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

JB,

Pick a caliber, and tell me what void has been filled in the last 30-50 years with "new cartridges"? Most don't hunt or shoot a 338 Lapua. WSM? SAUM? RCM? How prevalent /successful/useful/void filling are they?

.224" : anything beating the Swift? There's a void filler with the 223 Rem/5.56 Rem in the 1960s for military use. I'll give that one (but more than 50 years ago), but all in all, not much different than a 222 Rem or 222 Rem Mag.

.243 : anything really commercially "improving" the 243/6mm Rem or 240 Weatherby (not too prevalent)? The 243 WSM? Really? Lower FPS area yields the 6 BR and 6 PPC. Great designs and accuracy personified. They filled the benchrest shooter's needs.

.257: anything smoking the 257 Weatherby? Anything wrong with the 25-06 or 257 Roberts with good powders and bullets?

.264 Win mag.: Not many use it. Is it much different than the 7 Rem Mag? The 6.5 CM is well-designed, but what about the 6.5x55 or 6.5x57? Put the 6.5x55 in a strong action allowing higher pressure and velocity, not a soft 96 Mauser, and is there enough difference to spar against each other? The 260 Rem? Nice but any real difference compared to the old 6.5x55 in a strong action?

.270: 270 Win, 270 Weatherby mag. Is the 270 WSM going to survive? Does it do much of anything "better" than the "Bee"? And what about the old 270 Win -with new powders amping its performance? Tough to beat the plain Jane 270 Win. Is there a void on the other end here? 6.8 SPC for the military? Great modern design, but is it enough to improve the 5.56 at longer ranges in combat? TBD with military and governmental politics.
https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/19064471/1


7mm: Anything new commercial success or replacement of a 7mm Weatherby or 7mm Rem Mag? The 280 Rem is well-regarded, but what is "better"? Or go "slower void path" with the 7mm Waters (yawn). The 7-08? Excellent cartridge, but any real difference compared to the 7x57? You have the option for a short action. But does it perform close enough to the 7x57? The 7mm RUM is there, but how popular? Haven't read much about Layne Simpson's 7mm STW chambering. Is 200 fps faster than the standard 7mm Rem Mag really a void that needs filling? Pragmatically?

308: The 300 Win mag, 300 Weatherby, 300 H&H, 308 Norma mag (50++ years ago). What commercial 30 caliber is displacing them, the 300 WSM? Most of the earlier "mags" have faded away, leaving the 300 Win Mag or Weatherby-or maybe a small slice of 300 wsm. What else is "better" ? Faster? The 300 RUM. 200 fps faster than the the other 30 mags. How big a market, and what void was it filling? Where was the 300 Win Mag or 300 Weatherby lacking? How about the slower fps market?-ok the 30 BR, accurate, interesting, fun, but limited, but not a commercial success. 300 Blackout? Some success for low recoil shooting, but won't replace the 5.56 for the military. The 308 Win ( 1950s), but that is ~70 years ago (not 50 years, but I'll toss it in anyways). It is an excellent design (but not much different than the 30-06). It indeed filled a void for military needs at the time. Obviously the 308 Win 7.62 Nato was initially all about shorter-actioned military weapons first, then it hit the civilian market with success. Both the 308 Win and 30-06 improve due to newer powders.

Skip to 8mm: Maybe the 8mm Rem mag, but who chambers it now? is it better than the 100+ year old 8x68? 325 WSM? Well-designed cartridge, but many ask, why not a 338 WSM? Some use, but how long will the 325 WSM last? It has faded before the sun rose on it.

338: The 338 Win Mag or 340 Weatherby mag still hold the spot to be knocked off center to be the king. What is better than them? ( commercially)? 338 Lapua, but aside for specialized semi-custom builds, who shoots it? 338-06? great cartridge. Finally commercialized, but not that popular (should be, but just isn't). 338 RCM? Another good design; but, any better than the 338 Win Mag, pragmatically speaking? A shorter action is not a bullet performance "improvement." I like the 338 Federal (short action option), solid choice and of course a good design -from the 308 Win. It is a big stick in a little bundle, but is it much different than the 8x57? Either could be a "one gun" void filler for the north american hunter ( as well as many other mid-bores..Nothing new with that concept from the 270 Win to the 35 Whelen).

