I have really been enjoying some of the new offerings. The 6.5 Creedmoor is a fantastic round. Fun to shoot, accurate, easy to load for, low recoil, etc. The 6 ARC seems to be of the same vein - light recoil, optimized for longer sleeker bullets, accurate, etc. I fully understand that they overlap existing cartridges (some wildcats) but the idea of standardizing the round, being able to purchase ammo or components (brass) without making it or needing special reamers, or custom guns is very appealing to me. I'd never get around to owning a 6 Dasher or 6 PPC, but a 6ARC off the shelf followed me home a couple weeks ago. There is a plethora of others that don't really do anything new. But, they are more efficient in case size/shape and are chambered and twisted for longer high BC bullets. Good ideas? You like them or are you good with the old standbys? What say you?

I like all of em!

I want a few true Modernized cartridges. That is, I want old cartridges to have a PSI increase to factor in modern actions, and twists updated

No... i rather wish they updated some old cartridges & rifles... how bout a 6.5x57 AI on a long action with updated twist and precise machining...

I agree. I have one now, but will probably get a new barrel, sometime, with a tighter twist. The one I have is 1:10" and is fine with the lighter-weight bullets, but I would like better results from the longer,, high BC bullets.

I’m an old “stand by” guy that likes the more traditional rifles and cartridges. The real innovation that set the world ahead is already over 100 years old.

Smokeless powder, bottleneck cases and copper jackets were really a landmark change in rifles and shooting. Since then, we have improved, but not to the extent that we witnessed in the 1890’s and early 1900’s…

I think you hit the nail on the head. I have 30-06, 222Rem., 6.5CM, 6ARC, 22lr, 17HMR and a few others. They all have a place and are fun to shoot.

I have been an old long established cartridge kind of guy, .270, .30-06, 8 mm etc, but just recently bought a 6.5 creedmoor to try out, time will tell.

Mostly an old standby guy but the Grendel/Arc group holds some interest for me. Especially in a bolt gun. Seems like a lot of performance available in a tiny action. I have a lefty mini Mauser 7.62x39 that’s begging to become a switch barrel in the Grendel/Arc group.

Old standby types for me. Have no issue with belted cases and long sloping shoulders! Since I’m not a LR hunter all of this new stuff is really not that important to me.

Most of mine are chambered in old timers, but I am a big fan of some of the newer ones, too.

6.5 Grendel is basically 250 Savage in a smaller package with a much better selection of bullets.

300 Blackout is a slick little pop gun... low recoil, low noise, and works great at short range. It's also a powder sipper, which is a big plus these days.

I like 327 Federal a lot, too. Essentially 32-20+p with the perk of being straight walled, so there's no fiddling with case lube.

I don't do any LR shooting, so none of the modern shoulder fired arty rounds hold any appeal for me, but neither do any of the classic magnums. 🤷‍♂️ I had a 308 Norma for a short spell once upon a time, and it firmly instilled in me the desire to never own another magnum chambered rifle.

THIS!

Last range trip I had my Seekins PH2 in 6.5prc and Night Force right next to a Win 1895 in .405 with a Williams receiver sight

I have a fair number of rifles chambered for old established cartridges ranging from .223 to .375 H&H and like them a lot. However, in the past few years I have acquired a couple of rifles in 6.5 Creedmoor and recently bought one in 6.5 PRC. I haven't started dialing in the 6.5 PRC yet, but I like the Creedmoors a lot as they are accurate and provide a lot of performance for the amount of recoil they generate. I probably won't replace my 7mm and .300 magnums with the PRC versions because I'm not a real long range hunter and don't see that much benefit over my current rifles, but if I didn't have any 7mm or .300 magnums I might be looking at the PRC versions.

Also, I've been meaning to put together a suppressed SBR AR-15 in .300 Blackout but haven't gotten around to it yet.

Bottom line: they're all useful and interesting in their own way.

I like taking older cartridges and tweaking them. I guess that would be the best way to put it. These are a few that I've modernized. I know that others have done this in the past. These days, almost anyone can order a different twist barrel or special dies and combine them with a better selection of bullets and powders.

I built a 225 Winchester with the proper twist barrel. The One-Two punch that killed the 225 was Remington coming out with what they called the 22-250. The other thing was Winchester not using the proper barrel twist. The 225 Win is almost as fast as the 22-250, but Winchester made them with 1 in 14 twist barrels. One of their promised loads used a 60 grain bullet, but the twist was wrong. Shooters only got a 55 grain load. Had the barrels been 1 in 10, they would have stabilized the longer (and heavier) 60 grain bullets. They might have done okay with a commercially made 60 grain bullet load. I built one with a 1 in 9 that shoots pretty much every 224 bullet weight. Back then, I doubt having a "semi-rimmed" case would have bothered too many people. Especially if they had a few more commercial loads available.

The 7.62x39, 303 British and 7.62x54r can be modernized by using 308 barrels in conjunction with easier to find (and cheaper) 308 bullets. I did that with some of the rifles chambered in those cartridges.

I like the idea of the 22 K-Hornet, the 20 Practical and 300 HAMR. Improving on a previously created design. The brass exists and is powder stingy, but with improved performance.

The age of experimentation isn't dead.

No, I'm something of an anachronism. Most of the stuff I prefer predates WW1

I have tried a few of the newer chamberings and still use the old standbys too.

I used a custom 6.5 PRC last year and a plain 7600 in 30-06 this year.

I grab whatever I feel like using out of the safe that meets what I feel is the need for where I’m hunting that year and practice with it till I feel confident.

Absolutely love them. I don’t really believe there is any “efficiency” in the new case design, but they are twisted right, chambered right, and SAAMI and factory supported with the heavy bullets I want to shoot.

My three most recent rifles are in 6cm, 6.5cm, 6arc - all outstanding. Zero dinking with load work up with any of them, they all shot great right out of the gate with the first loads I’ve tried. I think Hornady is really onto something with their chamber design approach, and everything else. They are killing it.

Steve,

Winchester has a history of that.

Now I am experimenting with the 4 Gauge.....Russian Bbls...........

That's how I roll as well. Might be the Sharps right next to a glass stocked gun. I have room for them all.

If it helps people considerably as far as shooting
accurately and clean kills, I'm happy.

Myself, my "newest " would be 444 marlin rifles.

I like every new cartridge as I hope each one results in another voter who sees the Democrat party as anti gun, thus voting against that party at every election. That said, I'm old and prefer the standard cartridges still popular today such as 243. 270win, 308win, and 30-06. While I've owned a 6.5 Creedmoor, I gave it to one of my SILs. Ymmv.

The 6.5 Creedmoor gave me a 6.5 that didn't have the pressur, case head and age issues of the 6.5x55. Nice job. The ideais a goodoneforthe users of older cartridges hapered by older firearms.

They could do another cartridge similar to the '06 but with similar mods. That would solve some minor issues with it. It might even gain a usable 150fps+- in muzle velocity.

^ I think they call that one the 300PRC

Define "modernized". I've been an experimenter for much of the last 40 years & have owned or had friends who owned a whole lotta odd, but useful, stuff. For pure short range group shooting there's still not much can equal the PPCs. There seems to have been some advances in longer range stuff. Everybody want to be a sniper nowadays. Not sure how much is fluff, skill, luck, or actual advances anymore.

Modern? What's old becomes new again. A new 30 Nosler might be fun, but wait... What about the 30 Newton from over 100 years ago with modern powders? There were some wildcats based on the 404 Jeffery going back to soon after the Jeffery was introduced. WSM? Why? about the same case capacity & performance as Ackley Imp 06 based cases. WSSM? WTF for? SAUM? Sounds like a contradiction in terms. Jumbo shrimp? Howzabout a 6 Creedmoor? Look up the 6mm International. There were also the Ackley & RCBS improved versions of this cartridge. How much difference is there between a 28* to a 30* to a 40* shoulder all else being equal? I cant shoot the difference. I doubt that you can either. Damned little new under the sun.

The throat geometry of these newer "wunder" rounds seems to be somewhat of an improvement, but the same can be done with the older more available cases. Production bullets seem to be much better than 30 years ago too.

I guess whatever it takes to keep the gunmaker factory's doors open is OK, but I dont feel the need to participate. It's good when new "must have" stuff comes out. I get to buy your old stuff cheap so you all can have the latest & greatest. Send another 257 Roberts my way. Hell, ya cant get brass for it anymore anyway. That 06 will be a good donor for my next project. Should I shoot it? Sold my unimpressive Creedmore & snagged a 338 Federal to mess around with. Almost as much fun as a 358 Winchester... same thing, only different. Just some more things to keep me out of (serious) trouble & a smile on my face.

Actually no, the .300 WSM does NOT "have about the same case capacity & performance as Ackley Imp 06 based cases." Unless, of course, like many handloaders you load according to traditional "pressure signs"--which have been proven in pressure-lab tests to generally not show up until around 70,000 PSI.

In reality the .300 WSM has just about the same powder capacity as the .300 H&H, which is a fine cartridge despite the belt and sloping shoulder. With the same powder charges and bullets both will produce just about exactly the same pressures and velocities--which was demonstrated by pressure and indoor-range tests run by Charlie Sisk after the .300 WSM was introduced, at my request for an article published in Handloader magazine.

This also proven true in the three .300 H&H and .300 WSM rifles I've owned and handloaded for, which including both factory and custom-barreled rifles. But in general the .300 WSM does result in more consistent velocities and hence accuracy. Whether that matters in the field is another question--but neither round is particularly popular anymore.

Personally I am among those who like all of 'em--which is why my present collection of centerfire hunting rifles is chambered for rounds from the .50-70 Springfield (an original first-year production "trapdoor" made in 1866) to the 6.5 PRC.

why I see it a lot of the new stuff is just very slightly redesigned old stuff. so much of the latest newest stuff is basically coming off of the 220 Russian... the new stuff that's the most newly engineered in my opinion is the creedmoor case..

else in the news there's so many new cartridges are so close to the old stuff but they're learning how to twist the barrels better for more modern projectiles.

They're alright. I got a 6.5 Creedmoor a few years ago. It's accurate and pleasant to shoot but I don't really need it for anything. This season my Creedmoor stayed in the safe while I killed deer with my crossbow, .243 {X 2}, .30-06, .30-30 and a patched ball out of my Hawken. They're all just as dead as if I'd shot them with the Creedmoor.

The most modern chambering I now have is .300 WSM and I do very little with it. I've toyed with the idea of getting a 6.5 CM, but can't really bring myself to do so. On the other hand, I'm kind of on the verge of seriously going after a .30-30, maybe one of the new Marlin 336's, although I'd prefer a Ruger No 1 if I could find the right one. The two rifles I bought this year are a 7X57 and a .308.

I can see the advantages of some of the newer cartridges, but I'm unlikely to ever shoot another deer past 300 yards, most within 100. I doubt that I will be seeing any more trips out west or up into Canada and, if I did, I'd be very confident of any number of rifles I now have and have been shooting for a long time.

That's not to say that next week or next month or whenever I won't be posting on here about how cool my new fast-twist, square-shouldered 6 point something wunderkind is...who knows...

I like them all. I especially like the lower recoil offerings like the 6ARC and 6.5 Grendel. I wish Howa/Legacy would import the stainless Mini Action.

Well hell John, about the same is surely less than exact. Never saw the need for a WSM, but have used the others extensively. Nosler #8 on water capacity, with 165gr bullets in all, says 79.6 for the H&H, 74 for the WSM, 65.4 for the 06 Imp., & 60.2 for the std. 06. What's the cutoff for about to be an acceptable measure? Is 8 gr of water too much? Maybe about 5 grains is more acceptable?

I load to find pressure (your 70K point?) with my particular lots of stuff, then back off to where the best balance of accuracy & velocity is with good case life. I may lose some brass during development, but 8 to 10 or often more full load firings is normal here. Unsure the actual pressure my stuff runs at, but I just retired some brass in use since the late 80s because it was... old. Unsure how many times it was fired, but it still held primers.

Gee, I'm impressed--with your lack of actual knowledge.

If you feel insulted by that statement, then feel free....

DGAS.


Really.


Newest round I own a gun for is 5.56. Only because...AR-15.
Otherwise it's 22-250.


If I didn't have a 7 Rem, I'd buy the new version.
300Win, same.

308, 30-06, Swede.......

The new versions are somewhat improved, but by loading my own many things
can be worked out. Anymore I'm a 200 yard deer hunter, a 30-30 could suffice.
I prefer 308, or 30-06.
Nothing new offers anything much over them. For me.
Especially considering the cost of supporting a new round.
Couple hundred cases, dies at today's prices.
I ain't "updating".

However, if I got a screaming deal.
Like my Swede, SS Tikka, brass, bullets, dies, great price.
I could try a Creedmoor, just wouldn't tell anyone!😉😉😉😉

Thank you for providing the smile in my morning.

I really like the .300Sav.

Started playing with a 7mm-08 it may become my favorite whitetail choice.

I like the new advancements in cartridge design and especially the factory trend towards faster barrel twist rates. Most of the changes are sensible. Some have me scratching my head - there’s a lot of cartridge overlap, but that’s ok.... buy what you like.

Since the late 60’s I’ve used mainly the .270 for all my hunting - augmented with the .243, .30-06 and the .338 and .358...I thought I needed a cannon for elk. My main carry today is the 6.5CM. It really is the easy button and it’s been very successful for me. My last rifle purchase (2022) is a 1948 Savage 99 EG in .300. Always wanted one, haven’t used it on anything - yet...

