Photography by George & Brodie Calef

For many years I spent far more days afield as a rifleman, hunting big game, than as a wingshooter. So it is not surprising that my ballistic epiphany came to me while thinking about rifles. I was considering buying a new rifle chambered for 7mm magnum, a cartridge I had always liked (with the sort of groundless prejudice riflemen are prone to) in opposition to a .300 magnum, a calibre I equally irrationally disdained. Suddenly the ridiculousness of my preference stuck me. These two cartridge cases are identical, and thus, in most practical respects so is the ballistic performance. Sure, if you load a 150-, 160- or 175-grain bullet in a .300 mag, it leaves the muzzle a little faster than a comparable weight bullet from a 7mm, but over longer ranges the 7mm projectile catches up with the .300 owing to higher ballistic coefficients. Conversely, the .300 bullet may hit a little harder because of its slightly larger diameter bullets, but the 7mm projectile will likely penetrate better owing to its higher sectional density—again little to choose between.

Photography by RST

Then it also occurred to me that there was, however, one significant difference between these two seemingly identical rounds: the .300 could, if desired, be loaded with 220-grain bullets, which might be particularly useful when hunting, say, grizzly bears, whereas the 7mm was restricted to 175-grain slugs at the upper limit. Thus, the .300 was a more versatile weapon at the upper end of the game spectrum, even though the two calibers were identical with lighter bullets.

Photography by George & Brodie Calef

To read more go to www.thecontemporarywingshooter.com