Hunting & Fishing The PERFECT hunting Caliber/Rifle?

[ahhshoot]

This idea has been on my mind for a few years now. It seems to me everyone (at least on the East Coast) wants a short, light, reasonably recoiling rifle at least .30 caliber capable of 500 yard ethical killing. Many of the better BC cartridges fall short of this requirement due to the necessity for a long barrel (26" may not seem like much for you guys out West, but it's not as fun in thick brush or vines!).

So here is the idea. When I looked up the ballistics of the 338 Federal (a necked up .308 but pushes heavier bullets at the same or higher velocities), I thought, my what an efficient cartridge. The explanation is that due to the larger bore, there is more volume to burn powder that would otherwise result in muzzle flash or remain un-burnt.

Taking this to the next step I would imagine you could get away with a pretty darn short barrel without sacrificing much energy/velocity. For instance cutting a 26" bbl on a 7mm mag or the new Nosler 26 will severely hurt velocity due to the small bore size, but on this larger caliber you would only lose a fraction of what would be lost with some of the aforementioned calibers. I know more than a few hunters who would love a 16" barrel on their hunting rifle. You could also get away with a little heavier contour for more accuracy without compromising weight - the result would be a remarkably stiff barrel that would do well with many loads and still be extremely handy.

You could sling a 180 grain at over 2,800 fps, out of a 6 lb gun that would be capable of taking pretty much anything in North America and still have plenty of punch out to 500 for ethical long range kills.

With the right components I feel you could build a 6-7lb rifle with a 16" tube that could hold .5 MOA or better, NOT kick like a mule and still pack a hell of a punch. Do you guys know of any setups like this? I'm thinking of building one for myself and some of the guys at my camp to try out.

 

[bohem]

First and foremost, these statements are contradictoryin nature:

You could sling a 180 grain at over 2,800 fps, out of a 6 lb gun that would be capable of taking pretty much anything in North America and still have plenty of punch out to 500 for ethical long range kills.

With the right components I feel you could build a 6-7lb rifle with a 16" tube that could hold .5 MOA or better, NOT kick like a mule and still pack a hell of a punch.

Secondly, in no particular order:

308, 30-06, 338-06, 35 Whelen, 338 WSM 358 WSM, 8mm WSM, etc.

Any/all of those calibers will have enough power to ethically kill large deer-family animals at 500yd on the assumption that the shooter can actually put the bullet where it needs to go because if the shooter can't do that, the caliber being shot is functionally moot.

ETA: For dangerous large-game such as pretty much anything in the Ursus family the argument for bigger, harder, faster is pretty easily made. I personally wouldn't want to go after anything like that without either a lot of distance or AT LEAST a 30-06 stoked to the gills, preferably a 45-70 with big flat hardcast bullets that will drill deep holes through heavy bone.

 

[ahhshoot]

First and foremost, these statements are contradictoryin nature:



Secondly, in no particular order:

308, 30-06, 338-06, 35 Whelen, 338 WSM 358 WSM, 8mm WSM, etc.

Any/all of those calibers will have enough power to ethically kill large deer-family animals at 500yd on the assumption that the shooter can actually put the bullet where it needs to go because if the shooter can't do that, the caliber being shot is functionally moot.

ETA: For dangerous large-game such as pretty much anything in the Ursus family the argument for bigger, harder, faster is pretty easily made. I personally wouldn't want to go after anything like that without either a lot of distance or AT LEAST a 30-06 stoked to the gills, preferably a 45-70 with big flat hardcast bullets that will drill deep holes through heavy bone.

How are they contradictory? Can something not pack a punch if its' recoil is tolerable? I don't get what you're saying. Most people feel that 20 lbs or less is considered tolerable. A projectile 180 grains or more in .338 would transfer a hell of a lot of energy to any animal. It would be more stout than a .308 yes, but many consider a 308 to have mild recoil.

Additoinally, all else being equal you get more energy from the 338 federal than from an .06.. that is the point of the idea, that you get a short action bolt gun, with as much or more energy as most standard rounds, and the advantage is you get a shorter barrel length without having to compensate for ridiculous softball trajectories and a gun capable of .5 MOA, without intolerable recoil (having shot my buddy's 6 lb microhunter in 300 WSM, which is far more painful than even my 1895 45-70 with Buffalo Bore loads, this is a plus). I'm not saying it would be a good choice because of being bigger hard or faster, but because it would bring enough energy for most hunters to do the job while still using a short barrel, be very accurate, and practical for all general use, because most guys I know, including myself, appreciate a short barrel when trekking through thick woods and hunting in general.

