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

[VINOYASADO]

Sorry but you might look for efficiency when target practice or something similar...

HUNTING and especially hunting DG you need grains and powder amigo! As much as you can handle

 

[Tug]

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).

I was very limited by my Norma data. They did not have the historical load available.
That said it is more fair to analyse all 40 cal with the same performance level.

If you have factory load data for the moderate velocity I would love it add.
Cheers!

 

[Tom Leoni]

Hi, @Tug ~

Interesting thread. Though not appreciated by all, cartridge efficiency is something that many powderheads care about--gun writers being particularly famous for waxing technical about it. Less powder creating less recoil and muzzle flash, ability to chamber in a shorter action, sheer design ingenuity, and other factors that may escape me at the moment.

I confess that, for me, cartridge efficiency has never amounted to the importance that it should perhaps have. I choose my hunting cartridges by the following criteria, in no particular order:

1) Are they chambered in a rifle I want
2) Are reloading components at all available
3) Do they have a time-honored history
4) Do they kill game reliably

My recent fondness for nitro-for-black cartridges makes me a particularly poor exponent of the efficiency fandom. I can't think of cartridges less efficient than, say, a .500 Nitro For Black or a .450 3.25" Nitro For Black. But I absolutely love the rifles I own in those calibers (which is why I bought them), so there it is. Also, I'll always prefer a .30-06 or .300 H&H over a .308, a 7x57 over a 7 Rem Mag, and, most of all, a .375 H&H over any other more modern rethinking or "improvement" of that most splendid of cartridges.

But like everything big-game-hunting, things that float our boat are a big part of our passion. You are in very good company if cartridge efficiency floats yours, so don't let anyone discourage you from calculating it and making it a criterion for cartridge choice. Ultimately, what counts is that you own the rifles you're happy with, and that you are proud to take them to Africa to make memories with them.

 

[BeeMaa]

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.

This isn't the British or US military. It's hunting in Africa and dealing with recoil is part of it.

However, I'll do as you requested and not accept your opinions. Feels too much like a troll to me anyway. I'm out.

 

[Tug]

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!

Thanks for the comment, what you say is true and hobbies should be a passion

However, I don't think the data and this discussion is just arguing about semantics.
For some people, they are limited in the number of different guns they can own because of the legal laws in their country. For some, they are limited by financial means or limited by space in their house.

I think the data can show, how people can get the most bang for their buck or rather less kick. Or show how "new" high-tech magnum cartridges are not worth the squeeze due to their efficiency for the task that people want to use them in etc.

cheers!

 

[skydiver386]

The study of cartridge internal ballistics is always interesting and is a good way for shooters, hunters and reloaders to learn new things.

Some things that are long held beliefs are actually myth, and some myths are actually fact.

The 416 Rigby and many other calibers specifically meant for use in "Tropical Conditions" were loaded to more moderate pressures to avoid extraction problems on hot days. This was especially true of cordite and other propellants of that time period.

Ball powder and it's use in the original AR15/M16 would never have been a problem if the Ordinance Department had not made 3 critical decisions. First, Eugene Stoner insisted that the bolt and bolt carrier be hard chrome plated to resist fouling and corrosion, but people that thought they knew better rejected this in favor of a black phosphate finish.

Second, calcium CARBONate was added to the powder to reduce flash after the original 3 prong flash hider was changed to a bird cage style. The military ammunition was loaded with powder that very closely resembles Winchester 748, but had a noticeable charcoal like coating in the M193 ammo from that era I've disassembled.

Third, the rifle was promoted as "self cleaning" and no cleaning or lubricant was supplied to soldiers in Vietnam.

The result was very predictable. Unfortunately many still believe to this day that ball powder was the source of the problem, and that ball powder is dirty compared to flake or stick powders.

I may disagree with portions of the OP, but I see no problem in a discussion like this, and hopefully we all learn something new every day.

 

[bakerb]

Much more to a cartridge choice than “efficiency”. As others have stated, reliability of loading, sectional density (i.e. penetration), ease of finding replacement ammo. If you’re shooting long range, you would want to consider the ballistic coefficient (i.e. how well the bullet flies and bucks the wind). And comparing a 300 grain bullet to a 400 grain bullet as it regards efficiency is apples to oranges.

I for one would rather throw a bowling ball at 2000 fps at a charging elephant, than a golf ball at 3500 fps

 

[Jack Stevens]

"The 416 Rigby is a cartridge built for the cameras, not built for work!"
* * * 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 10 grains less powder (for the data I presented from Norma) and was built in more rifles than 187 Rigbys(?).

Obviously you need to do more research on the .404 Jeffery - unless, as was suggested, you're just out for a troll ...

Historically, African Game Depts were quick to adopt .404 Jeff rifles because, first, Jeffery had "released the cartridge to the trade," meaning it wasn't proprietary (like the Rigby) and anyone could make rifles so chambered for it - and many did, and they were relatively inexpensive and easy to obtain.

Second, the Jeff's original loading - the aforesaid 400grn bullet @/near 2100fps - allowed the skinny, indigenous employees of those departments, sent out on nuisance-control tasks or culling operations, to shoot accurately enough with iron sights to put large DG animals down with a shot or two. The felt-recoil of that loading - in the field, not off a bench - is actually about the same as a .375 H&H with stiff 300grn loads. (Ask me how I know). In fact most .404 rifles of that era were the same nominal size and weight of their .375 counterparts.

That the Jeff is a smooth feeder is true, but it's way down the list of historical reasons for its popularity.

 

[Northern Shooter]

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

lol, hadn’t had my coffee yet.

5,100 fps sounds ….”sporty”.

 

[CBH Australia]

If data is your thing go for it.

The cartridges all have their pros and cons so it’s horse for courses.

.308 makes sense in Australia on various levels as you know.

 

[3chunter]

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

All I have is a Prius. Geez.