Eight Hot New Cartridges

[Hogpatrol]

Here's an interesting article about the 6.5mm space race.
I did read the entire article, but you can skip to the end and see why I really like it.
https://skyaboveus.com/hunting-shooting/New-65mm-Cartridge-Fight-65-PRC-vs-its-NextGen-Competition

Good article. I've hunted Africa with 6.5x47 Lapua, 6.5x.284 and a 26 Nosler. With proper shot placement and bullet selection, every one will kill all plains game, just at different distances.

 

[cmk]

Of the rifles I own, the youngest cartridge turns 114 this year. The rifles are newer, but not new.

--- Begin rant --- ;-)

I would like to think that the second half of the 19th century up to WWI was when all the relevant development happened. Rifled barrels, jacketed bullets, ammunition in the form of brass cartridges, smokeless powder, telescopic sights, repeting and autoloading mechanisms, better rifle steel etc etc.

There have of course been considerable refinement in some areas since then (e.g. better primers, powders and optics, bonded and monometal expanding bullets).

But in the last 100 years or so, very little has been invented in terms of rifle construction or cartridge choices that would benefit the ordinary hunter.

Just think of what a hunting rifle looked like 1820, 1920 and now - guess when 'it all happened'?

Sure, some people opt to have plastic stocks, cerakoted barrels etc, but that is a cosmetic change. Sure, rifle scopes were not that common 100 years ago, but they did exist. Red dot sights, thermal and night vision gear are recent additions, as are silencers. But underneath, it is still the same rifle of a hundred years ago.

End of rant

On a more serious note, I'm afraid the marketing departments are fooling us to want 'this new thing' because they need to boost sales. Not because 'the old thing' was bad in any way.

There are of course som 'new' cartridges that came about because they would fit inte existing action patterns, which in turn would make them more accessible to hunters (e.g. 458 WM or 416 RM).

But for the most part - nothing is new under the sun.

 

[Hogpatrol]

Of the rifles I own, the youngest cartridge turns 114 this year. The rifles are newer, but not new.

--- Begin rant --- ;-)

I would like to think that the second half of the 19th century up to WWI was when all the relevant development happened. Rifled barrels, jacketed bullets, ammunition in the form of brass cartridges, smokeless powder, telescopic sights, repeting and autoloading mechanisms, better rifle steel etc etc.

There have of course been considerable refinement in some areas since then (e.g. better primers, powders and optics, bonded and monometal expanding bullets).

But in the last 100 years or so, very little has been invented in terms of rifle construction or cartridge choices that would benefit the ordinary hunter.

Just think of what a hunting rifle looked like 1820, 1920 and now - guess when 'it all happened'?

Sure, some people opt to have plastic stocks, cerakoted barrels etc, but that is a cosmetic change. Sure, rifle scopes were not that common 100 years ago, but they did exist. Red dot sights, thermal and night vision gear are recent additions, as are silencers. But underneath, it is still the same rifle of a hundred years ago.

End of rant

On a more serious note, I'm afraid the marketing departments are fooling us to want 'this new thing' because they need to boost sales. Not because 'the old thing' was bad in any way.

There are of course som 'new' cartridges that came about because they would fit inte existing action patterns, which in turn would make them more accessible to hunters (e.g. 458 WM or 416 RM).

But for the most part - nothing is new under the sun.

May not be true for other countries but consumer spending is almost 70% of GDP in the United States. More new of cartridges, guns, powders, bullets, primers, cases, hunting venues, target matches, etc. equals more jobs which fuels more consumer spending. We are a mobile, consuming society. Having said that, one can't really compare the U.S. with its 2nd Amendment freedoms to any other country in the world. Automobiles may be our first love but guns aren't far behind.

 

[Hogpatrol]

Anyone remember these? Got lucky and found one of these the other day.
Years back, they were all the rage with the range magdumpers.

 

[broncolcj]

My prediction: 2 of those will "catch on" and become standard loadings (for a time at least), the Weatherby and Nosler will endure as primarily proprietary ammo with devoted brand fans, and the rest will fall to some level of niche/specialist/handloader following

 

[broncolcj]

My prediction: 2 of those will "catch on" and become standard loadings, the Weatherby and Nosler will endure as primarily proprietary ammo with devoted brand fans, and the rest will fall to some level of niche/specialist/handloader following

I ha e often wondered why the 8 mm Remington magnum ... Never quite caught on , in terms of popularity ... 375Fox .

Dovetailing off what Bullthrower338 said, the European market already had the 8x68mm S which apparently gives similar results so the international market mostly ignored it. Charles Askins and Craig Boddington notably endorsed it's capabilities but it still didn't get enough traction.

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

Of the rifles I own, the youngest cartridge turns 114 this year. The rifles are newer, but not new.

--- Begin rant --- ;-)

I would like to think that the second half of the 19th century up to WWI was when all the relevant development happened. Rifled barrels, jacketed bullets, ammunition in the form of brass cartridges, smokeless powder, telescopic sights, repeting and autoloading mechanisms, better rifle steel etc etc.

There have of course been considerable refinement in some areas since then (e.g. better primers, powders and optics, bonded and monometal expanding bullets).

But in the last 100 years or so, very little has been invented in terms of rifle construction or cartridge choices that would benefit the ordinary hunter.

Just think of what a hunting rifle looked like 1820, 1920 and now - guess when 'it all happened'?

Sure, some people opt to have plastic stocks, cerakoted barrels etc, but that is a cosmetic change. Sure, rifle scopes were not that common 100 years ago, but they did exist. Red dot sights, thermal and night vision gear are recent additions, as are silencers. But underneath, it is still the same rifle of a hundred years ago.