There’s a lot to sort through these days. Buy what you want, use what you like and don’t worry about the other guy.....

With new powders and bullets, the old is like new again!

Bob
www.bigbores.ca

There are, as to be expected, several camps on this.

1. Serious shooters who see, and can capitalize on, the value of these new chamberings and slippery bullets they sling.

2. Average Joes who buy them because they are readily available, and understand but will never exploit the difference between the oldies and newbies.

3. Bandwagon Fanbois who simply have to have them because the are the latest long range badass schizzle. Can't hit a 12" gong at 200.

4. Traditionalists who understand the value in them, but eschew them in favor of sentimental favorites.

5. Get off my lawn types who loathe change and will run them down as "not any better than."

I am a 2.

yes the new cartridges are nice i own a few including Creedmoors , but being older i just like my fast old 257 Weatherby mag. better ,all of us in the family use Ruger #1`s the ladies and grandkids have Ruger #1`s in 257 Roberts so i guess we are old school . haven`t notice that deer die any better when someone uses a new type cartridge yet either ? i also use a older type x-bow a Excaliber its quiet and with Zwickey broadheads and it does kill deer and leave a good blood trail , i did try a new Ravin x-bow with expandable broadheads poor blood trails so i went back to old style x-bow and broadheads . > so is a newer rifle ,newer cartridges , newer x-bows or broadheads always better i wonder ?

The new modern wiz bang cartridge's seldom bring anything new to 99% of hunters. Dead is dead.

^^^ I agree ^^^

I lean towards the older stuff, 30-30,257 Roberts,6.5 Swede, 7x57 30-06, 300H&H. 45-70......
I have newer stuff also, one of my favs is the 325 WSM. Why? IDK probably because not everyone has one. Never noticed any critter being any deader though than just plain ol' dead.

Gun makers need to sell guns, and ammo makers need to sell ammo.

Any developments that bring new shooters into the fold are fine with me.

I think we're about to see a post-COVID shakeup that will be a lot like the post-WWII shakeup. Ammo supplies dried up in both cases, leaving manufacturers with a blank slate. I'm interested to see which cartridges they leave to die and which ones they keep alive.


Okie John

I like things that go bang.

That said, I'm like a lot of others who have and love our old favorites. I've also ended up with both a 6 Creedmoor and a 6.5 Creedmoor. I like them both!

It's funny, that 6 Creedmoor reminds me so much of my good old 6mm Remington. Case is quite different, ballistics are similar.

Last spring I took the "odd couple" to Idaho with me, looking for bear. 7mm PRC custom on a Bergara action and a traditional wood-stocked 45-70 Marlin 1895. Two very different rifles! Sadly, I didn't manage to put crosshairs of either on a bear. Was confident in both rifles though.

Stock up on primers. No matter what the case shape, we're all going to need primers... Dang...

Guy

My taste for the new stuff is rather attenuated. It is not because it is new. It is that the old stuff seems to have the edge in so many categories. That goes for chamberings as well as the components.

Old tried and true stuff usually has an abundance of literature and a wealth of opinions. Components are available. Load data is comprehensive, and I don't have to sweat out a lot of brain work to come up with a workable load. Also, the dead ends are fairly obvious.

I am a guy who sticks to the middle of the road. I also load very conservatively. I am not the kind of guy who tries and makes his 30-30 work like a 30-06. If I feel I want 30-06 performance, I go and buy a 30-06.

There are a few exceptions. Given that I wanted to try 7mm, I opted for the 7mm-08 over 7mm Mauser. 7mm-08 had been around for 40 years when I made the plunge, and its track record is exceptional. What it loses to the older cartridge in performance, I gained in a lot of other things. I also made the plunge and tried WIN StaBall 6.5 powder and found it recovered all the performance I'd lost.

One chambering I passed on was the 300 Savage, even though I love what it does. I opted for 308 WIN in a Savage 99, because I knew I could load down to 300 Savage levels without too much trouble and brass was easier to find.

Bullets? I'm the kind of guy who tries to figure out how to do things with Hornady Interlock and Remington Core-lokt before thinking about any whizzbang bullets with plastic tips. Yeah, I tried Hornady FTX in my 30-30, but I found they really did no better than the 150 and 170 grain pedestrian offerings. I did find LeverEvolution Powder to be the shizz.

Going in the complete opposite direction has been my Brown Bess project. Yikes. It's funny. Here is a platform that has had parts being manufactured for it for almost 300 years, but finding a decent deer load became a mad scientist project. Researching what was being shot out of it at the time of the Revolution was only part of the story. There are so many variables. I'll spend the next 20 years plumbing the depths of this platform. I've been at it over a year and still feel I'm just scratching the surface.

I probably fit best under #4. Personally, I think a lot of the newer guns are fugly as hell, especially handguns. I freely admit they serve a purpose but esthetics ain't one of them. I do have a few rifles with black synthetic stocks but they have the general shape of proper classic rifles. Probably the most modern cartridge I load for is the .300 Win. Mag. I never saw the need for a WSM although I liked the looks of the M70 Featherweights. Only did one wildcat about 20 some odd years age, the .375 Taylor. A 7.5 pound rifle shooting a velocity clone of the .375 H&H. Ouch at both ends. These days I play with the .257 Roberts a bit and up to the .35 Whelen. Mostly though it's the 7x57 in a push feed M70 Feather weight, Ruger #1A and a semi-custom built on an FN Mauser. The really heavy louderkickenharders now reside in the safe enjoying a comfortable well earned retirement.
PJ

I mostly like the old classics (7x57, 257R, 300H&H, 35Remington, 222, 30-06 etc, etc) but really think the 6 & 6.5CM checks off a lot of boxes, esp the shorter OAL in a 2.8" mag box.

Had a 6CM built. Nothing else in the new list interests me.

of course its a 6.5 /308 in reality... its all about the same really. why all the hype for the 6.5 cm is kind of wild as the 6.5x47 is a better round imho of course. but like anything people don't research really, they just swallow what they are told.
but I do like the advent of higher bc bullets and really like the mono bullets for sure. they are one of the best things out there ever to come down the pike. glass getting better sure is nice too.

.257 Roberts, 30-06 and .35 Whelen comprise my battery and I feel confident that I can take any North American game with those three. They've all stood the test of time, the Roberts and the Whelen were designed by riflemen who were amoung some of the most competent of their day.

No harm in "new stuff" as long as it is used within its parameters.

Personally, I like the second and third order effects they bring to the table.

The fairly recent profusion of "highly accurate, super efficient, cartridges and bullets" has made the entire industry step up their game. Look at the veritable buffet of optics we now enjoy. The quality and amount of aftermarket stocks, accessible ballistics apps and programs, even the average barrel on the average rifle is better.

The war department gave us the zipper, NASA gave us velcro, I like and appreciate the tertiary stuff our modern cartridges are giving us.

Shoot whatever you like, we all benefit from innovation.

I like em all.

I can appreciate modern advancements while also liking the history and nostalgia of older cartridges. I don’t understand the people that get caught up in the hatred of cartridges.

It's not a matter of like or don't like, for me...

The question is 'do they do anything, substantially different'???

Cartridges, by my definition, IMHO, do NOT include bullet weight or design, barrel twist, magazine or action length, or necessarily limited to a particular firearm....

From the early part of the 1800s through the turn of the century, my cousin, Dr Edward Maynard, helped foster, participated in, and contributed to, tremendous progress in the design and construction advancements in 'cartridges'.......

Since the very early 1900s the major changes have been in bullet design and powder/primer technology, with a minor in firearm design...

Again, IMHO

YMMV

I enjoy the classics like the 6.5x55, 270 win, 7x57, 7x64, 303British, 7.62x54R, 7.65x53, 30-06, 8x57, and 9.3mm's. At the moment the newest cartridge's i have in the stall is 308 win and 223 Rem. Sold off the 325 wsm. Also like some wildcats like the 8mm-06.

In saying that I like performance and like the idea of the 300 PRC and 7mm PRC....will i buy one? Probably not. For the type of shooting and hunting I do the classics cover those areas pretty good.

Edit. Another cartridge that comes to mind that i wish took off is the .338 Federal. I thought that cartridge was a great low recoiling big game round. 30-06 performance in a short action with a bigger bullet.

I forgot the .30-40 krag. I've enjoyed that one recently as well.

-Jake

The "Next Great Leap Forward" beyond smokeless/bottleneck/copper jackets has been the ubiquitous LRF. The best executed innovations in cartridge design over the last 30yrs have all assumed the shooter has a LRF at hand. All of the best innovations have gotten the COAL, magazine, and chamber dimensions to compliment each other..

Minus the ubiquitous LRF, we'd still be chasing case capacity, max velocity, and almost NOBODY would be chasing .6, .7, .8 + BC's.

I like all ammunition.

I definitely prefer the tried and true cartridges of yore. Too many to list here but I think the “newest” cartridge chambering of any rifle I own is my .25-06 (which actually was a 1920’s wildcat design before getting SAAMI approval in 1969).

I do not care for long range hunting and therefore see little use and zero advantage in practically all the newer designs for the kinds of hunting I prefer.

These shortages have inspired me to stick with practical and highly ubiquitous cartridge choices as they’re much easier to find components/ammo for.

I’ve owned 7mm, .300 and 8mm Magnum rifles and liked them however I shoot my .270 and .30-06 rifles much better and they kill just as well as any magnum I’ve ever used.

I like them all. Of the new rounds, the 6.5 creedmoor and 6.8 Western are my favorites. Just impressive down range for their recoil levels to me. Will eventually get one of the newer 22s or 6mms but not sure what. Does not replace my old favorites like 243, 270, 280 etc..

Lou

I compete with a .223 and 308 in TR and hunt with a .303 British.
Varmints are hunted with a .222.
I also have a drilling in 9.3x72R, and recently picked up a Pre '64 Model 70 in "06 that I plan to build a Carlos Hathcock replica with.
I also have several black powder muzzle loaders and cartridge rifles .
I have been wildcatting, collecting shooting and selling since the late 70's, but these are what I have settled on in my old age. The first three are the ones I use most.
Cat

nowadays it is the old cartridges for me. i use the 20 Vartarg and the 500 Linebaugh are my most recent cartridges. then the 7-08 and the 444 Marlin are next. all other cartridges are 1891 up to 1944.

i did have a 6.5 Creedmoor and i shoot alot of deer with it. but i got bored, so i sold it. i gave my youngest son a 6.5x55 ('16 Spanish Mauser) and my oldest son a 7x57 (FN Mauser). i have three other 7x57 ('16 Spanish, 1908 Brazilian and 24/30 Venezuelan). i also have two 30-40 Krag, 8x57, three 7.65x53, '06, 270 Winchester, 30 Remington, 9.3x57 and a couple of more calibers.

back in the '90s, my gunsmith (RIP) was busy and he gave me customers new rifles to shoot in and rifles that customers said that "they weren't accurate, so do something." so i was his accuracy tester. he had a pile of factory ammo in many different calibers. as long as the rifle would shoot 1 1/2" group at 100 yards (5 shots/bench). i shot many of the rifles and everyone of the rifles were accurate. 7 Remington and 300 Win mags, 300 Weatherby, 338 Winchester mag, 340 Weatherby mag, 375 H&H, 416 Remington, 416 Weatherby, 458 Win Mag, 460 Weatherby and others. yes, i shot the 460 Weatherby and i don't want ever have to shoot it again!!! as a matter of fact, i never bought a magnum, except for the 44 Rem mag and now i use 44 Special instead of the mag. i never had use for a magnum. the furthest shot on a deer was 365+/- yards. i can count on one hand and have a couple finger left over if i shot the deer around 300 yards. 200+ yards, i have shot deer 7 or 8 times. 100+ yards, 14 to 15 deer. under 100 yards, i don't know, but it is alot.

for the past 11 or 12 years, i been using cast bullets almost exclusively. now i have done them up to 2300fps or so, but usually the bullets only go 1800-1900fps.

My cartridge graduation:

1977 308 Winchester
1978 7mm Weatherby
2005 280 Remington
2010 300 WSM
2013 280 Ackley Improved
2022 22 Creedmoor

All of them I still enjoy.

Don't like where we're going. It's no wonder there's a reloading, ammo shortage all time. Just think how many primers and powder be wasted this week alone, testing all the new 6, 6.5's super poopers!
All I need and want, is my 22 squirrel rifles, 30-30, 30-06, and if I needed more I'd get a 300win mag. Then, when I gotta shoot, I shoot, don't think! I gotta a 270, and I thought wow. Now, for me, I think, who needed a 270 when I got an 06! If I hunted the west, I might need it, but not in reality! But if you like a 270, then you don't need an 06.
But all the pencil calibers from disposable rifles? Useless! Shooting world & industry, is driving shooters insane!

F uck no.

I am definitely a #4. I have a small selection of rifles that leans towards the classics that I developed a nostalgic fondness for while reading Field & Stream and Outdoor Life as a kid. The majority of my calibers are over 100 years old with the only recent one for my AR-15:

1889 - 303 British
1892 - 275 Rigby
1894 - 6.5x55
1904 - 405 Winchester
1905 - 9.3x74r
1906 - 30-06 Springfield
1912 - 375 H&H
1955 - 44 Magnum
1956 - 458 Win Mag
2018 - 300 HAM'R

Most of my selections reflect the fact that the shooting I do is at moderate ranges. Everything I hunt with is adequate for my needs. But I definitely don't begrudge anyone enjoying the latest improvements in cartridge designs. Especially if it has a tangible benefit over an older cartridge. My only mild annoyance is when you can only find ammo or supplies for the latest whiz bang cartridge of the month but no production is being devoted to some of the classics that I like. I don't complain about it because for some of the more obscure cartridges, I knew what I was getting myself into when I bought the rifle. As a right-hander who shoots left, the selection of rifles & associated calibers is smaller & some of my choices reflect that. I just buy what makes me happy & I let others do the same.

