Why the need for some new cartridges? Examples provided.

Status
Not open for further replies.
It seems there's a lot of new rifle cartridges in recent times. I don't understand why many of them came to be. I know the 450 Bushmaster and 350 Legend are because cartridges need to be straight walled for hunting in some areas. Some examples are below:

450 Marlin: There's already the .444 Marlin and the .45-70.
375 Ruger: There's the 375 H&H
300 Remington Ultra Magnum, 300 WSM, and the 300 Ruger Compact Magnum: We already have the 300 Winchester and 300 Weatherby Mag.
416 Ruger: There are already similiar cartridges
The .450 Marlin was simply legitimized .45/70 +P.

The .375Ruger is .375H&H performance in a standard long action. Handle one and then a true magnum action .375 or .416 like the CZ and you'll understand.

The WSM and RCM are magnum performance in a short action with shorter barrels. A picture is worth a thousand words. Here's my CZ .416Rigby compared to a Ruger .338RCM.

IMG_6551b.jpg


The 6.5 creedmoor is a perfect example of a cartridge that on the face of it looks entirely unnecessary, but does offer significant fitment advantages over the 2 cartridges it is basically replacing.
Countless people will never get it and we will continue to have to explain it every two or three days.


The only caveat I'd add to this is: that new rifle sales are generally from the same group of people that also believe in Global Warming, that they don't need a wristwatch, map, or compass, and that Socialism will work... this time.

They believe what their phones, celebrities, and internet connections tell them to believe.
Uh, excuse me??? That's an awfully broad brush you're painting with. Some offensive generalizations could be made in the other direction but that's not for polite conversation.
 
It's utterly ridiculous to me that .257 Roberts has become a rarity and nearly a relic. I've never owned a gun in that caliber, but if it was as mass produced and as cheap as .243 it would be my choice for an all round humble yet fully capable American rifle caliber. Interestingly, .257Rob being nudged over by .243Win created a new gap in middle weight rounds to be filled by yet more newcomers. As far as I'm concerned .257Rob had alot covered already. Hunters of the day HAD to know that if they started buying smaller & faster, then they'd also have to start buying bigger and slower to make up for the polarity. Maybe they were just too shortsighted. After all, that was 1955 and dumbed-down TV ad culture was just taking off, breeding the first generation consumer herd.

Could changes like that NOT have been an accident, but a product of the first mega-corporate attempts to create marketing algorithms using computer-generated stats, etc? Its sickening to think about, deliberately polarizing choices to control buying.

I can't understand how a caliber like .257 Bob (among others) could be left behind and yet so many new ridiculously redundant calibers keep spewing off the lines like lead diarrhea.
 
yeah i dont understand. the swede can do anything either of them can do.

however the swede is just not relavent anymore. we need two cartridges that do the exact same thing in exatly the same way
The advantage the 260 fits nice in the short action like the Rem M7. But ballistics of all three are so close. Good marketing has helped the 6.5 cm. You may enjoy the attach article from Ron Spooner.

https://www.outdoorlife.com/story/guns/new-twist-260-remington-vs-6-5-creedmoor/
 
I find people’s nostalgia and enthusiasm for cartridges amusing sometimes. Especially when they lament and attack a new cartridge because it is similar to their old favorite, even when the old favorite is basically extinct. It’s like if someone had a ‘78 Chevy pickup and they railed at anybody buying a new pickup because “it’s all marketing and doesn’t do anything my old one won’t”. Okay then I guess we’ll just do the same thing forever. It’s just different shapes of brass with bullets stuck in the end.
 
The advantage the 260 fits nice in the short action like the Rem M7. But ballistics of all three are so close. Good marketing has helped the 6.5 cm. You may enjoy the attach article from Ron Spooner.

https://www.outdoorlife.com/story/guns/new-twist-260-remington-vs-6-5-creedmoor/
Standard twist rate for the .260 is too slow for heavier bullets. It was intended and marketed as a hunting cartridge. Anybody using it in PRS competition did so with a custom fast twist barrel and probably an AI chamber. The 6.5CM negates the need for that by offering a factory cartridge with a long neck, sharp shoulder, less taper and a faster twist. Marketing really has nothing to do with it.
 
A cartridge case is a powder container. Its design (shape [to insure incompatibility with similar cartridges and prevent mis-chambering (P.O. Ackley's designs not withstanding) and affect powder burn characteristics], taper (chambering and extraction characteristics), case wall thickness (ability to handle pressure), case head size (e.g. 6.5x55 has a different case head size than 308, 6.5 CM, 30-06, 8x57 and their derivatives which all use the same case head size), case head design (pressure again--think of the old balloon head 45 Colt cases), and etc , all play a role. Some are more aesthetic or are used to maintain a proprietary advantage (or both) like the venturi shoulder on the Weatherby cases.

