Why the need for some new cartridges? Examples provided.

[mustanger98]

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.

How far you shoot depends some on where you live... we're talking 6.5x55 vs 6.8x63 and some of us live where 200yds is a long shot. Seems to me, for reduced recoil with a workable trajectory, somebody'd have to experiment with the Swede and the .270 side by side to really know a perception of advantage. Unless we're only talking factory-loaded ammo... whatever's on the shelf for one vs whatever's on the shelf for the other.

 

[cdb1]

How far you shoot depends some on where you live... we're talking 6.5x55 vs 6.8x63 and some of us live where 200yds is a long shot. Seems to me, for reduced recoil with a workable trajectory, somebody'd have to experiment with the Swede and the .270 side by side to really know a perception of advantage. Unless we're only talking factory-loaded ammo... whatever's on the shelf for one vs whatever's on the shelf for the other.

I’m not sure I get your point.

 

[Pivot Dr]

In Nebraska if it carries 900 ft lb at 100 yd., then yes! If not, then the answer is no! I’m betting it can’t.

 

[someguy2800]

Hunting has taught me to put the odds in my favor. I’ve shot 3 deer with a 357 magnum revolver and was left unimpressed. I would not personally hunt deer past about 75 yards with a 357 magnum rifle. I’m certain someone will be along shortly to contradict my opinion and that’s fine. I have a 357 maximum, which is very similar to the 350 legend and I would have no qualms about taking a deer at 150-200 yards with either of those.

 

[LoonWulf]

How far you shoot depends some on where you live... we're talking 6.5x55 vs 6.8x63 and some of us live where 200yds is a long shot. Seems to me, for reduced recoil with a workable trajectory, somebody'd have to experiment with the Swede and the .270 side by side to really know a perception of advantage. Unless we're only talking factory-loaded ammo... whatever's on the shelf for one vs whatever's on the shelf for the other.

Ask @Garandimal Im pretty sure hes got a drool worthy 6.5x55 and .270

 

[LoonWulf]

Hunting has taught me to put the odds in my favor. I’ve shot 3 deer with a 357 magnum revolver and was left unimpressed. I would not personally hunt deer past about 75 yards with a 357 magnum rifle. I’m certain someone will be along shortly to contradict my opinion and that’s fine.

Thats about the length id be willing to shoot with the .357 Rossi I had. I had issues getting good velocity with the 180s from the 16" barrel, tho i only used h110. My 16" .350 out runs it by something like 5-600fps.

 

[horsey300]

In Nebraska if it carries 900 ft lb at 100 yd., then yes! If not, then the answer is no! I’m betting it can’t.

Unless you're hunting with a handgun, then it's only 400 ftlbs at 50 yds, some things don't make as much sense as they could......

 

[horsey300]

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?

A humane harvest of WHAT? With the right loads and placement out of a carbine there are a few things I would use it on out to 150 yds........

 

[mustanger98]

Ask @Garandimal Im pretty sure hes got a drool worthy 6.5x55 and .270

To read his posts, he's probably got pretty extensive dope on both of 'em.

 

[mustanger98]

I’m not sure I get your point.

Between 6.5x55 and .270 (6.8x63)... both good rounds that not everybody likes... not a lot of difference in bullet diameter and case length, but that's not where most people end the usual arguements.

1- Which one recoils least? Based on which factory loads?
2- Which one recoils least with their respective best handload?
3- Which one is mechanically best vs best for the individual within distances people shoot game in a given area?

It's a lot of shooting to really scientifically figure it out. Without Q1/Q2, what to hunt with doesn't sound near as complicated.

 

[Garandimal]

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?

If all you want to do is kill it... and not cook it?

And you know the range will be > ~ 75 yards?

The HDY 158 gr. XTP/HP is a good load from a carbine from ~ 75-150 yards.

Aperture sighted at 100 yds, it has ~ 5.5" drop at 150, ~ 1300 fps, and ~ 600 lb-ft of energy.

Call it a PBR 6" .357 Mag revolver at that range.




GR

 

[Garandimal]

Between 6.5x55 and .270 (6.8x63)... both good rounds that not everybody likes... not a lot of difference in bullet diameter and case length, but that's not where most people end the usual arguements.

1- Which one recoils least? Based on which factory loads?
2- Which one recoils least with their respective best handload?
3- Which one is mechanically best vs best for the individual within distances people shoot game in a given area?

It's a lot of shooting to really scientifically figure it out. Without Q1/Q2, what to hunt with doesn't sound near as complicated.

It's want you want and how you hunt.

Me?

I generally still hunt.

300 yards is a looong shot, even out West.

