Perfect vs. Practical

[SharpDog]

I just finished reading an article on Shooting Illustrated that was extolling the 10mm. I was an early 10mm fan and considered it the 'perfect' cartridge for a while. In the rifle domain, I grew up reading Jack O'Connor's writings about the .270 Win. and, more recently, Folks opinions of the new wunder caliber the 6.5 Creedmore.

In contrast, my revolver calibers are .44 Mag and .357 Mag, no 10mm or .41 Mags (OK I have one .41 Mag but never shoot it).

In semi-auto I generally shoot 9mm and .40 S&W even though I have .357 Sig (another 'perfect' caliber) and 10mm.

My rifle calibers are .308, 5.56, 7.62x39 and 6.5 Grendel with a .270Win and .25-06 thrown in.

Thing is, the cheaper-to-shoot calibers see all the love. The 5.56, 6.5G and 7.62x39 are all much cheaper to shoot than the .308 or 30-06 derivative calibers.

btw. I don't reload ... don't have the time. I'm sure reloading completely alters the equation as far as which calibers, but not the concept.

So ...

What I'm saying here is I'm on the side of 'practical' calibers. ones that do the job, are popular, cheap and easy to shoot. My brain says to go for the 'perfect' caliber (see my post on OCD) but my wallet votes for the practical (and the wallet IS the boss here).

Thoughts ?

 

[ColtPythonElite]

I am a practical guy.

 

[buck460XVR]

So ...

What I'm saying here is I'm on the side of 'practical' calibers. ones that do the job, are popular, cheap and easy to shoot. My brain says to go for the 'perfect' caliber (see my post on OCD) but my wallet votes for the practical (and the wallet IS the boss here).

Thoughts ?

I agree. One reason even after a century, the venerable ought-six is still one of the, if not the most widely used deer gun in the lower 48.There were so many cheap and easily obtainable surplus rifles that were easy to sporterize after the second WW and tons of surplus ball ammo to go with them. Nowadays, it's still one of the easiest to find a wide variety of factory ammo for, anywhere in the country, and the price point of it is generally lower than most other big game calibers other than 30-30. So many dad's get their son a '06 for their first deer rifle for that reason and because they can share that ammo with most everyone else in the hunting party........and it works very well for most deer hunting scenarios. For those with deep pockets and have narrow parameters of need(like extreme long distance shooting) the new "perfect" niche calibers are great. But for the majority of folks that need something that works well in a wide variety of applications and is affordable, not only to buy the platform, but also the ammo to feed it, the old reliables still shine. If it ain't broke, there ain't much need to fix it.

 

[JohnKSa]

There's an old proverb which I generally paraphrase as: "The best is the enemy of good enough."

I have a friend who hunts hogs with the 6.5 Grendel. I'm sure that if we had a debate about whether or not the 6.5 Grendel is the ideal hog-hunting cartridge, the consensus would be that it is not ideal. But he killed over 200 hogs with it last year...

 

[Wisco]

I think I agree.

My general purpose guns are all very common, practical calibers. 9mm. 5.56. 30-06. .22. 12 gauge. They got shot often.

My “perfect” guns are for more specific uses, usually hunting. 10mm, 44 Mag, 300 Win Mag. They don’t get shot as much.

If I had to choose, I’d always chose general purpose practical over perfect.

I do wish the 10mm was more popular...more options at lower prices with more availability. It would easily surpass the 9mm for my uses as a general purpose pistol.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

What I'm saying here is I'm on the side of 'practical' calibers. ones that do the job, are popular, cheap and easy to shoot. My brain says to go for the 'perfect' caliber (see my post on OCD) but my wallet votes for the practical (and the wallet IS the boss here).

'Good enough' tends to win in the marketplace. There's nothing particularly sexy about the 30-30, .308, or 30-06, but here they are (still) and they're around to stay. 5.56mm is still the winner in the AR realm as far as popularity and availability, and while 6.8SPC or whatever is arguably "better" in many meaningful ways, it's becoming less popular because the AR is 'good enough' and is cheaper to buy and feed.

There's an old proverb which I generally paraphrase as: "The best is the enemy of good enough."

I have a friend who hunts hogs with the 6.5 Grendel. I'm sure that if we had a debate about whether or not the 6.5 Grendel is the ideal hog-hunting cartridge, the consensus would be that it is not ideal. But he killed over 200 hogs with it last year...

Exactly. At the end of the day most handgun cartridges ~= to the others, and the same for centerfire rifle cartridges. It's fun to think about the debate the differences, but except for niche applications they're all about the same when most people are shooting targets at short/medium range, hogs, and deer.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

You know, that last comment is likely to generate some pushback. I'll clarify before the ball starts rolling.

My contention is that for a carry pistol, 38SPL, 44SPL, 44Mag, 45ACP, 9mm, and 10mm are all reasonable choices. In general, using good loadings, they'll all do the job about as well as the other.

