Most Worthless Rifle Caliber

What is the most Worthless Caliber?

  • 30 carbine

    Votes: 129 22.1%
  • 204 Ruger

    Votes: 62 10.6%
  • 7.62x39

    Votes: 5 0.9%
  • 22 Mag

    Votes: 42 7.2%
  • 17 HMR

    Votes: 140 24.0%
  • 7 STW

    Votes: 24 4.1%
  • 7mm Remington Ultra Mag

    Votes: 24 4.1%
  • Winchester Short Mags

    Votes: 59 10.1%
  • 458 Winchester Mag

    Votes: 5 0.9%
  • 338 Winchester Mag

    Votes: 1 0.2%
  • 6mm Remington

    Votes: 7 1.2%
  • Weatherby Mags

    Votes: 40 6.8%
  • 416 Remington

    Votes: 7 1.2%
  • 257 Roberts

    Votes: 17 2.9%
  • 260 Remington

    Votes: 8 1.4%
  • 220 Swift

    Votes: 14 2.4%

  • Total voters
    584
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you can't do it with a .30-06, you can't do it. ;)

But there is a place for cartridtges like the .22 Hornet, the 6.5X55 Swede, the .30-30 and the .35 Whelen (and even for the .35 Brown-Whelen, my favorite "heavy rifle.")

And they're a heck of a lot of fun to develop loads for.
 
My vote goes for the .204 Ruger.
Other cartridges do the same job. Ruger just wanted its name on another bullet. Ditto .480 Ruger (which was just a stab at having Dirty Harry status)

I'll actually speak up for the .45GAP. It allows a .45 caliber bullet into a smaller frame. Now, the use is there, but the problem is that .40S&W is only 0.05" smaller and you can fit more in a magazine than .45
.357SIG is also the answer to a question no one had asked.

This doesn't matter though as this is a rifle forum.

A good .30-06 will take anything on the N. American continent. A .223 is a great large varmint round and .22mag will handle anything smaller.

Anything else will do the job with a little added flavor.
Diversity is the spice of life!

The list of cartridges I have a rifle for goes like this:
7.62x54R
8mm Mauser
7.7 Jap
6.5 Jap
30-40 Krag
.30-06
.22lr (actually, short long and long rifle, but who's counting)
 
I think the thread should have been -

Most Worthless Rifle Cartridge

not (Caliber).

I'll vote for .204 Ruger.
 
I voted for the WSM's, mainly because I chuckle every time I launch a 180 at 3200 fps from my 300 Win mag. The shortie is not a match for the original. :rolleyes:

That said, I just finished reading up on the .223 WSSM, and 4000+ fps with 55 gr loads does beat the .22-250 Ackley Improved. Not by much, but some.
 
I could justify just about everything on that list but the Remington Ultra Mag.

We already have plenty of magnums, this one isn't anything special!
 
.30 carbine isn't my first choice for a rifle (OK, not my second or third either) but I am suprised so many people rate it so low.
 
Worthless - well - I'll not go on record as saying any cartridge is worthless.

HOWEVER...
For most redundant/unnecessary I'd have to vote (and did) for the .204 Ruger. Who needs it when perfectly fine cartridges like the 220 Swift, 22 Hornet and 22-250 which have been around for years, come close to, meet or exceed the FPS of the .204 and launch heavier bullets.

Besides its got Ruger in it's name - that alone is enough to take it off of any list of cartridges I'll ever own.
 
Quote:
----------------------------------------
Who needs it when perfectly fine cartridges like the 220 Swift, 22 Hornet and 22-250 which have been around for years, come close to, meet or exceed the FPS of the .204 and launch heavier bullets.
-----------------------------------------

I've got a long-standing love affair with the .22 Hornet, but it won't come close to duplicating .204 Ruger velocities. That said, if I were in the market for a new varmit rifle, it would be .223 Remington or .22-250.

And I have to admit, I have 3 Ruger M77s -- two older shotgun-safety centerfires in 7mm Magnum and .30-06, and a 77/22 in .22WRM -- and all of them function perfectly and shoot accurately.
 
Why 17 HMR

I have been told a fur bearing animal hit with a 17 HMR will be just as
dead as one hit with a 22 magnum, but with no exit hole and tiny
entrance hole; have not tested that myself.

Find a lot of 17 HMR brass at the range; most people like it because it
is accurate and new. I like accurate and old. I have used 17 HMR empty to punch plastic plugs from shotgun wads: same diameter as small rifle/pistol
primer for making snap caps for dry-firing .38 spl or .30 carbine., so 17 HMR
is useful to me.
 