358:, The 35 Whelen and 350 Rem Mag are great. Never popular, but the 358 Norma Mag holds the king of the hill MV title (but who commercially chambers it anymore?). What is better or more popular commercially? (and the 350 Rem Mag while having a following, was never "popular". 350 Legend? /357 Max? They fill hunting voids for straight-walled cases for hunting requirements. You got me there. (but the ~ 100 year old 357 mag from a 20" barreled rifle would do ok with a good 158-180 grain bullet). My concern with the 350 Legend is the SAAMI spec for groove diameter of 0.355" (https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/whats-going-on-with-350-legend/). There seems to be some conflicting reports that 350 Legend bullet diameters are 0.355", 357" or 0.358" (SAAMI spec 0.357 -0.003"). I like the concept of the 350 Legend, but not the bullet diameter / groove diameter confusion, so overall it is a "no go" for me.

9.3. the 1905 9.3x62 seems to be holding its own.

375: Does the 375 H&H get replaced by the 375 Ruger? Unlikely, but the 375 Ruger ( and 416 version) is a great design. But is it 'better"? No, it is a beltless version, both close enough. The 375 Marlin offered higher pressures than the 38-55, but not commercially chambered now.

416? The Rigby has been around for over 100+ years. Big actions. Not common, and expensive. Now there is the 416 Rem Mag and Ruger Mag. Better? Yes, as the needed action/rifle is more affordable and available, and ammo is lower cost, but not cheap. Could be one of the calibers that there has been "improvement" due to better availability of a shooting platform, but are they "better performers" than the old 416 Rigby ( regarding bullet weight and MV)? Probably not a lot of difference.

44> 444 Marlin. Now filling a need for straight wall cartridge requirements for hunting regulations. (but also designed more than 50 years ago). Wasn't designed with that intent, but it is swerving into a new life of usefulness.

458? 458 win mag, 460 Weatherby, and the 458 Lott. What chambering is providing improved performance over those? 458 SOCOM? close range AR platform blaster. I guess that is a void that could be filled. Tough to chamber a AR15 in 45-70.

Then there are modern offerings like the Lazzeroni line. Fast, modern design but do any of them really provide a drastic improvement of any existing caliber they chamber? Not a commercial success.

Chamberings based on the rimless 404 Jeffery provide new options. But do the resultant cartridges significantly improve performance and fill a gaping void, or do they mimic existing "old" cartridges? Is a RUM or RCM, SAUM "better"? Not all are faster (if that is indeed "better", may not be). And if faster, is 200 fps increased velocity really going to be a break through and make it commercially successful, or that much "better"? Sometimes, too much of something isn't a good thing, or needed. Is a void really filled? It is one thing to push the edge of the envelope. I get that. It is another to sit down and ask, "What am I really getting here as a result? Is it really pragmatically "better?" 600 yards isn't far enough, so a 700 yard shot capability is "better?" Is that really a pragmatic issue, or a niche application? Yes, I have read that "Big Stick" shoots moose at 859 yards at sunset. I guess it's a void filler for him.

"Older" cartridges are getting new life breathed into them with new powders, so the old stuff is beating the old stuff themselves-giving boost across the board.

I'm not trying to get into an argument. I'm just stating there are indeed new case designs that are well thought out. I think one of the best is the 6.5 CM, but does it DO anything better than two other 6.5 cartridges that are 100+ years older? Not really. Match them up gun to gun, rifling twist to rifling twist, modern power to modern powder, and you will have a photo finish at the end of the race. That is not a problem. It is just that everything old is new again. Hence my "marketing" comment. Isn't safe to state that Winchester launched the WSM cartridge line for marketing purposes? No real voids filled, just a mimic in multiple calibers. Every product has a "life cycle" in business, and new products/versions are launched to increase sales. In happens in the firearms industry for ammunition/bullets/case design as well as firearms themselves. Nothing new with that, but marketing a line of cartridges that achieve exactly what in the end? The WSM line is a modernized case, but overall, they never offered a huge benefit or improvement. They sold some extra guns with the WSM launch, but that product lifecycle has fizzed. They work, but are they a game changer? No.

What void has been filled in the last 50 years with a new chambering? If any, those voids are pretty small. It is not like the 222 Rem taking off in 1950(?) to bury the 22 Hornet or 218 Bee. The 1930's-era 270 Winchester with new powder and a 1-8 or 9" twist barrel takes it though the good-better best step up. This oldie is currently outperforming itself today, and is "re-modernized" for improvement.

Just my opinion, and you obviously don't agree, but that's my take "modern case designs." There are some good "new"/"modern" case designs. That is one issue, design. The other issue, is "performance", are they really that different to make that much of a difference in pragmatic (commercial) performance from a chambering available 50 years ago? Somewhat here and there, but noteworthy? I think not. My 2c.