 

[bohem]

True, but all else being equal you get more energy from the 338 federal than from an .06.. that is the point of the idea, that you get a short action bolt gun, with as much or more energy as most standard rounds, and the advantage is you get a shorter barrel length without having to compensate for ridiculous softball trajectories and a gun capable of .5 MOA, without intolerable recoil (having shot my buddy's 6 lb microhunter in 300 WSM, which is far more painful than even my 1895 45-70 with Buffalo Bore loads, this is a plus). I'm not saying it would be a good choice because of being bigger hard or faster, but because it would bring enough energy for most hunters to do the job while still using a short barrel, be very accurate, and practical for all general use, because most guys I know, including myself, appreciate a short barrel when trekking through thick woods and hunting in general.

I disagree. Internal efficiency and downrange energy are not the same for a given bullet and barrel length selection.

The 338 Fed is more ballistically efficient with the powder used however the 338-06 has 30% more powder on board to compensate for that. The data you're working from for the highest efficiencies is with long barrels, not short barrels as well. The longer the bullet is in the bore for a given charge weight the more efficient it becomes. QL tells me that the 338Fed runs somewhere from 28-34% internal efficiency and the 338-06 for the barrel length (bolt face to crown, NOT rifling length) is 24-29% efficient depending on powder and bullet. It also predicts significantly higher velocities for the 30-06 as well, but just on the efficiency statement alone

So, taking that into account against some basic information and comparing with "apples to apples" assumptions:

Let's say X is the potential energy of the powder you're putting in the case. For single base powders this is about 175J/gr IIRC, but that's not important for the sake of comparison.

The 338Fed runs ~45gr of powder. The 338-06 runs 58-62gr of powder under the same bullet, let's use 60 for the sake of easy numbers.

45*.34 = 15.3*Xgr of equivalent energy content from the powder turns into bullet energy in the 338F
60*.29 = 17.4*Xgr of equivalent energy content from the powder turns into bullet energy in the 338-06

17.4/15.3 = 113.7% more energy from the same bullet and optimized load for the 338-06 than the 338 Fed

Which, if you are ONLY concerned with energy (and again, I think that's a pretty bold assumption) the difference means 6.664% higher velocity for the 338-06 and using your stated 2800fps number, that's 2985fps instead of 2800fps.



If you really have your heart set on the 338F then go for it, however, if your goal is to actually evaluate up front and make a choice based on some basic information it behooves you to understand the parameters that you're optimizing against and I get the feeling that you're not understanding some things about internal ballistics and internal efficiency (ballistic efficiency).

The 45-70 was an example not as a 500yd caliber for this case study but rather as something that is known for more than 100 years to be an absolutely devastating caliber for bear, including big Kodiak brown bears. I would not want a 338F in my hands to chase a brown bear into the brush... absolutely not when I can have something heavier hitting.

The biggest hitch I see in this plan is the 6lb need and reducing recoil. Even with a phenomenal brake on the end of the rifle the thing is going to kick hard, the peak punch during the firing cycle is at Pmax which is just a few inches down the barrel. The recoil is mitigated at the bullet exit by a brake but the recoil pulse felt will still be there and it will be sharp and punch. I have a 25" 300WM with a brake in a 7lb Wild Call Custom and the brake mitigates but it's far from "low recoil"

The 338F you're looking at is not a bad choice, however, by the understanding and problem statement that you're presenting I don't get the feeling it is the "end all be all" solution that you're looking for.

Let me make 1 more suggestion and change the problem statement just enough to preclude the use on dangerous game:

16-18" light contour, braked, in a 6.5mm or 7mm in a case that's about the same size as a 308. The judicious use of bullet selection gives you very good speeds from a wide range of hunting bullets, it won't beat the heck outta you, and it will assuredly retain the necessary punch to pole-axe animals that have the bullet placed properly.

I say that because I've watched a friend and his (now) 10 year old son use a light-loaded 243 and 90-something grain factory ammo absolutely smack down deer, hogs, and even 2 cow elk at ranges past 600 yards so I'm certain that it can be done.

