Sergeant Sabre
Member
.17Mach II isn't on this list, so I voted .17HMR
Most Worthless Rifle Caliber
- Thread starter greg531mi
- Start date
- Status
Fumbler
Member
I voted for the 30 Carbine.
I agree with what others have said, without the gun it would have been long gone.
I did not vote for the 17HMR, I think it does have a place. It shoots much flatter than the 22mag, so if you want rimfire terminal performance with the trajectory of a centerfire then that makes sense.
I wish the 17M2 was on the list.
It is definately worthless. Costs the same as 17HMR and converting a 22lr to 17M2 would cost as much as getting a whole rifle in .17HMR. Plus it's slower than the HMR.
I agree with what others have said, without the gun it would have been long gone.
I did not vote for the 17HMR, I think it does have a place. It shoots much flatter than the 22mag, so if you want rimfire terminal performance with the trajectory of a centerfire then that makes sense.
I wish the 17M2 was on the list.
It is definately worthless. Costs the same as 17HMR and converting a 22lr to 17M2 would cost as much as getting a whole rifle in .17HMR. Plus it's slower than the HMR.
Preacherman
Member
May I respectfully suggest that the title of this thread is not very descriptive? None of the cartridges posted here are "worthless" - that would mean that they have no worth or utility at all, yet all of them have taken uncounted numbers of animals, and proven their utility many times over. Sure, there may be some among them that are superfluous, as more modern or more versatile cartridges can do everything and more: but they're not "worthless" on that account.
I think many of the modern cartridges are actually more superfluous than the older ones. Give me a good .30-'06, and I'll happily put it up against any .308, .300 Win Mag, .300 WSM, etc. It's a classic cartridge, and like good wine, it keeps getting better with age! Most of the more modern cartridges are simply creations of marketers, trying to convince folks that they need to "upgrade". My personal rule of thumb is that if a new cartridge offers me a better than 25% improvement in overall performance, I'm interested: otherwise, it's just an incremental step up, and probably not worth the expense.
What say others?
I think many of the modern cartridges are actually more superfluous than the older ones. Give me a good .30-'06, and I'll happily put it up against any .308, .300 Win Mag, .300 WSM, etc. It's a classic cartridge, and like good wine, it keeps getting better with age! Most of the more modern cartridges are simply creations of marketers, trying to convince folks that they need to "upgrade". My personal rule of thumb is that if a new cartridge offers me a better than 25% improvement in overall performance, I'm interested: otherwise, it's just an incremental step up, and probably not worth the expense.
What say others?
How can the .204 Ruger, which is essentially a necked-down .222 Remington Magnum...
Be considered a replacement for the .220 Swift? (Or even the .22-250?)
.204 Ruger
- 32gr bullet, 4225fps w/special Hornady factory powder, 4044fps handloaded
- 40gr bullet, 3900fps w/special Hornady factory powder, 3738fps handloaded
.220 Swift
- 40gr bullet, 4200fps as delivered from Hornady, 4050fps handloaded
- 45gr Berger bullet, 4297fps, loaded w/ 42.0gr Reloder 15.
Be considered a replacement for the .220 Swift? (Or even the .22-250?)
.204 Ruger
- 32gr bullet, 4225fps w/special Hornady factory powder, 4044fps handloaded
- 40gr bullet, 3900fps w/special Hornady factory powder, 3738fps handloaded
.220 Swift
- 40gr bullet, 4200fps as delivered from Hornady, 4050fps handloaded
- 45gr Berger bullet, 4297fps, loaded w/ 42.0gr Reloder 15.
Kamicosmos
Member
I don't think any of the cartridges are 'worthless'. Maybe for hunting, which seems to be the intent of the poll, but still, they'll all kill their 'target' targets very well. Variety is the spice of life, and let's face it, the Range would be a boring place if every shooter had The 30-06 and only the 30-06!
But, in spirit of the poll, I voted for .30 carbine. I mean, really, there's only one gun in it, and it's not even in production anymore! (Yeah, i know there's contenders, blackhawks, conversions...) But, seriously, if you're looking at a .30 carbine, step up a notch and get a .357 mag gun of some flavor.
If 17 Mach II was on here, it would have gotten the vote, cause I really don't get what it's role is at all...
But, in spirit of the poll, I voted for .30 carbine. I mean, really, there's only one gun in it, and it's not even in production anymore! (Yeah, i know there's contenders, blackhawks, conversions...) But, seriously, if you're looking at a .30 carbine, step up a notch and get a .357 mag gun of some flavor.
If 17 Mach II was on here, it would have gotten the vote, cause I really don't get what it's role is at all...