Cheers. Happy new year 2024. Hope the world doesn't get more nuts.

could they?... yes they could... But will they?... not a ghosts chance in hell me thinks?... likely citing the SAAMI thing... besides, they don't want to improve old cartridges, they want to "SELL" new ones... New Cartridge= New Rifles, New Brass, New Dies, New Bullets, New Powders, New load data, ect... However, i was surprised to see that Remington updated the twist rate to 1:8 for their 243 Win & 7mm Rem Mag, model 700 CDL rifles... But, i don't know if that's a useful update or not? , citing the existing parameters of said cartridges and rifles...

I have 10 different centerfire cartridges in my safe from 6.5x55 to 458WM. Of that selection, 7 are over 100 years old, 2 are over 65 years old & only one would be considered “modern” based on a sub-50 year cutoff. This weekend, every deer I could have shot was within 150 meters and would have died using any of those rifles if I had done my job properly. So I think in many ways, I agree with the basis of your assertion in that I believe that the majority of shots taken by most hunters could be done ethically & well with an older (i.e. not modern) cartridge especially when you factor in modern powders & bullet choices. Measured by that standard, then I think it is possible to marginalize any other quantifiable improvement as niche simply because it is valued or actually needed by a smaller number of shooters.

But does that make these improvements insignificant simply because they’re not drastic? I think discussions along these lines will always be argumentative simply because everyone measures “improvements” & “void filling” by different criteria. One person is arguing that my fruit & your fruit are both fruits while the other person is saying my apple is different from your orange. They don’t agree because they view things differently, while technically, they’re both correct.

My modern cartridge is a 300 HAM’R. It fires a .308 caliber bullet (in my case a 130gr Speer Hot-Cor) out of an AR-15 platform with enough power to take a large variety of game. To flip the question on its head, what cartridge from 50+ years ago gives similar performance & versatility if I’m shooting at a bunch of hogs? As knowledgeable as some people on this forum are, I won’t be surprised if someone comes up with a pretty good suggestion. But to my mind, this setup IS an improvement over the rifles I wanted 50 years ago when I was a teenager. The 300 Blackout was mentioned but dismissed as niche. But I think most shooters would agree that suppression has become a much bigger deal recently & cartridges that work well for that purpose will either supplant some older options or create a whole new class that doesn’t have an older counterpart.

Another apples to oranges comparison is the 375 & 416 Ruger to its classic 375 & 416 African predecessors. If you & I both shoot an eland with an identical bullet traveling the exact same speed & both animals drop dead, you might argue that there’s no difference. But if I’m standing there with a standard action 375 Ruger Guide Gun that I got off of GB for $1,071 & you’ve got a magnum action 375 H&H that cost double that, then my reply might be “I think a void has been filled”.

So one person might be measuring improvements based mainly on terminal performance (i.e. the final result or energy & velocity measurements) while another might have take a more expansive view that factors in a smaller action, an ability to fire in a semi-auto, less recoil, less powder, cheaper to own, etc. Coming to a consensus when the parameters aren’t universally defined & agreed upon can be problematic.

So I think some notable improvements have been made in the last 50 years that have been appreciated by many shooters. The fact that most of these are irrelevant to me is reflected by the contents of my gun safe. While I sometimes roll my eyes at the fact that MidwayUSA carries 173 different kinds of rifle ammo (especially when they don’t have something I want) I also think I’d be a bit disappointed if we decided to simplify it down to a couple of dozen practical & adequate selections as well and called it quits on chasing after a perfect cartridge that will never exist.

Well, you certainly went to a lot of trouble to make your point! I hope you didn’t type all that on your phone! There are a few things you avoided mentioning that make new cartridges significantly better than old ones of the same caliber and velocity potential. This is off the top of my head, and if I miss some things, no doubt someone will fill in the blanks.

Standard rifling twists for new cartridges are often faster, or optimized for bullets that are ballistically superior, or made from better materials like the mono-metal ones, increasing the effectiveness on game, and performance for target shooting. While custom barrels can be fitted for old rounds that accomplish the same thing, factory ammunition almost always will be manufactured to work with the standard twists of yore to avoid problems with the rifles already in use.

Standard pressures for new cartridges are often higher, allowing better performance from cases of the same capacity, safely in modern arms designed for those pressures.

New cartridges bring the performance of older cartridges to new platforms, such as MSRs, and mini bolt-actions. Straight-wall cartridges do this to comply with new regulations and allow hunters in many states to use accurate rifles instead of shotguns and muzzleloaders, with easily obtainable and affordable rifles and ammunition. While the logic behind those regs is questionable in many cases, the law is the law, and the opportunities they create are real.

