Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Why no 23's and 29's?

Funny the things you think of on long flights. I was flying back from Beijing yesterday and got to thinking about all the commercially available calibers. Maybe I am missing something but there appears to be a gap between the popular 22's and the 24's. Then there are lots of 25's, 260 or 6.5mm, 270, 280 and then up to the 30 cals. Is there a ballistic reason that something in the 23 & 29 calibers do not make sense? I am sure there are wildcats but I can not think of a successful commercial caliber in this range???? TM

Travlinman,

The 7.35 Carcano was a 29 caliber. Actually bullet diameter was .299 or .300, I believe. Mule Deer did an article on the "B-29" a couple of years ago in either Handloader or Rifle mag. That was a .29 caliber wildcat of his own design if I remember right.

I don't recall anything on the .23 off the top of my head. Well, the .22 Savage H.P. was really .228 which is close. Also, P.O. Ackley had a .228 Ackley Magnum. I once owned a M1903 MS in .228x6.5 MS. I got rid of it because the only bullets available were Hornady 70 gr. Cheers - the9.3Guy

The B-29 was mythical, cooked up around a campfire one night after a long hunt. Though I understand Redding still gets occasional requests for dies, 3 years later.

I read something years ago on a wildcat called the .234
It was designed to get around the .22 cal. laws for deer hunting. I'm thinking it was in an old Gun Digest. Virgil B.

9 3, Thanks. While it might have been called a 29, if the size was 299 that is really a 30 caliber in my mind. As expected all the others are wildcats. What I do not understand is why? Is there something about those two calibers that just do not make sense? TM

There were at least 2 and the two I can find are:

- .230 Ackley ( necked down and shortened '06 cases)
- .230 LLF ( .243 Win. necked down no other changes)

Mule Deer, My guess is to protect some over medicated hunters (writers) from a mythical beast? (grin) TM

No nonsense, Again, these are wildcats. Why no commercial loadings? TM

I think it is because there is no niche to fill (except perhaps excaping the no .22 deer laws). A 7mm or a 308 bullet would work just as well as a 29. How about a .298 WSSM? sounds like it would sell, its new and different, but thats all.

Jsirm, I agree with your logic but when had the lack of need prevented another caliber from being developed? Happens all the time. Heck, we could get along just fine with just .22's for plinking, 223 for varmits, 30.06 for deer and 338 for big game. Sure, folks argue for THEIR favorite caliber and I have no problem with that but again, the 4 (or whatever your choice for the particular niche would be) would work perfectly for anything we hunt, yet there are dozens (if not a hundred+) different calibers to chose from. Just wondering why those two spots had been missed. Thought there might be some ballistic reason, but apparently not. Ah well, another mystery. TM

The major manufacturers must figure that they will make more money from making funny looking magnums than new bullet diameters, if they thought they could make a buck, they would do it. I could put to good use any bullet diameter between .172 and .416. If you look back at the introduction of rifle cartriges in the US, then you will see more marketing than logic. Imagine if the .270 hadnt been developed. and today there was the 6.5-06 and the 280. Both have a good selection of great bullets. Would you buy a .270 if developed today? I wouldnt, I would say to myself, "what problem did someone think they were fixing by coming up with this thing?". But as it is, all of these calibers are established and the bullet selection is as good for one as is is the other. I believe the 277 was developed at a time metric bullets were not popular in the US, so it did fill a gap.

Dale Guise, an old time gunsmith in PA who in the 1950s specialized in making left hand bolt actions out of Remington 721s and Winchester 70s, still has a Buhmiller .234 blank in his shop rafters. He doesn't remember why he ordered it or for whom or for what cartridge. I am sure he would sell it.

Miki, Thanks but I have no interest in them. Just wondering why none had ever been developed, when so many others had. TM

Traveling Man--

Evidently a few shooters believed in the B-29, even though the article said that Monica Lewinsky ground the reamers (she got a new job after her internship went bad), and that the .29 caliber turned out to be one of those magical bullet diameters that GAINS velocity downrange. It also described shooting a deer at 400 yards, and having the bullet both field-dress the deer and flip it over on its back.

A few addresses were included, for things like .29-caliber barrels made by Ned Nobody. Somebody actually wrote Ned at the mythical address and was puzzled when the letter was returned by the post office.

By the way, the B-29 was a short semi-magnum, based on the Schmidt-Rubin 7.5 case, with a magical 31.5 degree shoulder. I gather Redding hasn't yet started making dies.

MD

Mule Deer,

Man! You really know how to hurt a guy! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> If ever I had egg on my face, I have it now. I thought you REALLY did make a B-29. Your rags are usually noted for their technical accuracy rather that their humor. I do have to admit, however, that I didn't actually read the article. I just sort of scanned thru it. I wasn't particularly interested at the time. So I just filed it in my mind under: RTN to LATER. I sure didn't pick up on any of the obvious points. Or if I did, I didn't remember. You are one up on me now. I owe you- <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> the9.3Guy

MD, Sounds like it used Pixie dust for propellant, silver bullets and was the perfect round for Unicorns! TM

Yeah, more than a few just skimmed "The B-29" and never read the details. Even Ross Seyfried said he skimmed it and thought it sounded OK!

A few apparently read the details and still believed it, which I guess proves that shooters are always looking for that magic something in their cartridges. Nothing like a round that gains velocity at long and range and does the field-dressing for you!

One guy dropped his subscription after reading the piece, saying he subscribed to find out out about handloading techniques and wasn't into reading fiction. There may be something in what he says, as last year another guy wrote in, asking if the piece on the Juenke bullet-concentricity machine was another "B-29."

The office manager at Wolfe publishing told me I would never, EVER write something like the B-29 again, as it got more mail than any other article ever published in HANDLOADER. The office staff fell behind in their ordinary tasks, including writing my paycheck. So I have stuck to reality (or at least my version of it) ever since.

travelingman1,

My post was misplaced as it was meant for vbshootinrange and his message.

I can't answer your question simply because I don't know. I suppose that one might ask a similar question regarding the 6.5/284 and why it isn't a factory load. Or the 6.5-06 for that matter. Then, too, I would ask why anyone would put effort and money into developing bullets and cartridges for the 14, 12 and 10 calibers. Why do we have the 20 caliber AND a 19 caliber?

I suppose that the easy answer is selection. We, the consumers, select and therefore either contribute to the continuation of a cartridge/caliber or by not selecting, aid in it's demise. Examine the graveyard of discontinued and obsolete cartridges. Listen for the screams of agony from the shooters who have had their favorite bullet weight or style dropped from a manufacturers line. Then there is the weighty question of "Why DID Remington create the 710?" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> This is obviously esoteric and meant to be humorous.

Good luck in your quest for an answer!

Best.

No Nonsense, Like a lot of things, there probably is no answer. I have no interest in exotic rounds myself. Like I said at the start, just got to wondering why these spots were missed, when it seemed everything else had been taken. Some times by numerous rounds. Ah well, I have rifles I do not have time to shoot now! :-) You have a good one! TM

Mule Deer
I remember that article very well, and still have that issue here somewhere. I remember starting along reading it and thinking, hey this sounds cool. Something new to mess with. Then, as it went along I was laughing me *ss off! It was very entertaining.