Lets throw in brands and bullets as well, just for the heck of it.
For me, I don't like Wby calibers or guns (I've repaired quite a few!). Too overhyped, over-heavy actions, over-flashy, over expensive, over powdered, for too little practical benefit.
I don't like Savage 110 or derivatives - gun-smithing mechanics,- tho I do like the head spacing thing and their general accuracy. The trigger mechanism sucks.
I don't like Sako actions - too many small [bleep] parts in the bolts, for too little benefit.
7MM Mag - .30-06 can do anything it can to 300 yards, and the 300 Mag better at all ranges. Besides, the only one I ever had kicked the living chit out of me - I sold it after a half-box. Sue me! But I would have bought that shop-customer - Husquavarna in a heartbeat tho - bastid wouldn't sell it... 5 rounds made one hole, and apparently the stock fit me just right...
Nosler Partitions - None of my rifles like them very well, "Adequate" for accuracy is all. C&C are better accuracy producers In my rifles. And perfectly functional. No C&C has ever "failed" me. A 210 338WM NP has. But then, I've gone away from premiums anyway, for the most part. - Just not necessary if one picks his shot.
That said, I'm going to try Hornady's GMX Super Performance in 150, .30-06, just for grins. I've been using the SST's.
I used to hate the 243 for no reason whatsoever. I've owned a 257R for years and finally realized that there is very little difference between the two. Maybe it was "25cal snob" syndrome.
Finally relented and bought a 243 bbl to screw on a 700 I have here. Gonna be a longer/heavier bbl with a bigger scope than the 257R.
The 17 HMR...it is too much for squirrel and not enough for groundhogs. It's accuracy calls to me like a siren, but I am disappointed when I have used it.
In regards to rifles, I have never liked any Savage I have owned.
Also Thompson Center, who could make an uglier gun to sell? Their products also seem to rust easier than anything else I have owned.
AR15 is not on my love list. Too many parts, aluminum on steel, that god awful spring you have to feel and hear while shooting. It feels like a toy.
I know you didn't mention scopes, but I have had nothing but bad luck with Burris and I would put them in the don't like column. I do love their rings.
I don't like 29 caliber. Neither does anyone else! In fact it's so unpopular the factories don't make it.
Humor aside, caliber and cartridges are purpose driven. In some cases they come up short of the desired performance level of the purpose they were designed for, but they are things, having no mind of their own. The problem with being purpose driven is that the more specialized one gets, the less it can cover other bases as well.
A 50 BMG is an outstanding long range heavy hitter and a wonderful tool for destroying things too tough for normal sized cartridges to destroy as well. But it's not so good for a general purpose hunting rifle. A bit heavy for most of us, don't you think? I have no desire to own such a large heavy weapon, but I can't really say "I don't like it". I only say I have no personal reason to buy one.
The 3mm Kolibri was purpose driven too. It was to fit into an auto pistol that is less then 2" overall 7/16" wide and weighed only 4 OZ. It developed about 3 foot pounds. So if the purpose was to fit into a gun of 4 Oz, it was a total success. But if the questions asked "what's this gun for" we have a bit more trouble with an answer. The real answer is "to be small". "Personal protection" doesn't really make a good answer. A small pocket knife is deadlier.
When someone "doesn't like" a cartridge it's because the cartridge doesn't do what they want it to do, or at least they believe it doesn't do what they want it to do.
Like and dislike are human traits based on opinion, Every one has one. Sometimes they are based of truth and sometimes not. But if you don't like something and it is a good thing, you still don't like it and because we are spending our own money and we buy these things to enjoy we should not buy something we will not enjoy. Like a mushroom and cheese omelet, some like them, some don't. The Omelet itself is neither good not bad.
I have to say liking something is the best reason to own it. Disliking it is the best reason not to.
9.3, 10mm, 270, odd tween calibers. We only should have: 20, 225, 25, 30, 35, 45 in inch measurements. 5, 5.5, 6, 6.5, 7, 7.5 in metric. Keep it simple, stoopid twixt calibers are fluff. Black powder muzzleloader and handgun bullets excluded just because their different. Those can be 22, 25, 32, 38, 45, 50, and 56. I have spoken, make it so.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
Lets throw in brands and bullets as well, just for the heck of it.
For me, I don't like Wby calibers or guns (I've repaired quite a few!). Too overhyped, over-heavy actions, over-flashy, over expensive, over powdered, for too little practical benefit.
I don't like Savage 110 or derivatives - gun-smithing mechanics,- tho I do like the head spacing thing and their general accuracy. The trigger mechanism sucks.
I don't like Sako actions - too many small [bleep] parts in the bolts, for too little benefit.
7MM Mag - .30-06 can do anything it can to 300 yards, and the 300 Mag better at all ranges. Besides, the only one I ever had kicked the living chit out of me - I sold it after a half-box. Sue me! But I would have bought that shop-customer - Husquavarna in a heartbeat tho - bastid wouldn't sell it... 5 rounds made one hole, and apparently the stock fit me just right...
Nosler Partitions - None of my rifles like them very well, "Adequate" for accuracy is all. C&C are better accuracy producers In my rifles. And perfectly functional. No C&C has ever "failed" me. A 210 338WM NP has. But then, I've gone away from premiums anyway, for the most part. - Just not necessary if one picks his shot.
That said, I'm going to try Hornady's GMX Super Performance in 150, .30-06, just for grins. I've been using the SST's.
Consistancy is the mark of a small mind....
Funny how we all view things that are the same, differently, at times.
I'm not pro or con wtby. Have a few. Never had anything bad to say about the rounds. None of mine have any flash.. and flash comes in various brands... never could figure why a hunter wanted gloss...
Savage. Ugly, cheap, accurate, trigger one can live with even me being a trigger snob, not what I like but sure suffice for most things.
Never had a sako.
One of the worst kicking guns I ever shot was a buddies 06... way worse than any 7 mag. Stock design has lots to do with this though.
Bullets... Barnes period for when it counts. I've never seen an issue with them. I"ve had issues with MANY cup and core, even partitions, being told wrong bullet for wrong use, but over and over again you got such non repeatable results....210 ttsx in 338-06 has done just fine in AK so far. I know I"ve gotten more penetration and same dead, as I would have with a 210 partition.
Now for my own comment, not vs yours, LOL, I hate the 270 Win.
Last edited by rost495; 05/16/17. Reason: new campfire posted before I could type.....
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
I don't like 29 caliber. Neither does anyone else! In fact it's so unpopular the factories don't make it.
Humor aside, caliber and cartridges are purpose driven. In some cases they come up short of the desired performance level of the purpose they were designed for, but they are things, having no mind of their own. The problem with being purpose driven is that the more specialized one gets, the less it can cover other bases as well.
A 50 BMG is an outstanding long range heavy hitter and a wonderful tool for destroying things too tough for normal sized cartridges to destroy as well. But it's not so good for a general purpose hunting rifle. A bit heavy for most of us, don't you think? I have no desire to own such a large heavy weapon, but I can't really say "I don't like it". I only say I have no personal reason to buy one.
The 3mm Kolibri was purpose driven too. It was to fit into an auto pistol that is less then 2" overall 7/16" wide and weighed only 4 OZ. It developed about 3 foot pounds. So if the purpose was to fit into a gun of 4 Oz, it was a total success. But if the questions asked "what's this gun for" we have a bit more trouble with an answer. The real answer is "to be small". "Personal protection" doesn't really make a good answer. A small pocket knife is deadlier.
When someone "doesn't like" a cartridge it's because the cartridge doesn't do what they want it to do, or at least they believe it doesn't do what they want it to do.
Like and dislike are human traits based on opinion, Every one has one. Sometimes they are based of truth and sometimes not. But if you don't like something and it is a good thing, you still don't like it and because we are spending our own money and we buy these things to enjoy we should not buy something we will not enjoy. Like a mushroom and cheese omelet, some like them, some don't. The Omelet itself is neither good not bad.
I have to say liking something is the best reason to own it. Disliking it is the best reason not to.
50 cal doesn't do any damage to game from when I've used mine... just cal in cal out....
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
The 17 HMR...it is too much for squirrel and not enough for groundhogs. It's accuracy calls to me like a siren, but I am disappointed when I have used it.
In regards to rifles, I have never liked any Savage I have owned.
Also Thompson Center, who could make an uglier gun to sell? Their products also seem to rust easier than anything else I have owned.
AR15 is not on my love list. Too many parts, aluminum on steel, that god awful spring you have to feel and hear while shooting. It feels like a toy.
I know you didn't mention scopes, but I have had nothing but bad luck with Burris and I would put them in the don't like column. I do love their rings.
Never had a bad burris. Only have about 4 though.
