Jordan,
Exactly.
I just looked up obsolete in our two big dictionaries, a Random House unabridged Webster's and the Oxford English Dictionary. The first line of the Webster's is "no longer in general use." The OED says, in part, "a discarded type or fashion."
Neither equals totally gone and disappeared, and I doubt if anyone could claim the .264 ever came into general use, or was a fashion. Instead it was a good cartridge that never beat out other good cartridges in general use or fashion, whether the .270 Winchester or 7mm Remington Magnum.
That's the reason it isn't a regular chambering among major rifle manufacturers. Like many rounds that never came into general use, it's occasionally chambered in special runs. My own .264 is a stainless-synthetic Hawkeye from Ruger's limited run a few years ago.
I hadn't read the article yet, so just did, and don't know what all the fuss is about. (Well, actually I do, but will get to that later.) Here's what Terry had to say just before the "obsolete" line:
"In 1958, Winchester introduced the .264 Winchester Magnum, one of the original short belted magnums. Loaded with a 140-grain bullet, it was a dynamite performer in many ways."
That doesn't sound to me like somebody trying to run down the .264. Instead it sounds like a fan, and knowing how much Terry likes the .257 and .270 Weatherby Magnums I can't imagine he feels differently about the .264.(I went on an elk hunt with him in 2012 and he brought his .270 Roy--a Mark V with a nice walnut stock from Weatherby's custom shop--and killed a good 6-point bull.)
In fact, the only part of the article I'd quibble with is where he says the .256 Newton "was nothing more nor less than the.30-06 necked to .264," which isn't exactly correct, though pretty close.
But he did NOT run down any of the 6.5mm cartridges in the article. Instead he pointed out the simple fact that 6.5's have never been big sellers in America. He didn't say they were ineffective or inaccurate, he merely pointed out that they never became as POPULAR here as various other cartridges in their same class, such as the .270 Winchester and 7mm Remington Magnum. And that is absolutely correct.
He also did address the belt issue thoroughly and, in my opinion, correctly.
Apparently the reason so many people who've posted here got upset is they didn't really know the definition of "obsolete," so chose to interpret that single word as an insult to one of their favorite cartridges, when it was not. Others chose those posts to take shots at gun writers in general, while not even READING the article.
In fact, this whole thread reminds of the one that finally forced me to become a Campfire poster instead of a just a lurker, many years ago. Somebody posted a 2-sentence synopsis of one of my articles on this forum (which at the time was called "Ask Ken Howell"). While the synopsis was correct as far as it went, and was positive, other people jumped on it, saying I'd left out many important aspects of the subject--even though THEY hadn't read the article.
Well, duh. A 2-sentence synopsis isn't a 3000-word article. So I posted in an attempt to clear up the mix-up (much like I'm doing here), which eventually got me roped into joining Ken, and the name of the forum changed.
I don't agree with everything Terry writes because, oddly enough, gun writers don't agree on everything any more than most other shooters. But he is very knowledgeable student of firearms history, and also a life-long and very experienced hunter, shooter and handloader. He's also more accurate in his knowledge and use of the English language than most other gun writers, partly because he was a professional (and international) reporter for many years before starting to do any gun writing.
Terry knew exactly what he was saying when using "obsolete," and his use was correct. Unfortunately, a lot of magazine readers aren't as well-versed in English, and many rifle loonies look everywhere they can for a chance to take offense. Which is really what this thread is about.