Going to a 6.5 or 7mm would give you more bullet mass at similar speeds and with 7mm instead of 6.5mm you would be more open in certain states for hunting large game. PA has a clause for elk that it must be 27c or larger, so the 6.5's are out but the 7's are legit. Other states have them as well but I know PA's off the top of my head as an example.

 

[bohem]

Adding here: I'm not berating you about misunderstanding, this is something that not many folks look at to begin with and I applaud you doing that. I've spent a significant amount of time in the past 5 years going through trade studies like this for cases and bullets in a number of different scenarios and I have a reasonably good understanding of what is going on. I looked at the 338F myself and came to the same conclusion that it was a great hunting caliber but the limitations for long range are substantial due to moderate BC hunting bullet selection all by itself.

Also, a 16" 338F pushing a 180gr bullet seems rather unreasonable to me, I'm not sure where you came up with that number but QL (which is ultimately a +/-50fps venture) says in the high 2500's with a 62.5ksi Pmax load.

 

[Eastbay]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t9oI-PhvLw

 

[ahhshoot]

I disagree. Internal efficiency and downrange energy are not the same for a given bullet and barrel length selection.

The 338 Fed is more ballistically efficient with the powder used however the 338-06 has 30% more powder on board to compensate for that. The data you're working from for the highest efficiencies is with long barrels, not short barrels as well. The longer the bullet is in the bore for a given charge weight the more efficient it becomes. QL tells me that the 338Fed runs somewhere from 28-34% internal efficiency and the 338-06 for the barrel length (bolt face to crown, NOT rifling length) is 24-29% efficient depending on powder and bullet. It also predicts significantly higher velocities for the 30-06 as well, but just on the efficiency statement alone

So, taking that into account against some basic information and comparing with "apples to apples" assumptions:

Let's say X is the potential energy of the powder you're putting in the case. For single base powders this is about 175J/gr IIRC, but that's not important for the sake of comparison.

The 338Fed runs ~45gr of powder. The 338-06 runs 58-62gr of powder under the same bullet, let's use 60 for the sake of easy numbers.

45*.34 = 15.3*Xgr of equivalent energy content from the powder turns into bullet energy in the 338F
60*.29 = 17.4*Xgr of equivalent energy content from the powder turns into bullet energy in the 338-06

17.4/15.3 = 113.7% more energy from the same bullet and optimized load for the 338-06 than the 338 Fed

Which, if you are ONLY concerned with energy (and again, I think that's a pretty bold assumption) the difference means 6.664% higher velocity for the 338-06 and using your stated 2800fps number, that's 2985fps instead of 2800fps.



If you really have your heart set on the 338F then go for it, however, if your goal is to actually evaluate up front and make a choice based on some basic information it behooves you to understand the parameters that you're optimizing against and I get the feeling that you're not understanding some things about internal ballistics and internal efficiency (ballistic efficiency).

The 45-70 was an example not as a 500yd caliber for this case study but rather as something that is known for more than 100 years to be an absolutely devastating caliber for bear, including big Kodiak brown bears. I would not want a 338F in my hands to chase a brown bear into the brush... absolutely not when I can have something heavier hitting.

The biggest hitch I see in this plan is the 6lb need and reducing recoil. Even with a phenomenal brake on the end of the rifle the thing is going to kick hard, the peak punch during the firing cycle is at Pmax which is just a few inches down the barrel. The recoil is mitigated at the bullet exit by a brake but the recoil pulse felt will still be there and it will be sharp and punch. I have a 25" 300WM with a brake in a 7lb Wild Call Custom and the brake mitigates but it's far from "low recoil"

The 338F you're looking at is not a bad choice, however, by the understanding and problem statement that you're presenting I don't get the feeling it is the "end all be all" solution that you're looking for.

Let me make 1 more suggestion and change the problem statement just enough to preclude the use on dangerous game:

16-18" light contour, braked, in a 6.5mm or 7mm in a case that's about the same size as a 308. The judicious use of bullet selection gives you very good speeds from a wide range of hunting bullets, it won't beat the heck outta you, and it will assuredly retain the necessary punch to pole-axe animals that have the bullet placed properly.

I say that because I've watched a friend and his (now) 10 year old son use a light-loaded 243 and 90-something grain factory ammo absolutely smack down deer, hogs, and even 2 cow elk at ranges past 600 yards so I'm certain that it can be done.