AR15, put some lube grease on the spring and noise goes down. Its actually a GOOD thing to be able to hear it though, its a mental indicator if you are doing things right or not. If you can hear the spring, you are not paying attention to shooting, but rahter the noise or other, and its telling you your groups will not be good. Proven again and again at matches.... FWIW.
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
Never met a caliber I didn't like, but do seem to gravitate toward some diameters more than others. In the under .308" category, .284/7mm stuff never seems to stay around long, and when diameter gets over .308 my uses for it decrease in inverse proportion to size. .224", .243" and .308" bullets get flung downrange far more than the rest with .257" and .264" projectiles getting a smaller but not insignificant share.
Gunnery, gunnery, gunnery. Hit the target, all else is twaddle!
Shot a 338 win mag years ago. That sum bltch snap kicked so freaking hard that after 3 shots I would have a recoil headache. Prolly just poor stock fit but that turned me off on the 338
I could never warm up to 28s. 7mm mag, 7-08, etc. I have one 280 but it's more the rifle (remington mountain) than the round, however it cloverleafs 160 nosler partitions, so I keep it and use it doe hunting once in a while. The 270 and 308 are ones I also have no desire to own or shoot. I concede however that these are all rather useful and well accepted rounds by others.
7mm Remington Magnum. 6.5 Creedmoor. Anything "AI" since Ackley didn't do half of them anyway. People who post about going beyond published data. Want to go faster? You should've bought the right gun to begin with. People who say Small Ring Mausers will blow up, but can only reference pictures of ones that got double charges of pistol powder or relate that their buddy's girlfriend's grandma's cousin's dog knew someone who saw it happen once. Oh, he's a "highly respected" individual. ha ha ha!
"People who post about going beyond published data. Want to go faster? You should've bought the right gun to begin with."
What about cartridges where the factories deliberately under load them? You know like the 7x57, 280 Rem. and .35 Whelen? Why not load them to their full safe potential? Even load manuals keep data at or below SAAMI mandated pressures. I know the reasons for the 7x57 but the .280 and Whelen? Just because Big R put then in semi-autos? I can agree with you if considering more modern cartridges in modern rifles. Guess the .280 wasn't one of those, right? Paul B.
Our forefathers did not politely protest the British.They did not vote them out of office, nor did they impeach the king,march on the capitol or ask permission for their rights. ----------------They just shot them. MOLON LABE
I just can't warm up to the 308 Win. I'm a fan of speedy rounds and the 308 just doesn't fit that criteria. Also, I have a hunting buddy who shoots one. I've been with him when he's taken deer with it. I've never seen a DRT kill, even with good shots using standard hunting bullets. In fact, I've never seen him make a bad shot with it but deer just seem to run after the shot. They generally don't go very far, but if they run in the woods at last light in the evening it's still a pain to track them. I prefer the animal drop at the shot, as I'm sure most do, and I've seen that happen much more often from higher velocity rounds.
I'm sure plenty of people have had the exact opposite experience with the round, but this is just what I've seen personally so it colors my feelings toward the round.
Those who must raise their voice to get their point across are generally not intelligent enough to do so in any other way.
I wouldn't say I specifically dislike a particular cartridge. There are reasons I won't own some. One is the .30-'06. The reason is a particularly offensive, loud mouthed family member who is an unwavering proponent of the cartridge. There are enough other as good, or better, choices that I don't need to listen to his non-stop crowing about "finally buying a useful gun" if I own one. I'll wait 'til after he dies, then maybe.
Truth is, I suspect I may inherit his '06 .. his way of forcing me to "get" one. I've told him if I do, I'm going to rebarrel it to .270 just to get the last laugh. That's good for a green-around-the-gills look from him .. and silence, blessed silence.
Tom
Anyone who thinks there's two sides to everything hasn't met a M�bius strip.
I wouldn't say I specifically dislike a particular cartridge. There are reasons I won't own some. One is the .30-'06. The reason is a particularly offensive, loud mouthed family member who is an unwavering proponent of the cartridge. There are enough other as good, or better, choices that I don't need to listen to his non-stop crowing about "finally buying a useful gun" if I own one. I'll wait 'til after he dies, then maybe.
Truth is, I suspect I may inherit his '06 .. his way of forcing me to "get" one. I've told him if I do, I'm going to rebarrel it to .270 just to get the last laugh. That's good for a green-around-the-gills look from him .. and silence, blessed silence.
Tom
Love that story. I feel the same way about Alabama because of a loudmouthed college roommate. Even though it's been over 25yrs since I've seen him, I thought about him when Alabama had the National Championship snatched from them in the final seconds of the game. I grinned from ear to ear.
Those who must raise their voice to get their point across are generally not intelligent enough to do so in any other way.
i dont care for anything north of a .308 in terms of recoil. spent a lot of quality time w a .300 win mag and decided there was no point for any of my purposes, hunting or target-shooting wise. cartridges arent rocket science, theyre simple physics. past a certain point of noise and recoil, i do not care.
I have a 280 and its all around goodness has kept me from buying a lot of rifles in cartridges i am otherwise interested in (308, 30-06, 270). I bin cartridges in groups: under 24 caliber, 24 to 25 caliber, 26 to 28 caliber, 30 caliber, over 30 to under 375, and 375 H&H and up. I will never hunt Africa so no need for the 375H&H and up; a fast 30 with a 220 grainer will do anything the over 30 to under 375 crowd can do; ( ergo everyone needs a fast 30), the 280 fills my 26 to 28 caliber bin, my 6mm Rem fills the 24 to 25 caliber bin, and my under 24 is 5.56 NATO.
"People who post about going beyond published data. Want to go faster? You should've bought the right gun to begin with."
What about cartridges where the factories deliberately under load them? You know like the 7x57, 280 Rem. and .35 Whelen? Why not load them to their full safe potential? Even load manuals keep data at or below SAAMI mandated pressures. I know the reasons for the 7x57 but the .280 and Whelen? Just because Big R put then in semi-autos? I can agree with you if considering more modern cartridges in modern rifles. Guess the .280 wasn't one of those, right? Paul B.
Partly tongue in cheek. Guys will do what they will do. I'm guilty with my 9.3 and 257 Roberts. I don't like when someone posts seeking affirmation for what they do or to start a debate over whether or not the "manufacturers" are conspiring against us.
In Naval guns terminology caliber is the bore diameter times the bore length. So is caliber bore diameter or groove diameter or really the relative length of the tube? Is caliber the measure of the internal diameter of a tube or the estimable quality of a person or thing? Did you load you magazine with your clip or load your clip and leave your magazine empty? Were those high caliber bullets you loaded in your clip?
I don't have a particular dislike for any cartridge, I just have no use for a few. I've got no use for the 7mm or the 270. I just have noticed that I'm not the only one. All have a certain amount of interest, some have less interest than others. I have observed that neither caliber draws too much interest, or following relative to the popular ones. I don't particularly need a lot of cartridges. 223, 243, 30, 338, and 375 and I'm good. Throw in a 45-70 for when I am 4 wheeling in Alaska and I'm good. I also tend to like heavy for caliber cartridges.
NRA LIFE MEMBER GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS ESPECIALLY THE SNIPERS! "Suppose you were an idiot And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeat myself." -Mark Twain
We are all different and have different personalities. Everyone doesn't like RED or BLUE or PURPLE. Everyone doesn't like Ford or Chevy - the only real trucks.
I knew I wasn't going to post any 'calibers' but now I wish I had not read the thread.
.223 Any Weatherby (Should only be owned by Hollywood folks) 300 RUM (A total waste) 9.3x....???? or whatever that guys mention to make you believe they're great white hunters! Any .25 caliber (Jerk-Off Specials) .223...Did I mention that? It gets a double tap!!
Not really interested in anything 7mm(for no particular reason) or anything bigger than a Win Mag case capacity(way plenty for any hunting I'm ever going to do)
Mauser Rescue Society Founder, President, and Chairman
I don't always shoot Mausers, but when I do...I prefer VZ-24s.
300WM.....great cartridge but that's my limit for recoil. Much prefer to shoot the '06 family on down!!
Biden's most truthful quote ever came during his first press conference, 03/25/21. Drum roll please...... "I don't know, to be clear." and THAT is one promise he's kept!!!
I don't care much for the 7mm Remington Mag. Think it was because I had a second cousin who brought one up for deer hunting one year and my grandpa had nothing good to say about it. He was a diehard 257 Roberts man.
Never liked the 7mm mag. The first experience with it was with an acquaintance who insisted on loading the lightest cup and core bullets he could find as fast as he could possibly push them and then complain about the lack of penetration on deer. And expect me to help him butcher the horribly bloodshot carcass.