New cartridges have better case designs: optimal shoulder angles for better accuracy, better case life due to less stretching, even better barrel life. Fatter ones bring standard-length performance to short and mid-length actions which are stiffer and potentially more accurate.

These advantages are all real, even if some are incremental, not earth-shattering. While older rounds remain as good as ever, new ones offer better performance and factory ammunition to everyone, not just handloaders and the owners of custom rifles.

I like most cartridges and can make whatever I want. For hunting, it doesn't matter much. All I am doing is pushing a selected bullet to a desired velocity. For target use, I will use whatever works. For short range BR, that usually means a 6PPC (a modern cartridge, about fifty years old). For long range and for silhouette, I like 6.5mm and I think the 6.5CM is great. In fact, I think it is so well suited for the purpose that I will probably never build myself anything else. For hunting, it's a different matter. I shoot Mausers and Winchesters, so my 6.5 choice is either the 6.5x55 or the 256 Newton; just because I think they are cool. Another great modern cartridge, for target use, is the 6BR. If you go by the introduction of the original Remington version, it is not quite 50 years old.
I like 30 calibers and there is no getting around the fact that the 308 Winchester is a pretty fine cartridge, though nearly 70 years old. Still a pretty fine target round too, and that's all I use it for. I have four of them. I have other 30's I hunt with.
I seriously doubt that I will ever bother building myself any of the modern cartridges in 7mm and up, simply because I can see no reason to do so.
As a gunsmith, I dislike the modern trend to minimal body taper for pragmatic reasons. When chambering a more tapered cartridge offers a better chance of producing a perfectly smooth chamber with the final cut. Very straight cartridges don't clean up any previous tool marks left in the early stages of reaming the chamber, (It happens. Those who say they have never seen such a thing are either inexperienced, very lucky, or lying). This is not so concerning with short cartridge, like the PPC or even the Creedmoor, but can rear its ugly head with the 280AI, for instance.
In the end, the cartridge case is a powder holder and a gasket. What it says on the headstamp doesn't matter much and the shape matters little. GD

My 98s in .308, .270, and .30/06 ain't going anywhere, but neither are my 6.5 Grendel or 6 CM, which excel at what they do, in very light, very accurate rifles using bonded and mono-metal bullets, and with little recoil.

I agree with everything you wrote. No push back from me.

As I wrote, there are two issues/lines of thought: 1). modern case design itself, "What do you think of them?", and 2). "Are they that different from current offerings regarding performance?"

Today, imo, any "improvement" is marginal, as there are already so many choices that have filled most voids. It is not like big historical changes in cartridge or technology advance like:
muzzle loading to cased cartridges, rimfire to center fire priming, black powder cartridges to smokeless powder, or rimmed cases to rimless cartridges. Each of those steps were huge. Performed improved, as well as gun design ( feed issues). Today, most voids are filled. A late thought, but sabot slugs and rifled slug barrels are a significant modernization/improvement from smooth boxes and Foster slugs for medium game hunting.

A modernized cartridge could open new options for firearm use (for lower cost. Ie 416 Rigby vs 416 Rem on a Rem 700, or a 375 H&H vs 375 Ruger on a Ruger 77 or How's 1500). Similar performance, but the benefit is more access-related.

The next big change in "modernization" of case design could be the caseless cartridge. The technology is with us, it is just not widespread. I believe Veore was on this 20+ years(?) ago. While performance per se of the caseless cartridge itself may mimic others, the real benefit will be aligned with logistics ( no brass suppliers/manufacturing), weight ( more rounds able to be shipped or carried in combat as each round is lighter. It is certainly is "different. "
Also on the horizon, what will replace the 5.56 as the US military rifle cartridge, some form of the 6.8 SPC? It will be a bigger caliber than the 5.56, but what? Not the Grendel. Maybe some form of the 6.5 (or 7mm or 30 CM?- which means we go back to a version of the 300 Savage, which a basis for the 7.62 Nato/308 Win. "May the circle be unbroken... ". 🙂Who knows? A case less 27 caliber ?

I look at cartridge performance in a 3-dimensional grid (x,y,z axis of: caliber vs bullet weight vs muzzle velocity). What voids are present that can be filled with a "modernized case design"? Any improvement will be slight at best ("niche"?). Nothing wrong with that, and I don't want to be viewed as dismissive- but marginal is marginal for the available "voids" to be filled in the 3d matrix-unless I am missing something.