So maybe there are no worthless calibers, just worthless shooters. (????)
I'll probably get into a lot of trouble for saying this, but I tend to think that the .357 Magnum would be a useless caliber in a rifle. It seems to me that it would be fairly similar ballistically to another obsolete, sort-of-useless rifle caliber, the .351 Winchester Self-Loading.
I'll probably get into a lot of trouble for saying this, but I tend to think that the .357 Magnum would be a useless caliber in a rifle. It seems to me that it would be fairly similar ballistically to another obsolete, sort-of-useless rifle caliber, the .351 Winchester Self-Loading.
Heavy Barrel
Member
Different strokes for different folks.None of trhe above.They all have their place,it's called individual preference
It would be a sad world if we had but one choice.
It would be a sad world if we had but one choice.
Last edited:
Zeke Menuar
Member
In keeping with the poll I voted for the WSM.
I probably would have lumped all of the new-fangled Remchester alphabet-soup barrel-burners, including WSSM, Ultra mags, WSM SUAM's and all the other flavor of the moment wannabe rounds into the same catagory.
I am doing a perfectly good job of toasting the barrel of my 270 without the noise, muzzle blast and recoil. Not to mention the added cost of ammo and/or components.
ZM
I probably would have lumped all of the new-fangled Remchester alphabet-soup barrel-burners, including WSSM, Ultra mags, WSM SUAM's and all the other flavor of the moment wannabe rounds into the same catagory.
I am doing a perfectly good job of toasting the barrel of my 270 without the noise, muzzle blast and recoil. Not to mention the added cost of ammo and/or components.
ZM
Fatelvis
Member
17 HMR. What is it about this caliber, that people love?
Fumbler
Member
I spend a lot of time at rimfirecentral.com, so I'll tell you what they like about it.
-it's a rimfire, not all of us can shoot centerfires (too close to other houses, loud report, etc)
-the flat trajectory. The HMR has half the drop as the .22mag at 100 yards when sighted in for the same distance. There are many people who take small game out to 250 yards with it.
-it is inherently more accurate than the .22lr or .22mag. Any factory rifle will shoot at least 1MOA
-the neat factor. it goes 2500+ fps, has a tiny bullet, is a bottlenecked rimfire, and so on. it's just neat. it was the first new rimfire since the .22mag was introduced in 1959 (actually the 5mm Rem mag was introduced in 1970 but either the market wasnt ready or it wasn't different enough from the other rimfires to work).
My question must be: worthless for what?
I will skip on the vote for now. There are more than a couple of cartridges on the list I am not fond of, and probably never buy, but who am I to rain on someone elses sunshine. A couple of examples are:
I shot my first elk with a 32 Win Special, it really was a rotten choice of rifles for the task almost 250 yds, and a 600+ lb animal. It took three shots to down, first a heart lung shot, second a heart shot and the final a spine shot. All of these shots were well placed and with a more suitable rifle such as a 30-06 the last 2 shots were probably unneccesary. But the 32 was what I owned and it worked, ideal candidate for the task at hand....hardly.
Another of your losers is the 30 cal carbine, I have owned one of these in the past, never used it on game, and the carbine the round is chambered for is certainly not a hunting rifle. But for all its shortcomings, the M1 clone had one of the highest fun factors of any rifle I ever owned, simply it was a blast to shoot. If I was going to hunt with the 30 cal carbine, I would insist on a single action or bolt gun. This on small game at reasonable distances would work not ideal certainly and I wouldn't bother making a rifle in this, but it would work.
A couple of your choices boggle my mind that they are even on the list, 257 Rob, 6mm Rem, 338 Win Mag, maybe you don't like these, but all three are excellent cartridges. For instance if your hunt in the Southwest a 257 Rob or a 6mm Remington are both excellent all around calibers, and the varmit hunting guys love the 6mm Rem. A 338 Win Mag is a very common choice of rifles in Alaska, Canada, Montana for larger game animals, and is used extensively on plains game in Africa. Your text inclusion of the 375H&H must be a joke,
I frequent another hunting board with a lot of African and Alaskan hunters and the storm that statement would have made on that board would take you years to live down.
My current list would look more like:
401 Winchester
351 Winchester
.220 Weatherby Rocket
8x50R Lebel
8x56R Hungarian Mannlicher (.329" bullets)
32-20 winchester
.256 Winchester Magnum
I admit I am not a big fan of .223 rifles, too light for deer hunting, better options of varmit hunting, in mine mind a caliber that has no reason for existance, but it has a huge following and it would be absurd on my part to consider it useless. There are a lot of varmit hunters and match shooters that would slap me ( rightfully ) if I even suggested it.