Never cared a great deal for the 257 Wby for the same reason. Watched a former high post count warrior hold his between his legs to pry open the bolt and opined he might have to back it off a half grain. His deer were always horribly bloodshot and usually in the hams.
Realistically their both good rounds but I just can't seem to generate any love for either.
Chronographs, bore scopes and pattern boards have broke a lot of hearts.
The whole 308 family pretty much with maybe the exception of the 243 Winchester. 300 mags of about any flavor. Not really into the Weatherby cartridges either.
JOC was right. The 270 Winchester on a Model 70 is a great combination as is the 30/06 and 375 H&H
There is nothing in 25, 33, or 35 caliber that I'd care for. Anything that any of the 25 calibers can do there are better options in 24 and 26 caliber. Same with 33 and 35 caliber. Until you start shooting bullets heavier than 250 gr there are 30 caliber cartridges that will do the same thing. If you're shooting bullets heavier than 250 gr it is time to move up to 375.
Most people don't really want the truth.
They just want constant reassurance that what they believe is the truth.
Creedmoor, it can't do anything a 260 rem can't do better, and let's not forget the geriatric 6.5 swede that also out performs it.. Everyone thought the 260 was smallish for big game but now think the creed is a 600 yd elk slayer. Trendy stuff in general bugs me, especially when they underperform when compared older proven products.
Tell me the odds of putting grease on the same pancake? I Know they are there, well ice and house slippers. -Kawi
.223 Any Weatherby (Should only be owned by Hollywood folks) 300 RUM (A total waste) 9.3x....???? or whatever that guys mention to make you believe they're great white hunters! Any .25 caliber (Jerk-Off Specials) .223...Did I mention that? It gets a double tap!!
Really surprised at the number of people who don't like the .223. Love my Ruger MKII even though it is a slow-twist and prefers 40g bullets above all others. (But it LOVES the 40s.) Cheap factory ammo, almost no recoil, great for p-dogs, coyotes and other nuisances and low cost to load and shoot. Great round for kids to get started on after a .22LR.
No love for the .25s? My Roberts is my favorite rifle. At the range and during antelope season I have to fight my girls to use it and when I get home I have to check and make sure one of them didn't abscond with it. Best for handloader's, to be sure, but excellent Roberts factory ammo is available. Low recoil whether it is loaded for varmints or elk. Hangs in with the 6.5 CM and .260 Rem in terms of ballistics but I'll grant they are better choices for the non-handloader.
Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!
No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.
Early on, actually for many years, I had an aversion to .223, .243, 7 Rem mag, and 9mm in particular, the .270 in general. The .223, .243, and 9mm because I thought they were under powered based on what I had read, the 7 mag because it seemed like everybody had one and bragged on them constantly, and the .270 because it was just too mediocre and had no pizzaz..
Over the years, I've had to eat humble pie, but I either own, or have owned all of them, and for the most part, still do, and found nothing wrong with them. I used to fool more with something different than what everyone else had, either because it offered some obscure advantage, or just for the sake of being different. I lost a LOT of money when I would get tired of them and tried to trade them in or sell them.
Now, not that I ever had a desire for any of these, but I avoid offbeat things like the .25 WSSM, .30 T/C, Ruger .338 Compact Magnum, etc. Some because I have no interest, but mostly, in my older age, it's the hassle of when you're short on time and you don't have anything loaded up already, you can just grab a box off the shelf and shoot if you feel like it. I've found that they kill just as good as something obscure if you put a decent bullet in the right place, (although with the 9mm, bullet technology has came a LONG ways) and they are a lot easier to churn, should you desire to do so.
The list of cartridges I LIKE well enough to part with my cash to buy a gun so chambered is a LOT shorter than those that fail to meet that standard. The winners of the wallet vote:
Rifles ====== .22LR .223 Rem .22-250 .243 Win (Admittedly, this was to be a donor for a 6.5-something until I shot it.) .257 Roberts 6.5-06AI (Custom) .280 Rem 7mm RM .30-30 .308 Win .30-06 (shipped one off to a new son-in-law yesterday so only 4 left in the safe) .300 WM .338 WM (Semi-custom) .375 Win .44 Mag .45-70
Handguns ====== .22LR .25ACP (Fun and for $149.95 I couldn't turn down the Beretta. The one centerfire I don't reload.) .327 Federal Mag .380 ACP 9mm Luger .38 Special (Wife's carry gun) .357 Mag .40 S&W .44 Mag
Shotguns ====== 12 ga.
Not suggesting the others are no good, just that they failed my wallet test.
YMMV (and clearly does in many cases)
Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!
No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.
308 and honestly it has nothing to do with the caliber! More so with some cousins who tout it as the greatest cartridge ever. Never really warmed up to the 243, but my older brother has killed piles of deer with them. I've always liked the 270 and wish I still had mine, but I've been dedicated to the 6.5's since 2008. Shooting 260, 6.5 Creedmoor, and 6.5x55. And yes I can't tell one bit of difference in on game performance of any of them lol.
Don't like is probably the wrong word, but there are some that don't interest me or they strike me as offering nothing that a number of more common rounds don't offer.Being primarily a deer hunter I never really had a lot of use for anything above a 30-06 and frankly it's a lot of storm and strife for my needs or potential needs. Don't really need belted cartridges either. Never saw the need for the 17 cal. Or .20 cal rounds. Im sure there are more but ymmv as they say.
40 sw. What a waste. Not powerful enough for big stuff and too powerful for small stuff all at the same time. Snappy recoil and expensive ammo. Just yuck.
I've never been a fan of Weatherby calibers nor have I any desire for a 7MM Rem Mag. Part of this, I'm sure, is that I'm moving back down the caliber ladder to smaller, more fun to shoot calibers.
Yes sir. Personally the 308 casing just doesn't have enough capacity to push the heavier 30 cal bullets like it should. To each his own. Rather get the 7-08
Last edited by Dre; 05/17/17.
All of them do something better than the 30-06, but none of them do everything as well.
Shot a 338 win mag years ago. That sum bltch snap kicked so freaking hard that after 3 shots I would have a recoil headache. Prolly just poor stock fit but that turned me off on the 338
Exactly what happened to me with the 7mm Mag. It ain't logical, but....prejudice is personal!
Yes sir. Personally the 308 casing just doesn't have enough capacity to push the heavier 30 cal bullets like it should. To each his own. Rather get the 7-08
You would really be lost with a .300 Savage. And I'm not sure you'd know where to begin with a .30-30.
Damn, I read this as "Calipers you just don't like.", and it made me think of the pair that I dropped. Back to the subject, it is 25-06 and 270 for me. Nothing wrong with either, but the ones that like them seem to have a lot of braggarts and bullshitters among them. Speaking of the locals as I don't keep up with the ones on here. miles
Conceptually speaking I've never figured out how to dislike a caliber.
There are a pile of cartridges and guns I have no use for, but even the scrap pile has some gold now and then. Fiddled with an old Savage 24 for a few years, mostly tuning my adventure in casting. .30-30 over 3" 20 ga. Heavy awkward piece with '60s vintage finish and a mediocre fit across the board. AT 20 yards the pattern for #3 buck was awesome. On the 50 yard line, last time I shot it and using the factory leaf sights, 5 shots in 3/4" with a 180 grain lead bullet at 2150 fps. It wasn't the best it did, nor the worse.
I am not an ardent supporter of plastic or stainless, but own a couple for rainy days and other affairs. It makes for a good package to ride in the scabbard behind the seat in the p'up. I eschew the "latest and greatest" if for no other reason than reinventing the wheel is a questionable marketing strategy and I have no extra space available in my wee safe.. Some idle consideration of late led me to realize I have no arms loading SAAMI spec MAP above the 50 KPSI threshold. Guess that leaves me in the same philosophical boat as Doc Howell.
Auto-jammers for the most part, but it is more of a style and needs perspective. Most these days are kind of queer in appearance and it has been a long while since I needed a quick repeat shot. All the way back to around '72 IIRC. Had an experience in Miami years ago that was inspirational. Late night drive into work on a lonesome interstate for the mid-shift. A rat-rod full of fine Hispanic gents attempted to force me off the road, presumably for no good purpose. Pulled my forever reliable auto pistol and racked the slide as we slowed...it stovepiped...and I stuck it in their faces anyway. A bluff well played, I was not late for work. Sold the piece the next day and purchased a Smith snubby that has yet to fail me. It got pulled 3-4 times in the same town over the years and favorably resolved the conflicts at hand w/o bloodshed.
That said, my father's old Browning .22 Auto was a jewel and shot like a champ. Mint condition production from the early '60s with the box. Someone made an offer I could not refuse.
I like revolvers and the basic 1911 as issued by Uncle Sam. Hell will freeze before I touch a Glock.
I am..........disturbed.
