From: toby@milton.u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw)
Subject: Re:  Long-range hunting
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: 10 Apr 92 09:22:49 CDT
Originator: hunting@osnome.che.wisc.edu

I'm surprised that the published BC for the 300gr .338 is so low.
Sierra is now making a Match King in this weight/caliber.  Have
you seen their claim on the BC?  I haven't.

>There are a couple of points worth noting. First, the very high
>ballistic coefficients; actual shooting tests have not supported the
>manufacturers claims in general often showing coefficients about 0.100
>lower.

I have heard that the BCs are usually "optimistic".  I saw a test
by Rick Jamison in a fairly recent Shooting Times, and the Sierra
bullets were closer to published values than some others.  The Barnes
X-bullets were off by as much as you indicate, which didn't surprise
me since they're not made of lead and must have a low SD.

>This means that the remaining velocities and energies will be
>even lower. Second, the low remaining velocity and energy at 1000
>meters for the 338-378. Most recommendations I have read have
>indicated an energy floor of about 2000 foot-pounds of remaining
>energy for critters the size of elk.

If you set such a floor, sure.  Still, 1600ft-lbs. is pretty close,
and would be equivalent to shooting the elk at point blank range
with a .44mag handgun (given similar bullet exapnsion, of course).

>Most bullets have a velocity floor
>below which they do not expand reliably and to expect a bullet
>designed to be launched at 3200 fps to expand at less than half that
>velocity is unreasonable.

This has to be the biggest problem.  From my reading, match bullets
are usually used in order to place the shots well.  Match bullets
may or may not expand well at *any* range, since that's not one of 
the design criteria.

>Even if the sniper/hunter did try to track the wounded animal,
>he or she would first have to lug the 12-15-18 pound rifle ( I don't
>know how much such a rifle would weight) the half a mile or more to
>start the job that could go on for how many hundred or even thousands
>of yards.

There are "carry-around" versions that run 12-15 pounds, and real
bench rifles that go up to 40 pounds.  Nothing to stop one
>from toting a little less gun to the clearcut for tracking, though.

>Didn't a number of states out west outlaw the use of rifles over a
>certain weight to eliminate the practice of the .50 BMG riflemen from
>hunting elk in exactly the way Toby Bradshaw described. As I
>understood things, too many animals would not drop to the shot and a
>miss was assumed leaving a carcass to sour at some undetermined later
>time. If a .50 BMG round could not guar- antee an instantaeous
>one-shot kill, I would expect any lesser rifle to have a problem at
>1000+ yards.

I don't know for sure if .50BMG is illegal for big game.  I've never
seen any expanding bullet for it, as the BR shooters use monolithic
solids turned on a centerless grinder or screw machine.  Most (all?)
states require expanding-"type" bullet construction for big game.
The 14,000ft-lbs. of muzzle energy and the half-inch *entrance* hole
must do a little damage, though.  I've never heard of rifles being
outlawed by weight, and never seen a game agent packing a scale to
check.  A weight limit would definitely deter the .50 cal shooters,
given the muzzle energy.  In .50 cal BR shooting, the weight limit
is 50 pounds, and these can be shot free recoil if a muzzle brake
is used.

Toby Bradshaw