Hey guys i was just reading on some wildcats Specificly the 22-243, I know the 243 is a little "brutal" on barrel life. Not bad but certainly not good. Just wondering what the worst wildcat for barrel life or just period was.. I think the 22-243 would be quiet bad on barrel life and with the right projectile maybe even a little to fast.
Worst wildcat attempts??
- Thread starter amc317
- Start date
- Status
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
O.K.!
* .22 Newton in 1912 before smokeless power, let alone slow burning smokeless power was invented yet.
* 6.5/300 Magnum?
* .338/50 Talbot?
All were very over-bore capacity, and you could burn out a barrel before you got done with load development.
Then buy a new barrel and do it all over again.
rc
* .22 Newton in 1912 before smokeless power, let alone slow burning smokeless power was invented yet.
* 6.5/300 Magnum?
* .338/50 Talbot?
All were very over-bore capacity, and you could burn out a barrel before you got done with load development.
Then buy a new barrel and do it all over again.
rc
Nom de Forum
Member
You may want to check on the date for the invention of smokeless powder.rcmodel
Member in memoriam
No, I know when it was invented.
(I should have read that again before I posted it!)
It was readily in use by military's, and commercially all over the world by then.
It just wasn't ready or suitable for use in an over-bore .22 in 1912.
rc
(I should have read that again before I posted it!)
It was readily in use by military's, and commercially all over the world by then.
It just wasn't ready or suitable for use in an over-bore .22 in 1912.
rc
Nom de Forum
Member
No, I know when it was invented.
(I should have read that again before I posted it!)
It was readily in use by military's, and commercially all over the world by then.
It just wasn't ready or suitable for use in an over-bore .22 in 1912.
rc
I know you know, I was just teasing you.
I wonder how many people realize how much smokeless propellants have evolved to make some cartridges feasible?Nom de Forum
Member
Sorry RC its not that one (shucks you beat me to it)!
It is the .11 caliber Whatzit.
http://i.imgur.com/NtGbg.jpg
LocoGringo
Member
That ".17 BMG" is hilarious. Wonder what actual recoil would be like...
Twiki357
Member
Deus Machina
Member
I imagine it wouldn't be all that harsh...
It would just be like trying to stop a truck from rolling downhill.
Assuming you built something with a barrel long enough to use it. If not, that cartridge is basically just a rocket engine.
It would just be like trying to stop a truck from rolling downhill.
Assuming you built something with a barrel long enough to use it. If not, that cartridge is basically just a rocket engine.
Bbear
Member
It's been 30 years or so ago but I recall someone necking down either an 8mm Mag or 7mm Mag to a .17 caliber and actually building a rifle for it. Load development killed as none of the bullets made it to a target. They kept flying apart even before 50 yards. They did record some velocities through a chronograph in excess of 5000 fps though.
Jim Watson
Member
The Army had a thing called the .30 Medical Museum.
It was a .50 BMG shortened a bit and necked down to .30.
It was used to simulate impact from high velocity shell fragments, something you could aim at the point of interest on a cadaver or livestock.
I remember reading about the 6.5x300 WWH (Weatherby, Wright, Hoyer.) It was a fine Long Range round except that with the slow burning Ball powder needed to get the most out of it (I think they used H870.) it would foul out before you could finish a 20 shot + sighters match. In fact it eventually fouled so bad that it could not be cleaned with solvents available at the time and the barrel was ruined.
(Trivia: Once upon a time, Guns & Ammo was a moderately technical publication that supported and reported on stuff like that instead of just juicing up press releases on new products.)
It was a .50 BMG shortened a bit and necked down to .30.
It was used to simulate impact from high velocity shell fragments, something you could aim at the point of interest on a cadaver or livestock.
I remember reading about the 6.5x300 WWH (Weatherby, Wright, Hoyer.) It was a fine Long Range round except that with the slow burning Ball powder needed to get the most out of it (I think they used H870.) it would foul out before you could finish a 20 shot + sighters match. In fact it eventually fouled so bad that it could not be cleaned with solvents available at the time and the barrel was ruined.
(Trivia: Once upon a time, Guns & Ammo was a moderately technical publication that supported and reported on stuff like that instead of just juicing up press releases on new products.)
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2003
- Messages
- 13,341
Any of the wildcats that are painstakingly developed only to duplicate or slightly under perform existing factory offerings in the same caliber.
For that matter any current factory offerings that duplicate or under perform already existing factory offerings.