In the end I think the 6.5CM and 375 Ruger are two fantastic modernized cartridges from the last 50 years, on the design aspect. Do they offer improved performance over that currently exists from the 6.5x55 or 375 H&H? I don't think so. But yes, the 375 Ruger offers a more affordable platform. I agree 100%. (See my two comments in this thread -pave 6-in the big bore section: https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/18575386/6).

Cheers.

And the last two fell to an old school "modernized" cartridge first light last saturday morning, the great 7mm Mashburn got it done at 507 and 528 yards, 160gr accubonds at 3220 got it handled quick.

Great fun 2.5 days of hunting filling meat tags.

Happy New Year, and I also hope the world doesn't get more nuts!

But you're wrong about my not agreeing with you about "modern case designs." It's my job to analyze new stuff, including hunting cartridges. I have, both personally and by observing other shooters/hunters--and like you question the advantages of many new cartridges.

And like you, one example would be the .270 WSM. After seeing several used in the field, including my own use, I couldn't find any significant advantage over the .270 Winchester--or .270 Weatherby. Have owned several WSMs and Weatherbys, including factory and custom rifles, and never found the "magnums" to kill big game any quicker than the original Winchester version--and with the advent of laser rangefinders the flatter trajectories of the magnums don't have nearly as much advantage as they used to.

But I have actually done that sort of "research," and you admit you haven't.

In general it seems you consider muzzle velocity the major difference between many newer and older cartridges--or even all cartridges. Yet there is a major difference in potential accuracy, which both I and some others consider at least as important.

You also make the same claim many others do about the 6.5 Creedmoor versus the 6.5x55, that the 6.5x55 has been doing the same things "for over a century". Well, no, not exactly, partly because the 6.5x55 was designed as a military cartridge, with an extremely long throat to accommodate the then-standard heavy, round-nosed bullets used in early smokeless military rifles.

Around half a century later the 6.5x55 got switched to lighter boattailed spitzers in military rifles--but the result was chamber throats varying considerably. While SAAMI suggests a standardized "American" throat, throats still vary widely. I know this from owning a bunch of 6.5x55s, from an original Norwegian Krag-Jorgenson to various factory sporters--and one custom rifle.

Since I started down-sizing my rifle collection a couple years ago, I don't own a 6.5 Creedmoor anymore--after owning probably half a dozen since 2010, when I bought my first, because I had to test whether 6.5 Creedmoors do tend to group very well in factory rifles, with factory ammunition. They all did.

The one 6.5 I kept is a custom rifle built over a long period. It was originally one of the commercial FN 98-Mauser actioned rifle Montgomery Ward once offered, which belonged to my stepfather-in-law. He quit hunting and I bought it from him, and soon restocked it myself in some pretty nice "California English" walnut. It grouped very well at first, even though the bore was somewhat pitted, probably mostly due to him living in coastal Florida after he'd retired 20-some years earlier.

But I also shot it a lot, since it was my main .270 for years, and eventually the accuracy started to go. So I had Charlie Sisk rebarrel it to 6.5x55 with a 1-8 twist Lilja barrel, using a special reamer with what the reamer-maker called a "target throat." It groups extremely well with handloads using Lapua brass and various bullets, though is more average with factory loads, whether American or European. In fact it groups handloads just as well as the average $500 6.5 Creedmoor, after spending about that much just on the barrel.

Have also learned a lot about how cartridges in other calibers work by actually trying them. Have taken a pile of big game with various 7mm rounds, including the 7mm-08, 7x57, .280 Remington, .280 Remington Ackley Improved, 7mm WSM, 7mm Remington Magnum, 7mm Weatherby Magnum and 7mm STW. The only one I have left is a 7mm Remington Magnum, a Mauser M18--one of those modern "cheap rifles" with an injection-mold stock so many older hunters love to hate as much as they hate the 6.5 Creedmoor.

Why did I keep it as my only 7mm? Partly because like most "cheap" modern rifles it groups very well, and in fact it's overall the most accurate 7mm RM I've ever owned. But's also because 7mm Remington Magnum factory ammo and brass tend to be more available than any other 7mm cartridges during the recent (and recurring) "shortages."

I didn't think much of the 7mm Remington Magnum when I started hunting big game not long after the cartridge appeared, because so many people thought it was magic--even though it didn't "do anything" other 7mm belted magnums hadn't been doing for a long time, whether the 7mm Weatherby or 7mm Mashburn Super Magnum. Does it "work" any better than the other factory rounds (some of them "modernized") that approximate its ballistics, from the .280 AI to the 7mm STW? Nope, but it works just as well, and brass is far more easily found (and affordable) than, say, 7mm SAUM cases--with which I've taken a dozen big game animals from South Texas to northern Canada.

