother the average hunter! And yet two of them are extremely inefficient (300 Winchester Magnum & 7mm Remington Magnum) 25 and 26 per cent respectively. The 338 Winchester Magnum and 375 Weatherby Magnum is much better at 30 per cent but only the 375 is legal to hunt dangerous game. I feel these other calibres don't have enough positives over the 375 to justify getting them especially if you have limited space in your gun case!

But if you don't like recoil and muzzle blast and don't mind adjusting your scope for bullet drop, just stick with the 375 H&H.

375 Holland & Holland Magnum

270​

66

13200

2625

4130.373127​

0.3129070551

For now, that is all, thank you for reading and if people want I'll do a part two of the larger cartridges.

 

[spike.t]

Hi...but haven't a clue as to what any of that means....and the 416 rigby is for the camera not built for work is bullshit....I gave up after reading that statement anyway, and went straight to reply.... .....ps out of interest do you have any experience with any of these cartridges.....or hunted with any?....as ...well not going to put in what I am thinking after going back and reading odd bits of your summation.....you possibly might be offended

 

[BeeMaa]

Efficient and effective are not the same.

You are severely over complicating a rather simple subject by introducing a nearly inconsequential factor of efficiency. Get a 30-06 & 375H&H with premium bullets and go hunting with confidence. If you plan on hunting DG several times, go for .416, .423 or 458 caliber cartridge. Keep it simple.

 

[VertigoBE]

Especially on DG and big bore cartridges, the least of my concern is “efficiency”.
Reliability in extraction, SD, low pressure, proven track record, terminal performance and ease of acquiring replacements in-country in case of loss of ammo, is much more important.

 

[Mark A Ouellette]

Lately, I've been humming and hawing about the most logical spread of big game cartridges to own for one's collection. After much deliberation, I've decided to create a spreadsheet calculation of the efficiency percentage of all the most popular hunting cartridges. Why should we worry ourselves about the most "efficient" cartridge? Efficient cartridges can output more energy to the bullet with less powder consumed, less recoil and less muzzle blast to the shooter which will improve his performance as a hunter.

I just want to say ouch!!! The 416 Rigby is a cartridge built for the cameras, not built for work!

Wow! And I thought that I was an over-thinker!

Let's consider your question,
"Why should we worry ourselves about the most efficient cartridge?"
Maybe if...
1. One is severely limited having the last remaining keg of gun powder on earth.
2. A manufacturer is loading for the most economical, i.e. less powder per lot of cartridges loaded.
3. Powder type and amount used in fully automatic weapons. The originally fielded M-16 with ammunition loaded with Winchester ball powder is the best example of this. That combination produced excessive powder fouling.
4. If I was very, very bored...

One may consider the recoil produced for the same bullet (bore, weight, and configuration) of a low pressure cartridge such as the 416 Rigby compared to the more efficient high pressure, lower powder charge 416 Remington. The Rigby recoils harder due to more ejecta due to a much heavier powder charge.

I consider the capability of a cartridge with modern bullets to effectively kill dangerous game.
I also consider recoil produced and personally like the 416 Remington more than the 416 Rigby. But, although producing a little less velocity and energy, I really like the 416 Taylor. I think the Taylor is very efficent in terms of powder burned to produce energy. The 416 Ruger is probably in the same class.

To state, "The 416 Rigby is a cartridge built for the cameras, not built for work!" This statement is either to "stir the pot", or to inform the readers how much you know about African hunting.

The .375 H&H will kill any animal on earth with very good shot placement. A .416 or .458 or larger will kill as well or better with the same shot placement. So long as one can effectively shoot their dangerous game rifle in .375 (or 9.3) or larger, most do not think of efficeincy of powder.

Finally, to your point of more efficeint cartridges producing less noise and muzzle blast, this is a valid point but only if the shooter can measure of at least notice it. In most cases, the shooter can not if all else is the same other than shooting combarable cartridges.

 

[Flipper Dude]

If I was interested in efficiency, I’d leave the Porsche and the ‘Vette in the garage and take the Prius. Right

 

[Luvthunt]

If I was interested in efficiency, I’d leave the Porsche and the ‘Vette in the garage and take the Prius. Right

Or the VW bug!

