Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Do you like the new 'modernized' cartridges?

Comrade I am assuming a 3006 husqvarna?

What weight was your Nosler partitions?

Thanks

I've always been a bit nervous about using bullets designed for long range use. Although I do get occasional longer shots beyond 400 yards, these are not very common for me.

I'm more likely to get a shot inside 50 yards and I'm concerned that bullets designed to open at 500 yards may not hold up that well at close range.

I'm OK with LRX's since they are monometal, but I'm a bit leery of some of the others. Maybe I'm being too cautious, but I want a bullet that will work very well inside 100 yards even if most of my shots are at longer distances.

Perhaps one could take a few fouling shots with close range ammo and reload the long range ordinance?

Actually, it was a .270 wcf. I started with the 130's and graduated to 150's & 160's. I also have a (saltwood )Browning FN 30/06 and liked the 165 N.P. Still have the rifles
Now, these days the .270 sends 'em ... 150's@ 3060 ish fps.

I stand by 6mm Rem, .264 win, 35 Whelen , .350 rem mag , and my .45-70 thank you.

Get the 250 Savage if thats what you truly desire. The Savage and the Grendel are equals ballistic wise but the Savage has been around for a long time. Will the Grendel be around as long??? I have two rifles in 250 Savage a Ruger #1 and a just completed custom build on a short Mauser action.
I have found literly 100's of 250 Savage brass and dies right here in the classifides. Remember also it's the parent case for the readily available 22-250.

when i first started to reload the 6.5CM ('08 or '09) my problem was scarce brass. i had 22-250 brass so i neck them up to 6.5 and i had 6.5/22-250 CM brass. the brass was a little short (.1 or .01") but it does the job. it wasn't until '11 or '12 that i got 6.5 CM Hornady brass.

Yes, I like the .338 & .375 RUM's.

I wish...I had bought a 7mm-08 in a Rem700 in the early 80s when it was a "modernized" cartridge.

then just kept shooting it for every big game season I was drawn for.

would have saved a lot of money on dies and components and powder. ( and gun safe space)

and all my hunting stories would attach to the one rifle.

And everything I have killed would be just as dead.

Today starting and staying with 6.5 Creedmoor would make the same sense for the same reasons.

Centershot: My observations and considerations of "modernized" and "factory hyped" cartridges has been going on for well over half a century now!
And along the way I have " jumped" on the "bandwagon" for MANY newly hyped factory cartridges/Rifles - and without exception I am glad I have done so.
Some of the "fresh" factory cartridges I "jumped" on quickly were:

17 Remington
17 Remington Fireball
17 HMR
17 Mach2
204 Ruger (a cartridge that FAR exceeded all the factory hype performance wise!)
22-250 Remington
22 P.P.C.
22 Remington Benchrest
6m/m P.P.C.
6m/m Remington Benchrest
25/06 Remington
260 Remington
270 Winchester Short Magnum
7m/m Remington Express (280 Remington)
7m/m/08 Remington
7m/m Remington Magnum
338 Federal

Again happy I jumped on all of these useful modernized cartridges!
If I were a few years "younger" I would be I would be deep into the latest "hyped" cartridges (6m/m Creedmoor through 6.5 P.R.C. etc)
Seems over the course of my shooting/Hunting/gun buying career (65 years now) there has ALWAYS been something "new" coming along - I think that, overall, has been a GOOD thing!
And it is probably going to continue long after I am gone.
Long live the Second Amendment
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

I might add that ALL smokeless rifle cartridges might be considered "modernized," since previous rounds were all designed for black powder. Many of those made the transition to smokeless--and at least one (Winchester's .32 Special) was designed for use with either black or smokeless powder--but were also outperformed in practical terms by rounds specifically designed for smokeless.

Some of the older smokeless rounds were also "modernized" over the decades by new powders and bullets. Consequently the .30-06 is NOT the same basic round that appeared in 1906, when due to the powders available the muzzle velocity of the original 150-grain military load was 2700 fps. With today's powders it's pretty easy to get 3000+ with 150s.

When someone starts ragging on the .308, I like to remind them that the .308 outruns the ballistics that the .30/06 “made its bones” with in the hands of such as S.E. White, TR, and others of that era. Now of course, they are off and running with newer powders, not to mention the vastly better bullets we have. I’m fine with either, have and use both, and the rifle matters more to me than the cartridge.

