From: gmk@falstaff.MAE.CWRU.EDU (Geoff Kotzar)
Newsgroups: rec.hunting
Subject: Re:  Long-range hunting
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:02:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: doug.1992Apr9.080251.18662
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Originator: hunting@osnome.che.wisc.edu

In article <1992Apr1.100721.21961@doug.cae.wisc.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
(John S. Van Etten) writes:
>Just for fun, I decided to look up some numbers on the .338-.378 round.
>It was already mentioned that the elk might decide to move, so I looked
>up some data on roughly how much time is involved.
>     In one of my old copies of Guns & Ammo (from 1968), Robert Hutton
>quotes numbers of around 3200 fps at the muzzle and 1830 fps at 500 yds.
>for the .338-378 wildcat with 300-gr. bullets.  His article goes on to
>mention that these big bullets slow quite a bit (sorry, no numbers given)
>on the 1000 yd. range.  (He was talking about using such guns at the
>Wimbleton matches).

I ran this through Oehler's Ballistic Explorer program and came up with the
following:

  CTG:     RANGE    Remaining  Remaining   T.O.F.
          (meters)   Velocity   Energy     (sec)
338-378     700       1970       2580       0.96
338-378    1000       1550       1600       1.58

340 WEA     500       1870       1940       0.72

The .340 Weatherby is only for reference. The initial conditions are:

338-378  300 gr SPTZ (BC .550) 3200 fps muzzle velocity;
340 WEA  250 gr SPTZ (BC .490) 2800 fps muzzle velocity.

The Ballistic Explorer program will not go out beyond 1000 yard but will
allow calculations based in meters which adds about another 10% to the
distances, so you can convert the above distances to 770, 1100, and 550
yards respectively.

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. 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. The .340 WEA runs out of steam at
around 500 yards or so, by this criterion the 338-378 is inappropriate
beyond about 800 meters for elk. 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. Third, that highly efficient aerodynamic
shape that allowed this kind of velocity retention at such long ranges
becomes a highly inefficient wounding agent unless it expands. To put
this into perspective, the .44 Mag can routinely be loaded to launch
300 grain bullets to 1525 fps in the Ruger Redhawk and these prove to
be excellent hunting loads. BUT, the range is short and necessary
follow-up shots are possible and the .44 uses aerodynamically
inefficient bullets (broad meplats) that result in significant
wounding potential.

Charlie Sorsby is to be congratulated for his lucid explanation about
why this practice should be subjected to the strongest discouraging
peer pressure. A hunter accepts a number of responsibilites when he or
she enters the fields.  And the ability to honor those responsibilites
decreases as the range to the target increases. The ability to deliver
a quickly fatal blow is severely compromised. If the bullet does not
expand you may as well be using an FMJ, which hunters have abandoned a
long time ago for good reasons (for big game hunting). Some states go
so far as to outlaw their use. The ability to deliver a follow-up shot
as needed becomes problematic with times of flight of a second or
more. 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 is a reason why hunters who hunt from their hind legs
have been requesting the ultra-light rifles in the 6 to 8 lb class,
depending on caliber of course. Add to that the problem of tracking an
animal that may not be leaving a good blood trail because the exit
wound is too small due to non- or insufficient expansion. And a hunter
has an obligation to make a reasonable effort to determine if the
animal was wounded and then to find that animal and finish the job.
Reasonable here being determined by the integrity of the individual.

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.


>******************************************************************************
>               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
>        Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
>                 --"You can't spell geek without double E"--
>
>

geoff kotzar      gmk@falstaff.mae.cwru.edu