 

[Jack Stevens]

G'day gents,

Lately, I've been humming and hawing about the most logical spread of big game cartridges to own for one's collection. After much deliberation, I've decided to create a spreadsheet calculation of the efficiency percentage of all the most popular hunting cartridges. Why should we worry ourselves about the most "efficient" cartridge? Efficient cartridges can output more energy to the bullet with less powder consumed, less recoil and less muzzle blast to the shooter which will improve his performance as a hunter.

90 per cent of the numbers for my data come from NORMA, I don't have reloading books at this time to add their data as well. Generally, I have tried to pick common bullet weights and powders with the least amount of powder used for the highest velocity for any one cartridge. This Data is not complete nor should my results be taken as absolute fact or definitive but as a general overview. I have learnt that reloading data if anything is more finicky and speculative rather than scientific and precise, even from reloading companies.

Cartridge	bullet weight GRAINS	Powder weight	powders energy ft/lbs	Velocity	Energy of bullet ft/lbs	Efficienty of bullet %
30-06 Springfield	180	53.4	10680	2723	2963.020762	0.2774364009​
7x57mm Mauser	160	46.3	9260	2556	2320.644353​	0.2506095414
308 Winchester	180	41.7	8340	2553	2604.600032	0.3123021621​

Firstly I would like to start comparing some plain game cartridges and I have to say the 308 is the KING baby, with 31 per cent efficiency it is 3 per cent higher than 30-06 and 7 percent more than 7mm Mauser. The 308 also has the least amount of powder burnt and theoretically the least amount of muzzle blast, (comparing similar barrel length ofc). If you want a smooth shooter with plenty of killing power the 308 is the answer.

Next Dangerous Game

Cartridge	bullet weight GRAINS	powder weight	powders energy ft/lbs	Velocity FPS	energy of bullet ft/lbs	efficienty of bullet %
416 Remington Magnum	400	73.4	14680	2346	4887.456598	0.3329330107
404 Jeffery	400	81.5	16300	2371​	4992.177357​	0.3062685495​
375 Remington Ultra Magnum	300	88	17600	2720	4927.492474	0.2799711633
375 Holland & Holland Magnum	300	64.5​	12900​	2520	4229.502082	0.3278683785
375 Weatherby Magnum	300	81.8​	16360	2720​	4927.492474	0.3011914715​
416 Rigby	400	94.3	18860	2356​	4929.211697​	0.2613579903​

I just want to say ouch!!! The 416 Rigby is a cartridge built for the cameras, not built for work! The 404 Jeffery data I had to get from Barnes because Norma only had data for the 450grain bullet which has quite poor performance. The 416 Remington Magnum was the most efficient of the bunch with 33 percent efficiency!!! Right behind it was the 375 Holland & Holland Magnum with 32 per cent. Even though the Remingtion is burning a lot more powder it's still more efficient than the 375 H&H. I believe it is because the 416 Remington Magnum case design is more efficient with its 25-degree shoulder angle allowing it to impart more energy into the bullet. The 375 Weatherby Magnum was also surprising in that it wasn't less efficient in keeping up with the 404 Jeffery and not too bad compared to its smaller bore (which means less surface area to impact energy on the bullet) and same powder charge, an efficient case design!

P.S It might be even more efficient with the 40degree straight shoulders of the AI version

Cartridge	bullet weight GRAINS	powder weight	powders energy ft/lbs	Velocity FPS	energy of bullet ft/lbs	efficiency of bullet %
375 Weatherby Magnum	270	81​	16200	2864​	4916.733831	0.3035020883
338 Winchester Magnum	225	63.7​	12740​	2786​	3877.141481	0.3043282167
7mm Remington Magnum	160	58.6	11720	2949	3089.131775	0.2635777965​
300 Winchester Magnum	180	71.3	14260	3025	3656.707057	0.2564310699

Lastly, I wanted to create this table, to ask one final question. If you have a 375H&H improved does it even make sense to own these other calibres? The bullets all have similar sectional densities! and the trajectories will all be close enough its not going to bother the average hunter! And yet two of them are extremely inefficient (300 Winchester Magnum & 7mm Remington Magnum) 25 and 26 per cent respectively. The 338 Winchester Magnum and 375 Weatherby Magnum is much better at 30 per cent but only the 375 is legal to hunt dangerous game. I feel these other calibres don't have enough positives over the 375 to justify getting them especially if you have limited space in your gun case!

