Rifle Cartridges: A Total System Performance Analysis

[ResearchinStuff]

What is this supposed to help you decide?

 

[bradley_james94]

Nobody told me there would be spread sheets!
I like the pretty colors though.
Is this in MOA or MILS?
Post #7 reminds me of programing in Basic.

Neither — what you’re seeing in the table is percentile rankings, not raw drop or wind values. The underlying solver uses metric units, but the sheet is showing relative performance.

What is this supposed to help you decide?

Honestly, I didn’t build it to decide anything. I just like data and wanted to see how different combinations stack up under consistent assumptions. Figured I’d share it since I already did the work.

What is this supposed to help you decide?

Honestly, I didn’t build it to decide anything. I just like data and wanted to see how different combinations stack up under consistent assumptions. Figured I’d share it since I already did the work.

 

[TheViking]

 

[43.6N]

Fair critique on the 22GT. The GT-based cases are probably the weakest part of the velocity model because there isn’t much published anchor data for those wildcats. I’m fitting slopes from limited references, so that’s an area I’m open to refining.
On the ELR combos — you’re exactly right. The benchmark distance is 800m, so this is comparing cartridges while they’re still comfortably supersonic. At that distance, a lot of the big magnums’ advantages haven’t really separated themselves yet, but the recoil penalty is still very real in the scoring.
If I pushed the benchmark farther out, the ELR cartridges would climb quickly on pure external ballistics. This model just isn’t optimized around 1200–1600m performance — it’s focused on performance inside the supersonic band where most practical shooting happens.

I see. And I can absolutely appreciate good data synthesis.
I would suggest refining the model into two different branches.
The ELR branch, that focuses on the transonic range capabilities for each cartridge.
And a hunting branch, targeting something in the 2000-1800fps range.

In practice, these two branches will reflect the dichotomy of cartridge selection that we see in real life. Some favor Max holistic performance within a certain velocity window versus others preferring to maximize ballistic performance as far as the cartridge is capable.

 

[bradley_james94]

I see. And I can absolutely appreciate good data synthesis.
I would suggest refining the model into two different branches.
The ELR branch, that focuses on the transonic range capabilities for each cartridge.
And a hunting branch, targeting something in the 2000-1800fps range.

In practice, these two branches will reflect the dichotomy of cartridge selection that we see in real life. Some favor Max holistic performance within a certain velocity window versus others preferring to maximize ballistic performance as far as the cartridge is capable.

I agree, I think I'll do that next. Will post when I get around to it.

 

[Axlrod]

Neither — what you’re seeing in the table is percentile rankings, not raw drop or wind values. The underlying solver uses metric units, but the sheet is showing relative performance.

Honestly, I didn’t build it to decide anything. I just like data and wanted to see how different combinations stack up under consistent assumptions. Figured I’d share it since I already did the work.

Honestly, I didn’t build it to decide anything. I just like data and wanted to see how different combinations stack up under consistent assumptions. Figured I’d share it since I already did the work.

You didn't need to respond to me, I was being a smart ass. I am forced to use spread sheets for 5% of my work day- worst part of my day. The best part of my day is going out shooting- there will be no spread sheets wreaking that for me.

 

[bradley_james94]

You didn't need to respond to me, I was being a smart ass. I am forced to use spread sheets for 5% of my work day- worst part of my day. The best part of my day is going out shooting- there will be no spread sheets wreaking that for me.

Ahhh, then it's definitely in MOA. Feel free to use this to have Leupold etch you a CDS dial.

 

[rafiki]

appreciate you sharing...it's been a while since i took statistics but a couple of questions/comments:
-on impact velocity, why retention and not just Vd?
-recoil impulse seems like a hard one to constrain. rifle weight etc will change what the shooter feels, and Vg being constant isn't realistic as muzzle pressure varies a lot
-impact momentum is going to favor heavy bullets but ignores minimum terminal velocities required for performance
-the composite scoring iis likely doubling down on variables that tie into the same 4 metrics

 

[bradley_james94]

appreciate you sharing...it's been a while since i took statistics but a couple of questions/comments:
-on impact velocity, why retention and not just Vd?
-recoil impulse seems like a hard one to constrain. rifle weight etc will change what the shooter feels, and Vg being constant isn't realistic as muzzle pressure varies a lot
-impact momentum is going to favor heavy bullets but ignores minimum terminal velocities required for performance
-the composite scoring iis likely doubling down on variables that tie into the same 4 metrics

Appreciate the thoughtful critique — those are all fair points.
On retention vs absolute impact velocity: I used retention to decouple aerodynamic efficiency from raw muzzle velocity. Absolute velocity at distance tends to reward larger cases twice (higher V0 and higher Vd), whereas retention isolates how well a projectile preserves velocity relative to its starting point. It’s just a framing choice — using Vd directly would emphasize different tradeoffs.
On recoil impulse: agreed, it’s imperfect. Rifle weight, stock geometry, brakes, suppressors, and gas dynamics all affect what the shooter feels. The recoil metric here is cartridge-generated impulse under standardized assumptions so the comparison stays apples-to-apples at the cartridge level. It’s not a “felt recoil” model — just relative impulse potential under fixed inputs.
On impact momentum: it’s included strictly as a spotting/trace proxy, not as a terminal performance model. I’m not attempting to model expansion thresholds, penetration depth, or wound mechanics. Momentum is simply mass-at-velocity at distance, which can influence impact visibility and target reaction in practical shooting contexts. Nothing more than that.
On composite stacking: you’re right that some variables correlate. This isn’t meant to be a fully orthogonal statistical model. It’s a weighted performance index. The curved scoring is there to compress extremes and avoid runaway stacking rather than claim total independence between variables.
There are definitely multiple ways to structure something like this. I’m not claiming this framework is the “correct” one — just one consistent way to compare tradeoffs under a defined benchmark. If someone wants to branch it into a transonic-focused ELR model or a terminal-velocity window model, that’s completely reasonable too.
Open to refinement — that’s part of the point of sharing it.

 

[rafiki]

makes sense and i think you're achieving what you set out to and reflects what a lot of people here have gravitated towards: midrange caliber, high BC, efficient cases, and light recoil

 

[bradley_james94]

I see the interest in pushing this into more of an ELR comparison. If we do that realistically, though, we’re talking prone, heavy rifles, long distances, and recoil that’s partially mitigated by platform weight. Under those assumptions, it’s not a secret what rises to the top — high velocity, very high BC bullets, and larger cases. That’s what they’re designed for.
What I found more interesting in this dataset is what happens inside the practical supersonic band most people actually operate in. There isn’t a dominant case. There isn’t a single bullet that runs away with it. Near the top, the order changes dramatically depending on how you weight wind, recoil, momentum, etc. That tells me the trade space is tight and nuanced.
I may build a dedicated ELR composite at some point, but this version was focused on comparing system performance within a more common performance envelope.

 

[BLJ]

What is this supposed to help you decide?

Thanks for helping me out.
I couldn’t think of an appropriate thing to say.

 

[bradley_james94]

Thanks for helping me out.
I couldn’t think of an appropriate thing to say.

It’s not meant to decide anything in particular. I just enjoy building structured comparisons and thought others might find it interesting. If it’s not your thing, no worries.