Ballistics comparison for most levergun rifle cartridges

[quietman]

This covers common weight bullets in leverguns used for hunting deer sized game and bigger. I also included the 180 gr 30-06 as it's considered the "standard" for an all around North American big game cartridge by many people.

Pistol calibers and "cowboy" rounds like the 38/55 are not included.
http://www.kickinbak.com/posts/Ballisti ... arison.pdf

[Old Time Hunter]

Interesting...I wish you would have also included the .307 and .356 Winchester loads, especially comparing the LE bullets vs. the FP's. My guess is that they would be equivelant to the MX series. In factory loads I am impressed with the .444 vs, the .45-70 and the 450 Marlin as it stays very close in energy, but with much less drop.

Thanks for the handy chart.

[O.S.O.K.]

No pistol calibers... too bad. .357 Mag, 44 Mag and 45 Colt, etc. all make good deer cartridges - but of course, you don't need to know the drop past 150 yards...

[Markbo]

The low numbers on the .35 Remington surpised me a little. Wish you had included the .30-30 AI.

[66GTO]

The low numbers on the .35 Remington surpised me a little. Wish you had included the .30-30 AI.

What is surprising when comparing .35 Rem to .30 WCF is that at longer distances the .30-.30 retains more energy than the .35 Rem.

[jeepnik]

Good info, but pretty limited, as very few bullet weights are listed for each round. Wonder what the ballistics on, say, the original BP 45-70 round are compared to the 325's listed.

[71fan]

It's a good start. I enjoy studying such things.

I have one I put together with Robertson's DG data integrated into it. I have no idea how to link spreadsheets into a forum though.

I wonder what happened to 348 You'll discover that it is very close to the 338 MX out to 300 yards. 348AI surpasses it I think.

[quietman]

Plan to add a few more in the future, but, other than the 32 special I decided to create a list where the calibers listed are ones still being manufactured. Which is why the 375 and 307 were not included.

[quietman]

The low numbers on the .35 Remington surpised me a little. Wish you had included the .30-30 AI.

What is surprising when comparing .35 Rem to .30 WCF is that at longer distances the .30-.30 retains more energy than the .35 Rem.

Yep, the larger diameter of the 35 creates more drag and the heavier weight with a lower muzzle velocity contributes too.

[Pisgah]

>Yep, the larger diameter of the 35 creates more drag and the heavier weight with a lower muzzle velocity contributes too.


These chart comparisons can be a bit deceptive. If you actually chrongraph a 170 gr. .30-30 and a 200 gr. .35, standard factory loads, in a 20"-barreled carbine, you will find they both clock around the same speed -- right close to 2000 fps. For some reason, these charts always seem to use a 24" barrel for the .30-30 info, and a 20" for the .35. What this means in real life is that the .35 retains energy just a bit better the .30-30 shoots just a bit flatter.

This is one of my pet peeves with the LeverEvolution ammo. If you look at Hornady's charts you will see that the comparison made with regular .30-30 is the 170 gr. flatpoint zeroed at 100 yards versus the pointed 160 gr. LE zeroed 3" high at 100! Zero them both the same and the "dramatic" difference between the two becomes much closer to "ho-hum". Oh, sure, the LE shoots just a tad faster and flatter, but it ain't all that.

[quietman]

This is one of my pet peeves with the LeverEvolution ammo. If you look at Hornady's charts you will see that the comparison made with regular .30-30 is the 170 gr. flatpoint zeroed at 100 yards versus the pointed 160 gr. LE zeroed 3" high at 100! Zero them both the same and the "dramatic" difference between the two becomes much closer to "ho-hum". Oh, sure, the LE shoots just a tad faster and flatter, but it ain't all that.

That's why I used the 3 inch high zero was so you can see the actual difference.

BTW, the velocity data I used for the 35 remington is for a 24 inch barrel for both.
This is used because that's the common length for a ballistics testing "rail gun".

You are correct about trajectory, but where the LE clearly wins out is on velocity and energy retention. This not only translates to hitting harder, but as importantly it means better expansion, i.e. more internal damage. I think this is one of the things overlooked when people only look at velocity and trajectory. It's always nice to have a bigger punch and do more damage down range.

A good example is the 200 yard data for the 35 Remington. At that range I would not use the flat point on an elk. The flat point is way too underpowered that far away. 872ft-lbs is way too dicey to even try. However, the LE ammo still has enough punch (1317) to easily take out a cow or small bull, and a regular bull with a well placed shot. (The DOW in Colorado typically recommends a minimum energy of 1500 ft lbs for a bull elk as they are one tough animal)

[Markbo]

Hey are those LeverEvo bullets available to reloaders yet?

[Jaguarundi]

Markbo,the gummytips for reloaders are on the market.Quitman nice chart.

[El Chivo]

I also got a lot of good info from the Chuck Hawks site, I remember being surprised to find out that 35 Rem (200 grain) only beats 30-30 (170 grain) within 50 yards.