And remember some of your usless rounds need to put into historical perspective ( mine too ), the 8mm Lebel made a lot of sense when it was introduced it was the most modern cartridge in the world. Now its an oddball rimmed 8mm, with not impressive ballistics, chambered in crappy french milsurp rifles, that is further hampered by Berdan primed brass. But in 1886 this rifle and caliber made a lot of sense, and the rest of the world were reeling to catch up......times change so do perspectives.
I will skip on the vote for now. There are more than a couple of cartridges on the list I am not fond of, and probably never buy, but who am I to rain on someone elses sunshine. A couple of examples are:
I shot my first elk with a 32 Win Special, it really was a rotten choice of rifles for the task almost 250 yds, and a 600+ lb animal. It took three shots to down, first a heart lung shot, second a heart shot and the final a spine shot. All of these shots were well placed and with a more suitable rifle such as a 30-06 the last 2 shots were probably unneccesary. But the 32 was what I owned and it worked, ideal candidate for the task at hand....hardly.
Another of your losers is the 30 cal carbine, I have owned one of these in the past, never used it on game, and the carbine the round is chambered for is certainly not a hunting rifle. But for all its shortcomings, the M1 clone had one of the highest fun factors of any rifle I ever owned, simply it was a blast to shoot. If I was going to hunt with the 30 cal carbine, I would insist on a single action or bolt gun. This on small game at reasonable distances would work not ideal certainly and I wouldn't bother making a rifle in this, but it would work.
A couple of your choices boggle my mind that they are even on the list, 257 Rob, 6mm Rem, 338 Win Mag, maybe you don't like these, but all three are excellent cartridges. For instance if your hunt in the Southwest a 257 Rob or a 6mm Remington are both excellent all around calibers, and the varmit hunting guys love the 6mm Rem. A 338 Win Mag is a very common choice of rifles in Alaska, Canada, Montana for larger game animals, and is used extensively on plains game in Africa. Your text inclusion of the 375H&H must be a joke,
I frequent another hunting board with a lot of African and Alaskan hunters and the storm that statement would have made on that board would take you years to live down.My current list would look more like:
401 Winchester
351 Winchester
.220 Weatherby Rocket
8x50R Lebel
8x56R Hungarian Mannlicher (.329" bullets)
32-20 winchester
.256 Winchester Magnum
I admit I am not a big fan of .223 rifles, too light for deer hunting, better options of varmit hunting, in mine mind a caliber that has no reason for existance, but it has a huge following and it would be absurd on my part to consider it useless. There are a lot of varmit hunters and match shooters that would slap me ( rightfully ) if I even suggested it.
And remember some of your usless rounds need to put into historical perspective ( mine too ), the 8mm Lebel made a lot of sense when it was introduced it was the most modern cartridge in the world. Now its an oddball rimmed 8mm, with not impressive ballistics, chambered in crappy french milsurp rifles, that is further hampered by Berdan primed brass. But in 1886 this rifle and caliber made a lot of sense, and the rest of the world were reeling to catch up......times change so do perspectives.
Heavy Barrel
Member
Response from rimfire central,not from me
I vote that thread for most worthless poll on the internet.
Everyone of the rounds listed has it's purpose. They have several big bore rounds listed (.458, .416, .338 mags) that are not nesscessary, unless you go places where there are large animals that like to eat you (Africa and Alaska come to mind) but those rounds are still not worthless. I have currently have no need for them, but some day I might.
11% of the voters went for the Winchester Short mags. I don't own one of them either, but I wouldn't consider them worthless.
I bet if you overlayed a chart with the number of rounds manufactured in a year the .17 HMR and .22 Mag would top that list of worthless rounds.
I vote that thread for most worthless poll on the internet.
Everyone of the rounds listed has it's purpose. They have several big bore rounds listed (.458, .416, .338 mags) that are not nesscessary, unless you go places where there are large animals that like to eat you (Africa and Alaska come to mind) but those rounds are still not worthless. I have currently have no need for them, but some day I might.
11% of the voters went for the Winchester Short mags. I don't own one of them either, but I wouldn't consider them worthless.
I bet if you overlayed a chart with the number of rounds manufactured in a year the .17 HMR and .22 Mag would top that list of worthless rounds.
kaferhaus
Member
Simply not true, you need to do some more reading on the subject. You are correct on the "diseases introduced by cattle" having an impact, but once the buffalo hunters switched to the 30-30 the herds dwindled almost immediately. And it had nothning to do with "killing power" it was faster shooting and less tiring to shoot all day. Also within a short period of time, the ammo was cheaper.
Kaferhaus, how do you explain this?