See the .300 RCM, .30 T/C, .300 RSAUM, .338 RCM ETC ETC ETC....
For that matter any current factory offerings that duplicate or under perform already existing factory offerings.
See the .300 RCM, .30 T/C, .300 RSAUM, .338 RCM ETC ETC ETC....
There was in the late 70's and early '80s a competition in which certain firearms were used, along with pistols and shotguns, in a three category match to determine who was the best overall shooter. It attempted to include actual combat situations.
One of the more onerous rules that came up was that nothing less than .30 cal could be used in the rifle portion. That determination was made because at the time most armies used that size, at least from the narrow perspective of the match founders. It therefore eliminated certain rifles completely, which was their intent. They were regulating them out of competition.
Nonetheless, competitor's arrived with conversions that had .30 cal bullets wildcatted into the cartridge that the "outlawed" rifles were normally fitted with. One such match was the first SOF invitational at Chapman Range in Columbia, MO. I was there with friends, and we were approached by a contestant who was complaining the rules makers had arbitrarily and capriciously denied him the use of his wildcat. By what we saw and new of the rules, it was a deliberate overreach on the match organizers.
This went on for years, the organizers were repeatedly confronted, and evenutally, relented. One reason why was that the outlawed firearm began to dominate Service Rifle matches and the better shooters were noticing it. That and the actual ballistics of the round were beginning to be understood.
So, the AR15 was allowed into 3Gun competition, but the wildcat? That .30 x 5.56 cartridge that was only meant to force the organizers to allow use of the gun in competition remained a rarely used wildcat until one developer found it's niche. Otherwise it was largely shunned by the shooting public for over 30 years.
Until AAC resurrected it for suppressed use, and Remington put some marketing muscle behind it as the .300 Blackout, leaving the .300 Whisper a shell of it's promise.
WestKentucky
Member
Eargesplitten Loudenboomer...
Or any of the 30 cal or larger parents necked down to 22 or even 17 cal. Huge pressure, huge heat, massive erosion.
Or any of the 30 cal or larger parents necked down to 22 or even 17 cal. Huge pressure, huge heat, massive erosion.
I thought you liked the .375rcm? Does it offer something more than the .375h&h?
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2003
- Messages
- 13,341
Beltless, and available in nice, compact "inexpensive" rifles. It offers a very slight advantage over the .375H&H in the ballistics department. Kind of like a .300 Wm vs a .300H&H. It is simply an updated version of the same round for all intensive purposes. And it does what it was supposed to do. Meet or beat proven .375H&H performance in a shorter, lighter, less expensive package. I've also always said that if you already own a good .375H&H there is absolutely no reason to go out and buy a .375 Ruger. There is no such thing as a .375 "RCM" BTW it's a .375 Ruger and is standard length. The RCM's are shorter case.
If a guy was just getting started in the .375 game the Ruger is not a bad choice.
The problem with the .375H&H isn't it's ballistics it's the fact that almost nobody builds a decent slim nice to carry North American style hunting rifle in .375H&H.
The rounds above mentioned RCM, T/C, RSAUM however simply do not make any sense. The .300 RCM is already mostly dead and the .338 RCM isn't far behind. They offer exactly nothing the ballistics department and there are already plenty of decent rifles chambered in rounds that meet and mostly beat anything those red headed step children can do.
Nom de Forum
Member
I was an R.O. at the 2nd SOF at Phoenix's then Black Canyon now Ben Avery range. There definitely was not much love for AR15s,the 5.56, or the 9mm. Just another example of how grown men can become so emotionally wedded to an idea that they will resist any rational challenge until continuing to do so makes them obvious fools. Back then a guy who is now one of the more well known developers of the Match Grade AR-15 was firmly convinced it was impossible to ever compete with an AR-15. It was only when he was given no choice but to support the use of the AR-15 that he had his epiphany.
Carolina Kalash
Member
Vern Humphrey
Member
My version has a sharper shoulder and much shorter neck, in order to get maximum velocity.
Nice. Someone who knows their history of .300 whisper that was ripped off and dubbed one of the most revolutionary new rounds and given a sammi few years ago. .
Vern Humphrey
Member
The change was made earlier than that. The rifle in question was the .280 Ross -- the Canadians swept the boards with it, so we changed the rules to prevent it from happening again.
Thanks. I appreciate your comments here. I have and continue to learn a lot from you and many of the other posters. I have no need for a rifle chambered in .375, but I would like one.
- Status
