Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters This just in, ultimate cartridge

It's a failure because it's bad at what it does. As a military round, it was too expensive per round, too bulky and heavy thus impeding logistics, and offered nothing in return. The 6mm Navy was superior in every respect (although likewise needing an upgrade to a spitzer bullet and later powders and a Mauser-type rifle), but this being the Army they couldn't admit that. Similarly the 275 Pedersen was superior in all respects, but the Army couldn't listen to John Garand, so they stuck with [bleep].

As a hunting round, it's bigger diameter than it needs to be for non-dangerous game, and not big enough for dangerous game. It manages to be [bleep] at both. The case has excess taper and the wrong neck angle hurting accuracy and reloadability, not to mention costing some velocity for no benefit.

Hell, even the original rifles were abject [bleep] that everyone now agrees are unsafe-to-fire wallhangers. They were [bleep] when they came out too, but the Army ignored it.


Well, this goes a long way to explain you. You're one of those people who can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground. When confronted with a low grade, overcooked burger filled with cellulose and soy, you're apparently overjoyed. It's easy to see why you wouldn't be able to tell a good cartridge from a bad one, because you apparently can't tell a good hamburger from [bleep] either.