Going to a 6.5 or 7mm would give you more bullet mass at similar speeds and with 7mm instead of 6.5mm you would be more open in certain states for hunting large game. PA has a clause for elk that it must be 27c or larger, so the 6.5's are out but the 7's are legit. Other states have them as well but I know PA's off the top of my head as an example.

I hear you. I'm really trying to achieve what I believe would be the best balance between useful energy for most general hunting, gun weight for tote-ability, barrel length for the same reason, manageable recoil (I like the 338-06 but that seems like it would recoil even more, no? And in 500 yards what is the 338-06 going to offer that is significant over the 338F? I have a 6.5 Creedmoor which is similar to what you describe, but I have noticed again, that you compromise velocity a great deal when trying to minimize barrel length due to decreased bore volume.

Between you and I, I use a 7mm mag for most of my hunting. I love that damn round. It does anything I need it to. This is an idea I developed from hearing other guys at my camp complain about barrels being too long for their liking, guns being to heavy, stuff kicking too hard, not liking lever guns, etc etc. And some of the guys absolutely will not use anything below a .30 caliber bullet. I don't know why, because I've used a .260 and 7mm mag this year and the .260 ran about 50 yards and the 7mm was DRT.

So with all this complaining about what they didn't like about rifles, I put this idea together. My thoughts are more efficiency from the same case as a .308, tolerable recoil, substantial energy at any reasonable hunting range, very light weight and very short barrel length without compromising performance as would happen with the smaller bore cartridges. Also, I have seen 338F available at a good amount of retailers and gun shops, and some of the others you listed aren't quite as available.

Another thing I wanted to avoid was a brake, simply because of how loud those bastards are. I appreciate all the insight and will definitely take it into account, it's something that might materialize far down the road...

 

[ahhshoot]

Adding here: I'm not berating you about misunderstanding, this is something that not many folks look at to begin with and I applaud you doing that. I've spent a significant amount of time in the past 5 years going through trade studies like this for cases and bullets in a number of different scenarios and I have a reasonably good understanding of what is going on. I looked at the 338F myself and came to the same conclusion that it was a great hunting caliber but the limitations for long range are substantial due to moderate BC hunting bullet selection all by itself.

Also, a 16" 338F pushing a 180gr bullet seems rather unreasonable to me, I'm not sure where you came up with that number but QL (which is ultimately a +/-50fps venture) says in the high 2500's with a 62.5ksi Pmax load.

Thanks for the input, it truly is appreciated. I by no means claim or believe to know everything about internal ballistics. I am sure we would lose some of that 2800 with a 16" bbl. But we are still better off with a 16" bbl with the 338F, than a 16" bbl with a 30-06 or .308 simply due to the internal bore volume allowing more efficient powder burn...

 

[bohem]

I didn't see your addition above, but in response to the 20lb of recoil stipulation:

Using JBM's recoil calculator
Bullet: 180gr
Charge: 45gr
MV: 2800fps
Firearm: 6lb

Recoil: 27.3ft-lb of energy (which is pretty nasty IMO, as the original 1903 Springfields were always reported to "kick like a mule" and they calculate to <17ftlb)

Also

But we are still better off with a 16" bbl with the 338F, than a 16" bbl with a 30-06 or .308 simply due to the internal bore volume allowing more efficient powder burn...

I'm not sure what you mean by "better off"

If by "better off" you mean simply that you will have a lower MV reduction due to the expansion ratio and overbore ratio I would be in mind to agree. The FPS/Inch loss is going to be lower than for a larger capacity cartridge.

However, if by "better off" you mean that the overall ballistic performance of the 338F will be better at 16" will be higher than the other cases will be at 16" I still would harken back to the old drag-racing adage

"There's no replacement for displacement"
Especially when the 06/WSM case holds about 15/20gr (or 35/45%) more powder than the 308 case does.

 

[ahhshoot]

Yes, I am simply saying that better off in this case would be less velocity loss in comparison to the other calibers, with reduced barrel length. Also with the reduced barrel length and also velocity it would be closer to 24 lbs of recoil, which yes is still stout but imo manageable. Also with the 06/WSM case you are looking at even more recoil and less ammo availability. I think now we are to the point where we are splitting hairs and personal preference is taking over? lol

 

[bohem]

Yes, the biggest hiccup in all of this is the weight goal, weight reduction means that recoil increases and there's nothing to be done about that.