Borrowed from here:
Jumping Buffalo: After the Jumps
And the Winchester Model 94, chambered in .30-30, and .32 Winchester Special, was introduced when? Oh, my bad, 1894.
Borrowed from here:
Jumping Buffalo: After the Jumps
And the Winchester Model 94, chambered in .30-30, and .32 Winchester Special, was introduced when? Oh, my bad, 1894.
I believe it was Townsend Whelen who said that the .30-06 was never a mistake. You can include the .308 as it is virtually the same round.
There were too many rounds listed in the catalogues when I was a kid. Now I couldn't keep track of them even if I wanted to--which I don't.
P.T. Barnum was right. There is a sucker born every minute.
There were too many rounds listed in the catalogues when I was a kid. Now I couldn't keep track of them even if I wanted to--which I don't.
P.T. Barnum was right. There is a sucker born every minute.
I guess I do stand corrected.
It is true that none of them are really "useless" since they all can be used for something.
I do still think that some are unnecessary.
I am thinking that the .450 Marlin falls into this class. Why would anyone buy a rifle that uses this round when you could buy the .45-70 version and just use the hotter ammo? This would still allow you to be able to use the regular powered ammo for practice.
It isn't useless per se, but I still can't understand creating a new cartridge to do something that you already have a cartridge for.
Same with .45 GAP.
What is the point? I am inclined to think that Glock would have been better off to go with a single stack .45 ACP varient instead of coming up with a new round.
Just my $.02.
It is true that none of them are really "useless" since they all can be used for something.
I do still think that some are unnecessary.
I am thinking that the .450 Marlin falls into this class. Why would anyone buy a rifle that uses this round when you could buy the .45-70 version and just use the hotter ammo? This would still allow you to be able to use the regular powered ammo for practice.
It isn't useless per se, but I still can't understand creating a new cartridge to do something that you already have a cartridge for.
Same with .45 GAP.
What is the point? I am inclined to think that Glock would have been better off to go with a single stack .45 ACP varient instead of coming up with a new round.
Just my $.02.
After further review, I agree with you, that worthless is too strong of a term. I am amassed by the ammo and rifle makers trying to drum up sales with new calibers. This is what I was trying to point out. It seems that these new calibers are marginally at best, needed. I put in some older ones, like the 30 carbine, to show there are ones that do make it, no matter how unneeded they are. Sorry to offend anyone, as I agree, a rifle that shoots straight, no matter what caliber it is, is usefull.
I was thinking more about hunting ammo, than other types. Hunting animals, if you can hit the animal in the right spot, a 22LR, will down it. How much or less power and caliber you need, depends on the abilities of the hunter, and of the gun.
I have seen too many hunters out there, blasting away with magmum calibers, and not hitting anything. They sight in their rifles, put 2 or 3 shots through it before deer season, and call that practice for the year. I think that the more powerfull calibers need more skill to hit anything, than a non-magmum. Hope I did not offend anyone, but a good heated discussion, in this kind of cold weather up here in Michigan, might warm up the blood and us, a little. Hope Santa brought you what you wanted.
I was thinking more about hunting ammo, than other types. Hunting animals, if you can hit the animal in the right spot, a 22LR, will down it. How much or less power and caliber you need, depends on the abilities of the hunter, and of the gun.
I have seen too many hunters out there, blasting away with magmum calibers, and not hitting anything. They sight in their rifles, put 2 or 3 shots through it before deer season, and call that practice for the year. I think that the more powerfull calibers need more skill to hit anything, than a non-magmum. Hope I did not offend anyone, but a good heated discussion, in this kind of cold weather up here in Michigan, might warm up the blood and us, a little. Hope Santa brought you what you wanted.
Zeke Menuar
Member
Redundant
Pointless
There are probably some other terms that come to mind.
Maybe the RemChesteRugers of the world NEED to try to reinvent the wheel to justify their continued exsistance. I have faith that most of us continue to shoot our obsolete underpowered 270's, 30-06's and 308's. Leave the Ultrashortsuamwsmssmagnums to the crowd that seems to shoot them the most, Gunwriters.
This is my opinion. Your opinion may vary.
ZM
Detachment Charlie
Member
His ignorance is an affront
This is another of my post that's gonna get "edited" by the moderators. Oh, well, here goes.
Atherd said, "7.62x39 gets my vote.
Dosen't [sic] kill people well..."
Excuse me, but having been on the receiving end of these little bast@rds, believe me, they are quite effective at killing people. I can think of a lot of people I was with at one time who'd voice their agreement with me, but they didn't return.
Detachment Charlie
RVN '68 - '69
This is another of my post that's gonna get "edited" by the moderators. Oh, well, here goes.