So I load both the 6.5x55 (24" Aperture) and .270 WCF (22" Scoped) w/ IMR 4831, and generally use nothin' fancy Speer GS 140-150 gr bullets, driven to ~ 2700-2800 fps, respectively.

They are good, reliable, point-N-shoot 250-275 yard rifles, respectively.


Both are comfortable to precision shoot from field positions all day long, w/ the 6.5x55 more so, though it does not have the muscle that the .270 WCF has in the woods and thickets.

I will re-tool with factory 130 gr. Federal Trophy Copper for the .270 WCF if there is a good chance that the shot will be > 300.

...and either 140 gr. Barnes TSX or 150 gr. Nosler Partitions if there is a good chance that it will be in close and big.

For a trophy hunt of any kind, it would probably be the .270 WCF/ 150 gr. NP, as it will reach out to ~ 350 yds w/ a little hold-over and no extra gas.


Want to solve a lot of problems?

Bow-hunt... w/ your rifle.






GR

 

[cdb1]

Between 6.5x55 and .270 (6.8x63)... both good rounds that not everybody likes... not a lot of difference in bullet diameter and case length, but that's not where most people end the usual arguements.

1- Which one recoils least? Based on which factory loads?
2- Which one recoils least with their respective best handload?
3- Which one is mechanically best vs best for the individual within distances people shoot game in a given area?

It's a lot of shooting to really scientifically figure it out. Without Q1/Q2, what to hunt with doesn't sound near as complicated.

My experience based on owning both is the 6.5x55 has noticeably less recoil with a couple of different 140 grain factory loads, handloaded 130 grain Berger Hunting VLD’s and 140 grain GameKings. This versus factory Remington 130 grain Corelokts in .270.

 

[mcb]

My experience based on owning both is the 6.5x55 has noticeably less recoil with a couple of different 140 grain factory loads, handloaded 130 grain Berger Hunting VLD’s and 140 grain GameKings. This versus factory Remington 130 grain Corelokts in .270.

But perceived recoil is so subjective and rifle dependent. i.e. 308 win in a 6-lb mountain rifle is far more unpleasant than 338 Lapue Mag in a 22 lb chassis gun. A simple recoil pad change can take a rifle from mean to pleasant rather quickly. Recoil is something you can adjust for almost independent of the cartridge if you're willing to change things. Geometry, weight, recoil pad, muzzle brakes, and/or silencers can all dramatically change perceived recoil. With two cartridges that produce such similar momentum changes (recoil impulse) as 6.5x55 vs 270 Win. The weight and fit of the gun to the shooter will probably make a bigger difference than the actual recoil impulse of either cartridge. -rambling

 

[cdb1]

But perceived recoil is so subjective and rifle dependent. i.e. 308 win in a 6-lb mountain rifle is far more unpleasant than 338 Lapue Mag in a 22 lb chassis gun. A simple recoil pad change can take a rifle from mean to pleasant rather quickly. Recoil is something you can adjust for almost independent of the cartridge if you're willing to change things. Geometry, weight, recoil pad, muzzle brakes, and/or silencers can all dramatically change perceived recoil. With two cartridges that produce such similar momentum changes (recoil impulse) as 6.5x55 vs 270 Win. The weight and fit of the gun to the shooter will probably make a bigger difference than the actual recoil impulse of either cartridge. -rambling

Everything you say is true. It is also true if using the exact same model of rifle, a 6.5x55 has less recoil than a .270 when using the standard 130 grain ammo at 3050 fps in .270 and 140 grain 6.5x55 at around 2700 fps.

 

[mcb]

Everything you say is true. It is also true if using the exact same model of rifle, a 6.5x55 has less recoil than a .270 when using the standard 130 grain ammo at 3050 fps in .270 and 140 grain 6.5x55 at around 2700 fps.

Agreed but in that specific case (assuming 45gr of propellant in the 6.5 and 55gr in the 270, 8lbs rifles) the 270 Win is producing about 24% more free recoil energy but is also producing 20% more kinetic energy at the muzzle. There is no free lunch.

 

[rbernie]

The trend seems to be shorter fatter cartridges that fit in shorter stiffer actions, the WSM’s, SAUM’s, and PRC cartridges. Or improvements to geometry of existing cases to increase efficiency, for example to 6mm and 6.5mm Creedmoor. Advantage lower cost to the consumer, lighter weight, and a more rigid action with better precision potential. Plus the shorter fatter cartridges seem to enjoy an advantage in efficiency of powder burned vs achieved velocities. There is also an argument put forth by John Krieger that many of the new short fat cartridges also have long necks, and long necks help barrels live longer lives by taking some of the heat and abrasion and keeping it in the case/directing it down the barrel. Plus you get more uniform neck tension. A lot of wins to be had with these new short fat cartridges that fill the same ballistic envelope as older cartridges that are just not as effectively packaged.

