What are the most EFFICIENT rifle cartridges?

[farmer_john]

Does not matter how efficient the bullet is if the shooter sucks. Accuracy trumps efficiency.

 

[Bonk]

Lot’s of great cartridges already mentioned. What about 6.5x55 Swede? It sure fights above it’s weight without a lot of noise and recoil. I don’t know how efficient it is with powder but in every other way it really shines.

 

[RR 314]

Earlier this year @Tug provided a lot of deep analysis on why efficient cartridges are better than old trusted inefficient rounds like .375 H&H, .416 Rigby and so on. While I respected his effort I thought his hypothesis was silly at best. Considering the cost of a dangerous game hunt, a quality rifle to hunt with, and the limited amount of practice most shoot (200 rounds over a year prior?) with a dangerous game rifle, the efficiency of powder required to develop xxxx foot pounds of energy is not relevant.

I’ll take effectiveness in dangerous game cartridges over efficient any day! That stated, I prefer a .416 Rem over a .416 Rigby because the Rem produces less recoil and for some rifles, affords an extra round in the magazine than the venerable Rigby. The fact the .416 Rem requires less powder isn’t much of a concern for me. As for the .375 H&H, I’ll take it and you can take your chances.

To give @Tug credit where credit is due, here are his threads,

https://www.africahunting.com/threa...e-cartridges-you-didnt-know-you-needed.90013/

https://www.africahunting.com/threads/the-best-big-bore-cartridges-ever-created.90656/

Well said! I have been a fan of the .416 Hoffman and Remington for the reasons stated. Don't get me wrong, I do like the .416 and .450 Rigby as well, but the Remington makes sense (especially in a nice custom). I think the Remington is not as popular as it should be, perhaps being due in at least some part by initially being offered only in the Model 700, but completely agree in your assessment.

 

[RR 314]

And to answer the question posed, I truly love the .300 Jarrett as far as efficient cartridges go. I have three rifles in this chambering, with my favorite being a "hunting" rifle (as compared to benchrest) built by Thomas "Speedy" Gonzalez.

 

[Noah_McCoy]

I have a 35 Brown-Whelen I’m hopefully going to start playing with when the weather is warmer, essentially a 280 ai necked up to 35. It’s supposed to push the same bullets as the Whelen 200 or 300 fps faster, we’ll see.

 

[318AE]

There was a magazine article some time back that tested all sorts of cartridges for efficiency. As I recall, the 35 Whelen Ackley Improved proved to have the greatest muzzle energy for the least amount of powder in their test.

I’m in the “so what” camp as well. Most of us here spend a fair amount of money to travel half way around the world to hunt “exotic” game. The experience is at once an adventure, folly and fine madness. The appeal to utility is perplexing. The entire endeavor is an indulgence.

 

[BlackRhino]

I don't quite understand the concept of efficiency.
Let's assume we have two cartridges loaded with the same powder and the same bullet weight, and which also have identical gas pressure and the same energy. In this case, the cartridge with the lower powder charge is the more efficient of the two cartridges.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

I don't quite understand the concept of efficiency.
Let's assume we have two cartridges loaded with the same powder and the same bullet weight, and which also have identical gas pressure and the same energy. In this case, the cartridge with the lower powder charge is the more efficient of the two cartridges.

Yep. Apparently there are a lot of us in the dame camp. The concept of what an efficient cartridge is seems to be a bit fuzzy. The one thing that I read that seemed to.make a little sense was a comparison of often 7mm Rem to the 7 WSM. The 7 WSM was said to be more efficient because using the same bullet from the same barrel length,you could get the same velocity while using less powder in the WSM.

Personally, I just can't seem to care enough to make me sell my 7 RM so I can go buy a 7 WSM. The deer and pronghorn sized critters have always gone down with authority with what I have, and that seems efficient to me.

 

[mauser98]

I personally think the 308 win and 8x57 are the most efficient for given powder charge, performance and recoil, yet capable of taking most game within 400 yards.

 

[Mountaineer]

338 federal- 200 grain bullet @2700fps

 

[Saul]

I look at cartridge efficiency as more of a way to determine which cartridge will produce the least amount of recoil for its relative performance, and I think it can be useful in this framing. However, as others has said, what we do is so far beyond trying to spare a few grains of powder that it is not really a concern.

 

[steve white]

The Bore-Ratio is why a ‘06, 338-06, or Whelen can push a heavier weight bullet faster than its counterpart.

IMO a 6GT, Dasher or 22 ARC would be considered just as efficient when going smaller diameter in bullet size.

Just as a 300 Norma Magnum is far more efficient in pushing heavy 230-245 grain bullets faster than a 30-378 Wby. Which requires 20 grains more powder to do the same velocity.

Exactly.

When I think of “efficiency” in rifle cartridges I typically think of how much powder am I burning for velocity. One of the most efficient cartridges available today is in my opinion 6mm ARC. I love this little cartridge (ya I know the opinion on .243 win around here). It’s my go to hog, javelina, predator cartridge and i wouldn’t hesitate to use it on deer too. It launches a 103gr ELDx out of my 20” barreled rifle at about 2710fps. No it’s not as fast as a .243 Winchester but it also is only using like 27gr of powder to do that. So what if I lose a couple hundred FPS muzzle velocity. I can have a rifle that sips powder which is getting expensive for us reloaders today and still gets the job done.

