The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner
21 - 40 of 62 Posts
If someone wants to use the 257 for deer so be it, it doesn't matter if it is needed or not, most people will agree that deer can be killed with smaller calibers than the 7-08 so if that logic is used it isn't needed either. We have all heard the saying I have more guns than I need but I don't have all the guns that I want.
Good shooting
drags
 
good ole boy said:
You call a puny anemic 4.6 big.
That little runt isn,t even 290 cu.in.
Anyway,it,s all what the rifle is gonna be used for and how it suits the individual and what itch they need scratched.
That 4.6 L V8 is 281 ci. and FAR from puny or anemic. It's rated at 260 HP which is 60 more than my 1986 Mustang GT coupe I used to own and it was a 5.0 L HO 302ci. The 2003/04 Mach 1 is the same size engine (4.6) and it's rated at 305 HP. Either one, the Mach 1 or the GT has plenty of power to get you in trouble. By todays standard the 4.6 is a BIG motor. The 03/04 Cobra is the same size and it's rated at 390 hp. That's alot of pony's in anybody's book.
 
grovey said:
Flat shooting is all it has going for it in my book. The lil 7mm-08 leaving @ 2650 with a 162 amax has as much energy at 400 yds as that big belted flat shooting magnum leaving at 3500fps with it's 115 gr pill. The 7mm-08 does that with half the powder too.
Your 7-08 is a lead sled too. The 257 will out perform it anytime.
 
257Wby
Expensive hard to find brass
Able to push a 120gr bullet @3200fps
I don't know of a case that can be reformed to 257Wby
Holds +/-10gr more powder than the 25-06

25-06Rem
Affordable easier to find brass
Able to push a 120gr bullet @3000fps
Cases can be reformed from a plentiful supply of 30-06 cases
Holds +/-10gr less powder than the 257Wby

Both calibers are capable of taking equal game at comparable distances.

Best comparison I can give not owning either rifle.

I can say, if I were in the market for a 25cal rifle, I would take the 25-06Rem before the 257Wby purely based on brass availability alone.

*** Both powder measurements and velocities taken from the Hornady handbook of cartridge reloading 9th edition using Hogdon4831.
 
WildTigerTrout said:
good ole boy said:
You call a puny amic 4.6 big.
That little runt isn,t even 290 cu.in.
Anyway,it,s all what the rifle is gonna be used for and how it suits the individual and what itch they need scratched.
That 4.6 L V8 is 281 ci. and FAR from puny or anemic. It's rated at 260 HP which is 60 more than my 1986 Mustang GT coupe I used to own and it was a 5.0 L HO 302ci. The 2003/04 Mach 1 is the same size engine (4.6) and it's rated at 305 HP. Either one, the Mach 1 or the GT has plenty of power to get you in trouble. By todays standard the 4.6 is a BIG motor. The 03/04 Cobra is the same size and it's rated at 390 hp. That's alot of pony's in anybody's book.
1986-1993 Fox Body Mustang GT with a stock 5.0 HO should dyno out @ 215hp. Not 200hp, unless I'm mistaken. If so, I apologize.
 
grovey said:
Ok last time... the light bullets don't carry velocity or energy very well,and they don't buck wind very well. I know the example i posted drops more,( it's based on a 308 case) but beyond 400 yds ( where the BIG BELTED MAGNUM is supposed to shine).... the example i gave has MORE ENERGY! NOT LESS... MORE ENERGY. And if thats the case then why does one need a 257 bee for deer? For those shots inside 450 yds? Because it drops 6 inches less than your buddys gun at 400yds? If you look past those trees there's a forest over there. Done.
The original example you gave (7-08 162gr @ 400yds) has LESS ENERGY, NOT MORE, LESS. Obviously a 115gr bullet will loose velocity/energy faster than a 162gr bullet, thats why multiple people said it was not a good comparison. The 257wby makes up for the lighter bullets with velocity. You keep stretching the distance so yes eventually the 162gr bullet will catch up and pass the 115gr bullet. And when that does happen at 550+ yds your 162gr bullet wont be shooting 6" lower it will be around 3' (thats feet not inches) lower. I dont think most people consider the 257wby a "BIG BELTED MAGNUM", that would be the larger bore diameters. I also dont think anybody "needs" a 257wby for deer, but there is nothing wrong with having one. I have never found any disadvantages to using a cartridge that shoots flat. Sure seems like the people who actually own, shoot, and hunt with a 257wby find it to be a good caliber.