Most of the responses in threads such as this take the angle: this cartridge has been around forever and these new cartridges don't do much of anything that the old stuff doesn't already do. They already own "X" and don't see any reason to buy "Y" when "X" will already do most of what "Y" is supposed to do. Besides "X" has served them well for all these years and they don't like change.
I am sort of like that. I don't try to keep up with the latest cartridges out there. I probably own 10 .30-06s and shoot well over 100 .30-06 cartridges a month. I recently bought a .218 Bee.
But.....what if you don't own a rifle at all and you are looking at what's out there with an eye toward buying your first rifle ? You have no attachment to the '06 or whatever ?
I was just thinking about this the other day. I own a bunch of .223s and a .22-250 but if I was looking for a varmint rifle I would buy something new: I think there is a .223 WSM or something like that ? I think if I was buying a new general purpose hunting rifle I would get something a little faster, a little flatter shooting, more efficent case design: why not ?
It's true that you can kill a deer just as dead with an arrow as you can a .30-378, but if you are buying your first rifle, why not take advantage of 100 years of experience and buy the latest thing out ?

Back to the original question: as was mentioned, none of them are worthless. To me, the biggest waste of time and money would be the .30 Carbine. IMO it doesn't do anything well. It is mediocre at anything.
And yes, I own a .30 Carbine and a .30 Carb. Blackhawk.

There have been many cartridges that I could never understand, but something else I can't understand is deciding if a cartridge is worthwhile based on how much it costs.
 
I voted for the WSM and WSSM families. Not because they aren't fine cartridges, but because with available (and cheaper) standard magnums and the much more efficient and cheaper still standard cartridges they are not worth the money.

I guess I don't see the advantage of an action that is half an inch shorter. Maybe a more rigid gun and more uniform powder ignition for the bench rest shooters... but they arent going to abandon the 6mm PPC for a wizzum.

As for the 220 Swift, mine is the best shooting rifle I have ever fired and the terminal performance is incredible. But I can see the advantage of the 204, not due to better performance (it doesn't), but it is quieter for the hunter close to the suburbs.
 
There are no "worthless" calibers.

But there are calibers that provide answers to questions no one asked. :rolleyes:
 
There have been many thousands killed with a .25 ACP and many more thousands killed with a .22 LR.

So what ?
 
On a poll that listed 7.62x39 as worthless, you would think that the competing full-auto cartidge with the non tapered brass would get the nod for worthlessness, considering how often it has jammed in the M16. 7.62x39 does the job well. It penetrates a bit too well and drops too fast, but otherwise it isnt very far from optimum for a medium strength rifle cartidge. Very far from worthless.

I would qualify pretty much all teh 22 caliberish rounds as worthless, especially those that fall very close to 22LR and 223Rem in terms of power.

7mm rem is kinda worthless, except I like how flat shooting it is. I probably should have gotten a 3006 though for the sake of buying bulk. The 30 different varieties of short turbo championship hadoken yoga flame magnums between 7 and 8mm is plain retarded though.

I think the real problem is that there are about half a dozen good catridges produced in massive bulk and like 5 dozen stepchildren following them around. For every 223Rem, there are a dozen 204 Rugers, 17 hmrs, 22-250s, etc etc etc ad infinitum. The world just doesnt need another expensive varmint/deer/elephant/tactical/jedi catrdrige.

Lets not forget the retarded 32naa and 25naa. "357 sig is so awesome, lets create an expensive alternative to 380 auto in the same theme! watch out patent office!"
 
....

WOW... suprised to see the 7.62 getting dogged so much. Those rounds remeber have been proven effective on the battlefield ... especially coming from the enemy ... believe me I know. The US still uses 7.62 rounds in its arsenal (US Navy,USMC) .. actually it was our round of choice in early Vietnam days if I am not mistaken.. I have trusted my life and the lifes of many men to that round .... accurate and powerful .. but thats my opinion ... once in a while I will stilll carry one in my unit and still think its reliable .. but the worst I would have to say the .17 HMR ..... if your going to plink use a .22 (even a 5 year old can handle it), a .17 is barley even a round .

after reading over my thread and thinking ... ya the US Military doesnt use the 7.62x39 round .. we use the 7.62x51 round if I am not mistaken ... but there has been a lot of the X39's that have killed our boys out there .
 
I love my 7mmSTW'S. The laredo has a boss & sendero has a factory brake. I reload and have not been able to find a more accurate 500meter performer to antelope hunt with. I deer hunt with a 270, but did use a 7mm rum a few years ago in the OK panhandle, only to get a 15 yard shot :neener: It Worked!! 204 gets my nod for worthless ( to me), but itching for a inexpensive 17m2 10/22 barrel.
 
What's wrong with Caliber 30

When looking at the ballistic tables of Sellier-Bellot cartridges, I notice that in terms of speed and energy Caliber 30 is comparable to 44 Magnum.

Added to that the fact that at 100yds an M1 Carbine in decent condition is perfectly accurate, I FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHY this caliber is ALWAYS looked down upon.

Also, why is it considered as a varmint caliber only while 44 magnum is seen ok for large bears in view of the above?