For hunting, does the whitetail I shoot care if it's shot by a .308, 300 win mag, 7mm08, 7mm mag, .270 rem, .260 rem, 6.5 Creed, 6.5 Grendel, 30-30, 30-06, .243, 22-250, 35 Whelen, or even 223 assuming I make a reasonably choice in ammunition?

Nope. But there's fun in variety.

 

[JohnKSa]

Upon further reflection, it occurs to me that a good question to ask when thinking about buying a more ideal caliber is: "At what cost?".

We like to focus on the differences and compare the evidence, but we often gloss over the details of what will be traded away for the gain.

How much ammo/training/practice can be purchased/paid for with the cost of another firearm and the accessories for it?
Will working with another caliber/firearm dilute the skill level/familiarity achieved/achievable with currently owned firearms?
What are the costs compared to the benefit?

Every decision comes at a cost, not just a benefit. It's important to consider both.

I think most people would be better off wearing out a holster for their current firearm during practice than buying a second "more ideal" handgun and a new holster for it.

I think most people would be better off buying ammo for and practicing with their current hunting rifle than buying another "more ideal" rifle and the ammo and the accessories for it.

I think most people would be better off paying for some professional training than spending money for a "more ideal" handgun than the one they already carry.

Of course, that's not nearly as much fun as being able to fondle a shiny new gun and enjoying buying accessories for it.

 

[SharpDog]

There's an old proverb which I generally paraphrase as: "The best is the enemy of good enough."

I have a friend who hunts hogs with the 6.5 Grendel. I'm sure that if we had a debate about whether or not the 6.5 Grendel is the ideal hog-hunting cartridge, the consensus would be that it is not ideal. But he killed over 200 hogs with it last year...

I'm re-uppering 2 rifles in 6.5G I gotta say it's cheaper to shoot 6.5G and rebarrel a few times than something like 6.5CR, .308, etc. For woods shooting (about 2.5 MOA) reportedly you can get 4K rds per barrel with the bimetal alloy coatings on the cheap ammo. I'm also re-uppering a Les Baer Precision AR and likely that will only see Hornady ammo. Still cheaper than Black Hills tho.

 

[huntsman]

Perfection is an illusion and practical too subjective.

So what’s one to do? Identify your needs and then buy what strikes your heart, I’d rather own fewer guns and be satisfied with them than chase illusions or fret about being practical.

 

[entropy]

Perfect and practical are somwhat at odds with each other, unless you only own one gun for one type of shooting. (i.e., A Walther OSP would fill the bill for Olympic pistol, unless you are French, then it might be a DES-VO...)
I demand practicality of all my guns, even my collection of milsurps. (They are occasionally used for hunting, as well as target shooting, etc.) The only gun I own that I'd have to say fills one niche, is my snub, as a CCW gun only, but of course I do shoot it at targets once in a while...

 

[redneck2]

Uhhhh....your position has absolutely zero meaning.

Shooting is itself for a very vast majority is totally impractical. What is practical about punching holes in paper? What exactly have you achieved? What’s practical about breaking clay targets or blowing holes in cans?

You’re trying to justify cheaper caliber choices because they cost less. Bull crap. I can justify my choices because they are more accurate, shoot flatter. If you wanna say “adequate”, maybe. But that’s adequate for you. If I’m a world class shooter I “need” a $3,500 Anschutz .22 with a $1,500 scope to complete.

So I can punch holes in paper in a tighter cluster than the next guy. Which is totally impractical

I have a friend that has spent probably $1,500 for turkey hunting and hast gotten a bird. You could buy an awful lot of turkeys for that kind of money, far more than you could kill in a lifetime. Nothing practical about it.

There are no hobbies that are practical. Now, I shoot and hunt because I enjoy it and don’t have to justify the expense to anybody.

 

[bannockburn]

Unless I was interested in some form of purpose driven, purely competitive shooting (which I'm not), you could pretty much classify me as someone who's more intrinsically practical when it comes to my choice of cartridges and guns. Not to say I don't occasionally go off the beaten path (as in .38 Super, .44 Special, or .41 Magnum), but for the most part I stay with the tried and true practical versus looking for perfection.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

btw. I don't reload ... don't have the time. I'm sure reloading completely alters the equation

Yes it does. At least it did for me.

 

[J-Bar]

“Perfect “ is an opinion. “Practical” is an opinion. Your opinion is the one that matters.

 

[jmr40]

I tend to be practical. I've owned a lot of different cartridges over the years and I've sold most all of them. Part of that came from the realization that most of the more powerful cartridges didn't kill any better at normal ranges, just kicked harder. They are only an advantage at ranges I'd never take a shot anyway.