Concerning the difference between man and the jackass: some observers hold that there isn't any. But this wrongs the jackass. -Twain
Yes sir. Personally the 308 casing just doesn't have enough capacity to push the heavier 30 cal bullets like it should. To each his own. Rather get the 7-08
There is nothing inherently wrong with heavy bullets at moderate speeds. In fact, there are very good reasons for choosing such loads and the .308 can handle them well - and more efficiently than a .30-06.
Factory 200g ammo (Federal and Lapua, for example, ) push 200g bullets to about 2450fps. Hodgdon lists loads for the .308 Win that go as high as 2582fps with 45g powder, with 2577fps using 57g powder the fastest 200g load listed for a .30-06.
As a point of fact, most .30-06 shooters will never use a 200 or 220g bullet in their lifetime. As you drop down in weight the .30-06 has an advantage in velocity but again velocity isn't everything and higher velocity comes with higher recoil, other factors being constant. In 35 years of hunting I don't think I've ever taken an animal where a .308 would have come up inadequate.
There is also the matter of platform and the .308 Win works better for some than does the .30-06. My 16.5" barreled Ruger Scout is a .308 Win. A .30-06 in that rifle would be less desirable. Same with my AR10.
I'll grant that at identical pressures the .30-06 has a speed advantage with all bullet weights, but if velocity is the goal, "be a man" and step up the the .300 RUM or some other super magnum.
Last edited by Coyote_Hunter; 05/18/17. Reason: spelnig
Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!
No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.
You guys are the most opinionated, petty, argumentative bunch of grouchy, contrary hair-splitters I ever heard of! No wonder I like it here.... I fit right in.
I just don't like Sierra GameKings at close range when they're pushed too hard. I just don't like the short neck on a 300 Savage or a 300 Winnie (but I'd own either if the opportunity presented). And when it comes to hunting I have more admiration for "how close I got" rather than for "how far I shot." Just me...
ttpoz
in silvam ne ligna feras (don't carry logs into the forest)
I just don't like the short neck on a 300 Savage or a 300 Winnie (but I'd own either if the opportunity presented).
Well don't ever acquire either one - they'll worm their way into your heart like a damned lab puppy!
In centerfires, I was started with the .243 Win, and never warmed to it. Of course, being started with no hearing protection, and with a rifle that had a bum barrel, didn't really help the .243's cause...
I'm also not a big fan of the .357 Mag. It works like a charm, but it's more noise 'n shoving around than I wanna deal with.
Originally Posted by mjbgalt
40 sw. ... Snappy recoil and expensive ammo.
Yup.
FC
Last edited by Folically_Challenged; 05/18/17.
"Every day is a holiday, and every meal is a banquet."
30-06, because when I was growing up, everybody who shot one was a road-hunting gut-shooter/multiple leg-blower-offer, except for one of my dad's good buddies. The good buddy of my dad's was very competent with his 30-06, but I always thought he was a jerk. On paper the 30-06 is a fine round and pretty near anything I've ever done with a rifle could've been done well with a 30-06, but I can't do it.
For me, the 30-06 is like that really hot chick with a fat momma and a grandma with a beard, no good will come from it long term.
I can walk on water.......................but I do stagger a bit on alcohol.
Got nothing for any rifle round (not pistol caliber chambered rifles) with magnum in its name. Never had any want for a 270 or 25-06 even though they would probably work just as well as any other for me.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
I dislike all of the WSM cartridges. I dislike the 300 Win Mag. There are a lot of others I feel are a waste of brass but I either don't dislike them or don't really care. GD
My 9.3X62 is easiest rifle to work up loads for, with a variety of bullets and powder, I've ever owned. With high BC bullets it shoots flat enough for any distance I'm willing to try with enough power for anything I will be hunting (unfortunately it is very unlikely I will ever go to Africa). It isn't quite the all rounder that the 30-06 is (I'm down to five of those) but still very virsital.
The only caliber I ever met that I didn't like is the .311--too close to the .308 but just far enough off to cause difficulties if bullets get mixed up.
As far as cartridges, The various RUMs are way more than I need and they knock the snot out of me in factory rifles--right up there with he 8mm Rem Mag.
Last edited by mudhen; 05/18/17.
Ben
Some days it takes most of the day for me to do practically nothing...
I have no hatred for any cartridge but I'm not a magnum guy at all. I was at one time but then a lightbulb went off in my head as to what type of hunting I actually do and at what distances I do it.
I like most cartridges but dislike most 7 mm's except the 7mm-08, 7x57 and 280 Rem, and 7mm Wby. I dislike the 300 Win Mag with it's poorly designed case with a short neck and very limited space to seat a bullet out in some rifles, the 300 WSM and 308 Norma are far better. Don't like any of the big magnums like the Ultra Mags and any Weatherby over the 340. Not a fan of the 243, I would get a 6mm Rem first. Would never own any of the WSSM's and 30 TC either.
For rifles it would be the Winchester model 70 left hand, if they don't make them I'm certainly not going to buy one since they are going for twice as much as they are actually worth. Start making them again and we'll talk...........
As far as cartridges, The various RUMs are way more than I need and they knock the snot out of me in factory rifles--right up there with he 8mm Rem Mag.
It MUST be stock fit.
I've had an 8 RM for a long time. Rem 700 BDL. It's not brutal to me.
OTOH I had a Ruger 77 tanger 338 WM. That SORRY thing hurt me every time I shot it. Didn't stay long.
Anything in mm. Now that an have stated that, I must admit a new passion for a Winchester Featherweight in 6.5 Swedish. Darn thing is a blast to shoot. My lucky little boy gets to hunt with it some day. Never thought I would see the day.
My 8mm Rem mag was more like the grim reaper to the three bears, three whitetails and one huge bodied bull elk I pointed it at. It stuffs 200 gr Partitions into itty bitty groups near and far. Having said that I have no desire to own an 8mm Mauser. Go big or go home.
Now that I think about it, there have been several cartridges I didn't want to like, but owning excellent-shooting rifles in those chamberings really helped to soften my attitude.
FC
"Every day is a holiday, and every meal is a banquet."
jwall, I got my old .300 in about 1970.. Great caliber.. BUT as you mentioned necking the 7mm R. up to .30.. Brought to mind a couple guys I met in Casper.. They told me that had developed a round that would beat the 300WM by a huge margin.. The necked the 7mm R up to .30 cal.. a real super winner.. They were young 25 or so.. When you are old, life is really interesting!!!
For me, the 30-06 is like that really hot chick with a fat momma and a grandma with a beard, no good will come from it long term.
Yeah I bet in another 110 years it will be dead.
But you gotta admit - he stated his prejudice well!
I hope you are all feeling better for having gotten all this stuff off your chest. Glad to have been of service.
Originally Posted by las
Originally Posted by Blacktailer
For me, the 30-06 is like that really hot chick with a fat momma and a grandma with a beard, no good will come from it long term.
Yeah I bet in another 110 years it will be dead.
But you gotta admit - he stated his prejudice well!
I hope you are all feeling better for having gotten all this stuff off your chest. Glad to have been of service.
I freely admit that my prejudice is bounded in the irrational, and I don't care. The 30-06 for me is Cliff Claven wrapped in brass and topped with lead.
I can walk on water.......................but I do stagger a bit on alcohol.
I have no love for the 30 carbine cartridge despite it's popularity during WWII and the Korean War. It is not noted for accuracy and is less than ideal for a hunting cartridge.
I have no love for the 7.9mm Mauser cartridge despite it's popularity in Europe. USA ammo companies do not offer full power loadings.
I have no love for the 30 carbine cartridge despite it's popularity during WWII and the Korean War. It is not noted for accuracy and is less than ideal for a hunting cartridge.
I have no love for the 7.9mm Mauser cartridge despite it's popularity in Europe. USA ammo companies do not offer full power loadings.
Sherwood
On the contrary, necked down to 22 Spitfire it will push a 40gr Nosler Bt at an easy 3400 fps out of a rechambered Brno ZKW465.
I have no love for the 30 carbine cartridge despite it's popularity during WWII and the Korean War. It is not noted for accuracy and is less than ideal for a hunting cartridge.
I have no love for the 7.9mm Mauser cartridge despite it's popularity in Europe. USA ammo companies do not offer full power loadings.
Sherwood
On the contrary, necked down to 22 Spitfire it will push a 40gr Nosler Bt at an easy 3400 fps out of a rechambered Brno ZKW465.
What am I missing?
A .223 Rem can push a 40g BT over 3650fps in a 24" barrel, according to Hodgdon, using a variety of powders. No case forming or rechambering needed, ND brass and loaded ammo is common as dirt.
Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!
No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.