But if you don't like recoil and muzzle blast and don't mind adjusting your scope for bullet drop, just stick with the 375 H&H.

375 Holland & Holland Magnum

270​

66

13200

2625

4130.373127​

0.3129070551

For now, that is all, thank you for reading and if people want I'll do a part two of the larger cartridges.

Regarding the .404 Jeff, 81.5grns (of what?) under a 400grn bullet for an m.v. of 2371fps, makes zero sense.

If you want to kill DG while experiencing 416 Rigby recoil levels, get a 416 Rigby. Don’t ‘hotrod’ a .404 to 2300fps. It’s unnecessary as the history of the cartridge’s original loading clearly demonstrates.

In its heyday Jeffery’s .404 killed 99.9% of everything it was ever aimed at using a mediocre (for that era’s bullet-technology) 400grn bullet at or near 2000-2100fps. Today, with premium bullets of modern design and materials, you can expect that the same moderate velocity will cleanly DG kill even more ‘efficiently.’ I say ‘moderate’ with respect to the comparative velocities of other .400-class cartridges that use a 400grn bullet (or one of substantially similar weight).

 

[Northern Shooter]

Interesting concept, you will find however that all of the classic african cartridges are quite "inefficient" compared to modern advancements when it comes to powder charge and case capacity.

Shorter, higher pressure cartridges has been the trend for decades to increase "efficiency".

Having said that I still love my 375HH, 416 Rigby and 470NE.

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

@Tug I'm an engineer, so I typically like data. However, you lost me with too many not so significant figures to the right of the decimal points.

 

[Northern Shooter]

Another more practical take on efficiency while also in correlation to powder charge is performance vs felt recoil (ft-lbs).

the 416s are a good example. Rigby, RemMag and Ruger can all throw 400gr downrange at 2,400 fps (~5,100 fps) but the recoil will be noticeable between the three, assuming equally weighted rifles.

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

Another more practical take on efficiency while also in correlation to powder charge is performance vs felt recoil (ft-lbs).

the 416s are a good example. Rigby, RemMag and Ruger can all throw 400gr downrange at 2,400 fps (~5,100 fps) but the recoil will be noticeable between the three, assuming equally weighted rifles.

~5100 fps???????? I think you meant 5100 ft-lbs.

 

[ACE (in CT)]

Strikes me as a Post to stir the pot, disguised as a post to generate debate. That being said:

In my experience, Most start off thinking along the lines of: “which caliber rifles (or handguns, etc) do I need to have my bases covered for my intended uses?”.

When I was 10 the answer was a .22 rim fire. Then Grampa’s .22/.410 was placed in my care, WOW this the answer to my prayers because … well I was 10. No chipmunk or squirrel was safe. Flying targets were still a problem with that full choke barrel. Next year, Dad gave me a Savage bolt action .243 and now I was sure that I set for life … killed woodchucks, then several deer, I stayed satisfied, for a little while.

When I teach Pistol Permit classes, new (to firearm) students always ask about which one gun/ caliber is good for everything. I chuckle quietly and explain to them gently how fireams, are like potato chips.

Once in a class on self defense handgun use a student admitted: “well I only HAVE one gun” . Before I even realized I was thinking out loud I blurted out: “IS THAT EVEN LEGAL?” Everyone laughed.

Once I realized I was addicted to hunting, and it was goin* to be a lifetime affliction I started off thinking along the lines of: “a .22 rim fire, a .30-06 and a 12 GA shotgun ought to do me for life”. Now it’s more like: I’ve got a .40, a .41, a .44, a .45. I wonder Why no there is love for .42 or .43? We get older, we get more knowledgeable, we make more money, things change.
Enjoy the ride!