Really the main thing that bugs me about “modern rounds” are the knuckleheads that drink the koolaid. One newer gunwriter likes to write how great they are for long range and better than 270/30-06 for hunting beyond 400 yards and rave about the BC of say the 180 eldm in 7prc. Then goes on to recommend tough bullets for hunting like accubond, TA, and lrx. I agree with him but the “tough” bullets are not much if at all higher BC than traditional rounds. For ex, Compare ballistics/BC of lrx, TA, accubond between 6.5 prc and 270 and tell me how a 6.5 prc is a modern 600 yard big game round but a 270 is traditonal 3-400 yard and in cartridge. A nice mixed message

The other group is the match bullet for everything crew. Too infatuated with BC to ever admit there is any place these bullets are not ideal and any advancement in bullet construction from the beginning of simple thin jacketed cup and core bullets is folly or fuddness. Apparently there is some big conspiracy as to why the people who make these bullets don’t recommend them for hunting and any fails reported are ignored and heckled away. Reminds of the Elmer and the big bore crew…. I am not saying match bullets do not work but there are tradeoffs just like anything else

I personally like the new rounds and use 6.8W a lot the last few years and before that 6.5cm. Not better than my old favorites like 270/280/300 but more efficient in some ways (similar perf less recoil).

Lou

Hilarious, Steve!

"Yup, I was a little past my prime - teeth were botherin' but, still had quite a head on me and decided I didn't want to wind up coyote bait with my ribs showin'. So's I see that same old hunter that used to chase me around the mountain a few years back sittin' against a tree, an' I just kinda wander up to where the shakin' in the muzzle of that ole aught six Winchester didn't scare me none. And, here I be. Hey now, ain't that this Jack O'Connor feller over there comparin' notes with that big ole sheep?"

Got my first new "modern" chambered rifle this year and I'm having a blast with it. I certainly don't need it and the chances that I will realize its potential are slim. But, it is fun. I'm reading Warren Page at, I think, Mule Deer's and beretzs' and RinB's recommendation and I like to think that what Hornady's been up to with the CMs and the PRCs is kind of analogous to the old wildcatters. The Mashburn was brandy new once and guys were excited about it. Anyway, I just found this video. 6 mos old but new to me. Joseph Von Benedikt and Ron Spomer. I enjoyed it, learned a couple things and they're discussing the subject of this thread in a fun, intergenerational way:

Ron Spomer & Joseph Von Benedikt

Neighbor gave me three boxes of Winchester 6.5 Creedmoor for Christmas. Good looking round. It has me thinking.......

For me i think it's just that the 6.5cm got so overhyped. Like Shrapnel said 98% of the people using it don't use it for it's advantages. Fact is MOST of it's users couldn't hit a refrigerator at 1000 yds. and it just gets old hearing how great it did on your buck this year at 72 yds. and how lucky i was the bullet from my 7-08 didn't bounce off my buck at 81 yds. Sure it's a good round, but it's just another good round. If it's the one you chose good for you, just don't try walking on water because you have a 6.5 creedmore unless you can swim.

Have pointed the following out many times in the past decade or so, but evidently the 6.5 CM critics still can't grasp that it's biggest advantages these days are:

Excellent, accurate and affordable factory ammo being widely available. Many rifle loonies apparently don't believe this is an advantage because they handload, but surveys have shown for a long time that around 90% of hunters don't handload.

Which is why it's not just a popular American cartridge, but now a world-wide "standard" cartridge in factory rifles.

If you can shoot well, the 6.5 Creedmoor will kill stuff at "normal" ranges, using "affordable" rifles and "affordable" factory ammo. Since both rifles and ammo are widely available, why wouldn't it be popular?

Might also mention that even before the 6.5 Creedmoor appeared I knew and observed many hunters who had very definite misconceptions about what worked for "long-range hunting." One was a customer in a local gun-store who was buying a "long-range" scope, and thought because his 7mm whatever shot 2-inch groups at 100 yards, that it would also shoot 2-inch groups at any range.

Ignorance is not cartridge-specific....

My brother finally brought over his spiffy new 6.5 CM for me to see. He'd also bought 2 boxes of ammo at $18 each. I gave it my blessings and then pointed out he could get a whole lotta practice in with his new toy before ever firing a shot.

I pointed to the tiny target down at the end of the hall and gave him a snap cap and target. I told him to get familiar with the rifle, trigger, and breathing by dry firing and calling the shots.

His response - What's calling the shot?

Not a critic, like i said, it's another good round, smack in the middle of several other good rounds. I was thinking it's advantages were heavy, long, slippery, bullets for extended range, tight chamber specs for better accurcy, etc. If it's to kill stuff at normal ranges, with affordable rifles, with affordable ammo then it's advantages were created by the superhype and marketing. But that's fine too, i realize the gun and ammo companys need new shinny things to keep making money.

And read that last sentence again. They gotta make some money to stay in business, and keep making some of the other stuff we like, to keep us all a little bit happier.