Good luck, Tony
 
All i can say is your ballistic calculator and mine aren't seeing eye to eye or your thinking the 115 gr is leaving at 3700. 3400 is more realistic. I used the wee 7mm-08 as an EXTREME to prove how inefficient the 257 weatherby is. Use the .280 rem for comparison and it looks even worse... I'm not a quarter bore fan, but i'd take a 257 bob, or 25/06 for a deer gun before the .257 weatherby cartridge. Look around the hardcore long range shooters and see how many are using a .25 caliber. If you find some, their probably newbies.
 
Ken S. said:
257Wby
Expensive hard to find brass
Able to push a 120gr bullet @3200fps
I don't know of a case that can be reformed to 257Wby
Holds +/-10gr more powder than the 25-06

25-06Rem
Affordable easier to find brass
Able to push a 120gr bullet @3000fps
Cases can be reformed from a plentiful supply of 30-06 cases
Holds +/-10gr less powder than the 257Wby

Both calibers are capable of taking equal game at comparable distances.

Best comparison I can give not owning either rifle.

I can say, if I were in the market for a 25cal rifle, I would take the 25-06Rem before the 257Wby purely based on brass availability alone.

*** Both powder measurements and velocities taken from the Hornady handbook of cartridge reloading 9th edition using Hogdon4831.
You can use 7mm Remington brass to form 257 Wby
 
Ken S. said:
WildTigerTrout said:
good ole boy said:
You call a puny amic 4.6 big.
That little runt isn,t even 290 cu.in.
Anyway,it,s all what the rifle is gonna be used for and how it suits the individual and what itch they need scratched.
That 4.6 L V8 is 281 ci. and FAR from puny or anemic. It's rated at 260 HP which is 60 more than my 1986 Mustang GT coupe I used to own and it was a 5.0 L HO 302ci. The 2003/04 Mach 1 is the same size engine (4.6) and it's rated at 305 HP. Either one, the Mach 1 or the GT has plenty of power to get you in trouble. By todays standard the 4.6 is a BIG motor. The 03/04 Cobra is the same size and it's rated at 390 hp. That's alot of pony's in anybody's book.
1986-1993 Fox Body Mustang GT with a stock 5.0 HO should dyno out @ 215hp. Not 200hp, unless I'm mistaken. If so, I apologize.
The 1985 had 210 HP. The 1986, the first year for fuel injection had 200 HP. The 1987 thru 1983 had 225 HP. Back to the 257 Weatherby. It was Roy Weatherby's favorite cartridge and that alone is good enough for me. The only one I like better is his BIG and BAD 340 Mag.
 
RobOz said:
The V6 Mustang has 300hp these days.
That sounds puny and anemic to me! LOL! We have to remember the new Mustangs are bigger and heavier than the older SN95 "New Edge" series were. The new style is reminiscent of the early 1970's car.
 
Yeah Rob but it,s all not relative.My 69 AMX 390 has comparable numbers and is a torque monster that will spit asphalt and pull the front end runnin the quarter and it is bone stock.The good ole Hot Rodders adage of There is no replacement for displacement says it all.Apples and oranges my friend.Lets drop this and not be off topic.
 
I was just showing the numbers comparing the old to the new. I would never own a V6 Stang. When you can get a 420 Hp GT for the low 30's, the answer is simple. For the deep pocket guys there's the 660 Hp GT 500.
 
21 - 40 of 62 Posts
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top