But my main point is that I found this out (and other stuff) by actually using stuff, both at the range and in the field, NOT by somehow "knowing" it without any personal experience.

Bill, I like the way you think when it comes to cartridges or rifles. Discussions on most forums usually start and end with what is the fastest or most accurate cartridge.

Some people dislike older cartridges or rifles. They dislike wooden stocks. It's a rimmed cartridge! My grandfather used one! The cool factor is gone. We have been programmed to replace "old stuff". Examples abound. Stormy Kromers vs camo. LR scopes versus low power fixed. New, sleek cartridges. Aerodynamic is cool.

Some people want 1000 yard accuracy, but don't ever shoot past 200. If they tried, they would fail to connect.

We are still a consumer society, and new and cool bombards us daily via television and the Internets.

I say this often in posts. We are products of our generations. Older hunters and shooters generally have what they need and push back when a younger person shows off his new PRC (or Creedmoor) cartridge or some tactical gear. When I encounter people like that, I smile, ask a few questions and let them enjoy their stuff. If they are happy, let them shine. It's important to remember that they are like us. They were influenced by ads and what others have told them. The only difference is we were influenced by paper magazines. Today, it usually comes from the world wide web.

Are you still using your dad's old Weatherby? Get with the times! You need a 26 Nosler!

It's difficult for most younger people to comprehend that anyone can be happy with a 303 or a 30-06. When I encounter people like that, I smile, ask a few questions and go about my business. I am happy, so let me shine.

When I released my 6x45mm book, I was asked by a few people why I bothered with a small fry 6mm. What was the point? There are so many better 6mms! My answer was simple. It's what I wanted. My needs and likes are different. The 6x45mm works well in the woods. The cartridge functions perfectly in a bolt action and is cheap to feed. What didn't exist, like a 6x45mm OAL gauge or case trimmer, I made and put them in the book. This was done because there are people who like to putter around in the workshop and make their own stuff. It's another aspect of the hobby like reloading or bullet making.

It's about what makes a person happy. We all like different things.

After having owned a few odd chamberings I don't especially have desires to seek out and try out a lot of new sizes anymore!
I had a 7mm STW it went away. Also, .270 WSM and 6.5-06 and they have been sold. They simply had larger groups @ 400 yards than my existing rifles.

However, I did keep a 300 WSM that is very accurate and just keep on keeping it. I'm sort of surprised their popularity is fading.

In regards to all of the new smaller class rounds, my .270 or .308 will work for hunting game, and they must have good recoil pads because I'm not looking for smaller.

Good to hear the Mashburn got some time!

I was hunting deer with my 30-06 this weekend. Had a great time so I must be an old guy . My Ruger No. 1A in .303 British is a nostalgic favorite because I shot my first deer with it. I still love hunting with it & I'll never sell it. It's one of the few calibers (the other being a .375 H&H) that I have two rifles chambered for it. Longest deer shot to date with either rifle is 156 yards. I know my limits!

===============================================================
JB

Who said I haven't shot/ tested different cartridges? Not me..

Let's see, over 40 years, I have owned rifles ( and reloaded for them all) in the following chamberings-before I started thinning the herd: 22 LR, 22 mag, 22 Hornet, 218 Bee, 222 Rem, 223 Rem, 22-250 220 Swift,6mm Rem, 250 savage, 257 Roberts, 6.5x54, 6.5x55, 7x57, 270 Win, 30-30, 308 Win, 30-06, 300 Win mag, 303 Brit, 338-06, 38 special/ 357 mag, 35 Rem, 358 Win, 9.3x62, 44 mag, 45 acp, 45-70. ..20, 16, 12 gauge shotguns, and .40 , .45, .50 round ball twist flintlock rifles

I have shot/ benched ( not owned, borrowed from friends): 300 Savage, 7mm Rem mag, 338 Win mag, 375 Ruger.

It's not my first time to the firearm rodeo. I have also competed in smallbore and centerfire, rifle, 2700 bullseye pistol shooting, flintlock rifle muzzleloading , and trad archery competitions ( won a couple of state titles in the process). I also make a mean batch of traditional Scottish shortbread.