PS - The next rifle I acquire will probably be a fast & flat varmint type rifle in the 22-250 range. For it, I'm seriously considering something new & improved. Maybe something with the letters ARC somewhere in its designation.

Sure. Only have a couple, but they have real advantages that I appreciate. Still have an ‘06, a couple .270s and .308s, and .223s, that continue to do good work and aren’t going anywhere. I avoid old-timers that are troublesome to keep fed, and don’t expect companies to keep producing ammo that will sit on dealer shelves for years waiting for Uncle Ferdie to finally burn through the box he bought back in ‘86. When I “adopt” a cartridge, I secure sufficient supplies of what it consumes and keep my eye out for more as I use it. I never assume it’s going to always be there whenever I want it.

A few more comments:

As I have recently pointed out elsewhere, including in "antique" magazines actually printed on paper, one of the major reasons for the recent shortages of brass for certain chamberings is that ever since self-contained brass cartridges became pretty much standard over 150 years ago is there's been a constant parade of "new" cartridges.

This continues to happen even today, mostly because modern, smokeless-powder rifles don't wear out very easily (and the part that primarily wears out is the barrel, which can be replaced). This can also be true for old black-powder cartridges if the rifles are taken care of, such as my .50-70 trapdoor Springfield mentioned earlier, which was made the year after the end of the War Between the States.

But today's rifle manufacturers (like most manufacturers) are in it to make money, and one of the ways they can continue to sell new rifles is introducing new cartridges. In fact, over 50 centerfire rifle cartridges have been introduced in the U.S. since 2000. Some of them have small advantages over pre-2000 cartridges, while others were obviously designed to sell more rifles--including the "follow-the-leader" short/fat/beltless magnums, whether WSMs, SAUMS and RCMs.

It's also a fact that ammunition factories can only produce so many cartridge cases. Each time they produce another run of a certain cartridge they have to change tooling, since they don't have the space or money to have a complete set-up for making, say, .25-35 WCF cases. So cartridges like the .25-35 (or .30-40 Krag, whatever traditional round some of still like to handload and hunt with) get produced "seasonally," and these days the seasons are spaced farther apart. This is also partly because cartridge brass has been becoming more expensive during the recent past, because there are so many cartridges and more military demand.

In the meantime yes, cartridge companies will produce more of the more popular rounds, whether .30-06s or 6.5 Creedmoors, because they keep selling. So no, the current "shortage" of less-popular cartridges probably isn't temporary, and may even get worse.

When I decided to downsize my rifle collection over the past few years, due to "semi-retiring" more and more, the rifles I tended to sell off were some kept on hand simply because they were chambered for cartridges magazine editors wanted me to write about every couple-three years. Eventually I ended up with about half the number of rifles I'd formerly owned, and while some are chambered for post-2000 rounds such as the 6.5 PRC (which has become one of my favorite hunting rifles), most are chambered for much older rounds.

In fact there are some duplicates, such as two .30-06s, two .270 Winchesters, and two .308 Winchesters, partly because they're different types of rifles. The .30-06s are my NULA Model 24 and Griffin & Howe 1903 Springfield. The .270s are another NULA and a Jack O'Connor Winchester Model 70 Tribute, and the .308s a Merkel K1 single-shot and a Husqvarna target rifle made in the 1960s, which weighs about twice as much as the Merkel. But the other reason for owning those pairs is it's far easier even today to find brass for those three rounds, which isn't always true of some other rifles that did essentially the same things in the field, but are much harder to find cases for.

The rifles I still own that are chambered for less popular rounds, such as the .50-70 trapdoor and my pair of drillings in 6.5x57R and 8x57JRS, are easy on brass--and I don't lose their cases when hunting, which sometimes happens when ejecting empties from repeaters, since they're single-shot rifles rather than repeaters. (The ejector still works fine on the .50-70, but the drillings only have extractors.)

All of this is also why I eventually quit buying .222 Remingtons and .280 Ackley Improveds (have had several of each). While its pretty easy to make those cases from others, I'd rather shoot rifles than make brass, the reason for having more than one .223 Remington, and .270s, .30-06s and .308s--rather than rifles where brass is only produced "seasonally," and has become increasingly expensive.

I too am doing some downsizing. And like Mule Deer, I am trying to keep some of the more commonly available rounds which along with various components, are becoming more of an issue to acquire.

I have recently considered getting back into one of the creedmores, likely the 6.5. Reason being, they are nice, light recoiling medium game rifles and the factory loads and components are very available,,currently. But for how long?
And that troubles me.

So back to thinning the herd and I will likely just keep the tried and true and “mostly” available rounds.
223,280,308,30-06,338-06 and 9.3x62 to name a few. The 280 and 338-06 are of the most concern, but I do have a pretty good stash of components.
Time will tell.
Les

i reload and use cast bullets mostly. i have a 1972 Winchester m94 in 35/30-30 (JES Reboring). also, i have over 100 cases in 35/30-30 Starline brass. i have shot 14 or 15 times, no anneal and there still going strong. i think I've trimmed the 35/30-30 twice? the first was after i shot it to make the 35/30-30 and twice, i think it was 9 or 10 firings. i don't use a max load either. a 200gr RCBS FN GC with 2400/tuft of Dacron that goes 1726fps. i have killed 2 doe and 1 buck, 25ish yards is for both doe, 53 yards for the buck. the deer will JOG, not run, about 15 - 20 yards, then it will stand around and fall.


i have a TC Contender in 10" barrels with 30 and 357 Herrett. i have 100 pieces each of 30-30 Starline brass made into the 30 and 357 Herrett. i have 3 firings on the 30 Herrett and none on the 357 Herrett.

i gave away my other 30-30 brass (Remington, Federal, Winchester...) to my yougest son for his Savage m340.

i had buttloads of '06 mixed cases. i reform them to 7.65x53, 7x57, 8x57, 9.3x57, 270 Winchester and a couple of more. i'm glad i bought the Harbor Freight mini chop saw because brass is still hard to find. i got '06 galore.

the only thing i need is the 30 Remington. i have around 100 cases of 30 Rem Grafs brass. if i buy another 400 cases then i am set.

Agree 100% Mule Deer. Of course we all have our guilty pleasure cartridges but like the example you used of the .222 vs. .223, it is pointless to wait for the seasonal runs of the oddballs when we could be shooting something widely available everywhere.

These shortages, for certain, will be perpetually effecting us to varying degrees going forward.

6.5 SM "Super Mouser"... maybe a 7mm SEI "Super Elephant Improved" ???

Call me a crumudgeon but I favor the classics. I think my most modern/newest caliber is a Cooper Varmint Extreme in 25WSSM. The smartest thing I did when I bought the rifle was to buy 1000 Winchester cases.
Gun companies continue to re invent the wheel in order to attract new shooters or to entice current shooters to try the newest and latest cartridge. No thanks, the Grendel I'll stick with my 250 Savage, the 300 WSM is just the 300 H&H reconfigured in my opinion and I'll keep my H&H thank you. The 6.5 Creedmore can't do anything that my 6.5X55 can't do. A couple of other oldies but goodies I favor are the 300 Savage and the 38-55 both of my rifles are custom builds on single shot actions. I won't be selling my 257 Roberts, 405 Win, 7X57's or the 358 Win any time soon.
It's not broke so I'm not going tp try to fix it and I have enough componets to keep me and my classics on the range and in the field fo a very long time.

It can, and it does. Maybe not for you, but yes for a large part of the market.

If it's the one I'm thinking of, that 300 Savage of yours is extremely nice. Even though it's old, I find the 300 Savage to be a modernized cartridge. 30 degree shoulder, little body taper, size optimized to take advantage of new (at the time) propellants to approximate the ballistics of an older, larger cartridge. One of my favorite rifles is my 700 Classic so chambered.

I have nothing against the modern stuff but the old classic calibers have always done the job for me, and if it ain't broke don't fix it. For a long time I just deer hunted with whatever I happened to grab on the way out the door, mostly .243, .308 and .270, and they all worked just fine. The last several years though I've grown to favor the 7mm-08 with a 120gr TTSX, Absolutely deadly combination for whitetails. I did buy a 6.5 Creedmoor a few years back just to see what all the hype was about, I liked it ok but didn't think it was anything special. Someone made me an offer I couldn't refuse and it went down the road.

The 7-08 is the new 7X57 and I'm not knocking it. I have 2 7-08's and 3 7X57's. Another one that gets no love today is the 6MM Remington. I just bought a Browning B78 so chambered and thanks to members here I have dies, bullets and enough brass to last a long time.
Mathman I believe you have the right rifle in mind regarding the 300 Savage. I sold my 700 classic which was a great rifle when the single shot build was completed.

Two of my favorites that I own and shoot are the 300 and 338 RCM’s. The rifle Ruger built to shoot these rounds had as much to do, if not more, with me liking it
20 inch barrel, factory iron sights, and a stock with a 1/2 inch shorter LOP makes for a perfect rifle for hunting big game in thick stuff.
Another relative newby is the 6.5-300 Weatherby. I do not own one but plan to within the next few months. Weatherby does a great job making sure brass and ammo is readily available for most of their chamberings.

I just like cartridges/chamberings that "work". Whether older or newer means nothing to me. They are just tools. Just because something is new, doesn't mean it is better. Just because something has been around 100 years doesn't mean it's better.

When a "new" cartridge comes out, many of us get caught up in the mindset "I don't know why they just didn't standardize the 28 Proton which has been around since the 50s" as opposed to "I'm glad somebody finally came to their senses and standardized this by a different name". Rifle people are nuts, myself included. The moment I find myself emotionally tied to some rifle cartridge because either it's what my grandpa used or because it is the newest thing is the day I need to take up needlepoint instead.

Heck, looking back, they were all new to me at one time.

I will stick with the 308 Win, 7mm Rem Mag, 6.5x55 Swede, 9.3x62 and 375 H&H. Never found them lacking and they are all over 50 years old with the 7mm being the youngster at 51.

YES Do I like modern? As a carpenter I used know said "No Hell No."

Sometimes it comes down to the rifle. A Ruger No. 1 for instance. Being it’s a classic style rifle and action length is a nonissue. 6.5CM or 300 WSM would seem off to me. I’d rather have it chambered for 6.5x55 or 300 H&H.

If I were buying an all weather bolt action rifle I’d rather have the shorter actions, more efficient cases and modern factory ammo of rifles chambered in 6.5CM or 300 WSM.

61 actually... a year younger than me.

I like things that work. Belts are useless, but no big deal to workaround either. From the ground up, a lot of "modernized" cartridges are just right from the starting gate. How is that a bad thing?

30* shoulders, minimum taper, beltless, twisted correctly from the factory - the CM's and PRC's are at the top of the new heap, and for the sure the 6.5CM is here to stay.

I just see them as marketing.
A cartridge case should be designed to cycle flawlessly. The industry had alteady achieved that pretty well and for a long, long time.
I don't see doing it, but any of the oldies can manage a faster twist barrel, duplicating any of the new short/fats.
I don't even understand the thrill of the" dull thud "on iron at 800 yards.
Why doesn't positional shooting create the same buzz? As a hunter, this practice improves his skills.
My little old opinion.

Here we have a #5.

New stuff for me.

I like/appreciate old walnut blued steel rifles and they are chambered in older cartridges. Which is also my preference.

The gun means more to me than the cartridge.

Spent most of my rifle shooting life with 22-250, 25-06, 270 & 30-06 & was served well.

But even though I'm a boomer, I don't stay in the box. I appreciate a good case design when I see it, & will use it if I see the need. This years new build was a fast twist 6mm Creedmoor, but everyday truck gun is a factory 243.

I have my own judgmental procedure's based on mostly mechanics & what I need rather than fads.

Do tell what it does the Swede cannot.

You can color me 'old school', for the most part.

I have a 300 Blackout - the newest production that I use, but I only shoot cast bullets.

Next would be 1962 7mm Rem Mag

EVERY 45-70 round that I have ever shot was Paper Patched

Oldest 50 Maynard

And this one still under 'development' the 22GTC..

Looks like we have another 5 here.

Don't have need for the new toys, but have toyed with a few wildcats.

I love the smell of black powder in the morning.

After reading through this thread I'm realizing it may be the older rifle action designs I like more than the latest cartridges. I also realized that my old 8x68s checks all of the boxes Brad lists above which is impressive for a 1939 design. Pairs up nicely with its 98 C-ring Mauser action. Unfortunately it appears most of the good RWS brass was gobbled up for reforming into .300 PRC brass when it first arrived on the scene.

The 6.5 Schuler (sp) always seemed like a ripper as well. Cool case design.

That one was way ahead of its time as well. Darn Germans...

I always say about the ones that say only the old are needed or good, I guess you still ride a horse and don't own a vehicle either....

Anyway long as it works its good. if it works better its a plus. if you need or want a new one super. if you don't then don't. pretty easy.

of course I always wonder if you can truly claim to be a gun nut if you don't buy a new one to the stable fairly often.

Of course you can and it doesn't have to be the latest commercial whiz bang cartridge. My newest rifles are
A custom 250 Savage built on a Kurz Mauser action, Dakota M 10 6.5X55, Two Browning N78's a 25-06 and a 6MM

Nothing against the new fangled cartridges. They really won’t do anything the old fangled cartridges will do. Of recent I’ve acquired a 22 K hornet, a .222, and a 220 swift. I did have a 270 WSM, great cartridge but I have a 7Rem mag and 257 wby, so sold the 270wsm.

