Adding numbers to the notorious caliber debate

EmperorMA

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Dec 7, 2018
Messages
411
The really important number is missing, though. Since he used the ELD-X as the template bullet, we don't need energy numbers we just need to know at what range the bullet falls below the manufacturer's listed minimum impact velocity of 1,600 fps.

I would probably personally limit that to 1,700 or 1,800 just to be safe (or maybe not). I would also not want to use that bullet in a big magnum like the 28 Nosler or big 30s if I had absolutely any inclination that I might have to shoot an elk at under 100 yards, so there's that.
 
OP
menhaden_man

menhaden_man

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
1,681
Good thread Menhaden....the side by side number comparisons are Interesting.
Wish I had a little more time this holiday... was thinking of redoing the chart with all the whizzbang cool calibers out there to see how much more you're actually getting over the old standby rounds.
 
OP
menhaden_man

menhaden_man

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
1,681
The really important number is missing, though. Since he used the ELD-X as the template bullet, we don't need energy numbers we just need to know at what range the bullet falls below the manufacturer's listed minimum impact velocity of 1,600 fps.

I would probably personally limit that to 1,700 or 1,800 just to be safe (or maybe not). I would also not want to use that bullet in a big magnum like the 28 Nosler or big 30s if I had absolutely any inclination that I might have to shoot an elk at under 100 yards, so there's that.

Figuring out a way to roll in bullet performance would be a neat addition... only picked the ELDX because it was available in all the calibers I looked up (and was hoping to stay consistent where possible). Also because Hornady has an easy reference table to grab the values. Agree that practical range for a kill would be a good metric though.
 

EmperorMA

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Dec 7, 2018
Messages
411
Figuring out a way to roll in bullet performance would be a neat addition... only picked the ELDX because it was available in all the calibers I looked up (and was hoping to stay consistent where possible). Also because Hornady has an easy reference table to grab the values. Agree that practical range for a kill would be a good metric though.
The are better indicators, IMHO.

Here are the velocity/energy/sectional density figures of the 143gr ELD-X fired from a 6.5 Creedmoor followed by the 178gr ELD-X fired from a .30-06 at 500 yards:

2030/1308/2.93

1969/1533/2.68

The .30-06 load is still packing that arbitrary "1,500 ft lbs of energy to kill an elk" at 500 yards, while the 6.5 Creedmoor load is not. If 'energy" is what matters, it should be superior, right?

Wrong.

The Creed's 143gr ELD-X is traveling faster at this distance than the '06's 178gr ELD-X. The 143gr 6.5mm bullet also has a (much) greater SD than the 178gr .308 bullet. As such, you can absolutely expect that the long 143gr bullet with higher SD traveling at a higher velocity would absolutely out-penetrate and cause more damage than the shorter, less dense 178gr bullet traveling at a lower velocity.

In this apples-to-apples scenario, I would absolutely choose this 6.5 Creedmoor load over the .30-06 version, EVERY SINGLE TIME. Energy just doesn't matter to me. Placement, impact velocity and bullet construction do.
 

Rich M

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Jun 14, 2017
Messages
3,324
Location
Orlando
Fun exercise and thanks.

I found that 243 w 100 gr has about same volocity and trajectory as 150 gr 3006, yet 3006 is not listed as a flat shooter.
 
Top