I am not a prolific hunter, no argument from me on that point. But the end point is we both came to the same conclusion. Some modernized cases may not be the "silver magic bullet, " but allow other options/benefits from modernized actions or updated rifling twists ( ie 6.5x55 in a m96 Mauser or a M70, very different chamberings/throats, rifling and pressure limits.) That isn't the cartridge, that's modernized gunsmithing applications."modern firearm platforming"?). Combine that with new gunpowders increasing performance across the board on all chamberings ("powder modernization"?), and it adds testosterone to older cartridges. Many ( most? ) of the existing chamberings are serving us just fine. Do I need a 300 PRC instead of a 300 Win mag due to an increase in MV? Maybe others do, but is there a difference on game? I guess I am the wrong person to ask on that, but my take is "not really."

For paper punching? Yes, short fat cases with sharp shoulders have accuracy potential with lower Std Deviations and efficient powder burn. Combine that with smaller flash holes, like the Remington BR cases, or modernized 22 Russian cases (22 and 6 PPC) and there is accuracy potential. But now stiff lapped barrels with min bore/rifling variance determined by air gauge testing, fast lock time, and precisely made actions come in to play to "convert" the accuracy potential),not to mention shooter's skill and reading the wind. So it is not "just a modern case.". If it was just a short fat case being accurate, then the Savage 99 in the " short, fat and modern" 300 Savage would've been a bench rest gun in the1930s.

You may disagree on my methodology on the comments, but they are not without merit or research on various readings, and my bench time.

I do appreciate your comments.

I think the 7-08 is a dandy cartridge, have owned, shot, hunted with a few.... Is it a 'modern cartridge'???? IDK

It is compared to the 7x57 Mauser.

...but, realistically, what will it do that the 7x57 will not?????

And to buttstocks point..... do I really need to shoot either one of them to tell there's hardly spits worth of difference?

They are both great looking rifles! Very nice!

===============================================================
JB

Who said I haven't shot/ tested different cartridges? Not me..

Let's see, I have owned rifles ( and reloaded for them all) in the following chamberings-before I started thinning the herd: 22 LR, 22 mag, 22 Hornet, 218 Bee, 222 Rem, 223 Rem, 22-250 220 Swift,6mm Rem, 250 savage, 257 Roberts, 6.5x54, 6.5x55, 7x57, 270 Win, 30-30, 308 Win, 30-06, 300 Win mag, 303 Brit, 338-06, 38 special/ 357 mag, 35 Rem, 358 Win, 9.3x62, 44 mag, 45 acp, 45-70. ..20, 16, 12 gauge shotguns.

I have shot/ benched ( not owned, borrowed from friends): 7mm Rem mag, 338 Win mag, 375 Ruger.

It's not my first time to the firearm rodeo. I have also competed in smallbore and centerfire, rifle, 2700 bullseye pistol shooting, flintlock rifle muzzleloading , and trad archery competitions ( won a couple of state titles in the process). I also make a mean batch of traditional Scottish shortbread.

I am not a prolific hunter, no argument from me on that point. But the end point is we both came to the same conclusion. Many ( most? ) of the existing chamberings are serving us just fine. Do I need a 300 PRC instead of a 300 Win mag due to an increase in MV? Maybe others do, but is there a difference on game? I guess I am the wrong person to ask on that, but my take is "not really.". So, modernized cartridges' performances, launched in the last 50 years, have had imo marginal improvement compared to existing chamberings.

You may disagree on my methodology on the comments, but they are not without merit or research on various readings, and my bench time. Is that wrong? No, because I am making some pretty benign statements that are reasonable and warranted. I shot the rifles I had. Many people shot more various chamberings, some less;but, my comments are not unfounded.

I do appreciate your comments.[/quote]

If you punch more paper than hunt, then several of the "modernized" cartridges do have an advantage in accuracy, not just the 6.5 Creedmoor. These are generally the shorter, fatter rounds with 30-degree shoulders--and angle which does result in more consistent powder burn and velocities--and hence smaller groups.

That's exactly what the Winchester Short Magnums were designed to do--and incidentally the early design-research was not done by Winchester. Some of the promotional stuff Winchester put out was indeed BS, such as the .300 WSM (the first short/fat/beltless magnum introduced commercially) equaling the velocities of the .300 Winchester Magnum despite less powder capacity.

But it is indeed a very accurate cartridge. One of the first pieces of evidence I heard in the industry was from Bob Nosler. Until the .300 WSM appeared they used the .308 Winchester and .30-06 to test accuracy of their lighter-weight .30 caliber bullets, and the .300 Winchester Magnum with heavier bullets. But after the .300 WSM appeared they switched to it to accuracy-test ALL their .30 bullets. (Some sniper units in various places also switched to the .300 WSM , both police and military. Don't know if they all stuck with it, but that happened for a while.)