I like the old standby cartridges, like the new ones too. I have a Creed, fun to shoot, 300 and 270 WSM’s seem like recoil is less to me for the performance they bring to the table. Anything that goes bang is a good thing, because it means you are off your ass and outside.

I’ve had a couple of wildcats, .333 OKH Belted and a 6.5-06. I still have the 6.5, not a wildcat anymore. It is fun to shoot, a little more velocity than a Creed. I wish the hell I’d kept the .333, built by Charlie O’Neil on a 1917.

These discussions are always interesting--but have taken quite a bit of big game with the .270 WSM and have yet to see any meaningful difference in either "killing power" or trajectory out to 450-500 yards between it and the standard .270 Winchester. (Might also make the same comment about the .257 Weatherby and 7mm Remington Magnum. Have seen both used on a variety of big game up to 6x6 elk, which all died promptly....

These deer, did they die well, truly satisfied with their ends? Were any disgusted that a newer cartridge had done the deed? Or perhaps they were blissfully ignorant of what hit them!

Were they older animals, mortified that a newer cartridge with no provenance had been used? Or perhaps they were younger, pleased that no 30-06 or 270 Winchester was responsible!

"I were taken by a Creedmoor! No antediluvian conk for me!" Is there a generational divide among deer?

Is there a deer heaven where whitetails talk about the good old days?

"I went on opening day, taken by a 30-30! No Wizzums back then! A deer knew that he was going to be fairly and squarely shot, not taken by some new fangled, metric cartridge or a youngster wearing camo!"

The other deer would silently nod their heads in agreement.

The only thing I could think of that a 6.5CM can do is you can run it through an AR-10 or another semi-auto like the Springfield Armory M1A because of its shorter length. But I imagine that this is not done by a large number of shooters. Most are probably using bolt actions and on that platform, the differences between the two cartridges might not be as pronounced depending on what you're using it for. I'm a big fan of hunting with my 6.5x55 Ruger No. 1A (I've put two deer in the freezer with it this season). I don't own a 6.5CM or do any rigorous long distance / target shooting that might benefit from this newer cartridge so maybe there is an improvement in an area that I haven't explored. But I think with handloading, either round could be tweaked to come close to the performance of the other. As a hunter, I think most of the game that I go after would dislike being shot by either cartridge.

But I have enjoyed watching the debate around the 6.5CM. I find it interesting the level of derision & irritation thrown at the 6.5CM when it appears to me that the designers did a pretty good job of creating the round they were striving for. A lot of the criticism towards it often has terms like "gay", "over-hyped", "man bun", etc. but no compelling technical reasons why it is a bad or inferior cartridge. It seems to evoke a lot of emotions but not much in the way of quantifiable shortcomings. To the contrary, it appears to often work well using factory ammo in affordable rifles. I have some rounds that I favor but I can't think of any that I don't own whose mere existence actually annoys me.

One other cartridge comparison that I found interesting lately is the 375 H&H vs the 375 Ruger. Again it appears that the designers did a pretty good job of reproducing the characteristics of the classic in a newer & shorter design. But the 375 H&H has an almost cult-like reverence & following to it that precludes a competitor from sacrilegiously knocking it off its throne. The main argument I've seen in favor of the 375 H&H is the availability of ammo in remote locations. Because I love a classic, I wound up buying a LH Winchester M70 in 375 H&H instead of the more readily available and affordable LH M77 in 375 Ruger. I'm still tempted to get one of the shorter stainless Guide Guns simply because they're so affordable & it would be fun to shoot. The modern alternative did intrigue.

Poor analogy. The difference between a 6.5 Creedmoor and a 270 Winchester is comparable to a Ford F250 and a Chevrolet 2500. The difference is only measured by a marginal improvement of a Creedmoor to fit into an AR platform.


No arguing the 6.5 Creedmoor does what it is designed to do, but the vast majority of its followers don’t use it for the purpose it was designed…

Couldn't you also say that the vast majority of people who shoot any cartridge that was originally designed for a military application aren't using them for the purpose that they were designed?

That still doesn’t make you a horse rider…

I like rifles and have been blessed, or cursed, with the opportunity to own a lot of different rifles chambered for a lot of different cartridges over the past half century or so.

I like the 6.5 Creedmoor, but for my purposes, shooting whitetails out to 500+/- yards, none that I've owned will do anything that my other rifles chambered in 256 Newton, 260 REM, 6.5x55, and 6.5-284 won't do equally well. I have never shot at a deer that was much over a quarter mile away and unlike many, have never considered BC to be THE mission critical criteria for selecting a component bullet. My preferred 6.5mm component deer hunting bullets fall into the 120 thru 140 grain range, with the 130 grain AB being my favorite.

One thing that I can say in favor of the 6.5 CM is that a Weatherby V2 in 6.5 CM purchased at Cabela's on 02/25/14 has been the most accurate straight out of the box centerfire rifle with factory ammo that I've yet to own. Maybe luck of the draw, maybe an inherently accurate cartridge fired from an inherently accurate rifle with a better than average lot of factory loaded ammo, or maybe something else.

To my way of thinking, it's okay to extend the usage of a cartridge beyond the intentions of the original designers. The question I would ask myself is "Is this new usage a bad choice?". In the case of the 6.5CM, it was originally designed as a long-range target round. But if you put a Nosler Partition in it & shoot a deer with it, is it ineffective? As 260Remguy pointed out, replacing the FMJ projectile in a military cartridge with a bullet more appropriate for hunting has extended the usage of those cartridges to good effect. Personally I have a nostalgic fondness for the classic calibers. So to a certain degree, my cartridge selections are based on emotions. But all of my cartridge selections are also appropriate for their intended usage. And I wouldn't criticize another shooter's cartridge choice for some of the reasons I've seen put forth for the 6.5CM that seem to be based on a prejudice without a lot of technical merit.

I'll never be a horse rider, hate the damned things and I agree with your F250 vs. Chevy/GMC 2500 analogy being more representative than the horse vs. internal combustion powered vehicle analogy. But you're the one who said that it could be argued that the vast majority of 6.5 CM followers don't use it for the purpose that it was designed, inferring that it was somehow being misused.

That’s funny right there.

If you go axe yer buddies who ride horses/ mules what kind of vehicles they own………

Trucks/trailers etc to jerk these ponies down the road

U would be amazed…..them live in goosenecks, 3500 s , can cost more than their home.

Our forefathers would be amazed the equipment we use to own a horse.

Santa’s come and gone…….you can be as naughty as you like shooting a non campfire 🔥 approved cartridge until summer solstice. ( That’s when the North Pole starts working up the list)

What’s a tornado and a barrel racer have in common?

They both end up doing wrong in a trailer park.

Man, I sure love my 257 Weatherby. It's my primary go to for all things Central/South Tx has to offer. It's never let me down. Don't care that it's loud and burns 70+ gr of powder every time the trigger's pulled. It's accurate and the darn thing just works. Don't plan on dumping it anytime soon.

All the above aside, I own a 6.5 Creedmoor and enjoy owning/shooting it for all the reasons others have previously stated. I've introduced lots of friends, co-workers, my kids friends, etc to shooting, via the Creedmoor. It's just so darn cheap, easy and non offensive to shoot, especially for new shooters. Our range has steel targets from 2-5 hundred yds and sitting one of these new shooters down at a bench and watching their reaction when hitting a steel plate 5 football fields away is priceless. Definitely wouldn't do this with a 257 Wby, 270, 30-06..at least not on a regular basis. The 6.5 Creedmoor will always have a place in my safe. Btw, it's a pretty effective hunting round as well.

Nope. There was no inference of misuse, just the comparison of how the cartridge came about and sticking with the theme of this thread “Modernized cartridges” shows no improvement of the 6.5 Creedmoor over decades old cartridges for hunting big game…

Should a cartridge's use be limited to the purpose that it was designed for?

You could probably argue that the following 20 cartridges developed prior to (pick a date), maybe 12/26/1923, could fill all of the market niches that exist today for big game hunting cartridges.

22 HP, 250-3000, 6.5x55, 256 Newton, 7x57, 30-30, 300 SAV, 30-40 Krag, 30-06, 30 Newton, 7.65x53, 32 WS, 8x57, 9x57, 35 REM, 35 Newton, 9.3x62, 375 H&H, 38-55, 45-70, etc.

But what fun would that be?

EDIT: How could firearms and ammunition manufactures stay in business if they didn't keep introducing new, "improved", and functionally redundant goods? There seems to be market demand for lever action rifles chambered in 30-30 despite the number of .30 caliber cartridges introduced since 1895 that produce higher velocities and the associated increase in performance.

Very few cartridges stayed true to their designers' purpose. Many morphed into something else.

Some cartridges proved to be useful for more than just a single purpose. Sometimes, cartridges improved markedly, like the 223 Remington. When I say improvements, they are not necessarily new case designs. Some designs got better as propellants got better. As well, changing barrel twist rates or loading heavier or differently shaped bullets broadened their appeal.

Sometimes I wish that more companies would revisit older designs and spend some time fixing what was originally not working right. It could be different bullets, better propellants or a different launch platform. We saw that with wildcatters in the early 20th century and more recently, people like JD Jones. They made changes to cases, but that wasn't all.

I think it's difficult to do because potential customers have to be convinced the change is a good one. But that's the marketing department's job. As well, companies couldn't make as much money by improving existing cartridges or firearms. Financially, it's smarter to invent something and market it as new and improved.

Who was using the 30-30 in competition? Who thought about using a bolt action or single shot to launch cartridges that were originally designed for ARs? Who was the first person to use a red dot on a shotgun or a lever?

I know that there is a great market for new cartridge designs and firearms. Sometimes however, somebody comes up with a solid idea to improve what already existed.

new modernized cartridges yep fun to load for and shoot too . i own a couple of 6.5 Creedmoors yes this cartridge shoots fine actually my 25 Creedmoor might be better by a very thin line . will i ever hunt with any Creedmoor probably not at my age of 70 why change ? i have custom 22 K-Hornets ,22- 250 & few 220 Swifts for call`n or kill`n critters , for deer i have a 257 Weatherby mag. or a 257 Roberts and no one is ever going to prove to me a 6.5 Creedmoor can do more too or at 500 Yards than my 257 Weatherby mag.can do kill`n deer or antelope nope never , if i ever get a tag to bear hunt i have a 338 Win.mags. or my new to me 350 Whelen . but my back-up to all these cartridges even over the new modernized cartridges for me is still just the old 30-06 cartridge in a model 70 Winchester this fine old cartridge will always get -r - done any place i have hunted or will hunt .

As a serious, more tradition person, I find many of these so called advancements in cartridge design anemic and uninteresting.
Most of these Design Engineers should stick to driving trains. The trains the marketing teams power .

However, I find the bullet design and propellant advancements interesting, which in turn make the 100 year old chamberings equal and ( imo) better than these newer short/fats.
Long range shooting is the result of all the marketing, and long range hunting has morphed from this.
Shooting at excessive distances at at a valuable Bighorn Ram and wounding and not recovering can make all hunters look bad to so many.
Around here, if you wounded a B&C Ram that has been watched by many , it would be sorely viewed by all serious hunters and wildlife watching lefties.
Imo, bullets designed to be less than tenacious, are not Big Game bullets. Frangible , ultra, aerodynamic bullets are not.
The new/ short, fast twist fat cartridges are desiged for the latter.
Therefore, the the oldies are not only preferred by many but more efficent than ever. Also, brass is cheap!

There are a bunch of "ultra areodynamic" bullets designed for big game, and they work very well on big game--whether in "new/ short, fast twist fat cartridges" or traditional cartridges with rifling twists adequate to stabilize them. And many older rifles have rifling twists adequate to stabilize them.

I know this due to having done it many times, including in many "traditional" cartridges such as the .30-06--with the 1-10 rifling twist which has been standard in most .30-caliber cartridges since the 1890s.

Are modern bullets measured In performance by their terminal velocity?

Could one calculate the velocity at the given range, then determine bullet selection?

The only newer caliber that interests me is the 6.5 Grendel. Only because I want a 250 Savage but they are getting rare and the 6.5 G mimicks it very well for deer.

Just about all major bullet manufacturers list a terminal velocity for reliable expansion on their website. Nosler, for instances, suggests 1350 fps for AccuBond Long Range bullets as minimum for expansion, while for standard "standard" AccuBonds they suggest 1800 fps. Barnes suggests 2000 fps for TTSX bullets and 1600 for LRX bullets.

Do you also have to consider maximum velocity recommended?

Is this tolerance of high velocity perhaps where the monolithic excels?

as said by Big Stick says and i agree : bullets matter more

I have spent over 40 years messing around with the latest and greatest rounds re-barreling rifles and playing with handloading to get extra performance. No telling how much money I have wasted in this pursuit. I have since figured out I do not need extra performance and that the good ole 30 06 works for my needs as a go-to. That said, I find the 450 bushmaster an improvement only in that I can shoot it in a re-barreled Savage 99 to get 45-70 style performance. And also the 375 Ruger that is better suited for standard Mauser actions than the 375 H&H. The 375, 30-06, and 45-70 ballistics are classic high performers and those choices are rarely a mistake when paired with the right game and scenario.

Do you prefer a savage 99 action over a 336 marlin? (1895)

Why?

Thanks

How does a 450 bush 99

Compare to a 450 marlin 1895 action?