This is worth repeating. If I can get a 25cal magnum that achieves 257 Weatherby velocities in a short action and using 25% less powder - why would I not want that? Why is it bad to deprecate 75+ year old notions of interior ballistics and move to updated designs?

I understand the arguments for 'It's tradition!' and 'All those rifles out there in those legacy chamberings need ammo!' and 'Because they still work fine!' - but it all sounds like arguing for mechanical ignition systems and carburetors at this point. Yes, I still have a timing light and points files in my rolling tool chest, and yet I will happily admit that I very much enjoy driving a vehicle that makes the same HP and gets significantly better gas mileage than my 'traditional' small-block.

 

[cdb1]

Agreed but in that specific case (assuming 45gr of propellant in the 6.5 and 55gr in the 270, 8lbs rifles) the 270 Win is producing about 24% more free recoil energy but is also producing 20% more kinetic energy at the muzzle. There is no free lunch.

I’m not sure of your point. All I’m saying is that everything being equal, my 6.5x55 has less recoil than my .270, which is why I started using one. I did not start using it for the advantages that .264 bullets have over .277 bullets at long range, because I don’t shoot far enough for said advantages to come in to play.

 

[mcb]

I’m not sure of your point. All I’m saying is that everything being equal, my 6.5x55 has less recoil than my .270, which is why I started using one. I did not start using it for the advantages that .264 bullets have over .277 bullets at long range, because I don’t shoot far enough for said advantages to come in to play.

My point was simply that yes you do get more recoil from the 270 Win but along with that extra recoil you get an increase in performance. You many not need the extra performance but between those two specific loads the 270 has more recoil and more kinetic energy.

 

[JR24]

New calibers creates new gun sales.

Pretty much, "because folks will buy them" was what I was going to say.

The truth is my lightweight .308 bolt will do anything I need a rifle for, realistically. And for my needs, probably 20 rounds a year is more than enough to keep on target and fill the freezer.

But that's boring, and what am I supposed to spend my reloading and internet obsessing time on?!

Granted.

But inside of 150 yards?

...the steaks will taste the same.






GR

Grrr, now I'm drooling for venison steak. Gonna have to defrost some this week.

This one was killed with one of those archaic "arrers" fired from a bow, makes it taste much better!!

(Not really )

 

[cdb1]

My point was simply that yes you do get more recoil from the 270 Win but along with that extra recoil you get an increase in performance. You many not need the extra performance but between those two specific loads the 270 has more recoil and more kinetic energy.

I get you now. I used my .270 from 1973 to around 2010 much more often than any other rifle. And with almost 100% of my shots under 300 yards there is a definite increase in performance which I don’t need except for when I hunt Nilgai. I used my .270 last time but will go 30-06 next time. For deer it’s my 6.5x55.

 

[Coal Dragger]

This is worth repeating. If I can get a 25cal magnum that achieves 257 Weatherby velocities in a short action and using 25% less powder - why would I not want that? Why is it bad to deprecate 75+ year old notions of interior ballistics and move to updated designs?

I understand the arguments for 'It's tradition!' and 'All those rifles out there in those legacy chamberings need ammo!' and 'Because they still work fine!' - but it all sounds like arguing for mechanical ignition systems and carburetors at this point. Yes, I still have a timing light and points files in my rolling tool chest, and yet I will happily admit that I very much enjoy driving a vehicle that makes the same HP and gets significantly better gas mileage than my 'traditional' small-block.

Not a valid analogy. Your old school carbureted engines can now easily be converted to electronic ignition and fuel injection with plug-n’-play parts kits if you have the skills to install them. Heck they even look like the old antique parts, but perform like modern EFI because they are.

Better yet the EFI is self learning, so no more fiddling around with trying get a carb jetted correctly, or the ignition timing just right.

Make more power (usually quite a bit), burn less fuel, get easier starting, gain reliability, and improve throttle response. Get rid of your stupid carburetors and convert to EFI.

 

[WisBorn]

The 10 Best Selling Centerfire Rifle Cartridges in the USA

Compiled by Chuck Hawks


The following list was compiled from various online and print sources, including the major ammo manufacturers' sales lists and the sales of RCBS reloading dies. The various sources tend to parallel each other, with certain exceptions. Bear in mind that a lot (probably the majority) of .223 and 7.62x39 ammo sold is for plinking or "tactical" use, not hunting. The same probably applies to a lower, but still significent, percentage of the .308 ammo sold.