Other efficient cartridges are 7-08 rem, .308 win. .223 rem, .280 AI, and 7x57. I’m sure there are plenty of others.

But we are talking about shooting here so I also like to have fun and burn powder and sometimes that doesn’t involve being light with the powder scale.

I wonder how much real difference there is between 280 AI and 7mm Rem Mag.

 

[Saul]

Exactly.

I wonder how much real difference there is between 280 AI and 7mm Rem Mag.

I for one am much happier with the 280 AI over the 7mm rem mag and not the least of reasons is that it seems like the better designed, more “efficient” cartridge.

 

[Daryl S]

I have just learned here at www.africahunting, in the past 2 days, that modern powders in the .35 Whelen will match actual factory ballistics in the .338 Winchester Mag. 2,900fps with a 225gr. bullet is nothing to sneeze at and from a non IMP 06 case. Actual manual ballistics.
CFE223 is one of two of them. The other is a Herculese powder, I think. Can't remember the numbers.
Seems to me the new Speer manual had the Whelen with 250gr. doing 2,600fps+.

 

[DaddyFlip]

I look at cartridge efficiency as more of a way to determine which cartridge will produce the least amount of recoil for its relative performance, and I think it can be useful in this framing. However, as others has said, what we do is so far beyond trying to spare a few grains of powder that it is not really a concern.

This is one reason I chose to buy a 416Rem instead of my boyhood fantasy 416Rig. It's really just an academic exercise for fun, something I would normally jump all over as a weekend project and report back to the forum next week. Using GRT is the way to do it; you can't control enough variables thumbing through reloading manuals or trusting your own opinion or anecdotal experience. One does have to set some ground rules.

For example, I would start with all the relevant 308 caliber carts (308Win to 300RUM, for example)...

1. find the cart with the median case volume
2. select a powder that is usable pressure-wise in as many carts as possible above and below the median
3. use the heaviest hunting bullet for caliber (say Hornady 220gr SP)
4. select the charge that gives maximum safe pressure in the median case
5. record the velocity
6. change carts, record velocity at equal charge
   1. if over pressure, reduce charge until under pressure; record velocity
   2. if under pressure, increase charge until maximum safe pressure; record velocity
7. repeat for all carts; compare velocity and charge

• A variation might be to select a more moderate bullet weight (like 150gr for 6.5CM all the way up to 8mmMag) to compare velocity per charge across several calibers.
• Efficiency comparisons don't work across the entire spectrum of calibers due to several factors, especially suitable powders, but who cares about efficiency of 243 vs 375?
• It is true that overbore carts are not efficient users of powder; they were designed to be the opposite, to hit the highest velocity possible, regardless of charge.
• I'm not sure it's inherently true that a straight wall cart will be the most efficient within its caliber class, but it could be if the chosen powder is optimum for the cart

That's enough rambling on. I enjoyed thinking about it, but I'm not going to go through with the exercise.

 

[Noah_McCoy]

Exactly.

I wonder how much real difference there is between 280 AI and 7mm Rem Mag.

My 7x57 Ai gets 2800 fps with 175gn a partition over 50.5gns of powder, that’s close enough to factory rem mag. I’m sure the 280 Ai can pick up some speed on that.

 

[Daryl S]

The 7mm mag was a let-down for me back in the 70's, as the standard .280 came within 100fps.
As far as the .416 Rigby vs. .416 REm goes, even the .416 Taylor will do over 2,400fps with a 400g.r bullet. Efficiency?

 

[Elkeater]

I wonder how much real difference there is between 280 AI and 7mm Rem Mag.

Not much. And certainly not enough for a critter to know the difference when hit. Real world they top out within 100FPS of each other with a 160gr Sierra HPBT according to my Sierra reloading manual. There are some powders like RE25 that give the 7mm rem mag a boost but that’s also like finding unicorn fairy dust these days. Retumbo gives the next best velocities at 2980 fps with 72.5gr of power vs. the .280ai driving the same bullet at 2900 fps using 61.9gr of mag pro.

I’ll bet you squeeze more out of both cartridges if you want to. You can probably push on the throttle a bit more with the rem mag. But at the cost of more muzzle blast and recoil.

 

[uplander01]

IMO the easiest comparison in traditional dangerous game cartridges would be between the 404 jeffery and the 416 rigby. For example, both shoot 400 gr projectiles,...thats where the similarity ends. The 404 can generate 2300 fps with around 80 grains of a given powder, the 416 rigby can generate the same velocity with approximately 95-100 gr of powder....that in and of itself is a large "efficiency difference" from a standpoint of just looking at the numbers. But I would argue and add to that the 404 even goes further in its efficiency in that it can be built on a smaller and lighter action, easier to carry, and less recoil. I have both, I love both calibers, and it's literally a flip of a coin when decision on what to use. My 416 Rigby is built on a very appropriate GMA action, my 404 is on a pre-64 Win action. With those two rifles there is no doubt that the 404 is a more "nimble" set up, feels like carrying a 375.

 

[Daryl S]

Then, there is the .416 Taylor, using even less powder, to get 2,400fps, 72gr. IMR4320, IIRC. With more modern powders, even better, I suspect.
I have recently been informed that the standard .40 Whelen does the same, with even less powder. I have not seen the data on that though.