There's obviously a great excess of centerfire cartridges and rifles that more or less all do the same thing at this point, But a few of my less favorites (tongue slightly in cheek):
- The 300WM and 338WM. A substantial increase in recoil over the .308 or 7mm mag, and yet they somehow fail to address any additional NA game or increase the ETHICAL range at which it can be hunted. Too little gun for the great bears and bison, too much for everything else. It's hard to imagine the same development shop responsible for these two turds cranked out the fairly serviceable .264 Win Mag at about the same time.
- The .270 Winchester and .270 WSM. This is a case of one design mistake dooming a caliber to mediocrity forever. Somehow Winchester looked between the 1:8.66" twist of the 7x57 and the 1:7.87" twist of the 6.5x55 and found 1:10" in the middle. Brilliant! Slow twist leads to garbage bullets with low BCs and poor penetration. And once a population of slow twist rifles gets out there, the problem is unfixable since major bullet manufacturers don't like to make bullets that won't stabilize in most guns. The .270 should be replaced with a .280 at every opportunity.
- The .260 Remington. Same problem as the .270 Winchester. Should have been 1:8" twist. The rocket scientists at Remington picked 1:10". The mistake was so fatal we got the exact same cartridge again 15 years later as the 6.5 Creedmoor with a 1:8" twist, and suddenly it's the hottest long range and hunting cartridge around. So close Remington, so close.
- The .30-06. Short action performance in a long action round. Too much taper, wrong shoulder angle, MAP too low. The revenge of 19th century cartridge design. The only upside is unlike the last two cartridges they accidentally blundered into the right twist rate.
- .458 Lott. Driven by the mistaken belief that the way to fix Winchester's inability to put the right powder charge in factory .458WM ammo was to increase the case size. Because that makes sense?!? Obsolete the minute Winchester figured out how to load .458WM ammo that met specs.
- All Safari cartridges more powerful than 500 NE. Because you might encounter something BIGGER than an elephant?!?
- The .223 Remington - a baffling mistake of cartridge specification that took what was supposed to be the exact same round as the 5.56Nato and created generations of confusion and weaksauce ammo by changing key pressure and chamber dimension specs for no good reason. 5.56 should be fired in .223s at every opportunity. It never blows up the gun, but if it did you'd be doing the world a favor.
- .400 Whelen. It's actually a fine cartridge, as long as you don't make the mistake of thinking it's a .30-06 necked up like, oh, say all the other cartridges in the same name series. Do that, and you end up with a shoulderless mess that won't headspace. Brass is nearly impossible, so get a .404J instead.
- 6.5 Grendel. Designed by a power tool of an "engineer" who can't do a bolt stress calculation or even compare his proposed MAP to that of 7.62x39. Comes in two flavors. One breaks bolts and extractors, the other only breaks bolts. When downloaded to keep bolt stress the same as 5.56, performance falls below heavy 5.56 and 6x45, both of which are much easier to get running starting from a basic AR.
- .450 Marlin. Lawyer design at the worst. Same bullet diameter as .45-70. Same pressure limit in the same gun. Less case capacity. Rare brass. Explain to me again why anyone would want this instead of a .45-70? Meanwhile numerous ammo makers offered .45-70 +P ammo and effectively killed this junker.
- The .38-70. This should have been more or less a .375 H&H in a lever gun, and if Winchester had just necked down the .50-110 and shortened the neck a hair it would have been. Instead they based it on the smaller .45-90 body, and put in so much taper and such thick brass walls that there's no case capacity. Thereby depriving people of what could have been the coolest 1886 caliber ever three generations later when powders and metallurgy caught up. Bastards.
- 17 HMR. It's a chipmunk gun. There is nothing magnum about it. .22 WMR, you're on notice too. The opposite of a magnum is a "split" - the smallest commercial wine bottle. Consider using that for future naming.
- .30 Carbine. The power of a pistol in a weapon the size of a rifle. With surplus M1s drying up, it's now available only in guns with the reliability of a Yugo. Sign me up!
- .30-40 Krag. The gun with exterior ballistics so bad it made a generation of Americans think the 7x57 was a pretty sexy cartridge. Those who lived to tell the tale, of course...
- .376 Steyr. Never have a gun and a cartridge been less suited to each other than the Scout and the .375 H&H. Who thought this was a good idea? Heads up, it wasn't.
- .50 Alaskan. Take a .50-110, neck it down to .348, chop it, neck it back up to .50 (this should be a sign something stupid is going on...), and chamber it back in the same gun that fed the original longer .50-110. Why? Because we're ignorant of the other options, that's why.
And since we're supposed to do guns too, I'll throw out a few:
- The Remington 700. A safety that doesn't work. Two iterations of the trigger, both of them recalled. A round action with small lug specifically designed to shift in the stock under recoil. The "reliability" of push feed, and the fun of uncontrollable plunger ejection with the bonus of extra moving parts in the ejector that can break. Somehow they convinced a gullible population this was the gun of the future. Well, the future came and they suck. Give me an M98.
- The Kimber 84M/L/8400. You know how all those el cheapo wonderbolt manufacturers have managed to make guns that consistently shoot about an MOA with no fuss? Then there's these fabulous Kimbers. They don't group so much as pattern. Whenever someone points this out, the apologist chorus comes along and claims they "don't know how to shoot a light rifle". Guess what, if the gun's so tweaky that some mechanical error which has no impact on any other gun causes it to blow a gasket, then it's too tweaky to shoot in the field. More likely, Kimber has no clue how fit a rifle.
- The Montana Rifle Company 1999. The guns would be fine, IF someone had one. No one does. One guy tried to order a .35 Whelen, and was told it would be 11 months. At 20 months he called to check on it, and was transferred to the "dominatrix service department" which did not take kindly to his inquiries. Two years later he was shipped a left handed .257 Roberts with a crooked barrel and informed he would like it. He claims he does.
Now you know why your favorite rifle or cartridge sucks
If it's not a .338 something I don't hunt big game with it (one exception ,45-70 unscoped ,heavy snow/short range stopper) Terminal performance means more than accuracy or speed and Nosler partitions have always worked. Perfection is the worst enemy of good enough.
There's obviously a great excess of centerfire cartridges and rifles that more or less all do the same thing at this point, But a few of my less favorites (tongue slightly in cheek):
- The 300WM and 338WM. A substantial increase in recoil over the .308 or 7mm mag, and yet they somehow fail to address any additional NA game or increase the ETHICAL range at which it can be hunted. Too little gun for the great bears and bison, too much for everything else. It's hard to imagine the same development shop responsible for these two turds cranked out the fairly serviceable .264 Win Mag at about the same time.
- The .270 Winchester and .270 WSM. This is a case of one design mistake dooming a caliber to mediocrity forever. Somehow Winchester looked between the 1:8.66" twist of the 7x57 and the 1:7.87" twist of the 6.5x55 and found 1:10" in the middle. Brilliant! Slow twist leads to garbage bullets with low BCs and poor penetration. And once a population of slow twist rifles gets out there, the problem is unfixable since major bullet manufacturers don't like to make bullets that won't stabilize in most guns. The .270 should be replaced with a .280 at every opportunity.
- The .260 Remington. Same problem as the .270 Winchester. Should have been 1:8" twist. The rocket scientists at Remington picked 1:10". The mistake was so fatal we got the exact same cartridge again 15 years later as the 6.5 Creedmoor with a 1:8" twist, and suddenly it's the hottest long range and hunting cartridge around. So close Remington, so close.
- The .30-06. Short action performance in a long action round. Too much taper, wrong shoulder angle, MAP too low. The revenge of 19th century cartridge design. The only upside is unlike the last two cartridges they accidentally blundered into the right twist rate.
- .458 Lott. Driven by the mistaken belief that the way to fix Winchester's inability to put the right powder charge in factory .458WM ammo was to increase the case size. Because that makes sense?!? Obsolete the minute Winchester figured out how to load .458WM ammo that met specs.
- All Safari cartridges more powerful than 500 NE. Because you might encounter something BIGGER than an elephant?!?
- The .223 Remington - a baffling mistake of cartridge specification that took what was supposed to be the exact same round as the 5.56Nato and created generations of confusion and weaksauce ammo by changing key pressure and chamber dimension specs for no good reason. 5.56 should be fired in .223s at every opportunity. It never blows up the gun, but if it did you'd be doing the world a favor.
- .400 Whelen. It's actually a fine cartridge, as long as you don't make the mistake of thinking it's a .30-06 necked up like, oh, say all the other cartridges in the same name series. Do that, and you end up with a shoulderless mess that won't headspace. Brass is nearly impossible, so get a .404J instead.