Atherd said, "7.62x39 gets my vote.
Dosen't [sic] kill people well..."
Excuse me, but having been on the receiving end of these little bast@rds, believe me, they are quite effective at killing people. I can think of a lot of people I was with at one time who'd voice their agreement with me, but they didn't return.
Detachment Charlie
RVN '68 - '69
mustanger98
Member
Just a couple of points of historical perspective on the .32-20:
1- Both Winchester's 1873 and Colt's SAA were chambered for it. Facilitates carrying one ammo for two guns. (It originally came as black powder. I don't see deer hunting with it because it won't have a .32WS's punch.)
2- In "Hell, I Was There", Elmer Keith told about how he bought his first revolver as a kid. It was a Colt's SAA with 7.5" barrel in .32-20. He said when his father still thought he should be using a .22 rifle, he was hunting and consistently killing jackrabbits with the .32-20 revolver. He said his father didn't take long to be conviced he could.
Nowdays, most of us, if we were to hunt rabbits with a pistol, I'd say it'd probably be a .22 of some sort because it's cheap and more powerful than it was back in those days (1910 or so).
Oh, and while I'm on Elmer Keith, he didn't like .30-30 at all, but then he needed more power than a .30-30 offered for where he was and the game he was dealing with. He used .30-06 but gave examples of his own experience as to why using the service round was a mistake. He also gave examples of how factory .45LC ammo failed him while his own handloads did the job on large game (a bull elk up close and personal comes to mind).
.243Winchester's been around since 1956 and I shoot it aside from my old, wore out, outdated, obsolete .30-30 that has the reputation of getting the job done (in the South). I've been wondering what all the new cartridge fuss was all about for a good while myself. I don't know that it gives the manufacturers an excuse, but what somebody mentioned about keeping the gun writers in work makes perfect sense because that's all they want to talk about. Seems to me the most interesting articles in Shooting Times are by Mike Venturino and he writes about old stuff.
1- Both Winchester's 1873 and Colt's SAA were chambered for it. Facilitates carrying one ammo for two guns. (It originally came as black powder. I don't see deer hunting with it because it won't have a .32WS's punch.)
2- In "Hell, I Was There", Elmer Keith told about how he bought his first revolver as a kid. It was a Colt's SAA with 7.5" barrel in .32-20. He said when his father still thought he should be using a .22 rifle, he was hunting and consistently killing jackrabbits with the .32-20 revolver. He said his father didn't take long to be conviced he could.
Nowdays, most of us, if we were to hunt rabbits with a pistol, I'd say it'd probably be a .22 of some sort because it's cheap and more powerful than it was back in those days (1910 or so).
Oh, and while I'm on Elmer Keith, he didn't like .30-30 at all, but then he needed more power than a .30-30 offered for where he was and the game he was dealing with. He used .30-06 but gave examples of his own experience as to why using the service round was a mistake. He also gave examples of how factory .45LC ammo failed him while his own handloads did the job on large game (a bull elk up close and personal comes to mind).
.243Winchester's been around since 1956 and I shoot it aside from my old, wore out, outdated, obsolete .30-30 that has the reputation of getting the job done (in the South). I've been wondering what all the new cartridge fuss was all about for a good while myself. I don't know that it gives the manufacturers an excuse, but what somebody mentioned about keeping the gun writers in work makes perfect sense because that's all they want to talk about. Seems to me the most interesting articles in Shooting Times are by Mike Venturino and he writes about old stuff.
Lonestar.45
Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,077
Any of the WSM's or WSSM's.
What's the point? Take a look at the ballistics, then go down to your local gunshop and take a look at the prices of a box of these WSM's and WSSM's. Is it worth it? Only you can make that judgement. You can get a box of Weatherby magnums for the same price. For me, my .270 Winchester will handle anything I hunt. As for self defense? 12 gauge, SKS, and 1911.
What's the point? Take a look at the ballistics, then go down to your local gunshop and take a look at the prices of a box of these WSM's and WSSM's. Is it worth it? Only you can make that judgement. You can get a box of Weatherby magnums for the same price. For me, my .270 Winchester will handle anything I hunt. As for self defense? 12 gauge, SKS, and 1911.
WhiteKnight
Member
The .22Mag. Doesn't do anything that the .223 can't do better.
Fumbler
Member
^It's the biggest thing you can hunt with in Wake County without having to be 8 feet off the ground
A cheap 22mag will be the next rifle I get...unless i can find a cheap 223
A cheap 22mag will be the next rifle I get...unless i can find a cheap 223
griz
Member
Can I do a write in vote for the 45 GAP?
- Status