Hi John, I repect your opinion .
My opinion was primarily developed during the 70',80's and early 90's
Bull Elk are the primary baseline Game animal and I watched quite alot of wounding with poorly constructed dude/ client Game shooting...and sighting in prior to the hunt.
Many hunters couldn't form a decent group on target at 100 yards. I would take my tools along to tighten bedding , mounts and rings which were sometimes quite loose.
I personally used the Nosler Partition and kept my machine screws secure. Sometimes handing over the little Husky to the dude hunter.
These days I use a variety of other premium bullets that work just as well .
I live on land and from my place I can hear the long range hunters, shooting across canyons that by my estimation- far to far.
Too far to follow up on and the birds can show us there location them later on.( sometimes)
Wolves are not the only reason Elk numbers are down, imo. Much of these long shooters do not make the trip across the canyon to follow up a wounding shot
A hunter doing the same on a mature Bighorn Ram is detestable as far as I am concerned.
On the flip side, I am going to see if the .277, 165 ABLR's will stabilze in my 1/10 twist barrel
A little birdly tells me they just might.
I really repect your opinion and value it.
Merry Christmas to you and all other readers of this.
My little old opinion , folks

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.

Agreed

Yes--but no, it wasn't "created by the superhype and marketing." Have pointed this out many times before, but here's my chapter on the 6.5 Creedmoor in my Gun Gack IV, The Little Book of Rifle Loads That Work, published in the fall of 2022:

Contrary to what many believe, the 6.5 Creedmoor appeared long before dozens of magazine articles started showing up after about 2010. The cartridge was announced in 2007 as a specialized target round, and it took a while before hunters to “discover it”—including me, which was NOT due to corporate publicity.

This discovery occurred in 2010 during a stop at Capital Sports, where Dave Tobel, head of the gun department, knew I was always looking for article potential. He suggested one of the line-up of walnut-stocked Ruger 77 Hawkeye sporters behind the counter—all 6.5 Creedmoors, which Dave said other customers reported shot “crazy accurately.”

I phoned Lee Hoots, editor of Handloader magazine, from a quiet corner of the store, asking if he’d like an article on the cartridge. Lee said yes, so I bought a Hawkeye and some Hornady factory, and wrote the first 6.5 Creedmoor in Handloader, appearing early in 2011.

The first five rounds fired at 100 yards were factory 140-grain A-Maxes, which went into .63 inch—with the wind blowing from mild to 10 mph gusts. The other ammo featured 120 A-Maxes, and shot similarly. Getting handloads to shoot well was equally easy, and I took a pronghorn with the rifle in October.

After that I sold the rifle, figuring I was done with the 6.5 Creedmoor—but more of my editors started becoming interested in the round, and Lee assigned a follow-up piece a few years later. Eventually I ended up owning several 6.5 Creedmoors, and testing three others ranging in price from a $300 Thompson/Center Compass to a semi-custom H-S Precision costing more than 10 times as much.

Even the Compass would group three shots of Hornady ammo in an inch, which until pretty recently was considered exceptional for an out-of the-box rifle with factory ammo.

Probably the most accurate rifle was a Ruger American Predator, the model with a slight heavier-contour barrel than the standard sporter-weight. By the time I bought it in 2017 experimentation had proven the original Hornady factory load’s 41.5 grains of H4350 with the 140 V-Max worked well with any bullet in the 140-grain range, so I loaded up some 140-grain Berger VLDs with 41.5 grains, seating the bullets just shy of the lands. Eileen happened to be along on that range-trip, and was on the spotting scope when I fired the first group at 100 yards. The first bullet landed a little low and left of the bull, but she couldn’t find the hole from the second round, so I fired a third—and as the late Mickey Coleman put it, “the hole got a little darker.” Eventually five rounds went into .33 inch, and while the load didn’t always group quite like that in the Predator, it stayed under half an inch.

Several new powders with similar burn-rates have appeared since my first Creedmoor, including Alliant Reloder 16, IMR4451 and Vihtavuorhi N555. In fact, IMR4451 was partly developed as a substitute for H4350 during a “component shortage” when it became difficult to get enough H4350 shipped from the Australian manufacturer. The General Dynamics plant in Quebec came up with a similar powder, also temp-resistant but including a copper remover.

IMR4451 is double-based, so is capable of a little more velocity than H4350—and in every cartridge I’ve tried it in so far, accuracy has improved slightly over H4350. Reloder 16 and N550 are also double-based with a copper remover, and have also done quite well. In fact, N555 was introduced mostly for the 6.5 Creedmoor, with a burn-rate between N550 and N560.

The round’s accuracy is due to more than the 30-degree shoulder and relatively short case body, which have been common “accuracy” features ever since the 6mm PPC appeared. The standard SAAMI chamber also contributes, since unlike the 6x5x55 and .260 Remington the throat’s shorter, and barely over .264-inch in diameter, which keeps bullets better-aligned as they leave the neck and enter the rifling.

So no, the 6.5 Creedmoor did not become popular thanks to a massive publicity campaign. Instead it became popular because hunters finally noticed the inherent accuracy of a fine design—the reason I shoot 5-shot groups with most 6.5 Creedmoors, resulting in more accurate information for longer-range shooting, whether on targets or game.

Nice historical perspective & information, JB.

Thanks for posting that.

MM

There’s been a lot of fussing over the new straight-wall rounds, pointing out that they don’t do anything new, and ignoring the simple fact that they spawned by regulations that permitted rifles that fit inside certain parameters, ill-considered though some may be, and allow folks to use accurate weapons with less recoil and more affordable ammunition. I don’t need one here, but if I lived elsewhere I’d be all over one of them. Since most of them are also AR-friendly, they’re also an interesting option for defensive use. I’ve seen subsonic loads for the .350, and maybe the .450 if memory serves (!)

Yeah I see a lot of outrage over the new straight wall cartridges. Guys calling them "gimmicks" and ranting against state regs. It always strikes me funny how people get so angry about new chamberings.

The cost of slugs probably has a bunch of lobbyists in the political arena stirring it up also.

Being upset about someone’s choice reminds me of a story.

If I bellied up to the bar in leadore years ago, at the Silver Dollar, ( and it was busy)I would order an Olympia beer.

So many people I knew, even those I didn’t, would get upset enough about my choice in suds…..

They would buy me a “ better beer”.

It worked several times.

One thing that comes up often in the rants is that companies should be making more ammo for old-timers like the .35 R and such instead of coming up with new stuff. Guess those Midwestern hunters should just stick with their slug guns so Uncle Joe-Bob can always find a box of Cor-Lokts for his Marlin any time he waltzes into Walmart, every 5 or 10 years or so….

Not only cost, but availability. Before the straight-walls arrived, it was common here to see posts looking for fancy slugs that had been discontinued.

I picked up an old Deerslayer a few months back, smoothbore of course, and dialing it in “just in case” reminded me just how lively a light 12 was when shooting Fosters. A friend was watching me at the bench and told me that little cannon was really knocking me around, like I didn’t already know that!

That's no joke, companies were absolutely terrible about discontinuing slugs at a whim. I traded off a couple slug guns that were very diet picky over the years because thier slug of choice got axed, and nothing else shot that well from them.

I secured enough Tru-Balls and Brennekes to keep me in traction for the rest of my life, maybe my grandchildren too. I have one more doe day coming up Sunday, and though I don’t need any more meat, I might just have to trot out that Deerslayer and sit a while over a WMA foodplot for a few hours.

I'm hoping to never shoot another slug again the rest of my life now that we can use some rifle cartridges here. I'm pretty recoil sensitive, so they were never a fun time for me, just a necessity to hunt.

I did keep the last slug gun just in case though, and I've got enough ammo stashed to feed it for several seasons if I had to.

The tradeoff slug guns were mostly during my mid 20s/early 30s when I just flat out didn't have the means to build up stashes of ammo or components. Had a pretty bad run there for a while when I was 100% flatass broke.

I remember, back in the late 60s, stopping at every open store at 5 am on the way to go hunting in Southern Maryland, looking for slugs, generally Remington Fosters. Couple bucks a box IIRC. Good times!

I talked to Mel owner of Mel’s Sporting Goods in Spicer Minnesota.

He bought a bunch of slugs, then hired a small plane to fly them into Willmar. The event was broadcast live on KWLM.

I do, about got my season ruined by an old ranch hand sending me a pic of a monster buck in velvet last august, have hunted him pretty hard all season, with time running out i went to work last Tuesday and yesterday filling meat tags, two doe, a button buck and a 7pt fell to 230gr ATips leaving my 300 PRC at 2930 fps, ranges 309, 436, 472 and 522 yards, no animal went more than 15-20 yard death dash.

Yup. The new 350 Legend and 360 Buckhammer have the 35 Remington crowd rending their garments and gnashing their teeth

I liked the 20 gauge slugs better they didn't brutalized you

The best part is they are smaller calibers, less powder , less bullet . After using my .243 WIn. on the last bunch of deer , my .270 Win. stays in the basement. Gone are the days of an 06, that is best for moose , bear and elk for a 150 lb deer. Heck, I might even go as small as a .223 Rem. for deer. Everyone that uses them say they are the hammer.

I like the modern case designs. I think the 6.5 CM is just dandy-but I don't own any of them.

My "most modern cartridge" chambered firearm is the 223 Rem. ( 44 mag and 308 right behind the 223 Rem).

When you get down to it, new chamberings may indeed be "new" but they don't improve upon other time-tested chamberings. That's called "marketing." Is any cartridge that hit the market in the last 50+ years really that remarkable or different from another cartridge in the same caliber? I think not.

Would really like to read about your test results with various cartridge introduced in the past 50 years.

Could a rifle/barrel maker alter the “ throat” in a cartridge to emulate the creedmore in other cartridges?

JB,

Pick a caliber, and tell me what void has been filled in the last 30-50 years with "new cartridges"? Most don't hunt or shoot a 338 Lapua. WSM? SAUM? RCM? How prevalent /successful/useful/void filling are they?

.224" : anything beating the Swift? There's a void filler with the 223 Rem/5.56 Rem in the 1960s for military use. I'll give that one (but more than 50 years ago), but all in all, not much different than a 222 Rem or 222 Rem Mag.

.243 : anything really commercially "improving" the 243/6mm Rem or 240 Weatherby (not too prevalent)? The 243 WSM? Really? Lower FPS area yields the 6 BR and 6 PPC. Great designs and accuracy personified. They filled the benchrest shooter's needs.

.257: anything smoking the 257 Weatherby? Anything wrong with the 25-06 or 257 Roberts with good powders and bullets?

.264 Win mag.: Not many use it. Is it much different than the 7 Rem Mag? The 6.5 CM is well-designed, but what about the 6.5x55 or 6.5x57? Put the 6.5x55 in a strong action allowing higher pressure and velocity, not a soft 96 Mauser, and is there enough difference to spar against each other? The 260 Rem? Nice but any real difference compared to the old 6.5x55 in a strong action?

.270: 270 Win, 270 Weatherby mag. Is the 270 WSM going to survive? Does it do much of anything "better" than the "Bee"? And what about the old 270 Win -with new powders amping its performance? Tough to beat the plain Jane 270 Win. Is there a void on the other end here? 6.8 SPC for the military? Great modern design, but is it enough to improve the 5.56 at longer ranges in combat? TBD with military and governmental politics.
https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/19064471/1


7mm: Anything new commercial success or replacement of a 7mm Weatherby or 7mm Rem Mag? The 280 Rem is well-regarded, but what is "better"? Or go "slower void path" with the 7mm Waters (yawn). The 7-08? Excellent cartridge, but any real difference compared to the 7x57? You have the option for a short action. But does it perform close enough to the 7x57? The 7mm RUM is there, but how popular? Haven't read much about Layne Simpson's 7mm STW chambering. Is 200 fps faster than the standard 7mm Rem Mag really a void that needs filling? Pragmatically?

308: The 300 Win mag, 300 Weatherby, 300 H&H, 308 Norma mag (50++ years ago). What commercial 30 caliber is displacing them, the 300 WSM? Most of the earlier "mags" have faded away, leaving the 300 Win Mag or Weatherby-or maybe a small slice of 300 wsm. What else is "better" ? Faster? The 300 RUM. 200 fps faster than the the other 30 mags. How big a market, and what void was it filling? Where was the 300 Win Mag or 300 Weatherby lacking? How about the slower fps market?-ok the 30 BR, accurate, interesting, fun, but limited, but not a commercial success. 300 Blackout? Some success for low recoil shooting, but won't replace the 5.56 for the military. The 308 Win ( 1950s), but that is ~70 years ago (not 50 years, but I'll toss it in anyways). It is an excellent design (but not much different than the 30-06). It indeed filled a void for military needs at the time. Obviously the 308 Win 7.62 Nato was initially all about shorter-actioned military weapons first, then it hit the civilian market with success. Both the 308 Win and 30-06 improve due to newer powders.

Skip to 8mm: Maybe the 8mm Rem mag, but who chambers it now? is it better than the 100+ year old 8x68? 325 WSM? Well-designed cartridge, but many ask, why not a 338 WSM? Some use, but how long will the 325 WSM last? It has faded before the sun rose on it.

