Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by vincyr, Feb 13, 2020.
300 RUM, except mounted on a heavy tripod. LOL!
I never have had any use for the 40 s&w. the 9mm was always an adequate round and the fbi just proved that by going back to it. and the army has agree with me since 1986.
7 freakin mag. I despise it. It’s a .270 on steroids. I like the .270, the 30-06 and pretty much all of the standard long and short action rounds, but a bunch of guys in Kentucky and Tennessee think that they need a 7 mag to kill a whitetail, or they buy the rifle to fantasize about some big once in a lifetime elk hunt that never happens but you sure do hear about it a lot. In the deer woods it’s a perfectly capable rifle, but the noise is a unique brand of annoying and loud.
I could spend some time defending some cartridges others don't like. That's not the question though. I will say that a 4" 357 Magnum is the most versatile handgun that can just about do it all.
What don't I like? The 40 S&W. It's defenders say bigger caliber. Not that much bigger than a 9mm. If caliber is your concern get a 45 ACP. The 40 S&W defenders say it holds more rounds. Get a 9mm then.
The full power 10mm is a totally different animal but not all can handle it.
I'm not sure I really dislike any round on its own--I do dislike rounds in certain platforms--but I have some 'Meh. Why?' ones.
Like .25 ACP.
Usually more recoil, smaller capacity, more expensive than actual defensive rounds, and about half the energy of a .22LR, for .028" larger diameter?
These days you can find .22LR more effective and usually as reliable.
Would be a different story if they ever made them in anything but pocket 'defensive' pistols because a nice one might be fun at the range, but I've yet to see one. And now the offerings are almost universally junk.
8mm Nambu. Now prohibitively rare to shoot the originals, too expensive and difficult to find the modern manufactured, and too difficult (at least for me) to reload on a regular basis. However, a close runner up would be anything paper-patched rounds. Once again, just too difficult to reload on a regular basis.
In a rifle cartridge it is 270 win. There is no good reason for me to dislike it, but it is the ONLY 30-06 offspring I despise. The first three 270 rifles I shot all kicked too hard, or just fit weird, and only having two "real" choices of bullets(yes, I know this isn't true now) just soured me on the 270. That, and it competes with my beloved 30-06..
The pistol cartridge I dislike is 357. I grew up on 44 mag, so the 357 was always like an annoying little brother... I have owned a few, and my next gun purchase will most likely BE a 357, but in a rifle. It is just way too annoyingly loud for the performance it has out of most handguns.
Now that I've managed to piss off half of North America, I'm done...
BTW, honorable mention of rifle cartridge I also dislike but own goes to.....308.
^ I'd nearly echo that.....don't care for the .270 or the .308. Really don't like the .308 in fact, and for no reason.
Don't dislike the .357, but even my gp100 is in .44. I'll probably buy a .357 eventually.
Don't like the .32 special. Cause it was, and is, something that has no reason to exist.
Don't like the .300 blackout....best .30 carbine ever! otherwise of no interest to me.
Another one I don't really care for is the .243. Again not for any real reason, and I've done some of my best field shooting with one, just bored with it.
I can probably come up with a few more......
All short magnums
Actually nearly all bottleneck cartridges
Of course the list cartridges I like is much smaller.
Warming up to 35 Rem
30-06 and all it’s long action family.
I guess I would have to say 17 HMR and its little brother. For me it was not the right tool for any job.
I have to agree. There are a lot of cartridges I have no or little interest in. But dislike, not.
After thinking it over, there IS one round that I really dislike - the 7.62x107 Polish anti-tank rifle round.
I fired one - once.
gets inside my .45 brass, and eats my 9mm brass.
Other than that nothing wrong with it.
Get the baskets and the .380 plate. Problem solved.
.223 aka 5.56x45
It's a pretty decent varmint round. It's always been a really lousy choice for a main battle rifle. Sadly the US military has been joined at the hip with the round and it's craps where it eats rifle for WAY too long.
Have them. Still hate having to do it.
I'm not sure I whether I don't like the 7mm Rem Mag or the guns I've shot chambered in that round. I have an early Remington 700 ADL in 7mm Rem Mag that I inherited from my now-deceased father-in-law. I won't sell it, but it needs work. I've tuned the trigger, but need to float the barrel. Best I've been able to get from it thus far is 2-2.5 MOA. I know the cartridge is capable of better accuracy. Nevertheless, I don't like the belt, and the recoil is harsh for what mostly has been a deer rifle.