- 6.5 Grendel. Designed by a power tool of an "engineer" who can't do a bolt stress calculation or even compare his proposed MAP to that of 7.62x39. Comes in two flavors. One breaks bolts and extractors, the other only breaks bolts. When downloaded to keep bolt stress the same as 5.56, performance falls below heavy 5.56 and 6x45, both of which are much easier to get running starting from a basic AR.
- .450 Marlin. Lawyer design at the worst. Same bullet diameter as .45-70. Same pressure limit in the same gun. Less case capacity. Rare brass. Explain to me again why anyone would want this instead of a .45-70? Meanwhile numerous ammo makers offered .45-70 +P ammo and effectively killed this junker.
- The .38-70. This should have been more or less a .375 H&H in a lever gun, and if Winchester had just necked down the .50-110 and shortened the neck a hair it would have been. Instead they based it on the smaller .45-90 body, and put in so much taper and such thick brass walls that there's no case capacity. Thereby depriving people of what could have been the coolest 1886 caliber ever three generations later when powders and metallurgy caught up. Bastards.
- 17 HMR. It's a chipmunk gun. There is nothing magnum about it. .22 WMR, you're on notice too. The opposite of a magnum is a "split" - the smallest commercial wine bottle. Consider using that for future naming.
- .30 Carbine. The power of a pistol in a weapon the size of a rifle. With surplus M1s drying up, it's now available only in guns with the reliability of a Yugo. Sign me up!
- .30-40 Krag. The gun with exterior ballistics so bad it made a generation of Americans think the 7x57 was a pretty sexy cartridge. Those who lived to tell the tale, of course...
- .376 Steyr. Never have a gun and a cartridge been less suited to each other than the Scout and the .375 H&H. Who thought this was a good idea? Heads up, it wasn't.
- .50 Alaskan. Take a .50-110, neck it down to .348, chop it, neck it back up to .50 (this should be a sign something stupid is going on...), and chamber it back in the same gun that fed the original longer .50-110. Why? Because we're ignorant of the other options, that's why.
And since we're supposed to do guns too, I'll throw out a few:
- The Remington 700. A safety that doesn't work. Two iterations of the trigger, both of them recalled. A round action with small lug specifically designed to shift in the stock under recoil. The "reliability" of push feed, and the fun of uncontrollable plunger ejection with the bonus of extra moving parts in the ejector that can break. Somehow they convinced a gullible population this was the gun of the future. Well, the future came and they suck. Give me an M98.
- The Kimber 84M/L/8400. You know how all those el cheapo wonderbolt manufacturers have managed to make guns that consistently shoot about an MOA with no fuss? Then there's these fabulous Kimbers. They don't group so much as pattern. Whenever someone points this out, the apologist chorus comes along and claims they "don't know how to shoot a light rifle". Guess what, if the gun's so tweaky that some mechanical error which has no impact on any other gun causes it to blow a gasket, then it's too tweaky to shoot in the field. More likely, Kimber has no clue how fit a rifle.
- The Montana Rifle Company 1999. The guns would be fine, IF someone had one. No one does. One guy tried to order a .35 Whelen, and was told it would be 11 months. At 20 months he called to check on it, and was transferred to the "dominatrix service department" which did not take kindly to his inquiries. Two years later he was shipped a left handed .257 Roberts with a crooked barrel and informed he would like it. He claims he does.
Now you know why your favorite rifle or cartridge sucks
There's obviously a great excess of centerfire cartridges and rifles that more or less all do the same thing at this point, But a few of my less favorites (tongue slightly in cheek):
- The 300WM and 338WM. A substantial increase in recoil over the .308 or 7mm mag, and yet they somehow fail to address any additional NA game or increase the ETHICAL range at which it can be hunted. Too little gun for the great bears and bison, too much for everything else. It's hard to imagine the same development shop responsible for these two turds cranked out the fairly serviceable .264 Win Mag at about the same time.
- The .270 Winchester and .270 WSM. This is a case of one design mistake dooming a caliber to mediocrity forever. Somehow Winchester looked between the 1:8.66" twist of the 7x57 and the 1:7.87" twist of the 6.5x55 and found 1:10" in the middle. Brilliant! Slow twist leads to garbage bullets with low BCs and poor penetration. And once a population of slow twist rifles gets out there, the problem is unfixable since major bullet manufacturers don't like to make bullets that won't stabilize in most guns. The .270 should be replaced with a .280 at every opportunity.
- The .260 Remington. Same problem as the .270 Winchester. Should have been 1:8" twist. The rocket scientists at Remington picked 1:10". The mistake was so fatal we got the exact same cartridge again 15 years later as the 6.5 Creedmoor with a 1:8" twist, and suddenly it's the hottest long range and hunting cartridge around. So close Remington, so close.
- The .30-06. Short action performance in a long action round. Too much taper, wrong shoulder angle, MAP too low. The revenge of 19th century cartridge design. The only upside is unlike the last two cartridges they accidentally blundered into the right twist rate.
- .458 Lott. Driven by the mistaken belief that the way to fix Winchester's inability to put the right powder charge in factory .458WM ammo was to increase the case size. Because that makes sense?!? Obsolete the minute Winchester figured out how to load .458WM ammo that met specs.
- All Safari cartridges more powerful than 500 NE. Because you might encounter something BIGGER than an elephant?!?
- The .223 Remington - a baffling mistake of cartridge specification that took what was supposed to be the exact same round as the 5.56Nato and created generations of confusion and weaksauce ammo by changing key pressure and chamber dimension specs for no good reason. 5.56 should be fired in .223s at every opportunity. It never blows up the gun, but if it did you'd be doing the world a favor.
- .400 Whelen. It's actually a fine cartridge, as long as you don't make the mistake of thinking it's a .30-06 necked up like, oh, say all the other cartridges in the same name series. Do that, and you end up with a shoulderless mess that won't headspace. Brass is nearly impossible, so get a .404J instead.
- 6.5 Grendel. Designed by a power tool of an "engineer" who can't do a bolt stress calculation or even compare his proposed MAP to that of 7.62x39. Comes in two flavors. One breaks bolts and extractors, the other only breaks bolts. When downloaded to keep bolt stress the same as 5.56, performance falls below heavy 5.56 and 6x45, both of which are much easier to get running starting from a basic AR.
- .450 Marlin. Lawyer design at the worst. Same bullet diameter as .45-70. Same pressure limit in the same gun. Less case capacity. Rare brass. Explain to me again why anyone would want this instead of a .45-70? Meanwhile numerous ammo makers offered .45-70 +P ammo and effectively killed this junker.
- The .38-70. This should have been more or less a .375 H&H in a lever gun, and if Winchester had just necked down the .50-110 and shortened the neck a hair it would have been. Instead they based it on the smaller .45-90 body, and put in so much taper and such thick brass walls that there's no case capacity. Thereby depriving people of what could have been the coolest 1886 caliber ever three generations later when powders and metallurgy caught up. Bastards.
- 17 HMR. It's a chipmunk gun. There is nothing magnum about it. .22 WMR, you're on notice too. The opposite of a magnum is a "split" - the smallest commercial wine bottle. Consider using that for future naming.
- .30 Carbine. The power of a pistol in a weapon the size of a rifle. With surplus M1s drying up, it's now available only in guns with the reliability of a Yugo. Sign me up!
- .30-40 Krag. The gun with exterior ballistics so bad it made a generation of Americans think the 7x57 was a pretty sexy cartridge. Those who lived to tell the tale, of course...
- .376 Steyr. Never have a gun and a cartridge been less suited to each other than the Scout and the .375 H&H. Who thought this was a good idea? Heads up, it wasn't.
- .50 Alaskan. Take a .50-110, neck it down to .348, chop it, neck it back up to .50 (this should be a sign something stupid is going on...), and chamber it back in the same gun that fed the original longer .50-110. Why? Because we're ignorant of the other options, that's why.
And since we're supposed to do guns too, I'll throw out a few:
- The Remington 700. A safety that doesn't work. Two iterations of the trigger, both of them recalled. A round action with small lug specifically designed to shift in the stock under recoil. The "reliability" of push feed, and the fun of uncontrollable plunger ejection with the bonus of extra moving parts in the ejector that can break. Somehow they convinced a gullible population this was the gun of the future. Well, the future came and they suck. Give me an M98.
- The Kimber 84M/L/8400. You know how all those el cheapo wonderbolt manufacturers have managed to make guns that consistently shoot about an MOA with no fuss? Then there's these fabulous Kimbers. They don't group so much as pattern. Whenever someone points this out, the apologist chorus comes along and claims they "don't know how to shoot a light rifle". Guess what, if the gun's so tweaky that some mechanical error which has no impact on any other gun causes it to blow a gasket, then it's too tweaky to shoot in the field. More likely, Kimber has no clue how fit a rifle.
