Rebarrel Choices

[Woolsocks]

I’m rebarreling a 28nosler and leaning toward 300 prc. Check my logic.

I want the gun to do what a 28nosler does- carry 1500 ft/lbs out to 800 yards. I have basic stuff for reloading, and about 100 once-used 300 prc brass, but if I can find factory ammo that does what I want, I’ll just save myself time and use that.

The other options.

Vs 300 win mag. I first assumed I wanted 300 win mag because of the availability of ammo. But I’m not seeing any factory ammo that gets 1500 ft/lbs at 800. A few hard-to-find and expensive options get it out to 700, but most of the typical 180grain stuff peters out at 600. I could get a 1:9 twist barrel, deepen the throat and shoot heavy bullets to get me out to 800, but why not just get a PRC that does that out of the box?

Vs 28 nos - quickly becoming convinced 28nosler is being made obsolete by 7mm prc. Everything about it is expensive and hard to find.

Vs 7mm prc - I don’t see any advantage over 300prc, unless you want less recoil. I put brakes on all my stuff, so not an issue.

Vs 338 win mag - kind of seems to be becoming obsolete- stuff is expensive and not so easy to find. Might as well get a PRC with slightly better inherent ballistics.

Vs 338 lapua- same as 28 nos. At $7 a round, I won’t shoot enough to become proficient with the rifle. I’d have to reload to get the price down enough to shoot a few hundred rounds without going broke.

Kind of seems 300prc is the way to go. Kind of stinks that honrnady eld-x is the only widely accessible hunting ammo, so there’s a chance I’ll wind up reloading. But all the options above would probably require reloading anyway, either to get the ballistics I need or to get the price of ammo down to a tolerable level.

Made a poll for the fun of it.

 

[wpeach1912]

My 300 wsm does 1616ft-lbs at 800 with 4200ft DA. That’s with 212 eld-x hand loads. 300 prc or 7 prc are the easy buttons for what you’re wanting though. At those ranges, ELDMs should work for hunting too.

 

[WeiserBucks]

Why do you give a shit about energy?

 

[Woolsocks]

My 300 wsm does 1616ft-lbs at 800 with 4200ft DA. That’s with 212 eld-x hand loads. 300 prc or 7 prc are the easy buttons for what you’re wanting though. At those ranges, ELDMs should work for hunting too.

That’s impressive. At least 15 percent better than any of the heavy factory loads I’ve found.

I assume you’re reducing your seating depth for more powder capacity. Did you have to modify your chamber? My assumption is that chambers made for factory 180gr ammo need to bored forward a bit to do what you’re doing.

 

[Woolsocks]

Why do you give a shit about energy?

Hunting. Bullet expansion.

 

[wpeach1912]

That’s impressive. At least 15 percent better than any of the heavy factory loads I’ve found.

I assume you’re reducing your seating depth for more powder capacity. Did you have to modify your chamber? My assumption is that chambers made for factory 180gr ammo need to bored forward a bit to do what you’re doing.

I got a custom chamber throated for the 212s and run it in a tikka LA. Velocity is really more important for expansion. Pretty much any of the heavy 7mm or 308 bullets will have plenty of energy past the range they won’t expand due to velocity loss.

 

[Maurygold]

300 prc is the easy choice given its availability requires mag bolt face and has more energy than the others. That said it’s really worth the upgrade

 

[WeiserBucks]

Hunting. Bullet expansion.

Energy is irrelevant, pick a bullet you want and then pick a cartridge that will meet the velocity requirements for expansion at your maximum intended range.

 

[Woolsocks]

Energy is irrelevant, pick a bullet you want and then pick a cartridge that will meet the velocity requirements for expansion at your maximum intended range.

Going off the 1500 ft/lbs rule of thumb for elk. Seems the cup/core bullets like eld-x recommend 1600 fps, some (like ABLR) even less. You’re still well above 1600 fps by the time drop to 1500 ft/lbs, so I’m watching the more stringent requirement.

 

[WeiserBucks]

There is no energy requirement.

 

[Woolsocks]

There is no energy requirement.

We’ll just go with a .17 hornet, then3700fps!

 

[diggler1833]

We’ll just go with a .17 hornet, then3700fps!