I have a long history with 30-06 and have rifles with too much history to sell. But even that is more gun than I need. I narrowed things down to 223 and 308 in center fire rifles about a decade ago. I recenty added a 6.5 CM and like it, but don't NEED it and 308. There is nothing magical about any of those. Any 22 center fire can be used in place of 223, and anything from 243 to 338 WM can be used on any big game animal in North America. Pick one that makes you happy, or 2 if you want.

With handguns I can do anything I need to do with a 9mm and 10mm. I own some magnum revolvers and 1911's in 45 ACP. But I'd never miss them from a practical perspective.

 

[hdwhit]

Sharp Dog wrote:
I was an early 10mm fan and considered it the 'perfect' cartridge for a while.

Well, for what it's worth, at about the same time, I considered the 5.7mm Johnson (22 Carbine) to be the "perfect" cartridge.

The fact FN subsequently developed an almost identical cartridge did nothing but solidify that belief.

 

[hdwhit]

redneck2 asked:
What is practical about punching holes in paper? What exactly have you achieved?

I have refined my control of the weapon with a particular load in a training scenario so that if/when it becomes necessary, I have the necessary skills and proficiency to punch holes in an assailant and thereby preserve my life.

 

[Wisco]

What is practical about punching holes in paper? What exactly have you achieved?

It’s practical if you’re training for a real world application. If you’ve done it right, you’ve achieved proficiency with whatever gun it is you’re shooting.

 

[Demi-human]

Yes it does. At least it did for me.

Me, too. Fifty AE is much more practical when it's the same cost as fourty-five auto.
Everyone already knows an Eagle is a perfect weapon.

 

[sparkyv]

btw. I don't reload ... don't have the time. I'm sure reloading completely alters the equation as far as which calibers, but not the concept.

Yes it does. At least it did for me.

Absolutely a different situation altogether.

 

[WestKentucky]

I’m one of those reloaders who shoots to empty brass so I can reload it again...

My first centerfire rifle was a .270win. I haven’t had many others. Never had another rifle I was serious about hunting with. I cut my handgun teeth on a 38 special of my dads, then bought a 6” .357. I own more handguns than long guns now, but I make a point of having a .357 and 22lr in the safe. For shotgun it was a 20ga.

Although I do enjoy shooting, for me it’s all about performance which translates to accuracy with remaining power. .270 still serves that role well as does 357, but in common caliber and uncommon chambering the oddballs are no more expensive to load. I have a 30-30 that with jacketed bullets costs me about 30 cents a shot. My 7-30 waters is based on a 30-30 case and with jacketed bullets costs me about 30 cents a shot. If I’m loading premium bullets it goes up a lot from there. I don’t shoot many Barnes TSX, but I have an accurate load for them in my 7-30. For me, practicality comes in selecting the bullet which I will be using in my reloads, and to that purpose it is absolutely practicality before perfection.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

btw. I don't reload ... don't have the time. I'm sure reloading completely alters the equation as far as which calibers, but not the concept.

One note on reloading, I don't know how much you shoot, but I find that after the initial setup of a press and dies, it isn't that hard to sit down and load 50-100 rounds, and do it carefully, in less than an hour of total time. Lot's of folks go way faster, but being a beginner, I like to go slow, and my shooting is not as often as I'd like, so I don't need 5000 rounds sitting around at all times.

I guess what I'm saying is if you can spare an hour here and there to do some prep work, then it need not consume all your time. I had a press and the other bits I needed to reload, and it was a solid 4 months after getting everything I needed before I began, because I only had an hour here and there to spare for setup. I'd get a die or two set here, and then the powder throw set there. Then I'd sort some brass for an hour.

Reloading isn't for everyone, and I'm not trying to convince you that you or anyone else should do it. For me, it allows me to shoot more for a lot less money, and in terms of this thread, it opened the door to 10mm auto, and will facilitate a lot more shooting of my S&W 460 mag. It may bring me into some other cartridges I told myself I couldn't afford also. It's also a very satisfying feeling to shoot ammo you made yourself.

Reloading need not take a huge amount of time, and I think some folks believe that's what it will do. I guess I just want to dispel that notion. If patient, a spare hour here and there can be put to good use. If a spare hour is not in the mix, then never mind.

 

[Bushpilot]

I guess I am more on the practical side of the fence. I don't like oddball cartridges and in general I don't like seriously over bore magnum rifle cartridges either. I like efficient, accurate cartridges that are easy on barrels... Some of my favorites are 22 hornet, 222, 223, 6.5 x55, 7x57, 308, 30-06 and 45-70... Lots of military cartridges in that list. Outside of my norm I also like the 243 and 22-250 although they are a bit overbore and harder on barrels then the rest... In handguns I like 357, 44 mag, 38 special, 45 acp, 45 lc, and 9mm.

 

[murf]

"perfect" is a goal. you are practically there, so keep buying!

murf