338: The 338 Win Mag or 340 Weatherby mag still hold the spot to be knocked off center to be the king. What is better than them? ( commercially)? 338 Lapua, but aside for specialized semi-custom builds, who shoots it? 338-06? great cartridge. Finally commercialized, but not that popular (should be, but just isn't). 338 RCM? Another good design; but, any better than the 338 Win Mag, pragmatically speaking? A shorter action is not a bullet performance "improvement." I like the 338 Federal (short action option), solid choice and of course a good design -from the 308 Win. It is a big stick in a little bundle, but is it much different than the 8x57? Either could be a "one gun" void filler for the north american hunter ( as well as many other mid-bores..Nothing new with that concept from the 270 Win to the 35 Whelen).

358:, The 35 Whelen and 350 Rem Mag are great. Never popular, but the 358 Norma Mag holds the king of the hill MV title (but who commercially chambers it anymore?). What is better or more popular commercially? (and the 350 Rem Mag while having a following, was never "popular". 350 Legend? /357 Max? They fill hunting voids for straight-walled cases for hunting requirements. You got me there. (but the ~ 100 year old 357 mag from a 20" barreled rifle would do ok with a good 158-180 grain bullet). My concern with the 350 Legend is the SAAMI spec for groove diameter of 0.355" (https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/whats-going-on-with-350-legend/). There seems to be some conflicting reports that 350 Legend bullet diameters are 0.355", 357" or 0.358" (SAAMI spec 0.357 -0.003"). I like the concept of the 350 Legend, but not the bullet diameter / groove diameter confusion, so overall it is a "no go" for me.

9.3. the 1905 9.3x62 seems to be holding its own.

375: Does the 375 H&H get replaced by the 375 Ruger? Unlikely, but the 375 Ruger ( and 416 version) is a great design. But is it 'better"? No, it is a beltless version, both close enough. The 375 Marlin offered higher pressures than the 38-55, but not commercially chambered now.

416? The Rigby has been around for over 100+ years. Big actions. Not common, and expensive. Now there is the 416 Rem Mag and Ruger Mag. Better? Yes, as the needed action/rifle is more affordable and available, and ammo is lower cost, but not cheap. Could be one of the calibers that there has been "improvement" due to better availability of a shooting platform, but are they "better performers" than the old 416 Rigby ( regarding bullet weight and MV)? Probably not a lot of difference.

44> 444 Marlin. Now filling a need for straight wall cartridge requirements for hunting regulations. (but also designed more than 50 years ago). Wasn't designed with that intent, but it is swerving into a new life of usefulness.

458? 458 win mag, 460 Weatherby, and the 458 Lott. What chambering is providing improved performance over those? 458 SOCOM? close range AR platform blaster. I guess that is a void that could be filled. Tough to chamber a AR15 in 45-70.

Then there are modern offerings like the Lazzeroni line. Fast, modern design but do any of them really provide a drastic improvement of any existing caliber they chamber? Not a commercial success.

Chamberings based on the rimless 404 Jeffery provide new options. But do the resultant cartridges significantly improve performance and fill a gaping void, or do they mimic existing "old" cartridges? Is a RUM or RCM, SAUM "better"? Not all are faster (if that is indeed "better", may not be). And if faster, is 200 fps increased velocity really going to be a break through and make it commercially successful, or that much "better"? Sometimes, too much of something isn't a good thing, or needed. Is a void really filled? It is one thing to push the edge of the envelope. I get that. It is another to sit down and ask, "What am I really getting here as a result? Is it really pragmatically "better?" 600 yards isn't far enough, so a 700 yard shot capability is "better?" Is that really a pragmatic issue, or a niche application? Yes, I have read that "Big Stick" shoots moose at 859 yards at sunset. I guess it's a void filler for him.

"Older" cartridges are getting new life breathed into them with new powders, so the old stuff is beating the old stuff themselves-giving boost across the board.

I'm not trying to get into an argument. I'm just stating there are indeed new case designs that are well thought out. I think one of the best is the 6.5 CM, but does it DO anything better than two other 6.5 cartridges that are 100+ years older? Not really. Match them up gun to gun, rifling twist to rifling twist, modern power to modern powder, and you will have a photo finish at the end of the race. That is not a problem. It is just that everything old is new again. Hence my "marketing" comment. Isn't safe to state that Winchester launched the WSM cartridge line for marketing purposes? No real voids filled, just a mimic in multiple calibers. Every product has a "life cycle" in business, and new products/versions are launched to increase sales. In happens in the firearms industry for ammunition/bullets/case design as well as firearms themselves. Nothing new with that, but marketing a line of cartridges that achieve exactly what in the end? The WSM line is a modernized case, but overall, they never offered a huge benefit or improvement. They sold some extra guns with the WSM launch, but that product lifecycle has fizzed. They work, but are they a game changer? No.

What void has been filled in the last 50 years with a new chambering? If any, those voids are pretty small. It is not like the 222 Rem taking off in 1950(?) to bury the 22 Hornet or 218 Bee. The 1930's-era 270 Winchester with new powder and a 1-8 or 9" twist barrel takes it though the good-better best step up. This oldie is currently outperforming itself today, and is "re-modernized" for improvement.

Just my opinion, and you obviously don't agree, but that's my take "modern case designs." There are some good "new"/"modern" case designs. That is one issue, design. The other issue, is "performance", are they really that different to make that much of a difference in pragmatic (commercial) performance from a chambering available 50 years ago? Somewhat here and there, but noteworthy? I think not. My 2c.

Cheers. Happy new year 2024. Hope the world doesn't get more nuts.

could they?... yes they could... But will they?... not a ghosts chance in hell me thinks?... likely citing the SAAMI thing... besides, they don't want to improve old cartridges, they want to "SELL" new ones... New Cartridge= New Rifles, New Brass, New Dies, New Bullets, New Powders, New load data, ect... However, i was surprised to see that Remington updated the twist rate to 1:8 for their 243 Win & 7mm Rem Mag, model 700 CDL rifles... But, i don't know if that's a useful update or not? , citing the existing parameters of said cartridges and rifles...

I have 10 different centerfire cartridges in my safe from 6.5x55 to 458WM. Of that selection, 7 are over 100 years old, 2 are over 65 years old & only one would be considered “modern” based on a sub-50 year cutoff. This weekend, every deer I could have shot was within 150 meters and would have died using any of those rifles if I had done my job properly. So I think in many ways, I agree with the basis of your assertion in that I believe that the majority of shots taken by most hunters could be done ethically & well with an older (i.e. not modern) cartridge especially when you factor in modern powders & bullet choices. Measured by that standard, then I think it is possible to marginalize any other quantifiable improvement as niche simply because it is valued or actually needed by a smaller number of shooters.

But does that make these improvements insignificant simply because they’re not drastic? I think discussions along these lines will always be argumentative simply because everyone measures “improvements” & “void filling” by different criteria. One person is arguing that my fruit & your fruit are both fruits while the other person is saying my apple is different from your orange. They don’t agree because they view things differently, while technically, they’re both correct.

My modern cartridge is a 300 HAM’R. It fires a .308 caliber bullet (in my case a 130gr Speer Hot-Cor) out of an AR-15 platform with enough power to take a large variety of game. To flip the question on its head, what cartridge from 50+ years ago gives similar performance & versatility if I’m shooting at a bunch of hogs? As knowledgeable as some people on this forum are, I won’t be surprised if someone comes up with a pretty good suggestion. But to my mind, this setup IS an improvement over the rifles I wanted 50 years ago when I was a teenager. The 300 Blackout was mentioned but dismissed as niche. But I think most shooters would agree that suppression has become a much bigger deal recently & cartridges that work well for that purpose will either supplant some older options or create a whole new class that doesn’t have an older counterpart.

Another apples to oranges comparison is the 375 & 416 Ruger to its classic 375 & 416 African predecessors. If you & I both shoot an eland with an identical bullet traveling the exact same speed & both animals drop dead, you might argue that there’s no difference. But if I’m standing there with a standard action 375 Ruger Guide Gun that I got off of GB for $1,071 & you’ve got a magnum action 375 H&H that cost double that, then my reply might be “I think a void has been filled”.

So one person might be measuring improvements based mainly on terminal performance (i.e. the final result or energy & velocity measurements) while another might have take a more expansive view that factors in a smaller action, an ability to fire in a semi-auto, less recoil, less powder, cheaper to own, etc. Coming to a consensus when the parameters aren’t universally defined & agreed upon can be problematic.

So I think some notable improvements have been made in the last 50 years that have been appreciated by many shooters. The fact that most of these are irrelevant to me is reflected by the contents of my gun safe. While I sometimes roll my eyes at the fact that MidwayUSA carries 173 different kinds of rifle ammo (especially when they don’t have something I want) I also think I’d be a bit disappointed if we decided to simplify it down to a couple of dozen practical & adequate selections as well and called it quits on chasing after a perfect cartridge that will never exist.

Well, you certainly went to a lot of trouble to make your point! I hope you didn’t type all that on your phone! There are a few things you avoided mentioning that make new cartridges significantly better than old ones of the same caliber and velocity potential. This is off the top of my head, and if I miss some things, no doubt someone will fill in the blanks.

Standard rifling twists for new cartridges are often faster, or optimized for bullets that are ballistically superior, or made from better materials like the mono-metal ones, increasing the effectiveness on game, and performance for target shooting. While custom barrels can be fitted for old rounds that accomplish the same thing, factory ammunition almost always will be manufactured to work with the standard twists of yore to avoid problems with the rifles already in use.

Standard pressures for new cartridges are often higher, allowing better performance from cases of the same capacity, safely in modern arms designed for those pressures.

New cartridges bring the performance of older cartridges to new platforms, such as MSRs, and mini bolt-actions. Straight-wall cartridges do this to comply with new regulations and allow hunters in many states to use accurate rifles instead of shotguns and muzzleloaders, with easily obtainable and affordable rifles and ammunition. While the logic behind those regs is questionable in many cases, the law is the law, and the opportunities they create are real.

New cartridges have better case designs: optimal shoulder angles for better accuracy, better case life due to less stretching, even better barrel life. Fatter ones bring standard-length performance to short and mid-length actions which are stiffer and potentially more accurate.

These advantages are all real, even if some are incremental, not earth-shattering. While older rounds remain as good as ever, new ones offer better performance and factory ammunition to everyone, not just handloaders and the owners of custom rifles.

I like most cartridges and can make whatever I want. For hunting, it doesn't matter much. All I am doing is pushing a selected bullet to a desired velocity. For target use, I will use whatever works. For short range BR, that usually means a 6PPC (a modern cartridge, about fifty years old). For long range and for silhouette, I like 6.5mm and I think the 6.5CM is great. In fact, I think it is so well suited for the purpose that I will probably never build myself anything else. For hunting, it's a different matter. I shoot Mausers and Winchesters, so my 6.5 choice is either the 6.5x55 or the 256 Newton; just because I think they are cool. Another great modern cartridge, for target use, is the 6BR. If you go by the introduction of the original Remington version, it is not quite 50 years old.
I like 30 calibers and there is no getting around the fact that the 308 Winchester is a pretty fine cartridge, though nearly 70 years old. Still a pretty fine target round too, and that's all I use it for. I have four of them. I have other 30's I hunt with.
I seriously doubt that I will ever bother building myself any of the modern cartridges in 7mm and up, simply because I can see no reason to do so.
As a gunsmith, I dislike the modern trend to minimal body taper for pragmatic reasons. When chambering a more tapered cartridge offers a better chance of producing a perfectly smooth chamber with the final cut. Very straight cartridges don't clean up any previous tool marks left in the early stages of reaming the chamber, (It happens. Those who say they have never seen such a thing are either inexperienced, very lucky, or lying). This is not so concerning with short cartridge, like the PPC or even the Creedmoor, but can rear its ugly head with the 280AI, for instance.
In the end, the cartridge case is a powder holder and a gasket. What it says on the headstamp doesn't matter much and the shape matters little. GD

My 98s in .308, .270, and .30/06 ain't going anywhere, but neither are my 6.5 Grendel or 6 CM, which excel at what they do, in very light, very accurate rifles using bonded and mono-metal bullets, and with little recoil.

I agree with everything you wrote. No push back from me.

As I wrote, there are two issues/lines of thought: 1). modern case design itself, "What do you think of them?", and 2). "Are they that different from current offerings regarding performance?"

Today, imo, any "improvement" is marginal, as there are already so many choices that have filled most voids. It is not like big historical changes in cartridge or technology advance like:
muzzle loading to cased cartridges, rimfire to center fire priming, black powder cartridges to smokeless powder, or rimmed cases to rimless cartridges. Each of those steps were huge. Performed improved, as well as gun design ( feed issues). Today, most voids are filled. A late thought, but sabot slugs and rifled slug barrels are a significant modernization/improvement from smooth boxes and Foster slugs for medium game hunting.

A modernized cartridge could open new options for firearm use (for lower cost. Ie 416 Rigby vs 416 Rem on a Rem 700, or a 375 H&H vs 375 Ruger on a Ruger 77 or How's 1500). Similar performance, but the benefit is more access-related.

The next big change in "modernization" of case design could be the caseless cartridge. The technology is with us, it is just not widespread. I believe Veore was on this 20+ years(?) ago. While performance per se of the caseless cartridge itself may mimic others, the real benefit will be aligned with logistics ( no brass suppliers/manufacturing), weight ( more rounds able to be shipped or carried in combat as each round is lighter. It is certainly is "different. "
Also on the horizon, what will replace the 5.56 as the US military rifle cartridge, some form of the 6.8 SPC? It will be a bigger caliber than the 5.56, but what? Not the Grendel. Maybe some form of the 6.5 (or 7mm or 30 CM?- which means we go back to a version of the 300 Savage, which a basis for the 7.62 Nato/308 Win. "May the circle be unbroken... ". 🙂Who knows? A case less 27 caliber ?