While it could have possibly been more politely stated, he isn't wrong. Velocity is a determining factor of energy (energy = mass x velocity).

If you select a bullet based upon intended impact velocity, you'll fare better over the long run than trying to hit a minimum energy threshold. Although, usually those "1K for deer and 1.5K for elk" proverbial energy minimums from grandpa's days will still have the bullet flying fast enough to initiate the desired terminal effect. Not always though. On the flip side, some bullets will now reliably expand at such a low velocity that they might not meet that energy threshold even though they're perfectly capable of still killing ethically.

So yes, energy minimums are still somewhat important...but they're dependent upon the impact velocity, which I'd argue is more important.

I don't own a 300 PRC, but if I were in your shoes, that's probably what I'd go with.

Best of luck man.

 

[Woolsocks]

On the flip side, some bullets will now reliably expand at such a low velocity that they might not meet that energy threshold even though they're perfectly capable of still killing ethically.

Almost on the same page with ya. I’m still skeptical about ethical kills at the minimum velocity required for bullet expansion.

For example, nosler ABLR is rated to expand at 1300 FPS, By the time a 190grain bullet from a 300WM gets down that slow, you’re at 713 ft-lbs (if my math is correct). So roughly the equivalent of a 200-yard shot with a 55gr .223. I don’t think many would advocate for trying that on an elk. Shot placement is everything, but even so…

I don’t understand how energy wouldn’t be the primary indicator of penetration. Upon impact newtons 3rd law kicks in - hide, gristle and maybe a rib exerts an equal and opposite force on your bullet. The more ft/lbs of energy your bullet has, the more opposite force (elk body material) it will overcome before coming to rest. Assuming similar diameter bullets mushrooming to a similar cutting radius, it seems like ft/lbs is the variable that determines how deep it’ll go.

The point I’m making here is that we now have bullets that will mushroom at very slow speeds. If we go out to the limits of minimum velocity, we’ll get nicely mushroomed bullets without enough energy behind them to penetrate through big animals. Hence, energy rather than velocity becomes the limiting factor determining the distance we can make ethical kills most of the time, now that we don’t need 1800fps to open a bullet.

 

[diggler1833]

Almost on the same page with ya. I’m still skeptical about ethical kills at the minimum velocity required for bullet expansion.

For example, nosler ABLR is rated to expand at 1300 FPS, By the time a 190grain bullet from a 300WM gets down that slow, you’re at 713 ft-lbs (if my math is correct). So roughly the equivalent of a 200-yard shot with a 55gr .223. I don’t think many would advocate for trying that on an elk. Shot placement is everything, but even so…

I don’t understand how energy wouldn’t be the primary indicator of penetration. Upon impact newtons 3rd law kicks in - hide, gristle and maybe a rib exerts an equal and opposite force on your bullet. The more ft/lbs of energy your bullet has, the more opposite force (elk body material) it will overcome before coming to rest. Assuming similar diameter bullets mushrooming to a similar cutting radius, it seems like ft/lbs is the variable that determines how deep it’ll go.

The point I’m making here is that we now have bullets that will mushroom at very slow speeds. If we go out to the limits of minimum velocity, we’ll get nicely mushroomed bullets without enough energy behind them to penetrate through big animals. Hence, energy rather than velocity becomes the limiting factor determining the distance we can make ethical kills most of the time, now that we don’t need 1800fps to open a bullet.

I got you, but what I was trying to make a point of is that energy is dependent on velocity. Energy is a dependent variable.

I don't completely trust that you'll get excellent terminal performance at low velocities. I don't think you'd do much harm if you added a few hundred FPS as a safety buffer. Surprisingly though, lower velocity = less expansion = CAN HAVE deeper penetration in soft tissue. Again, it's bullet dependent. As you noted though, things like bones become more of a problem. Plus, expansion and the crushing/tearing of tissue is reduced.

There's a long thread about killing and bullet science on this forum. Some good info is in it. I just personally shoot a lot of pigs and like to see what each type of bullet does. I'm a big fan of velocity, especially in the all copper projectiles.

Shot placement + bullet construction > caliber or energy.

 

[WeiserBucks]

Use an expanding bullet of your choice, keep impact speed at 1800 FPS or greater, kill shit. It really is that simple, no need for all the mental gymnastics.