The .223, .308, .30-06, .30-30, .270, .243, 7mm Rem. Mag. and .300 Win. Mag. appear on almost all lists. The .22-250, 7.62x39mm, .300 WSM, .338 Win. Mag. and 7mm-08 Rem. have appeared on at least one list, but not others, while the .222 Remington, .30 Carbine and .303 British (once Top 10 stalwarts on most lists) have dropped back in popularity. The .300 Win. Mag. and 7mm Rem. Mag. swap places on some lists. Anyway, here are the averaged results based on the data that I could find. Consider it approximate.

USA (Averaged 2015 sales rank)

1. .223 Remington
2. .308 Winchester
3. .30-06 Springfield
4. .30-30 Winchester
5. .270 Winchester
6. .243 Winchester
7. 7mm Remington Magnum
8. .300 Winchester Magnum
9. 7.62x39mm Soviet
10. .22-250 Remington

• Honorable Mention: .300 WSM, 7mm-08 Rem. and .338 Win. Mag.

I realize that the list was compiled in 2015 so there may have been some changes, but is there any cartridge on the list that is not 50 years or older?

Not that I don't like the new rounds it just takes time to gain popularity .

 

[mcb]

The 10 Best Selling Centerfire Rifle Cartridges in the USA

Compiled by Chuck Hawks


The following list was compiled from various online and print sources, including the major ammo manufacturers' sales lists and the sales of RCBS reloading dies. The various sources tend to parallel each other, with certain exceptions. Bear in mind that a lot (probably the majority) of .223 and 7.62x39 ammo sold is for plinking or "tactical" use, not hunting. The same probably applies to a lower, but still significent, percentage of the .308 ammo sold.

The .223, .308, .30-06, .30-30, .270, .243, 7mm Rem. Mag. and .300 Win. Mag. appear on almost all lists. The .22-250, 7.62x39mm, .300 WSM, .338 Win. Mag. and 7mm-08 Rem. have appeared on at least one list, but not others, while the .222 Remington, .30 Carbine and .303 British (once Top 10 stalwarts on most lists) have dropped back in popularity. The .300 Win. Mag. and 7mm Rem. Mag. swap places on some lists. Anyway, here are the averaged results based on the data that I could find. Consider it approximate.

USA (Averaged 2015 sales rank)

1. .223 Remington
2. .308 Winchester
3. .30-06 Springfield
4. .30-30 Winchester
5. .270 Winchester
6. .243 Winchester
7. 7mm Remington Magnum
8. .300 Winchester Magnum
9. 7.62x39mm Soviet
10. .22-250 Remington

• Honorable Mention: .300 WSM, 7mm-08 Rem. and .338 Win. Mag.

I realize that the list was compiled in 2015 so there may have been some changes, but is there any cartridge on the list that is not 50 years or older?

Not that I don't like the new rounds it just takes time to gain popularity .

And yet if you look at the competitive precision rifle crowd nearly all the cartridges they are using are less than 50 years old, and in many case less than 20 years old.

https://precisionrifleblog.com/2018/12/14/rifle-caliber/

 

[Archie]

I can think of several reasons for a 'new' cartridge.

One: Gives the manufacturer another purchase. 1a. "Be first on your block" syndrome; no matter what it is, someone wants it before anyone else gets one. 1b. (which may be the same as 'a') If it's new, someone will buy it.

Two: What it replaces will not fit into an AR-15 size platform.

I've been appreciating the 6.5x55mm (Swede) since the middle 1960s. It is good for moose and anything down. The recoil is comfortable in less than an eight pound rifle. It will use bullets of 87 to 160 grains. Except for the fact I have several 6.5x55mm rifles (including a CZ capable of greater than 1893 Mauser actions) I'd probably have a .260 Remington, but I'd have a barrel twist fast enough to handle 160 grain bullets.

Nearly the same story with 7x57mm Mauser (I don't have a full pressure rifle). The modern alternate would be a 7mm-08. (Actually, 7x51mm Nifty sounds better to me.)

I was issued an M-16 rifle in the Marine Corps in 1969. The infatuation lasted until the first time I shot one. Already have a .22 Hornet and a .22-250 so the .223 Remington has little lure for me. So unless someone offer to sell me one for what I consider a small price, I won't have one.

I did buy a 'new' rifle, breaking my tradition. It's a CZ with small bolt action equal to '98 Mauser level strength. It is in 7.62x39mm Warsaw Pact. I've developed a 150 grain load at around 2250-2300 fps that seems to be much like a light .30 WCF load. Weighs around six pounds with scope (old eyes). It scratches my itch.