Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters pushing the envelope

Ken, If you can make it through my rambling maybe you can give your thoughts on this.
<br>For years I`ve read and heard people state this or that cartridge would be better if it was chambered in a longer action. It seems a 257Roberts has to be in a long action so you can seat bullets out and get 25/06 vel or shoot heavier bullets. The same with the 260 rem, 708, a few others, and now the new short mags.
<br>My thoughts are if you want to drive a heavy for caliber bullet at high vel buy a mag. If you want more vel out of a 160 gr 6.5MM bullet buy a Swede or a 264. If you want 2800+ fps with a 160gr 7mm don`t buy a 708 get a 280. We all reload so lowering the velocity to the smaller catridges level is no problem, if thats what we need for our present applications. We hear the praises of the short actions accuracy / wgt advantages one day then how a short action round needs a long action the next to do its best. I feel the shorter rounds were designed to throw mid wgt (240-250 SD) bullets at velocities approching the larger rounds in a smaller lighter rifle, not to match or excede the larger cases capabilities. I`m not talking about wildcaters, just people that want to make a cartridge something its not.
<br>Anyway this line of thinking lets me own a couple rifles in one caliber rather then only one:<)

Maybe this parable (parallel anecdote), told me by a Jewish friend, will best express my thoughts on these two matters (short cartridges, short actions) ever since the Remington Model 600 carbine and its .350 Remington cartridge:*
<br>
<br>A merchant had an opportunity to buy a carload of canned sardines for 2� a can. He bought 'em all, then called his brother.
<br>
<br>"Abie, I just had an opportunity to buy these canned sardines for you -- didn't have time to call you -- had to buy 'em quick or lose the opportunity. All you owe me is 3� a can."
<br>
<br>Abie accepted, then called their cousin.
<br>
<br>"Moshe, I just had an opportunity to buy these canned sardines for you -- didn't have time to call you -- had to buy 'em quick or lose the opportunity. All you owe me is 5� a can."
<br>
<br>Moshe accepted, then called his brother -- and on and on it went, while no one went down to the warehouse to examine the merchandise. Finally, the wife of the latest trader went down, opened a crate, took some cans of sardines home, ate some -- and got violently sick with food poisoning.
<br>
<br>Recriminations went back down the line, until they reached the fellow who'd first bought the sardines and sold 'em to his brother Abie. He shrugged.
<br>
<br>"They're for buying and selling, not for eating."
<br>
<br>This punch line applies to many products and merchandising ideas, not limited to cans of spoiled sardines and certainly not excepting firearms or their cartridges and accessories. Just remember "They're for buying and selling, not for eating" as a philosophical template, and you'll find that it very often applies to the new product or merchandising angle that you're wondering about.
<br>
<br>*The Model 600 could've been great as a .22-.250 or a Swift -- even a .223 -- and the .350 Remington is the belted, ballistic twin of the great .35 Whelen if you chamber a Mauser, a Springfield, a Model 70 Winchester, or a Model 700 Remington for it. But why not just chamber any of these for the already thoroughly proven .35 Whelen? (They eventually did.)
<br>

Ken....I pretty much agree with you on this issue if you are talking about calibers like the .270, the .280, the 7mm RemMag and even the .30/06 delivering performances that are so similar as to be insignificant in the field but when you infer that short cartridges like the .350 RemMag (and by inference the new short-magnums by Remington and Winchester) aren't useful because they duplicate an existing round like the Whelan I must disagree.
<br>
<br>As someone who can be described as portly-short. rifles with short-actions handle much better than those with "standard" actions. It isn't the shorter bolt throw which is the usual argument used, but the actual placement of my hands on the short-action rifles. This isn't a one size fits all word and it isn't any more reasonable to expect someone like me who wears a 31 1/2" sleeve to easily use the same rifle as someone who wears a 35" sleeve. We wouldn't use the same fly rod or the same golf clubs or feel comfortable dancing with the same women.
<br>
<br>Here's a test. Pick up a broom handle and pretend it's a rifle and bring it to your shoulder as if you were going to shoot.....feels natural doesn't it? Now lower it and move your hands an inch further apart and bring it to your shoulder again...does it feel as natural? I bet it doesn't. Do it again with your hands an inch closer than the first time...doesn't feel as comfortable does it?
<br>
<br>I don't care if the barrel is 22" or 24"or even 26" long I can still make it fit if the action is short...give me a longer action and nothing I do helps. I used and adapted to the regular actions for years because there wasn't anything else but the first time I shot a .308 and then the .350 RemMag I knew something better (for me) was available.