 

[Rellik]

I read your first sentence and stopped. Gun collections and logic have no connections to one another. Understand that fact and the rest of your post is moot.

 

[AZDAVE]

Without taking into consideration why the older cartridges were designed with the volume they have is not taking history into account.

try running the numbers with cordite along with pressures and see what is still safe and efficient. I will stick with my 416 rigby, and other NE rounds.

However for a exercise in modern take on efficient round not a bad exercise.

one other idea is that the rigby can ne loaded to modern pressures and run along side the 416 weatherby. Something the smaller 416's cant.

 

[Tug]

Hi...but haven't a clue as to what any of that means....and the 416 rigby is for the camera not built for work is bullshit....I gave up after reading that statement anyway, and went straight to reply.... .....ps out of interest do you have any experience with any of these cartridges.....or hunted with any?....as ...well not going to put in what I am thinking after going back and reading odd bits of your summation.....you possibly might be offended

"The 416 Rigby is a cartridge built for the cameras, not built for work!"
This comment is meant to be tongue-in-cheek but it does have some historical merit as all the British game wardens did use the 404 Jeffery instead of the Rigby. And it is easy to see why! The 404 Jeffery is arguably smoothing feeding, uses 10grains less powder(for the data I presented from Norma) and was built in more rifles than 187 Rigbys(?).

Will the 416 Rigby work? Yes!
Was it designed for high pressure with temperature-sensitive cordite? Yes!
Is a large case capacity an efficient design to solve high pressures with hot cordite? No!
I would argue the 375H&H and 404 Jeffery had better case designs to deal with the cordite problem.

For your record, I have hunted with 308 Winchester, 7.62x54R and bow and arrow. I shoot 308 Winchester and 375 H&H. I am not the best but I am always learning and practicing.

"well not going to put in what I am thinking after going back and reading odd bits of your summation.....you possibly might be offended"

Please don't be embarrassed to share your opinions!

 

[Tug]

Efficient and effective are not the same.

You are severely over complicating a rather simple subject by introducing a nearly inconsequential factor of efficiency. Get a 30-06 & 375H&H with premium bullets and go hunting with confidence. If you plan on hunting DG several times, go for .416, .423 or 458 caliber cartridge. Keep it simple.

My opinions are just my opinions based on efficiency, not on effectiveness and meant to be thought-provoking.

I tried to keep all calibres with close sectional density, and bullet weights.
Every cartridge I listed will all be effective at their respective jobs!!!

"simple subject by introducing a nearly inconsequential factor of efficiency"
A more efficient cartridge performs the same function when using less energy to do the job. Using less energy or transferring more energy into energy in the bullet for the desired parameters and performance. This means there will be less recoil or muzzle blast or both! This means a more effective shooter as both these factors negatively affect shooter performance.

please don't accept my opinions though! but maybe accept the British military opinion.

"In 1909, the British Textbook of Small Arms stated that 15 ft. lbs. of free recoil energy was the maximum allowable for a military service rifle. (The standard British .303 Lee-Enfield infantry rifle was below that figure, as are most service rifles to this day. This should tell you something.) The 1929 edition of the same textbook stated, in addition, that recoil velocity should not exceed 15 fps; above that velocity a gun-headache was very likely to occur. These figures remain practical maximums for the modern hunter."

or maybe the US military

engineers noted that recoil studies for the military almost always focused on the shooter. Repeated input of high levels of energy into the shoulder causes bruising and very high recoil energy can cause damage to the eye. The U.S. military measures the free recoil energy of every shoulder fired weapon it fields; classifying each into categories that limit how many rounds per day can be fired. Their table shows that if a gun develops less than 15 ft-lbs, (20 Joules) of energy, unlimited firing is permitted. The M4 and M16 fit this category. The highest level on the table is 60 ft-lbs (81 Joules), above which no shoulder firing is permitted.

This is speculation but some people have said every 5ft-lbs of recoil energy you remove your accuracy will improve by 10 per cent.

 

[Tug]

Wow! And I thought that I was an over-thinker!