I look at cartridge performance in a 3-dimensional grid (x,y,z axis of: caliber vs bullet weight vs muzzle velocity). What voids are present that can be filled with a "modernized case design"? Any improvement will be slight at best ("niche"?). Nothing wrong with that, and I don't want to be viewed as dismissive- but marginal is marginal for the available "voids" to be filled in the 3d matrix-unless I am missing something.

In the end I think the 6.5CM and 375 Ruger are two fantastic modernized cartridges from the last 50 years, on the design aspect. Do they offer improved performance over that currently exists from the 6.5x55 or 375 H&H? I don't think so. But yes, the 375 Ruger offers a more affordable platform. I agree 100%. (See my two comments in this thread -pave 6-in the big bore section: https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/18575386/6).

Cheers.

And the last two fell to an old school "modernized" cartridge first light last saturday morning, the great 7mm Mashburn got it done at 507 and 528 yards, 160gr accubonds at 3220 got it handled quick.

Great fun 2.5 days of hunting filling meat tags.

Happy New Year, and I also hope the world doesn't get more nuts!

But you're wrong about my not agreeing with you about "modern case designs." It's my job to analyze new stuff, including hunting cartridges. I have, both personally and by observing other shooters/hunters--and like you question the advantages of many new cartridges.

And like you, one example would be the .270 WSM. After seeing several used in the field, including my own use, I couldn't find any significant advantage over the .270 Winchester--or .270 Weatherby. Have owned several WSMs and Weatherbys, including factory and custom rifles, and never found the "magnums" to kill big game any quicker than the original Winchester version--and with the advent of laser rangefinders the flatter trajectories of the magnums don't have nearly as much advantage as they used to.

But I have actually done that sort of "research," and you admit you haven't.

In general it seems you consider muzzle velocity the major difference between many newer and older cartridges--or even all cartridges. Yet there is a major difference in potential accuracy, which both I and some others consider at least as important.

You also make the same claim many others do about the 6.5 Creedmoor versus the 6.5x55, that the 6.5x55 has been doing the same things "for over a century". Well, no, not exactly, partly because the 6.5x55 was designed as a military cartridge, with an extremely long throat to accommodate the then-standard heavy, round-nosed bullets used in early smokeless military rifles.

Around half a century later the 6.5x55 got switched to lighter boattailed spitzers in military rifles--but the result was chamber throats varying considerably. While SAAMI suggests a standardized "American" throat, throats still vary widely. I know this from owning a bunch of 6.5x55s, from an original Norwegian Krag-Jorgenson to various factory sporters--and one custom rifle.

Since I started down-sizing my rifle collection a couple years ago, I don't own a 6.5 Creedmoor anymore--after owning probably half a dozen since 2010, when I bought my first, because I had to test whether 6.5 Creedmoors do tend to group very well in factory rifles, with factory ammunition. They all did.

The one 6.5 I kept is a custom rifle built over a long period. It was originally one of the commercial FN 98-Mauser actioned rifle Montgomery Ward once offered, which belonged to my stepfather-in-law. He quit hunting and I bought it from him, and soon restocked it myself in some pretty nice "California English" walnut. It grouped very well at first, even though the bore was somewhat pitted, probably mostly due to him living in coastal Florida after he'd retired 20-some years earlier.

But I also shot it a lot, since it was my main .270 for years, and eventually the accuracy started to go. So I had Charlie Sisk rebarrel it to 6.5x55 with a 1-8 twist Lilja barrel, using a special reamer with what the reamer-maker called a "target throat." It groups extremely well with handloads using Lapua brass and various bullets, though is more average with factory loads, whether American or European. In fact it groups handloads just as well as the average $500 6.5 Creedmoor, after spending about that much just on the barrel.

Have also learned a lot about how cartridges in other calibers work by actually trying them. Have taken a pile of big game with various 7mm rounds, including the 7mm-08, 7x57, .280 Remington, .280 Remington Ackley Improved, 7mm WSM, 7mm Remington Magnum, 7mm Weatherby Magnum and 7mm STW. The only one I have left is a 7mm Remington Magnum, a Mauser M18--one of those modern "cheap rifles" with an injection-mold stock so many older hunters love to hate as much as they hate the 6.5 Creedmoor.

Why did I keep it as my only 7mm? Partly because like most "cheap" modern rifles it groups very well, and in fact it's overall the most accurate 7mm RM I've ever owned. But's also because 7mm Remington Magnum factory ammo and brass tend to be more available than any other 7mm cartridges during the recent (and recurring) "shortages."

I didn't think much of the 7mm Remington Magnum when I started hunting big game not long after the cartridge appeared, because so many people thought it was magic--even though it didn't "do anything" other 7mm belted magnums hadn't been doing for a long time, whether the 7mm Weatherby or 7mm Mashburn Super Magnum. Does it "work" any better than the other factory rounds (some of them "modernized") that approximate its ballistics, from the .280 AI to the 7mm STW? Nope, but it works just as well, and brass is far more easily found (and affordable) than, say, 7mm SAUM cases--with which I've taken a dozen big game animals from South Texas to northern Canada.

But my main point is that I found this out (and other stuff) by actually using stuff, both at the range and in the field, NOT by somehow "knowing" it without any personal experience.

Bill, I like the way you think when it comes to cartridges or rifles. Discussions on most forums usually start and end with what is the fastest or most accurate cartridge.

Some people dislike older cartridges or rifles. They dislike wooden stocks. It's a rimmed cartridge! My grandfather used one! The cool factor is gone. We have been programmed to replace "old stuff". Examples abound. Stormy Kromers vs camo. LR scopes versus low power fixed. New, sleek cartridges. Aerodynamic is cool.

Some people want 1000 yard accuracy, but don't ever shoot past 200. If they tried, they would fail to connect.

We are still a consumer society, and new and cool bombards us daily via television and the Internets.

I say this often in posts. We are products of our generations. Older hunters and shooters generally have what they need and push back when a younger person shows off his new PRC (or Creedmoor) cartridge or some tactical gear. When I encounter people like that, I smile, ask a few questions and let them enjoy their stuff. If they are happy, let them shine. It's important to remember that they are like us. They were influenced by ads and what others have told them. The only difference is we were influenced by paper magazines. Today, it usually comes from the world wide web.

Are you still using your dad's old Weatherby? Get with the times! You need a 26 Nosler!

It's difficult for most younger people to comprehend that anyone can be happy with a 303 or a 30-06. When I encounter people like that, I smile, ask a few questions and go about my business. I am happy, so let me shine.

When I released my 6x45mm book, I was asked by a few people why I bothered with a small fry 6mm. What was the point? There are so many better 6mms! My answer was simple. It's what I wanted. My needs and likes are different. The 6x45mm works well in the woods. The cartridge functions perfectly in a bolt action and is cheap to feed. What didn't exist, like a 6x45mm OAL gauge or case trimmer, I made and put them in the book. This was done because there are people who like to putter around in the workshop and make their own stuff. It's another aspect of the hobby like reloading or bullet making.

It's about what makes a person happy. We all like different things.

After having owned a few odd chamberings I don't especially have desires to seek out and try out a lot of new sizes anymore!
I had a 7mm STW it went away. Also, .270 WSM and 6.5-06 and they have been sold. They simply had larger groups @ 400 yards than my existing rifles.

However, I did keep a 300 WSM that is very accurate and just keep on keeping it. I'm sort of surprised their popularity is fading.

In regards to all of the new smaller class rounds, my .270 or .308 will work for hunting game, and they must have good recoil pads because I'm not looking for smaller.

Good to hear the Mashburn got some time!

I was hunting deer with my 30-06 this weekend. Had a great time so I must be an old guy . My Ruger No. 1A in .303 British is a nostalgic favorite because I shot my first deer with it. I still love hunting with it & I'll never sell it. It's one of the few calibers (the other being a .375 H&H) that I have two rifles chambered for it. Longest deer shot to date with either rifle is 156 yards. I know my limits!

===============================================================
JB

Who said I haven't shot/ tested different cartridges? Not me..

Let's see, over 40 years, I have owned rifles ( and reloaded for them all) in the following chamberings-before I started thinning the herd: 22 LR, 22 mag, 22 Hornet, 218 Bee, 222 Rem, 223 Rem, 22-250 220 Swift,6mm Rem, 250 savage, 257 Roberts, 6.5x54, 6.5x55, 7x57, 270 Win, 30-30, 308 Win, 30-06, 300 Win mag, 303 Brit, 338-06, 38 special/ 357 mag, 35 Rem, 358 Win, 9.3x62, 44 mag, 45 acp, 45-70. ..20, 16, 12 gauge shotguns, and .40 , .45, .50 round ball twist flintlock rifles

I have shot/ benched ( not owned, borrowed from friends): 300 Savage, 7mm Rem mag, 338 Win mag, 375 Ruger.

It's not my first time to the firearm rodeo. I have also competed in smallbore and centerfire, rifle, 2700 bullseye pistol shooting, flintlock rifle muzzleloading , and trad archery competitions ( won a couple of state titles in the process). I also make a mean batch of traditional Scottish shortbread.

I am not a prolific hunter, no argument from me on that point. But the end point is we both came to the same conclusion. Some modernized cases may not be the "silver magic bullet, " but allow other options/benefits from modernized actions or updated rifling twists ( ie 6.5x55 in a m96 Mauser or a M70, very different chamberings/throats, rifling and pressure limits.) That isn't the cartridge, that's modernized gunsmithing applications."modern firearm platforming"?). Combine that with new gunpowders increasing performance across the board on all chamberings ("powder modernization"?), and it adds testosterone to older cartridges. Many ( most? ) of the existing chamberings are serving us just fine. Do I need a 300 PRC instead of a 300 Win mag due to an increase in MV? Maybe others do, but is there a difference on game? I guess I am the wrong person to ask on that, but my take is "not really."

For paper punching? Yes, short fat cases with sharp shoulders have accuracy potential with lower Std Deviations and efficient powder burn. Combine that with smaller flash holes, like the Remington BR cases, or modernized 22 Russian cases (22 and 6 PPC) and there is accuracy potential. But now stiff lapped barrels with min bore/rifling variance determined by air gauge testing, fast lock time, and precisely made actions come in to play to "convert" the accuracy potential),not to mention shooter's skill and reading the wind. So it is not "just a modern case.". If it was just a short fat case being accurate, then the Savage 99 in the " short, fat and modern" 300 Savage would've been a bench rest gun in the1930s.

You may disagree on my methodology on the comments, but they are not without merit or research on various readings, and my bench time.

I do appreciate your comments.

I think the 7-08 is a dandy cartridge, have owned, shot, hunted with a few.... Is it a 'modern cartridge'???? IDK

It is compared to the 7x57 Mauser.

...but, realistically, what will it do that the 7x57 will not?????

And to buttstocks point..... do I really need to shoot either one of them to tell there's hardly spits worth of difference?

They are both great looking rifles! Very nice!

===============================================================
JB

Who said I haven't shot/ tested different cartridges? Not me..

Let's see, I have owned rifles ( and reloaded for them all) in the following chamberings-before I started thinning the herd: 22 LR, 22 mag, 22 Hornet, 218 Bee, 222 Rem, 223 Rem, 22-250 220 Swift,6mm Rem, 250 savage, 257 Roberts, 6.5x54, 6.5x55, 7x57, 270 Win, 30-30, 308 Win, 30-06, 300 Win mag, 303 Brit, 338-06, 38 special/ 357 mag, 35 Rem, 358 Win, 9.3x62, 44 mag, 45 acp, 45-70. ..20, 16, 12 gauge shotguns.

I have shot/ benched ( not owned, borrowed from friends): 7mm Rem mag, 338 Win mag, 375 Ruger.

It's not my first time to the firearm rodeo. I have also competed in smallbore and centerfire, rifle, 2700 bullseye pistol shooting, flintlock rifle muzzleloading , and trad archery competitions ( won a couple of state titles in the process). I also make a mean batch of traditional Scottish shortbread.

I am not a prolific hunter, no argument from me on that point. But the end point is we both came to the same conclusion. Many ( most? ) of the existing chamberings are serving us just fine. Do I need a 300 PRC instead of a 300 Win mag due to an increase in MV? Maybe others do, but is there a difference on game? I guess I am the wrong person to ask on that, but my take is "not really.". So, modernized cartridges' performances, launched in the last 50 years, have had imo marginal improvement compared to existing chamberings.

You may disagree on my methodology on the comments, but they are not without merit or research on various readings, and my bench time. Is that wrong? No, because I am making some pretty benign statements that are reasonable and warranted. I shot the rifles I had. Many people shot more various chamberings, some less;but, my comments are not unfounded.

I do appreciate your comments.[/quote]

If you punch more paper than hunt, then several of the "modernized" cartridges do have an advantage in accuracy, not just the 6.5 Creedmoor. These are generally the shorter, fatter rounds with 30-degree shoulders--and angle which does result in more consistent powder burn and velocities--and hence smaller groups.

That's exactly what the Winchester Short Magnums were designed to do--and incidentally the early design-research was not done by Winchester. Some of the promotional stuff Winchester put out was indeed BS, such as the .300 WSM (the first short/fat/beltless magnum introduced commercially) equaling the velocities of the .300 Winchester Magnum despite less powder capacity.

But it is indeed a very accurate cartridge. One of the first pieces of evidence I heard in the industry was from Bob Nosler. Until the .300 WSM appeared they used the .308 Winchester and .30-06 to test accuracy of their lighter-weight .30 caliber bullets, and the .300 Winchester Magnum with heavier bullets. But after the .300 WSM appeared they switched to it to accuracy-test ALL their .30 bullets. (Some sniper units in various places also switched to the .300 WSM , both police and military. Don't know if they all stuck with it, but that happened for a while.)