That brought a smile to my face, LoonWulf. Them would be "fightin' words" to my dad. Dad always was an "anything 32" type of guy, and he used to swear, "a 32 Special just kills better than a 30-30."
.350 Rem Mag
.22 Rem Jet
You can't blame the gun or the round if old time shooters wore them out by improper cleaning. The Winchester 94 is not a simple gun to take apart to clean from the breech. And old timers who moved from BP to smokeless powder were obsessive about cleaning guns. And with the early corrosive primers you can't blame them. But thats not the fault of the 30-30 or the gun.
The 30-30 has a couple of limits built in to it. One is the sights. Its at best a 200 yard gun and thats for SD uses like guarding the ranch or cattle against thieves. For game shooting 150 yards should be the limit on deer and thats with young eyes and a well practiced shooter. But a 100 yards or less is better. The round was never a power house to start with so should be limited on the size of the game its used on. But when the 30-30 first hit the market it was said to be enough for Grizzly bears. Probably not a good idea but early shooters were impressed with 1960fps and probably believed the ad copy.
No there is nothing magic about the 30-30. But its not a useless round either. It has its place. You just have to know what it is.
All rounds have their place given appropriate context. Sometimes their place is drumming up new firearms and ammo sales for a manufacturer.
But I agree that the gun may be the issue more than the round. A few posters have even acknowledged that possibility pertaining to other very capable rounds....short magnums included.
I have been playing around with 35 Rem in a Marlin 336 lately. I have owned 3 different 30-30 336s and I can say the 35 cycles much smoother than any of those 30-30s. What I mean is when the rifle is loaded, it cycles rounds from the magazine and into the chamber just as smooth as if the gun were empty. Never got that with the 30-30. Did I get 3 fluke 30-30s that cycle clunky? Did I luck out and get an extraordinarily slick 35 Rem? Do all the 30-30s actually cycle just fine but only a hair less smooth than 35s and I just have an exaggerated perspective?
I was never too keen on 30-30 but I like lever actions and I really like 336 Texans so naturally 30-30 found me. I avoided the 35 Rem for awhile because of things like ammo availability. Now that I have the 35 and it feels so much nicer than the 30-30, I could do with never seeing another 30-30. To me, it is that stark of a difference.
Yep. Sounds like a gun problem to me. I have 3 30-30s, 2 Marlins and one Winchester and they are slick. They are also older guns and not the new Remington made guns. Same as my 35 Remington made Marlin. All slick with no feeding problems. But the thread was about rounds you don't like. Not gun feeding problems.
Marlins are easy to take apart and slick up. I had to do that with the Marlin made 357 rifle I have. It didn't cycle or feed worth a flip until I did a buff job on it. Now its so smooth that its hard to tell if you are cycling an empty or loaded gun. But the round had nothing to do with that.
Thats a correct and very accurate statement. And just what I thought when Winchester started coming out with all the Short and Super Short Magnum rounds and the rifles to go with them. And the gunzines jumped on board with all the articles supporting the new guns and rounds. And then Remington jumped on the bandwagon. Now I am glad I didn't buy into the sales pitch and feel sorry for those who did. I think there are lots of shooters with guns they can't find ammo for. Or its limited and over priced when you do find it.
I never had any use for the 9mm until ammo became so plentiful for it that you coud buy loaded ammo for about the same price as it cost to reload so I bought one. It hasn't become my favorite caliber by a long shot and I've worked thru a few guns but now have a 9mm 1911 that makes a very nice plinking pistol. Moving over to rifles It's the 30-30. I have been on some hunts with people that shot deer with the 30-30 and not at a great distance. None were clean kills at all. Probably the hunters just weren't good enough shots to put the bullet where it had to be but I gained a dislike for it. That plus it's ballistics suck for plains hunting.
The handgun I have owned the longest is a .380. It was also the first one I started reloading using a Lee hand set.
I inherited a .32 that is about 100 y.o. with a shot out barrel, a N.I.B. .25 that is now ~60 y.o., and a .32-20 revolver that is at least 70 y.o. This is my least favorite as the .32-20 is a relatively low-powered cartridge and the only factory ammo I have found is LRN and expensive. The .32 ACP is next because of that worn out barrel.
I also have a .357 revolver and rifle, an AK, and a .243, as well as multiple .22LR/Mag handguns and rifles.
Separate names with a comma.