- The Montana Rifle Company 1999. The guns would be fine, IF someone had one. No one does. One guy tried to order a .35 Whelen, and was told it would be 11 months. At 20 months he called to check on it, and was transferred to the "dominatrix service department" which did not take kindly to his inquiries. Two years later he was shipped a left handed .257 Roberts with a crooked barrel and informed he would like it. He claims he does.
Now you know why your favorite rifle or cartridge sucks
You had me chuckling. All in all a good post!
Me, too. Thanks!
That said, I do like the .223, ,30-06, .300WM and .338WM. A lot.
Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!
No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.
Could it be that I managed to acquire S-I-X bad rifles in a row, all chambered in .243 Winchester? As improbable as it sounds, if it was going to happen to anyone at all it would be ME. I dunno what the hell the deal is or was with those rifles. I was always a 6mm Remington fan, but one day a rifle in .243 fell in my lap, so I outfitted to handload for it. At first it looked like it wanted to shoot, but then it didn't. So I replaced it with another that had the very same soul. Then another, and another. And another. And another after that. Maybe it was me all along, but I just don't see that. After I dumped the last .243 and my dies, a 6-284 fell in my lap and it was MOA shortly thereafter. My most recent 6mm, same story.
I think that deep down, I deeply hate the .243, and the .243 has picked up on that...so it's mutual, I suppose.
I do hate the sumbitch.
Don't be the darkness.
America will perish while those who should be standing guard are satisfying their lusts.
Generally, threads like this are for worship of 30-06 government, and a sort of political style opportunity to express opposition for any more desirable choices.
Also, I dislike glossy as someone previously posted. In this day and age when a hunter can cover the flash with a rattle can of matte clear spray, there is no reason to tote flash on a hunting trip.
I guess if you mean cartridges, then I'd say .270 and 7mm mag. I've tried to like them, but I can't do it. And they're probably two of the best out there.
I think it stems from listening to people talk too much about them, as if using anything different means you're an idiot. But, I feel the same way about newer cartridges that cause constant bloviating.
#1 in .280 Rem. Problem was it was too nice to take hunting except in good weather. Sold it and bought an All Weather Hawkeye in .280 Rem. Would love to get another #1 in .45-70.
What's wrong with .30's? I've got .300 Blackout, .30-30, .308, .30-06, .300WM. All do what i want.
Last edited by Coyote_Hunter; 05/30/17.
Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!
No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.
I developed a quick dislike of the 'WSM, and 'WSSM' suffix quickly,the entire cartridge family.
all advertising hype, yet with ballistics identical to existing cartridges already long established. Also it seemed like everyone interested in them would brag about the merits of such a supreme cartridge, just because it was the "newest, latest, greatest and most improved- with antibacterial electrolites in every box"-while turning a blind eye to published data showing the reality of the caliber's performance.
not to mention the weird case(s), and the only advantage touted as the 'short throw' of the actions they were chambered in. today they are rarely talked about, and I never see ammo for them on shelves- I think 5mm Remington anyone?
Sadly the Creedmore is following the same path- all hype and glitter, yet does nothing the 100+ year old swede doesn't already do without a publicity agent singing about it.
the only cartridges, I would not buy a gun for is the 30 carbine, the 25 auto, the 32 auto or one of the niche cartridges that fits into an ar15 but cannot be found on a gun shops shelves. I don't really hate any of them just cannot see a practical use for them.
jwall, I got my old .300 in about 1970.. Great caliber.. BUT as you mentioned necking the 7mm R. up to .30.. Brought to mind a couple guys I met in Casper.. They told me that had developed a round that would beat the 300WM by a huge margin.. The necked the 7mm R up to .30 cal.. a real super winner.. They were young 25 or so.. When you are old, life is really interesting!!!
, to an 18 mile sheep mountain, backpacking. Met two guys about my age coming back out after failing to navigate a mountain some 5 miles farther in. Scruffy, bearded, looked dirty personally, but newly Safari clad, with brand new Weatherby's.. I took them for drug dealers. Our short encounter ended when they asked me what I was carrying.
".243."
"I never heard of that caliber"
"Well, i gotta get going now!"
The mountain that defeated them has a name, but we just call it "Big Ugly". Looks bad, but really a piece of cake, as long as you go (nearly) over it (there is a bench about 90 feet lower than the peak) and not try to side-hill at elevation as they did. That could kill you! Just stay on the caribou trail that goes right up the crest of the spur. If there's no game rail around the side of the mountain, it's likely not a good idea..... and if you are too stupid not to follow game trails... well! !
I killed a full curl in there that year and the next, with that .243, which I still have but have never warmed to..My wife took another full curl on our honeymoon the third year, with a .270 (now an '06 - both were/are bug hole shooters until my brother left the 270 in a damp basement over-winter, and I had to re-barrel..). He r ram was bigger , of course..... . I took my rams at about 30 and 100 yards, respectively, and hers was at about 35.
Even a gun you don't like can work! I still have that .243, and still don't like it, tho i've got it shooting MOA, instead of the 2 pls it has for the last 40 years, and literally tons of game. Just cuz it works, doesn't mean I have to like it....
the only cartridges, I would not buy a gun for is the 30 carbine, the 25 auto, the 32 auto or one of the niche cartridges that fits into an ar15 but cannot be found on a gun shops shelves. I don't really hate any of them just cannot see a practical use for them.
I never thought much of the .25 auto either, but could not pass up a used Beretta 950, in the box, for $149 and pennies. It get used for special occasions, most recently at Daughter #3's wedding. Had it in my pocket as I waled her down the aisle.
Older Bro had a Glock 9mm and two spare 17-round mags under his suit coat, 52 rounds total. Definitely a better choice for problem resolution.
Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!
No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.
I find it odd that so many people get knicker twisted about the WSM series. Given how much is right about them - no belt, lots of capacity for the length, high efficiency and reduced recoil for a given bullet weight and velocity - I have to wonder if y'all are just being contrary.
When a guy has a couple chambered in 7mmRemMagnificent, the WSM is a non issue.
Look, I like the 7RM too - about 90% of my big game kills have been with a M70 7RM. But I have to admit that if the 7 WSM/7 SAUM had caught on, they would flat out be a better cartridge. Same velocity, same bullets, less recoil, in a short action with the option for a lighter/shorter rifle. Pondering what the 7RM does better, I have to conclude the answer is 'nothing' from a technical perspective and I say that as a fan of the 7RM. The only advantage for the 7RM is inertia.
Some cartridges I've never been able to like are the .243 Win, .270 Win, 7RM, and .300 Win. I've owned one of the first but never any of the latter cuz I have a .30-06 and don't need em.
I find it odd that so many people get knicker twisted about the WSM series. Given how much is right about them - no belt, lots of capacity for the length, high efficiency and reduced recoil for a given bullet weight and velocity - I have to wonder if y'all are just being contrary.
High efficiency? What precisely does that mean? A rather interesting test was made using the same barrel chambered first to 300 H&H and then to 300 WSM. Doing it in that order meant there was the same length of barrel in front of the chamber for each test. Guess what? Even with their greatly different shapes the two cases with the same capacities produced practically identical velocities using the same quantities of the same powders.
Ballistic efficiency is defined as the fraction of the energy in the powder that ends up as bullet kinetic energy as opposed to heat, moving parts of the gun, etc.
Ballistic efficiency is defined as the fraction of the energy in the powder that ends up as bullet kinetic energy as opposed to heat, moving parts of the gun, etc.
Then the experiment I described above showed the 300 WSM to be no more efficient than the 300 H&H with its long, sloping case design.
Well I know nothing about this experiment other than what you said about it, but it sounds fudged to achieve a specific result. Why cut the barrel shorter for the .300 WSM, for starters? Barrel shank weight still counts. Measuring the barrel from the case head seems eminently fair, unless your goal is specifically to help long cartridges.
Also, a quick check of the reloading data contradicts you. I took a quick look at the powdereds Hodgdon has for both .300 WSM and .300 H&H in 180gr jacketed and they've got two powdered listed for both: IMR 4831 and IMR 4350. For IMR 4831 the .300 H&H takes 10.1% more powder and gets only a 3.7% increase in energy. For 4350 the H&H takes 6.1% more powder and has no energy increase at all.
They used 24" barrels for everything.
That's consistent with what we'd expect between two cartridges both with almost exactly the same case capacity, but one having a modern efficient design and one having a very old design design. The modern cartridge is about 6% more efficient. It's not a BIG deal, but the effect is there like you'd expect it to be.
Well I know nothing about this experiment other than what you said about it, but it sounds fudged to achieve a specific result. Why cut the barrel shorter for the .300 WSM, for starters? Barrel shank weight still counts. Measuring the barrel from the case head seems eminently fair, unless your goal is specifically to help long cartridges.