I have owned several factory .300 WSMs and they all shot well. One may have been the most accurate .300 magnum of any kind that I've ever owned, and I've owned a bunch.

The 30-degree "accuracy" shoulder has been well-proven, first by Lou Palmisano and Ferris Pindell when they experimented with different shoulder angles as they developed the 6mm PPC. The long-time head of the Hodgdon ballistic
laboratory, Ron Reiber, confirmed this before he retired a few years ago. He said 30-degree shoulders resulted in the most consistent pressures and velocities compared to angles, either less or more than 30-degrees, and he tested hundreds of different cartridges on an indoor range under very controlled conditions--like Nosler does in their testing.

There have been many other successful target and hunting cartridges developed since then that use 30-degree shoulder angle. One is the 6XC, developed by well-known target shooter David Tubb. (He's won 11 NRA National High Power Championships, among many other wins.) He developed the 6XC to solve the problems of similar-sized 6mm rounds in competition, such as the .243 Winchester, which burns out barrels quickly.

He used the .22-250 case, necked up to 6mm but with the shoulder pushed back to provide a longer neck (which increases barrel life) and to prevent the rear of the bullet from encountering the potential "dreaded donut" at the base of the neck.
I have a 6XC, a 13-pound rifle built by Charlie Sisk, with one of his STAR (Sisk Tactical and Adaptable) aluminum stocks. I mostly use it for long-range varmint shooting, but also use it for some target shooting, both paper and steel. It's another proven "modernized" cartridge--where accuracy (not extra velocity) is the major point--and is popular enough that factory brass is made, if I recall correctly by more than one company, though mine is Norma.

It's also the most effective longer-range varmint rifle I've ever used, and I've owned a bunch of 'em over the years in chamberings from .223s with fast-twist barrels up through "traditional" rounds such as the .220 Swift and .22-250, and some larger 6.5mm rounds. (Oh, and have taken prairie dogs with "iron sights" out to 275 yards with cartridges including the .30-40 Krag, .375 H&H and .45-70--the last an original model 1884 "trapdoor" Springfield.)

I have discovered a lot of stuff along the way, much of it unexpected--which is why I tend not to pre-judge cartridges.

Glad you appreciated my earlier comments!

John

But........if you did not have a 300 Win Mag in the safe and went out to buy something of that power level, would you buy a 300 Win Mag or 300 PRC?

This old cartridge works just fine for me. 38-55 half round half octagon barrel, checkered Neidner butt plate. I'm pushing a 225gr bullet just under 2000 FPS

Tough to answer. I don't like belted mags ( a negative for the 300 Win mag) I also don't like the issue that 300 PRC as I understand it, needs a magnum action not just a long action. I like the design of the 300 PRC, particularly that is not belted, and has a longer neck and sharp shoulders, but due to the Hornardy's engineers' design intent of the 300 PRC to have more "headroom" to seat a longer, higher BC bullets out further, it requires a longer/mag action. If you held my feet to the fire, and a HAD to buy another rifle, I would opt for the 300 Win mag. If the 300 PRC COULD be used in a long/non-magnum action ( if shorter bullets could be used to fit in a long action magazine and throating would be suitable for them), I'd try the 300 PRC, just because it doesn't have a belt. Neither is practical to me, as I have NO intention of shooting a deer or moose at 400-700++ yards. For my hunting quarry (whitetail deer, and someday a moose) in Maine at well j Dec 300 yards and less (much less) my needs are met with the 30-30 and 30-06. Modernized cases such as the 284 Win, any of the WSM-based line, 6.5 CM or 338 Federal would be serviceable too, but their performance isn't anything that would make any tangible difference in my hunting results.

If I wanted "more power" (and I don't), I would want an increase in caliber to at least .338-06, maybe a 35 Whelen/9.3x62 or 375 Ruger instead of a " fast 30 caliber". Currently, my " big gun" is a 30-06 loaded with 200 grain Speer HotCors at about 2650 fps. If I get a moose permit here in Maine, that will be my cartridge and load (in either a JC Higgins model 50 FN Mauser, or a Win 70 Extreme Weather). Modern case designs are great. If you like them, and can see a tangjble benefit, get it.

For a "modern cartridge", how about necking the 338 RCM or a WSM case up to 375? 375 RCM:? 375 WSM?:
A short-actioned thumper. It won't recoil as severe as the longer 375 Ruger. It might appeal to a broader buyer's market for deer elk moose hunters. seeking an easier to handle 375 Ruger, in a handy short action.
https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/375-wsm.176683/

Ironic that the "old" 404 Jeffrey is the basis for many modern cartridge designs.

Butt stock

I don’t know sickum…..

But people spend a considerable amount of time finding “ perfect loads” ?

So how could even a minuscule amount of benefit not help a younger person select a cartridge/ rifle?

Granted an ol fart ……( like me) can’t pencil an upgrade…….but some people reading this might.

Happy New Year!

Kinda like Mark Twain saying “ When I turned 21….my parents must’ve went to night school cuz they got ways smarter.”

I fell that way reading what Mule Deer has to say lately.

Thanks, Angus!

One of the reasons I signed up on the Campfire over 20 years ago is because it looked like a great place for finding out what readers were interested in--which in hunting-rifle ballistics has generally been smaller groups. (These days those who believe another 50-100 fps in muzzle velocity is more important can find new load data for free on the Internet.)

But there will always apparently be many who believe all progress in cartridge design (or anything else about rifles) ended years ago, generally when they were in their 30s....

John

U bet.

Like I told you years ago, a mentor of mine, ( a Silver Star awarded Army Sniper) has spoke highly of you for over a decade.

Happy New Year

I remember that! It was very nice of of you to tell me.

Happy New Year!

Thanks,
John

These are modern enough for me. Pictured from left are a 7mm Bullberry (based on a 30-30 case), a .300 Savage and the venerable 30-30 WCF. They represent some of my favorite Contender rifle chamberings.

Both the Savage and 30-30 cartridge designs are more than a century old.

The .300 Savage was -- to me -- well ahead of its time. Featuring a short, fat case with minimal body taper and a sharp shoulder, that same geometry is what bench rest and long range shooters have been migrating to over the past couple of decades.

Heck, even the plain 6.5x30-30 (aka 6.5 Bullberry) does all I could ever need.

And you're happy! That's the most important thing. Nice choices!

Is there a down side to being a rimmened cartridge?

I always wonder why the 30/40 krag didn’t get all kinda variation in caliber/ bore selection.

As someone who enjoys shooting single-shot falling-blocks, I really like rimmed cartridges (e.g. 303 British, 9.3x74r, 405 Winchester & 44 Magnum) in my No. 1's & 1885's since I'm loading, unloading & handling the cartridges individually. The rim makes a nice grip when pulling one out of the bullet holder on my belt especially with gloves.

So while the rimmed cartridges work great in revolvers, tubular magazines and breech-loaded rifles, I think they start losing some appeal when you begin loading them into a clip or magazine where they don't fit as well. You don't want the rim of a top cartridge to get behind the rim of the cartridge below it. Straight cartridges are less problematic in automatic weapons.

That's the limit of my personal experience. If rimmed cartridges suffer additional shortcomings then I'm sure someone more knowledgeable than me will chime in.

When I had first started hunting years ago,
there was a man that went with the bunch
that would buy a new pawn shop 30/40 or
303 british every year, and buy enough ammo
to check it for accuracy and zero, and if it
didn't perform as expected, he'd find another. When he found one that worked as expected, he'd make
sure to have 10-15 rounds to hunt with, and
use that for the season. The week after the
season was done, the gun would be put up
for sale and he'd do the same thing each year
IIRC he got at least one deer every year

The glowing exception being a Krag. Pour the rounds in pointy end forward and close the lunch box. Scandinavian sorcery!

Based on my post & your reply, it might be obvious that I've never had the pleasure of shooting that particular round before. I learn something new every day. Recently I came across a really nice Winchester 1895 in 30-40 Krag that was very tempting. So many nice guns...but only a finite amount of room in my gun safe & money in my wallet.

I like these type of threads, I usually learn some oblique tidbit of information.
I also like single shot rifles , I can see the advantage of using a rimmed case. I also like seeing the new cartridge configurations- wildcats and new commercial stuff.
With all the new theories and proven calculations. Maybe , someone will bring Quantum Mechanics into the fray.
When I head out the door, however, hopeful of finding a 40" Bighorn / Thinhorn Ram, Old reliable is slung over my shoulder.
If needed, the chances are good I will find a box of it in the most remote of places, and even anemic factory stuff will print well on paper and Sheep are not tough to tip over.
My little old opinion.

Interesting trail this thread is. Per previous post I have no need for "new". The youngest cartridge I ever shot was the 5.56 back about 1969. Youngest I ever owned was a .44 Mag. You see, I'm first and foremost a stalker in the hunting fields and for the last half century all of my hunting has been in Floriduh and Georgia, with one minor adventure in Mississippi.

My flinter does just fine, offhand at 50 yards:


My buffalo gun does likewise at 100. Elbow rest, black powder, 530 grains of 30:1 and a tang sight:


Oddly enough, I have a .38-55 that is comfy at 100 yds, offhand. Also shooting lead (300 gr) and Lord Black.

I had a 1895 SRC in the Krag. It was to nice to really allow me to use it.

Then I got a 95 SRC in 30 Gov with a good butt pad. It was rough enough to use without regret.

So I sold the 1895.

Because I had all the brass/ ammo from the sale I bought a Krag. I am glad I sold that Winchester.


I wonder with a rim, if that somehow helps the firearm by reducing the amount of pressure inflicted on the action?

If you want to modernize a rimmed cartridge like the 30-40, buy a beater 303 and rebarrel it but use a 308 barrel. Don't bother with hard to find 30-40 brass. Ask the gunsmith to chamber it in 303 British. You'll have a great shooter for not too much money.

If you own an Encore, have MGM make you a 303 British but with a 308 barrel. You can use your 303 British dies, but swap out the expander with a 308 expander ball.



Though the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps had adopted limited numbers of smokeless powder and bolt-action rifles, the .30-40 was the first cartridge adopted by the US Army that was designed from the outset for smokeless powder. It was patterned after .303 British, to which it is very similar geometrically.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-40_Krag

John, this is my first encounter with a dreaded donut comment. Can you explain that to me?

Change that to a 300WSM............local pawn shop has a Montana Rifle Co. Rifle in 300WSM currently. Beautiful rifle, action smooth as a baby's behind, beautiful wood - very tempting. WSM's were all the rage 10 years ago and have all but disappeared now. Wonder if PRCs will be the same?

It's thicker brass around the base of the neck, which can result in higher pressures due to compressing around the bullet when a round's seated. Because it's not necessarily consistent from case to case, it can result in erratic accuracy due to varying velocity.

It can occur for several reasons, but the usual one is full-length resizing--which after several firings tends to push the thick brass of the shoulder into the base of the neck. But it can also be caused by necking up brass to a larger caliber, which results in the same thing--a "donut" of thicker brass at the base of the neck. Which is why when I was shooting a 6.5-06 a lot some years ago I made brass by necking down .270 Winchester cases, rather than necking up .25-06s.

But have also occasionally encountered it in new brass--which can be "cured" by either inside reaming of fired brass, or turning down the base of the neck in FL resized cases.

I had never heard of the dreaded donut either so after John replied I went out to Google Images to see if there were some photos. There weren't many.

A small donut forming on the left from brass being pushed up from the shoulder:


A less pronounced ring starting to form on the case on the right:


A cutaway showing a donut that has been reamed from the inside of the case leaving bright brass:

Should also mention there's an easy test for the donut, which has been mentioned on another thread lately: Insert a bullet into the neck of fired cases, and see if there's any resistance near the bottom of the neck.

I first encountered it in a very lightly used (3 shots) Remington 700 BDL .243 I purchased in 1974. It grouped very well, but after a few loadings of new brass I started to get erratic accuracy and occasional signs of higher pressure. Found the bullet-insertion test by Dean Grennell in one of the older Speer manuals. (If any of you remember Dean's articles, you're definitely a "mature" handloader....)

I don't remember specific articles, but I definitely remember the name.

Thanks to both of you for the info.

I can be interested by about almost anything. I'll read and listen but much of it - just doesn't get me super interested to the point where I'm ready to buy.

7-08 - love it and while the 6.5 might be a better mousetrap, for me it's not enough to have both.
30-06, 22-250 in the house too. Dad shoots a 270, son shoots 243 (all primarily) so I guess we're an "old school fudd bunch" according to many. Have owned 300wm too but it does nothing for me these days.

I could like and would probably spend money on:

375 Ruger
6.8 Western (tho I know this sucker's stillborn and would need to lay in 1000 pieces of brass at a minimum to start)
6ARC/Grendel
6Creed
257 Roberts
7x57 Mauser (way overlap with the 7-08 but I guess it would be more for a special rifle)
338 Federal
22 K Hornet
45-70 Govt

Dean Grenell was always a favorite of mine, and more than once I have thought of starting a "What ever happened to" thread about him. He made interesting reading, even about subjects that I wasn't really "into".

Yes Sir buddy, confirmed 100 yard zero with a couple snake eyes in the bull last summer, went Saturday morning, spotted deer, ranged, twisted, fired, drug two to the low water bridge for dressing, that 7mm Mashburn is like lunchmeat, it's ALWAYS READY!