Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Do you like the new 'modernized' cartridges?

That still doesn’t make you a horse rider…

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

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

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

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

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

That’s funny right there.

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

Trucks/trailers etc to jerk these ponies down the road

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

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

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

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

They both end up doing wrong in a trailer park.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But what fun would that be?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are modern bullets measured In performance by their terminal velocity?

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

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

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

Do you also have to consider maximum velocity recommended?

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

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

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

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

Why?

Thanks

How does a 450 bush 99

Compare to a 450 marlin 1895 action?

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