Can anyone clarify?
Thanks
 
As RIFLE cartridges go, the .30 Carbine only qualifies because it was designed to be fired from................a carbine. Other than that, it is a medicore pistol cartridge. Using safe industry standard loading data, you can load a .357 handgun to fire the same weight bullet, faster out of a handgun than USGI ball ammo out of a carbine. That is why it isn't a good rifle cartridge. By the way, the .44 Magnum is a pistol cartridge. I realize that you can buy rifles chambered for this cartridge, but it was disigned and built as a pistol cartridge. It is also significantly more powerful than a .30 Carbine. It shoots a heavier projectile that is bigger in diameter with more energy. I am going to make some very general, broad statements that will make the ballistic nuts scream, but..... When you are dealing with fairly slow moving projectiles, they simply punch a hole through the target. The .44 mag puts a big hole through the target. Since the bullets are pretty heavy they penetrate well. Sometimes you can shoot a bullet that expands and makes and even bigger hole. The .30 Carbine works the same way except the hole is smaller, the bullet isn't as heavy, and from what I have read the bullets usually don't expand. Very rough, but simple explanation.

Again, as rifle cartridges go, the 7.62x39 is very mediocre. It isn't particularly fast. It shoots a medium weight bullet with a rainbow trajectory. Yeah it is cheap. Yeah a lot of people have been killed with it. But when comparing rifle cartridges to other rifle cartridges, it is right near the bottom of the performance pile. The reason it is cheap and the reason a lot of people have been killed by it is simply the numbers of them out there. As we all know, prior to the 1970s, this was the standard cartridge of the USSR which gave them out like candy all over the world by the millions. Millions of people shoot at other millions of people and some people get hit and die. That doesn't make it a good cartridge. This is the same reason that the .22LR and .25 ACP have killed so many people. Because a whole lot of people have been shot with them. Because there are a lot of them out there. In addition, the cartridge is small and operates at low pressures, therefore it can be used in small cheap guns that are preferred by people who shoot other people. Shoot enough people and some of them will die. That doesn't make them a good cartridge for that purpose either.

One problem with discussions like this is that some people get their feelings hurt because their faviorite (or only ) rifle cartridge is listed as being not so hot. But, emotions don't change the facts.
 
wow 444 ... a little on edge this morning .. i agree with you 100% .. I just think it is STUPID to compare cartridges because each one plays a different role .... believe me I can sit here and go thru each ones role and what its good at doing .. but I am not going to
I have seen what all types of calibers do to animals and yes unfortunatly to people ... nobody is getting there feelings hurt .. i guess though if a person doesnt share the same views as you do or does not agree you deem them as wimpering weak sissy's who sniffle and cry if they voice an opposing thought to yours... its a forum its made to see and think about different angles of thought from all diffent types of people ... you may be right with what you say in your mind but it definitly does not make everyone else wrong

cheers
 
After reading all the replies on this poll ..... there is no such thing as a worthless cartridge .. like the old saying goes "one mans junk is another mans treasure" I guess it goes for everything

I did like what Detachment Charlie said on page 2 ... and its probably because I have been in the same position(on the receiving end of fire) and I have lost good friends in war ....

if firearms are used properly and responsibly there is NOTHING wortlhless about anything to do with them ... look how passionate we all are about this .. most of started shooting at a young age .. it helped develop dicipline and a sense of adventure .. alot of us grew closer to our fathers and uncles with firearms to thank, it didnt matter what round was chambered ....
ALL THAT MATTERED WAS AND STILL IS WAS .... SHOOTING
 
peteyru, I think you got me all wrong. You have to admit that there are a significant number of people who think that a certain given product is the best or maybe very good simply because they have one. They can't justify it by any other means. I find myself starting to jump up to defend something I bought but if I give myself a minute to think, I realize they are right. Just because I own one doesn't make it the best. I may love it to death, but it is, what it is.
When discussing these various cartridges, you have to look at what they are, what they can do, where they fit into the scheme of things compared to other rifle cartridges etc. Emotion really shouldn't enter into it.
As I mentioned previously, I own a .30 Carbine (USGI) and a Ruger Blackhawk chambered in .30 Carbine. I own a pretty nice Russian SKS chambered in 7.62x39. I really enjoy them. I have a lot of fun shooting them. BUT, when you are comparing those cartridges against other rifle cartridges, they suck. This doesn't take anything away from them for my purposes of plinking. But they are nothing to right home about in the performance department.

The purpose of the thread (I think) is to discuss the relative merits of the various cartridges mentioned. If you just say they are all great and the world is a bowl of cherries, then the discussion doesn't get very far. We can all still enjoy the cartridges that are dogs and owning and enjoying them doesn't take anything away from discussing the strong and weak points of them. If you think the discussion is stupid; then why do it ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top