I still see 30-06 far more often than 338F on the shelf at places, if that's a goal too I really dunno what to do at that point, potayto potahto ?

 

[brianf]

not being a ballistics specialist, i would stick with the tried and true calibers and rounds. take a good accurate 300 WM and load up or down to what ever you are hunting. you can take it to 308 levels or max it out and not be afraid of any animal walking around in the north east (i live in NYS, no grizz). problem with those big 338 non lapua rounds is that they drop like a brick past a 300 or so. we can compensate and practice but they drop enough that a little off in range or wind and it might be a ugly would on a animal.

 

[Phil1]

AHEM!!!BS

There is no such thing as the "perfect" hunting caliber.

Furthermore who cares about efficiency of powder use? It like discussing calibers that "burn out" barrels. They make more barrels and more powder every day.

It is heresy to discuss such topics on any gun forums. The OP should be banned.

If you're out in the field hunting gophers do you want a 30-06? Hunting 100lb tuskers in the Okavango Delta do you want a .375/06?

Heresy I say.

 

[ahhshoot]

All valid points. The venerable 30-06 will always be available and found on the shelves... I have often wondered why the 338F hasn't filled a bigger niche.. maybe it just doesn't offer that much of an advantage over its' 30 cal brethren. Brian, the main reason for getting away from the .30 and adopting the .338 is really only efficiency with a short barrel. I really like the 300 WM myself, I don't have one anymore but that is such a practical caliber. The 338 novelty idea was to get something useful out of an extremely short and handy rifle, that could maintain a good balance of practical use and minimal compromise. As bohem stated there are ballistically superior 338's out there but you are going to give up something, that's just physics. Maybe when bohem and I start our production line we can include multiple 338 calibers for this short barrel handy hunter rifle???

 

[ahhshoot]

AHEM!!!BS

There is no such thing as the "perfect" hunting caliber.

Furthermore who cares about efficiency of powder use? It like discussing calibers that "burn out" barrels. They make more barrels and more powder every day.

It is heresy to discuss such topics on any gun forums. The OP should be banned.

If you're out in the field hunting gophers do you want a 30-06? Hunting 100lb tuskers in the Okavango Delta do you want a .375/06?

Heresy I say.

LMAO. OK OK. that was just a marketing tactic. It got you here, didn't it?

FYI it's not the powder were concerned with in speaking of efficiency. It's how much of that energy within the powder is used to make the bullet go forward. You can stick all the powder you want in a cartridge but if your internal bore volume isn't large enough to burn it before the bullet leaves the muzzle, you aren't going to see any improvement in performance. Efficiency in this case means barrel length to bore volume ratio.

 

[brianf]

sounds good ahhshoot, the second half of that i wrote is that i am always up for trying something new improved or not. have at it and keep me informed.

 

[Phil1]

LMAO. OK OK. that was just a marketing tactic. It got you here, didn't it?

FYI it's not the powder were concerned with in speaking of efficiency. It's how much of that energy within the powder is used to make the bullet go forward. You can stick all the powder you want in a cartridge but if your internal bore volume isn't large enough to burn it before the bullet leaves the muzzle, you aren't going to see any improvement in performance. Efficiency in this case means barrel length to bore volume ratio.

That may be all true.

But if there isn't a massive powder charge and a stunning muzzle blast it can't be called a magnum. Therefor it will never be a best seller.

 

[ahhshoot]

that may be all true.

But if there isn't a massive powder charge and a stunning muzzle blast it can't be called a magnum. Therefor it will never be a best seller.

+50

muzzle blast ftw!

 

[bohem]

Maybe when bohem and I start our production line we can include multiple 338 calibers for this short barrel handy hunter rifle???

Hit me up via PM if you need someone to build this little thing, I like wildcats.

 

[hlee]

The perfect hunting rifle/caliber...

Wait for it...







Wait for it...





Does not exist!

Everything is a trade off and compromise. And, no set of compromises pleases everyone. Pick a rifle in a caliber that you can pack to where you hunt, can keep on target, and in a caliber with enough balls to get through the vitals and call it a day. An Internet circle-jerk is fun and all, but it is pretty pointless...

 

[bohem]

^^^ Agreed!

Well rounded? Yes.
Do all, always perfect for any situation? No.

But, it's entirely possible to be discerning when you're laying out a build, hopefully some of the above discussion will help other with that.