I have owned several factory .300 WSMs and they all shot well. One may have been the most accurate .300 magnum of any kind that I've ever owned, and I've owned a bunch.

The 30-degree "accuracy" shoulder has been well-proven, first by Lou Palmisano and Ferris Pindell when they experimented with different shoulder angles as they developed the 6mm PPC. The long-time head of the Hodgdon ballistic
laboratory, Ron Reiber, confirmed this before he retired a few years ago. He said 30-degree shoulders resulted in the most consistent pressures and velocities compared to angles, either less or more than 30-degrees, and he tested hundreds of different cartridges on an indoor range under very controlled conditions--like Nosler does in their testing.

There have been many other successful target and hunting cartridges developed since then that use 30-degree shoulder angle. One is the 6XC, developed by well-known target shooter David Tubb. (He's won 11 NRA National High Power Championships, among many other wins.) He developed the 6XC to solve the problems of similar-sized 6mm rounds in competition, such as the .243 Winchester, which burns out barrels quickly.

He used the .22-250 case, necked up to 6mm but with the shoulder pushed back to provide a longer neck (which increases barrel life) and to prevent the rear of the bullet from encountering the potential "dreaded donut" at the base of the neck.
I have a 6XC, a 13-pound rifle built by Charlie Sisk, with one of his STAR (Sisk Tactical and Adaptable) aluminum stocks. I mostly use it for long-range varmint shooting, but also use it for some target shooting, both paper and steel. It's another proven "modernized" cartridge--where accuracy (not extra velocity) is the major point--and is popular enough that factory brass is made, if I recall correctly by more than one company, though mine is Norma.

It's also the most effective longer-range varmint rifle I've ever used, and I've owned a bunch of 'em over the years in chamberings from .223s with fast-twist barrels up through "traditional" rounds such as the .220 Swift and .22-250, and some larger 6.5mm rounds. (Oh, and have taken prairie dogs with "iron sights" out to 275 yards with cartridges including the .30-40 Krag, .375 H&H and .45-70--the last an original model 1884 "trapdoor" Springfield.)

I have discovered a lot of stuff along the way, much of it unexpected--which is why I tend not to pre-judge cartridges.

Glad you appreciated my earlier comments!

John

But........if you did not have a 300 Win Mag in the safe and went out to buy something of that power level, would you buy a 300 Win Mag or 300 PRC?

This old cartridge works just fine for me. 38-55 half round half octagon barrel, checkered Neidner butt plate. I'm pushing a 225gr bullet just under 2000 FPS

Tough to answer. I don't like belted mags ( a negative for the 300 Win mag) I also don't like the issue that 300 PRC as I understand it, needs a magnum action not just a long action. I like the design of the 300 PRC, particularly that is not belted, and has a longer neck and sharp shoulders, but due to the Hornardy's engineers' design intent of the 300 PRC to have more "headroom" to seat a longer, higher BC bullets out further, it requires a longer/mag action. If you held my feet to the fire, and a HAD to buy another rifle, I would opt for the 300 Win mag. If the 300 PRC COULD be used in a long/non-magnum action ( if shorter bullets could be used to fit in a long action magazine and throating would be suitable for them), I'd try the 300 PRC, just because it doesn't have a belt. Neither is practical to me, as I have NO intention of shooting a deer or moose at 400-700++ yards. For my hunting quarry (whitetail deer, and someday a moose) in Maine at well j Dec 300 yards and less (much less) my needs are met with the 30-30 and 30-06. Modernized cases such as the 284 Win, any of the WSM-based line, 6.5 CM or 338 Federal would be serviceable too, but their performance isn't anything that would make any tangible difference in my hunting results.

If I wanted "more power" (and I don't), I would want an increase in caliber to at least .338-06, maybe a 35 Whelen/9.3x62 or 375 Ruger instead of a " fast 30 caliber". Currently, my " big gun" is a 30-06 loaded with 200 grain Speer HotCors at about 2650 fps. If I get a moose permit here in Maine, that will be my cartridge and load (in either a JC Higgins model 50 FN Mauser, or a Win 70 Extreme Weather). Modern case designs are great. If you like them, and can see a tangjble benefit, get it.

For a "modern cartridge", how about necking the 338 RCM or a WSM case up to 375? 375 RCM:? 375 WSM?:
A short-actioned thumper. It won't recoil as severe as the longer 375 Ruger. It might appeal to a broader buyer's market for deer elk moose hunters. seeking an easier to handle 375 Ruger, in a handy short action.
https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/375-wsm.176683/

Ironic that the "old" 404 Jeffrey is the basis for many modern cartridge designs.