What are the most EFFICIENT rifle cartridges?

[CoElkHunter]

As an academic exercise one could calculate data on top of data! But unless one is loading commercially many thousands of the same cartridge and must do everything possible to reduce costs, why bother?

For my .416 Taylor, Rem, and fat old Rigby, obviously the Taylor is most efficient to achieve a 400 gr projectile at 2300 fps. At 2400 fps, the Taylor might do that with one or two powders. For 2500 fps, the Rigby stands alone.

Now let's get serious! The weight of powder is included in the ejecta which is a factor in the recoil formula.

SAAMI: https://saami.org/technical-information/recoil-formulae/

There are many recoil calculators available online that require the grains of powder. Here's what I use,

ShootersCalculator.com | Recoil Calculator

An online calculator that calculates the recoil energy, impulse, and velocity of a firearm according to the firearm's weight, powder charge, bullet weight, and bullet muzzle velocity.

shooterscalculator.com

If however I want to shoot a .416 Rigby that I know has more recoil for a 400 gr bullet at 2400 fps than the Rem cartridge, I will try a faster burning powder.

The attached excerpt from LoadData dot com quickly provides information for 2400 fps loads by powder and its weight. If I want a temperature stable powder, although not as necessary with the lower pressure .416 Rigby than the higher pressure .416 Rem, temperture stable H4350 produces over 2400 fps with 93 grains. Other powders require over 100 grains. Since I have a few pounds of H4350 on hand, problem solved!

If one handloads for many different cartridges, I highly recommend subscribing to LoadData dot com!

Note: I don't usually post printed information online because of copyrights but is this case, maybe it's advertising for LoadData dot com !

+1 on the first paragraph, "why bother?". I believe the .416 Taylor along with the .375 and .416 Ruger are very efficient larger bore cartridges, especially the latter two in 20" barrels. But I agree it's a moot point as most people aren't shooting hundreds of rounds through them or any other large bore rifle cartridges all the time like they might with .30 or lower cartridges. So, IMHO, shoot whatever you like and can shoot with a reasonable degree of accuracy at appropriate hunting distances while minding the recoil factor and don't worry about how "efficient" the cartridge is. Finding reloading brass for some cartridges is more of a PIA than how efficient they may be.

 

[DaddyFlip]

Also @DaddyFlip, I would like a copy of your data set to play around with please.

I might break out my old stats module from uni, see if you can do some sort of random forest approach to predict efficiency for new loads and cartridges based on the data.

I will send after I add carts for some folks and clean it a bit. You are right; efficiency isn't what that first calculation is or was meant to be. That first quickie list was plain ol' Ft.lb / powder charge with all bullets and all powders mixed together by cart as a mathematical average. Lotsa work/play to do before we're done.

 

[DaddyFlip]

I actually thought the 9.3x74R would have placed higher, interesting results

I compared 9.3x74R to all other carts running its three main bullet weights and selected the primary powders used for the 9.3. We don't need energy values here because the powders and weights are the same for all carts; the rankings are valid. I'm remote tonight so had to snap a pic of it. Unfortunately, the 74R is not efficient relative to its competitors, but it is the sexiest of the bunch; long and slender!

 

[DaddyFlip]

Here's a quick look at the 458 Winchester Magnum data. It appears to be a versatile and efficient big game/dangerous game cartridge if one prefers bullet diameter/weight over velocity and doesn't mind compressed powder charges to achieve top performance.

• After removing the Trail Boss loads, there are 28 Hodgdon powder loads in bullet weights from 250-500 grains
• Of these, 13 loads (highlighted) hold the top 36 energy per grain spots out of 3,924 total loads in 84 other cartridges, which is better than 99.08% of all other loads
  • The range of energy per grain is 76.2 to 26.4
• Three factors contribute to this: (1) heavy bullet weights, (2) straight wall casing, (3) compressed powder charges (green highlights are the only non-compressed charges)
• H322 and H4198 are the most efficient powders at all bullet weights
• H4198 runs out of velocity capability as bullet weight increases; other powders may fall behind on the efficiency factor, but can produce higher velocities for heavier bullets within safe pressure limits
• H4895 can be selected for bullet weights above 300 grain to download using Hodgdon's 60% rule; the 458 Win Mag is one of only six DG-class cartridges that qualifies
• Hodgdon only lists A2230 and A2520 powders for the 458 Lott, which is why it's not included in the database. However, those powder efficiencies with the 500 grain DGS were 70.0 and 68.9, respectively. This is similar efficiency to the Win Mag with the same bullet but generating 5700-5900 ft.lb. of energy with 82-84 grains of powder. A2230 is between H322 and H4895 on the burn rate chart; A2520 is between H4895 and Varget.