Also, a quick check of the reloading data contradicts you. I took a quick look at the powdereds Hodgdon has for both .300 WSM and .300 H&H in 180gr jacketed and they've got two powdered listed for both: IMR 4831 and IMR 4350. For IMR 4831 the .300 H&H takes 10.1% more powder and gets only a 3.7% increase in energy. For 4350 the H&H takes 6.1% more powder and has no energy increase at all.
They used 24" barrels for everything.
That's consistent with what we'd expect between two cartridges both with almost exactly the same case capacity, but one having a modern efficient design and one having a very old design design. The modern cartridge is about 6% more efficient. It's not a BIG deal, but the effect is there like you'd expect it to be.
The shank needed to be shortened so the WSM chamber would clean up the H&H chamber. For ballistic efficiency as you defined it, it's barrel length from case mouth to muzzle that counts, that being the part where the expanding gas acts on the base of the bullet for propulsion, and the test as performed made that equal. For barrels of the same overall length as you want to use, the test would be biased in favor of the WSM in terms of ballistic efficiency as defined.
I italicized the part about both cartridge tests being done in the same barrel. You are dismissing the effect of barrel to barrel variation, and that accounts for a lot more than you're considering. You should also consider that the Hodgdon tests for the two cartridges were conducted at different times on different test apparatus. This can easily account for small variations. (Clue: check the units of pressure for the two data sets)
The shank needed to be shortened so the WSM chamber would clean up the H&H chamber.
That's all well and good, but in the real world where people take the gun into the field, extra shank length for a longer cartridge is just extra weight.
And if you want to argue Hodgdon's data with them, their phone number is on the website. Give them a call...
The shank needed to be shortened so the WSM chamber would clean up the H&H chamber.
That's all well and good, but in the real world where people take the gun into the field, extra shank length for a longer cartridge is just extra weight.
And if you want to argue Hodgdon's data with them, their phone number is on the website. Give them a call...
I'm not arguing with Hodgdon's data. My point is you're not interpreting it correctly.
30-30. I own one that is about as accurate as a sling shot. To get mine to shoot 4 MOA at 100 yards it took over 2 boxes of ammo. With factory iron sights, I could not even find the target. I do reload, but will not bother doing so for this rifle. I'd sell it but would hate strap an unsuspecting buyer with such a crappy rifle. I have shot two other rifles in this caliber that were nearly as bad.
I know, some have 30-30's that shoot clover leafs at 150 yards. If I could find one, I might change my mind!
The shank needed to be shortened so the WSM chamber would clean up the H&H chamber.
That's all well and good, but in the real world where people take the gun into the field, extra shank length for a longer cartridge is just extra weight.
And if you want to argue Hodgdon's data with them, their phone number is on the website. Give them a call...
I'm not arguing with Hodgdon's data. My point is you're not interpreting it correctly.
The point being, almost all variables being eliminated other than chamber geometry (which Hodgdon or anyone else's data doesn't do), the 300 WSM isn't/wasn't more "efficient", didnt product any more or less recoil energy and shot pretty much identical groups in the test, with the same powder charges.
Eliminating the variables eliminates any real or perceived notions of "efficiency". I think the HH Hodgdon data is 30-40 years old anyway...
Hmm, just looked at the Western powder guide. They have 180gr data for both .300H&H and .300WSM with AA4350. It's all in PSI. And they show .300 H&H takes 6.9% more powder and only has 2.9% more muzzle energy. Efficiency rears its head again. And that even with them loading .300WSM to a lower than SAAMi max pressure (low pressure reduces efficiency).
It's funny - all the reloading data shows you jokers have no clue, yet you persist... at some point the clowns around here will figure out what Sebert's factor is, but I'm not holding my breath it will be any time soon.
I find it odd that so many people get knicker twisted about the WSM series. Given how much is right about them - no belt, lots of capacity for the length, high efficiency and reduced recoil for a given bullet weight and velocity - I have to wonder if y'all are just being contrary.
No contrariness on my part re the WSM series, just a distaste for a company stealing a person's work product.
I've been reloading the 7mm RM since 1982 so I have a bit of a clue. The belt "issue", wh1le an anachronistic throwback to earlier designs, has never, ever been a problem for me.
The 7mm RM has 84g water capacity compared to 81 for the WSM. Given similar pressures with other factors equal, the 7mm RM wins the velocity race. Case in point using Hornady data with 24" barrels and 160g bullets with IMR4831, the 7mm RM powder or my choice for a couple decades: 2851fps = 7mm RM, 61.0g, 58,400 PSI 2906fps = 7 WSM, 61.4g, 62,100 PSI Granted the WSM shows higher velocity, but it requires a bit more powder and l6.3% higher pressure (2700 PSI) to get there.
The promise of the WSM's "short action" is a lighter rifle. Do the research and you'll find this is often not the case.
There are no royalties to Rick Jamison on the 7mm RM rifles, brass and ammo, hence they tend to be more available and less expensive. Case in point, midwayusa.com currently offers 7mm RM brass from 6 vendors, all with availability while offering only 1 vendor's brass for the 7 WSM - with no stock on hand. For ammo, midway has 68 offerings for the 7mm RM, starting at $22.49 per box. Compare that to only 10 offerings for 7 WSM, starting at $33.79. To put it another way, the 7 WSM is 50% LESS efficient when it comes to the non-handloader's wallet.
In terms of manufacturer support, the WSM cartridges have never had the support the their non-WSM counterparts have had. If you go shopping for a WSM rifle your options will be much more limited and you will generally pay more.
If "powder efficiency" is the primary yardstick for choosing a hunting cartridge, the holder of the yardstick is akin to a fool. A wiser person would balance velocity, accuracy, ammo availability, firearm options and other factors when making their selection. In any case, when comparing "powder efficiency" between the 7mm RM and the WSM, it is ephemeral at best.
The fact is there is little reason to choose a 7 WSM over a 7mm RM and lots of reasons not to do so. Want a lighter rifle? Ditch the walnut and get synthetic. Want more firearm options? Look at 7mmRM rifles. Lowest ammo costs and highest ammo availability for non-handloaders? The 7mm RM wins by a landslide.
I easily push 160g bullets over 3000fps using my 24" 7mm RM but the truth is there isn't a nickel's worth of difference in velocity between the 7mm RM and 7 WSM if using equal pressures and barrel lengths. If you want "powder efficiency", get a 7mm-08 Rem - it is up to 41% more "powder efficient" than the 7 WSM or 7mm RM.
Last edited by Coyote_Hunter; 06/04/17. Reason: 'than', not 'then'
Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!
No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.
Hmm, just looked at the Western powder guide. They have 180gr data for both .300H&H and .300WSM with AA4350. It's all in PSI. And they show .300 H&H takes 6.9% more powder and only has 2.9% more muzzle energy. Efficiency rears its head again. And that even with them loading .300WSM to a lower than SAAMi max pressure (low pressure reduces efficiency).
It's funny - all the reloading data shows you jokers have no clue, yet you persist... at some point the clowns around here will figure out what Sebert's factor is, but I'm not holding my breath it will be any time soon.
What part of "two different barrels" do you not understand? Was the powder lot the same?
You can get the same variance in 300 WSM data (or variance in data for most any cartridge), which is why using any load data with so many variables on the table is a poor example to illustrate "efficiency".
Charlie Sisk (who used to post here) and John Barsness (Mule Deer) conducted and documented the test. If you ask him or read the article, you might find an actual unbiased test puts flies in the oinment.
The shorter actions of the SMs obviously are beneficial in the field.
... The shorter actions of the SMs obviously are beneficial in the field.
Depends on the rifle and the barrel length. I find 22" more handy than 24" in bolt rifles. My ..308 Ruger Scout at 16.1" is handier yet, as are my 20" barreled levers.
Most WSMs I've seen have 24-26" barrels.
Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!
No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.
... The shorter actions of the SMs obviously are beneficial in the field.
Depends on the rifle and the barrel length. I find 22" more handy than 24" in bolt rifles. My ..308 Ruger Scout at 16.1" is handier yet, as are my 20" barreled levers.
Most WSMs I've seen have 24-26" barrels.
Exactly. Thats thats precisely why I only said actions! The comparison here would be 308 actions versus 30/06 up to magnum actions or the WSSM action to a 308 SA.
The WSMs tried to compete with cartridges that traditionally have 24-26" barrels. They obviously didnt offer enough.
![[Linked Image]](http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/07/07cf049a1ae4758a60f2ceac8b238f008d050d4f832a4681063670a59f3da3db.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/ZCL8Ws2r/JohnGult.jpg)
We might want to take it easy on the poor guy... 
![[Linked Image]](http://s1243.photobucket.com/user/elkhunterinnm/media/20170514_075056.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/X0n16mr.png)