 

[lash]

This idea has been on my mind for a few years now. It seems to me everyone (at least on the East Coast) wants a short, light, reasonably recoiling rifle at least .30 caliber capable of 500 yard ethical killing. Many of the better BC cartridges fall short of this requirement due to the necessity for a long barrel (26" may not seem like much for you guys out West, but it's not as fun in thick brush or vines!).
...

OK, so I'm a bit out of my league here with respect to internal ballistics and it's applications, as I've not the experience or reading yet, but my comment is more general than that and applies to your opening statement (see quote fragment).
IF you were to set aside the requirement for most efficient powder burn, which may only be an academic exercise anyway, I don't know, then throwing out the .308 as a bad choice seems to be a missed opportunity. For effectiveness at longer ranges, I.E. your stated 500 yds., many a person here on this forum use .308 with 16-18" barrels quite effectively and accurately. One only need do a short search to find plenty of evidence to see that.

In the end, you may just be driven by a desire to find that "perfect" niche to satisfy yourself and that is fine. Indeed, that kind of search has led to most of the best caliber developments. I just wanted to point out that you skipped completely over the easiest solution to the initial stated problem.

 

[brianf]

i tend to agree (love my 308) but one is paper punching and one is putting down meat. the same argument can be used for the 300 win mag, 338 lapua and 50 cal "sniper" rifles, you can get a 264 to shoot inside all of them at 1000 but it is what happens when they get there. a old wise man once said to me bigger bullets bigger holes, he had more than a couple confirms in vietnam.

the flip side is that how pathetic are we killing at 500 (not that i dont take long shots now and then) when native americans were using "sticks and stones" on the same animals...man i stink at stalking and calling

 

[ahhshoot]

Guys, a little caveat here. It really is for my personal satisfaction to come up with this stuff. I'm not trying to come up with the next hot selling rifle. I like to think about this stuff and experiment. A lot of this idea came from my peaked interest to learn that all else being equal, the same case can propel a bigger, heavier bullet faster than its' little brother, the .308. That just tells me it's more efficient, and I like efficiency. Mind you, the big hole left by the .338 is pretty awesome as well. Now, would it be enough of an advantage over a .308 for anyone to go out and buy one, if they already own a .308? Hell no. But to me it's a cool idea and isn't this the place to discuss rifles and ideas for hunting rifles? I mean, my old lady gets pissed when I talk guns so if you can't do it on snipershide, might as well shoot me now. The thread isn't about the PERFECT caliber for killing a blue footed booby or a siamese twin rhino joined at the horn, it's about an idea for a perfect PRACTICAL, GENERAL hunting rifle (NOT just caliber, rifle in general) utilizing a caliber that would allow you to go with a very short barrel and still have enough punch for anything most people would use it for, while being accurate and having a useful trajectory downrange. To me this means being handy, durable, accurate, and able to kill quickly, in my sick twisted mind this is just fantasy rifle porn.

 

[brianf]

I'm tracking, especially about the old lady part. I do the same with trying to figure out a easy way to calc wind drift with out flags or phone program. I even went so far as to make a mildot master whiz wheel combination that I patented about 2years ago. Made a website and all but never got time to market the product, have the site still up and wheels in the basement but real life got in the way. Dream on and keep he info comming, that's why we are here . I hope

 

[broylz]

I say have fun with the build if that's what you really want to build. only one way to find out if its best for you.

that said, 30-06 does everything I envision ever needing it to do for me. recoil can be right on the edge of as much as I want to mess with and going between 110gr and 220gr bullets is great. load cast down to the low side of 30-30 and up to the low side of 300 win mag.

 

[TOP PREDATOR]

.73 cal, aka 12 gauge slug

2.75" CTC groups are moa at 200

having to go further out than that with a hunting rifle east of the mississippi means your not doing a good job hunting big game in general

can go from squirrel to bear by simply racking the slide and popping in a different shell. can't get much more well rounded than that!

 

[lash]

Ahhshoot, I get where you're coming from and say go for it. Just let us know how it all turns out and post pictures as you go and your results. After all, to some extent that is one of the reasons most of us are here. We crave others' information and experiences.
Carry on and enjoy.