 

[DaddyFlip]

375 Winchester is a new to me cartridge. I picked up a Winchester 94 big bore a few months ago.
Haven’t messed with it yet, but plan to after the deer season ends here. It’s basically an updated 38-55.
I have already picked up reloading dies and a bullet mold. Still need to pick up some brass, and gas checks. I’m very excited to start messing with this rifle/ammo.
And yes, it seems to be a very efficient cartridge.

Turns out, the 375Win is especially efficient overall, in its weight class and in its burn rate classs. Hodgdon only lists four loads in 200 and 220gr using H322 and H4198. For those who ponder "why bother", it's just for general knowledge and entertainment value.

The 375 Win ranks #1 overall by average bullet weight and powder charge vs. all loads. Only showing the Top 10 in this category:

Here is how it ranks among all carts using H322 and H4198 only for various bullet weights:

And here is the ranking for all powders and just 200 and 220gr bullet weights:

 

[Brickman301]

Wow! Thanks for sharing this information.

 

[Daryl S]

Shot and killed 2 moose with my wife's Big Bore 94 back in the 1980's. I had a rather soft shooting load for it, 42gr. H335. This drove a 220gr. Hornady at 1,940fps & would put 5 into 1 1/2" at 100 meters off the bench. I had filed the rear sight into a wide V and put a marbles(or Lyman) ivory bead for the front sight. Worked a treat on both moose. One shot with that load, on both moose. Then, I foolishly sold it.

 

[farmer_john]

By efficient, I mean which cartridges move a bigger bullet with less powderl, while providing greater velocity without increased powder capacity. For example, a 30'06 will move an equal weight of bullet faster and with less pressure than a 270 with equal loading, while a 35 Whelen will move a bigger bullet than the 30'06 at velocity for the heavy weight that the 30'06 can't match without exceeding safe pressure. (as well as the '06 requiring more powder to try and match it)
It seems to me that the more a cartridge is necked down, the less efficient it becomes? Yet we can't all just shoot straight walls, can we?
I also sometimes confuse a "balanced load" with an efficient load. A 7X57 is balanced--recoil is such that you could probably shoot it off your chin, yet it is a great killer in the field. But an 8x57 can launch a bigger payload (though with more recoil) and a 9.3X57 greater still. Is this why the 358 Win. is so good in performance?

What are your votes for most efficient cartridges? This may accidentally or otherwise pit magnums vs non-magnums.

I think the only way to do that experiment would be ratios take a variety of powders and calibers. And vigure out the average # grains to fps.

Example a 180 grain swift a frame with 52.5grn h4350 powder shoots 2509fps
To
56.5gnr 2733

375hh 300grn a frame h4350
73.9grn 2464fps.
79.5 2639fps

The 375hh is at 102% case capacity the 06 is at 94%

3006
2914 energy @ max 60.24 ebergy per grain powder. 16.18 if using bullet weight


47.79 fps per grain min
48.37 fps per grain. Max

357 hh.

4504 energy @max 56.65 energy per grain.
15.01 per grain bullet weight

33.34 fps per grain min
33.19 fps per grain. Max


So using your argument the smaller calibers are nore efficient. All things being the same.
Source info from swift manual
24in barrel 06 vs 26 for 375

 

[DaddyFlip]

I think the only way to do that experiment would be ratios take a variety of powders and calibers. And vigure out the average # grains to fps.

Example a 180 grain swift a frame with 52.5grn h4350 powder shoots 2509fps
To
56.5gnr 2733

375hh 300grn a frame h4350
73.9grn 2464fps.
79.5 2639fps

The 375hh is at 102% case capacity the 06 is at 94%

3006
2914 energy @ max 60.24 ebergy per grain powder. 16.18 if using bullet weight


47.79 fps per grain min
48.37 fps per grain. Max

357 hh.

4504 energy @max 56.65 energy per grain.
15.01 per grain bullet weight

33.34 fps per grain min
33.19 fps per grain. Max


So using your argument the smaller calibers are nore efficient. All things being the same.
Source info from swift manual
24in barrel 06 vs 26 for 375

There is a miscalculation for the 3006 which invalidates the conclusion. You divided the energy 2914 by the fps per grain 48.37 to get 60.24 energy per grain of powder, which is not accurate. The correct calculation would be 2914/56.5 (max powder charge) = 51.6 energy per grain.

For 375HH, you divided the energy 4504 by the max powder charge 79.5 to get 56.65, which is correct. Comparing these two results indicates the 375 moves its heavier bullet at almost the same speed as the 3006 (only 3.4% slower), generates 55% more total energy, and does so with 9.8% more muzzle energy per grain of powder, making it the more efficient cartridge in this load comparison.