Let's consider your question,
"Why should we worry ourselves about the most efficient cartridge?"
Maybe if...
1. One is severely limited having the last remaining keg of gun powder on earth.
2. A manufacturer is loading for the most economical, i.e. less powder per lot of cartridges loaded.
3. Powder type and amount used in fully automatic weapons. The originally fielded M-16 with ammunition loaded with Winchester ball powder is the best example of this. That combination produced excessive powder fouling.
4. If I was very, very bored...

One may consider the recoil produced for the same bullet (bore, weight, and configuration) of a low pressure cartridge such as the 416 Rigby compared to the more efficient high pressure, lower powder charge 416 Remington. The Rigby recoils harder due to more ejecta due to a much heavier powder charge.

I consider the capability of a cartridge with modern bullets to effectively kill dangerous game.
I also consider recoil produced and personally like the 416 Remington more than the 416 Rigby. But, although producing a little less velocity and energy, I really like the 416 Taylor. I think the Taylor is very efficent in terms of powder burned to produce energy. The 416 Ruger is probably in the same class.

To state, "The 416 Rigby is a cartridge built for the cameras, not built for work!" This statement is either to "stir the pot", or to inform the readers how much you know about African hunting.

The .375 H&H will kill any animal on earth with very good shot placement. A .416 or .458 or larger will kill as well or better with the same shot placement. So long as one can effectively shoot their dangerous game rifle in .375 (or 9.3) or larger, most do not think of efficeincy of powder.

Finally, to your point of more efficeint cartridges producing less noise and muzzle blast, this is a valid point but only if the shooter can measure of at least notice it. In most cases, the shooter can not if all else is the same other than shooting combarable cartridges.

Thank you for your comment! I have explained why I think efficiency is important in other posts, but of course not at the sacrifice of reliability or safety. I was very limited by Norma's data but if you have any factory 416 Taylor data I would love to add it as well!

The data is just a piece of the puzzle but it's still a piece and it may also explain why some cartridges are more popular than others for good reason.

 

[Tug]

Or the VW bug!

VW bug is a very popular car in Africa, it is also very efficient!!!

 

[Ontario Hunter]

Regarding the .404 Jeff, 81.5grns (of what?) under a 400grn bullet for an m.v. of 2371fps, makes zero sense.

If you want to kill DG while experiencing 416 Rigby recoil levels, get a 416 Rigby. Don’t ‘hotrod’ a .404 to 2300fps. It’s unnecessary as the history of the cartridge’s original loading clearly demonstrates.

In its heyday Jeffery’s .404 killed 99.9% of everything it was ever aimed at using a mediocre (for that era’s bullet-technology) 400grn bullet at or near 2000-2100fps. Today, with premium bullets of modern design and materials, you can expect that the same moderate velocity will cleanly DG kill even more ‘efficiently.’ I say ‘moderate’ with respect to the comparative velocities of other .400-class cartridges that use a 400grn bullet (or one of substantially similar weight).

Right. I load 80 gr of A4350 for my 404J (400 gr Barnes) and though I don't have a chronograph, I'm pretty sure I'm not cranking out anywhere close to 2300 fps.

I agree, effectiveness has little to do with efficiency. I suspect a .22 magnum would measure out high on the efficiency scale but what can one effectively ( = reliably) kill with it? Effectiveness has a whole bunch of factors, not one being powder weight. Size and type of game, bullet weight, bullet composition, velocity, and range. Recoil could, I guess, be added to the list but it's something any accomplished hunter/shooter should be able to control/eliminate without sacrificing any of the above. Bullet placement is of course paramount for effectiveness but as we all know there are multiple environmental factors beyond the hunter's control that can mess up shot placement (wind, obstruction, target moves unexpectedly, etc.). When figuring statistical effectiveness it is therefore necessary to remove bullet placement as a factor from the calculation and simply assume all variations would be placed in the same spot. Powder type and weight will affect effectiveness but only because they control bullet velocity. How much powder is consumed to achieve an effective load is, or should be, immaterial.

On the other hand, it is possible to achieve too much effectiveness. A load can be developed to shoot a half mile but is it ethical to do so? Some bullet designs/calibers may give a higher percentage of "bang flop" ... but so does a rocket propelled grenade.