 

[steve123]

Guys, a little caveat here. It really is for my personal satisfaction to come up with this stuff. I'm not trying to come up with the next hot selling rifle. I like to think about this stuff and experiment. A lot of this idea came from my peaked interest to learn that all else being equal, the same case can propel a bigger, heavier bullet faster than its' little brother, the .308. That just tells me it's more efficient, and I like efficiency. Mind you, the big hole left by the .338 is pretty awesome as well. Now, would it be enough of an advantage over a .308 for anyone to go out and buy one, if they already own a .308? Hell no. But to me it's a cool idea and isn't this the place to discuss rifles and ideas for hunting rifles? I mean, my old lady gets pissed when I talk guns so if you can't do it on snipershide, might as well shoot me now. The thread isn't about the PERFECT caliber for killing a blue footed booby or a siamese twin rhino joined at the horn, it's about an idea for a perfect PRACTICAL, GENERAL hunting rifle (NOT just caliber, rifle in general) utilizing a caliber that would allow you to go with a very short barrel and still have enough punch for anything most people would use it for, while being accurate and having a useful trajectory downrange. To me this means being handy, durable, accurate, and able to kill quickly, in my sick twisted mind this is just fantasy rifle porn.

How about putting a higher ballistic coefficient projectile into your efficiency equation and then trying to calculate the most adequate barrel length and twist for a specific cartridge and bullet. This vs the notion of picking 338 Fed and 16" of barrel length.

Take for instance a 308 throated out to use in a long action with Berger 230 grain hybrids/.743BC and (just guessing) a 18 to 19" barrel.

A 338 caliber 200 grain Hornady interlock has a .361 BC which is okay for average hunting distances but not so good for 500Y. At 2300 fps it has 90 inches of drop at 500Y and 30" of wind drift in a 10 mph.

The Berger 230 grain has 72" of drop and 13" of wind drift at the same speed and distance with a little more recoil.

Just saying...

 

[ahhshoot]

Agreed... the next step if one were to actually invest in putting this piece together would be:

ID all parameters under which the rifle would be judged, based on what the rifle's purpose is
Use the appropriate formulas to determine the exact point of compromise in each parameter, ie at what point in barrel length does the lowest acceptable velocity for a given projectile occur? At what weight and material stock does the highest acceptable level of recoil occur? Then go with that length barrel and that weight stock. Which projectile is the most practical to build the platform around? What is the lightest barrel contour that will allow us to reach the lowest acceptable level of accuracy? Could you use one of the 250 or 285 gr lapua style bullets for higher BC without unreasonable specialization? Could be an option.

 

[kraigWY]

For around here its antelope, deer, and elk, for me the Model 70 Featherweight in 270 Win. just cant be beat.

But in reality, the best is the one I don't have but need for my next hunt.

Find something to hunt that requires a rifle you don't have \, then get that rifle.

Its the Law of the West. (so I told my wife).

 

[ahhshoot]

For around here its antelope, deer, and elk, for me the Model 70 Featherweight in 270 Win. just cant be beat.

But in reality, the best is the one I don't have but need for my next hunt.

Find something to hunt that requires a rifle you don't have \, then get that rifle.

Its the Law of the West. (so I told my wife).

I will have to try that. Whenever I buy a new rifle, I have just been telling my old lady it's not new, it's the same gun I've always had. It's getting hard to keep up with that, though. lol

I love the 270. Never had one myself but my brother has one, and that thing is one hell of a devastating rifle with 130gr interlock's. Check out this pic of a small button buck (thought he was a doe) he killed this year, that's one .270 round. He hit just a hair left and low, but it must have blown up when it hit a rib because it opened up the whole underside of that deer. Kind of gross, but the deer's entire stomach actually fell out about 20 feet from where it stopped running and fell over.

 

[Bubb]

30/06! 110-220 grain all in between. From solids to Berger match. Kill pretty muck damn near any thing?.. Oh and from muzzel to farther than 80% of all hunters will ever shoot. In Pa guys thinks its black magic to hit something over 200 yards... Most anyway. What other caliber is that flexible?

 

[brianf]

everybody always forgets about the old 06. everybody also forgets that it is a serious 1300 yard cartridge that is not a barrel destroyer. oh, and it won 2 world wars.

 

[predator hunter]

I personally think it would suck to have a "perfect" hunting rifle. I mean, you NEED a deer rifle, elk rifle, hog rifle, coyote rifle, target rifle, etc! And, it would be even harder to justify it to the wife if she knew there was such a thing as a perfect hunting rifle.