What we find is larger calibers tend to be more energy efficient when comparing loads that suit the individual calibers. Smaller calibers are generally more efficient when bullet weights are equal as in the example below from the Hodgdon data (both barrels are 24-inch). 3006 and 375 have 200gr in common. The 375 can make it go significantly faster but with almost double the powder charge. While 375 total energy trumps the 3006, when divided by the powder charge (note same powders compared) the 3006 is more efficient on a per grain basis.

Think of it like comparing a Honda Civic (200gr bullet) with it's 1.8L I4 vs. another Honda Civic with a 454 crate engine. The 1.8 will be more energy efficient in that vehicle even though the crate engine will outrun it. Now put those engines in a 1-ton pickup (300gr bullet) and the 454 will be faster and more energy efficient.

 

[One Day...]

By efficient, I mean which cartridges move a bigger bullet with less powderl, while providing greater velocity without increased powder capacity. For example, a 30'06 will move an equal weight of bullet faster and with less pressure than a 270 with equal loading, while a 35 Whelen will move a bigger bullet than the 30'06 at velocity for the heavy weight that the 30'06 can't match without exceeding safe pressure. (as well as the '06 requiring more powder to try and match it)
It seems to me that the more a cartridge is necked down, the less efficient it becomes? Yet we can't all just shoot straight walls, can we?
I also sometimes confuse a "balanced load" with an efficient load. A 7X57 is balanced--recoil is such that you could probably shoot it off your chin, yet it is a great killer in the field. But an 8x57 can launch a bigger payload (though with more recoil) and a 9.3X57 greater still. Is this why the 358 Win. is so good in performance?

What are your votes for most efficient cartridges? This may accidentally or otherwise pit magnums vs non-magnums.

I have not read the 5 pages, so I may just be repeating what other folks already said, but the most efficient cartridges, in the classic sense, tend to be the older ones, and specifically the german ones.

The King of "efficient" for Africa is likely the 9.3x62 286 gr.

The Prince of "efficient" for Africa is likely the 7x57 173 gr, but you need to forgo dangerous game, which is why the 9.3x62 is King.

Both do the job without excessive noise, recoil, etc. and kill just as well out to 200+ meters as any souped up magnum. In Africa they used to be labelled "bush cartridges", and in the bush they are hard to beat, even today. This is all about heavy bullets at moderate speed giving unsurpassed penetration.

Of course, they are not ideal to reach a Kudu on the next ridge 400 or 500 yards/meters away, but in those days folks did not shoot further, they hunted closer...

 

[farmer_john]

There is a miscalculation for the 3006 which invalidates the conclusion. You divided the energy 2914 by the fps per grain 48.37 to get 60.24 energy per grain of powder, which is not accurate. The correct calculation would be 2914/56.5 (max powder charge) = 51.6 energy per grain.

For 375HH, you divided the energy 4504 by the max powder charge 79.5 to get 56.65, which is correct. Comparing these two results indicates the 375 moves its heavier bullet at almost the same speed as the 3006 (only 3.4% slower), generates 55% more total energy, and does so with 9.8% more muzzle energy per grain of powder, making it the more efficient cartridge in this load comparison.

What we find is larger calibers tend to be more energy efficient when comparing loads that suit the individual calibers. Smaller calibers are generally more efficient when bullet weights are equal as in the example below from the Hodgdon data (both barrels are 24-inch). 3006 and 375 have 200gr in common. The 375 can make it go significantly faster but with almost double the powder charge. While 375 total energy trumps the 3006, when divided by the powder charge (note same powders compared) the 3006 is more efficient on a per grain basis.

Think of it like comparing a Honda Civic (200gr bullet) with it's 1.8L I4 vs. another Honda Civic with a 454 crate engine. The 1.8 will be more energy efficient in that vehicle even though the crate engine will outrun it. Now put those engines in a 1-ton pickup (300gr bullet) and the 454 will be faster and more energy efficient.

View attachment 734084

Thanks for the proof reading. I kinds did that on the fly

 

[Daryl S]

The top load from my .375 Winchester was 2,380fps with 220Hornady. That's 2,768fps divided by 38gr. = 72.84 fpe per grain of powder.

 

[DaddyFlip]

The top load from my .375 Winchester was 2,380fps with 220Hornady. That's 2,768fps divided by 38gr. = 72.84 fpe per grain of powder.

The Hodgdon database hints that speed would be screaming for a 220 and 38 grains. Maybe a 200 grainer? The fastest 220 in my Lyman book is 2260 with Reloder 7 compressed. What powder was that and was it a compressed load? The yellow highlights are compressed loads.

 

[Daryl S]

IIRC, it was 38gr. of 1680 powder that ran 2,380fps. I don't think it was compressed, but likely very close to 100% loading. It was a spherical or ball powder.
My favourite load was 42.0gr. H335 with that bullet.