In my mind the 375 would have a lower bc and lower momentum. But for some reason the 375 is better than the 408.
Momentum in and of itself doesn’t matter. Sectional momentum does.If the 375 and 408 bullets are made of the same material (why wouldn’t they be?) and have the same absolute length, then SD is the same, and the only differences are the 375’s superior form factor and its increased velocity. Thus, 375 wins. You can’t do this forever though since efficiency takes a hit everytime you neck down, so as caliber goes to zero, so does efficiency.External ballistics is mostly about BC*v^2. Maximize this value and use the heaviest possible bullets you can to achieve the best trajectory.
>>64341525>as caliber goes to zero, so does efficiency.Fuck, I was really hoping for a .000JDJ for Chrstmas.
Off topic anons. But is a 338 Lapua worth it? I own just about every type of gun in the world (including elphant rifles) except some powerful long range gun like a 408 Cheytac or 50bmg
>>64341396There is some data missing. What Grain of 408CT? There is a light 305g and 419g. Everyone knows heavier bullets are more resistant to the wind. What Grain of 375? Some sources say the standard is 350g, which is already heavier than 305g minimum. What distance is the shot? External Ballistics has many things that effect precision. The most important factor is the distance the bullet loses supersonic flight. Bullet Type. 408CT is more of a traditional bullet while the 375CT has a match The Gun. Not all guns are equal and may vary in performance. The wrong bullet grain in the wrong gun will effect the precision negatively. Rifles with slower twists can only shoot lighter bullets much like rifles with faster twists can only shoot heavy bullets.How big was the target? Some people get away with steel plates larger than a man, for a rifle meant to hit something much smaller within it's effective distance.There is not enough data to prove 375CT to be superior to 408CT.
>>64341525>You can’t do this forever though since efficiency takes a hit everytime you neck down, so as caliber goes to zero, so does efficiency. What? It's pretty much the opposite. From internal ballistics point of view the most efficient powder volume would be a sphere. Pistol cartridges have powder volume in a cylinder that's about as long as it's wide. That shape is quite close to sphere as practicality allows. Usually the case and bullet bottoms are concave to make the powder space even more spherical. Longer cases require longer barrel and a lot of energy is spent heating up the barrel. Necking down reduces bullet weight which means that it spends less time in the barrel so less energy is spent heating up the barrel. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Super_Short_Magnum From practicality point of view spherical case results in less magazine capacity. Modern bottlenecked cartridges are technologially superior to designs that are over 100 years old. Technology generally moves forwards. Not backwards. But firearms hobby (and generic audiophiles) are notorious on believing the contrary.
>>64341719Forgot pic.
>>64341678do you have a range to shoot them on?
>>64341752Yes I do. I live in commiefornia. Theres BLM land here everywhere that goes for miles in the desert
>>64341768try long-range with some short-action calibers like 7.62 NATO or 6.5/6mm Creedmore and see if you like it and want to try to stretch it even fartherit's not for everybody
>>64341678>is a 338 Lapua worth it?338 norma is objectively better
>>64341719What I meant was that as you neck down, you lose efficiency, as in energy extracted from the propellant as a percent of the total energy contained. Atleast that’s how I understand it. I wasn’t talking about the powder column or its shape at all. Take any WSSM and neck it up to a straight walled cartridge, preserving the same powder charge, and watch muzzle energy skyrocket (from the same barrel length)CAPTCHA: G8RMR.Those are two gun-related things lol