When the design incorporates the ability to adapt to the evolution of technology, it provides a cartridge with staying power. I think that this accounts for much of the success in the real (not gun magazine journalism) world of the 6.5 CM. The fact that it is of modest recoil and can provide good accuracy doesn't hurt. The same can be said for the 17 HMR. I am still waiting for the 17 WSM to catch on (using the case from a power driver is a neat idea) but it is probably too close to the 17 Hornet and that niche is pretty small.

However, the introduction of new cartridges in order to increase market segmentation and generate more sales is a well-known and understood marketing tactic and the manufacturer's MBAs would be fools not to use it. They just need a population of willing buyers.

While this board has a number of highly-knowledgeable professionals (and we all benefit from their graciousness in sharing information), for most of us shooting, collecting, reloading, and hunting are all hobbies. And while some aspects are deadly serious and necessary to our survival (self-defense and subsistence hunting), it is the hobby aspect that drives a most of the sales and revenue for the industry.

One benefit of age is that you don't tend to fall for every new toy that comes along. But there are always exceptions. For example, it is difficult to find a 250 Savage, and it is still handicapped by pre-WWII design considerations. It is also hard to find a 257 Roberts (and many owners are highly reluctant to part with theirs and for good reason). But if a 257 CM were to be commercially introduced, it would be tempting to fill an empty 25 caliber short action slot in my collection. Not because I need it or it would do anything that my 6 mm Remington, 243, 6.5 CM, 6.5x55, or 25-06 cannot already do. But it would be sort of a neat thing to have...

Let's face, at some point it becomes more than a hobby: It becomes a disease.
 
Those people showing their asses in the streets aren't rifle buyers. :confused:

Amusing anecdote:

Before I bought my first rifle, I had maybe Five Seasons in the field and in hunting camps.

I knew what I had killed, and talked and listened to the other hunters in camp about their experiences.

Then I bought a rifle.


So I took my sons, who are not the outdoorsman that dear ole dad is, along with a truckload of their HS friends on a camping and shooting extravaganzo.

It was good times, gun safety, and marksmanship for the first few days, and then field trips after that.

Sitting around the campfire - the only thing that was driving the choices of firearms they were all getting ready to buy (save me sons)?

Gangsta youtube, social media, and video games.

Was all I could do to not beat them smart.

:D



GR
 
It seems to me almost all new cartridges that come out are touted for two things. They are faster than other cartridges of the same caliber or are faster and are chambered in short action rifles. The 6.5 Creedmoor is the one or one of the very few cartridges that bucks the trend. Maybe the times they are a changing and this is a new trend. I don’t consider the new straight wall cartridges for this discussion because to me they are definitely niche creations that do not have universal appeal or application.

If I hadn’t been bitten by the 6.5 bug already I’m sure the 6.5 Creedmoor would have a place in my safe.

For those big game hunters that limit their shots to under 350 yards or so then I also feel the true advantages of the 6.5 Creedmoor are negated except for one, lower recoil.

Lower recoil is the reason I went 6.5x55 over the .270 I’ve been hunting with most of my life. In reality the 6.5’s give me no other advantage except for recoil since I don’t shoot further than 350 yards, give or take a yard or two.
 
Yes, if you want to run them in magazine fed bolt or semis. The straight wall Rifle cartridges also trounce the shorter magnum revolver rounds for velocity, which can lead to its own problems.

Straightwall magazine fed bolt carbine... in .357 Magnum.

WP-20180617-12-03-43-Pro-1-crop.jpg
Will fill a freezer fine out to ~ 150 yards.


There is always something better.

...but the steak tastes the same.

:D




GR
 
When 450 Marlin was introduced 45-70 factory loads were all black powder level loads. In other words very weak. The only way to get modern more powerful loads was to handload.

When the New 1895 Marlin was introduced in the 1970s, the ads said "Conventional rifling for cast and jacketed bullets. Any load listed for the 1886 Winchester." They then went to "Modified Microgroove for cast and jacketed bullets. Any load listed for the 1886 Winchester."
Then the lawyers caught up with the gunsmiths and they put on Microgroove barrels and quit talking about Winchesters.
Now we have "Ballard Style rifling" which I think is ordinary 6 groove and nobody can tell me what a real Ballard had before or after Marlin bought them out.
 
Of the small handful of cartridges I am actively using right now to hunt, carry, and compete with, only one predate 1990, 38 Special. All the rest are cartridges created with the past thirty years. And most of those are relatively unique in one aspect or another making them what they are today. Variety is the spice of life and I like mine on the stranger side.
 
The 350 Legend and 450 Bushmaster are more powerful than the .357 and .44.

Granted.

But inside of 150 yards?...

The .44 should be good inside of 150 yards. I thought the .357 is good within 100 yards for whitetail but now that I think of it, there's the polymer tipped bullets for lever action rifles. Does the .357 in a lever action have enought oomph for a humane harvest at 150 yards?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top