End of rant

On a more serious note, I'm afraid the marketing departments are fooling us to want 'this new thing' because they need to boost sales. Not because 'the old thing' was bad in any way.

There are of course som 'new' cartridges that came about because they would fit inte existing action patterns, which in turn would make them more accessible to hunters (e.g. 458 WM or 416 RM).

But for the most part - nothing is new under the sun.

@xml
That's what happened to the wonderful 25 caliber . Winchesters marketing had every one believe the 243 was better and th at it was needed. They lied to promote a new invention.
Bob

 

[375Fox]

@xml
That's what happened to the wonderful 25 caliber . Winchesters marketing had every one believe the 243 was better and th at it was needed. They lied to promote a new invention.
Bob

I always wondered why the 257 Roberts is not a popular caliber. It’s unbelievable to me what the 6.5 creedmore has turned into, from what you read and hunting situations people use it in you would think it’s a 300 win mag for large game instead of the 270 Winchester for deer it basically is.

 

[Hogpatrol]

I always wondered why the 257 Roberts is not a popular caliber. It’s unbelievable to me what the 6.5 creedmore has turned into, from what you read and hunting situations people use it in you would think it’s a 300 win mag for large game instead of the 270 Winchester for deer it basically is.

The main reason is the bullet selection. It was and still is extremely limited. There are literally hundreds of 6, 6.5, 7mm and .30 caliber bullets available in factory ammo and reloading components.

 

[One Day...]

Round and around and around and around we go...

In truth, out to 300 yards, there is nothing that the American family of .25-06; .27-06 (a.k.a. .270 Win); .28-06 (a.k.a. 280 Rem); .30-06; .338-06 cannot do with the appropriate bullet, up to and including killing DG with a first well placed shot (but excluding stopping wounded DG). And the .30-06 alone can do, and has done, it all...

The same can be said of the German family of 6.5x57; 7x57; 8x57; and - OK, need to add 5 mm to the case - 9.3x62, which is a very close cousin if not a direct sibling. And the 8x57 (well, the 7.92x57 to be accurate) alone can do, and has done, it all...

And just to be objective, there is nothing any of these can do that the Grand Dad of them all, the 1886 French 8 mm Lebel cannot do (boat tail monolithic copper bullet included ), although the shape of its case shows its previous century influence. It too has done it all in the vast French African colonies, and before its American or German progeny was even brought to this world...

I recently bought for a couple hundred $ a used CZ 550 standard length action .270 Win rifle to become the action donor for a custom .257 Wby - which many of you know I was very impressed with in Africa last year. Hours spent in agony over the ballistic tables of modern loads all but killed the project. I think it will keep its .270 Win barrel...

And if I really (?) need to reach past 300 yards, its Swarovski Z3 ballistic turret will do the job even better than the flat trajectory of the .257 Wby...

Mail order AHR safety, Timney trigger, Talley rings, Talley barrel band front swivel, plus an afternoon of work and TLC turned it into a lovable light rifle that shoots both its hunting 130 gr TTSX and its practice PPU 130 gr SP in about 1" at 100 yards standing from the sticks. What else could I possibly need?

It is only appropriate! My first dream rifle was a .270 Win (Steyr Mannlicher Luxus Stutzen), that I still cherish to this day...

So, here is an ode to the .270 Win: "Round and around we go"

All along it was a fever
A cold sweat, hot headed believer
I threw my hands in the air, said, "Show me something"
He said, "If you dare, come a little closer"

Round and around and around and around we go
Oh, now tell me now, tell me now, tell me now you know

Not really sure how to feel about it
Something in the way you move
Makes me feel like I can't live without you
It takes me all the way
I want you to stay

It's not much of a life you're living
It's not just something you take, it's given

Round and around and around and around we go
Oh, now tell me now, tell me now, tell me now you know

Not really sure how to feel about it
Something in the way you move
Makes me feel like I can't live without you
It takes me all the way
And I want you to stay

Ooh…

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

I always wondered why the 257 Roberts is not a popular caliber. It’s unbelievable to me what the 6.5 creedmore has turned into, from what you read and hunting situations people use it in you would think it’s a 300 win mag for large game instead of the 270 Winchester for deer it basically is.

@375Fox
A properly loaded 257 Roberts is capable of 3,200 fps with a 100grain bullet and a tad over 2,900 with a 117/120 grainers. Let's see the 6mms non magnum can do.
Oh that's right now where near as good.
Bob

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

The main reason is the bullet selection. It was and still is extremely limited. There are literally hundreds of 6, 6.5, 7mm and .30 caliber bullets available in factory ammo and reloading components.

@Hogpatrol
That is true but you can only use one bullet at a time before the need to resight usually. It's nice to have a big selection but it does my head in trying to pick one. I usually have 1 or 2 good loads that I have worked up to have the same point of impact at 200 yards and call it quits. Like a 225 and 250 grain 35 and a 100 grain TTSX and 115 nosler combined technology silver tip, these I have worked up to impact the same point at 200 yards and with a little practice I know what they are doing out to 400.
I don't need confusion in my life.
I like to keep it simple.

Bob

 

[Hogpatrol]

@Hogpatrol
That is true but you can only use one bullet at a time before the need to resight usually. It's nice to have a big selection but it does my head in trying to pick one. I usually have 1 or 2 good loads that I have worked up to have the same point of impact at 200 yards and call it quits. Like a 225 and 250 grain 35 and a 100 grain TTSX and 115 nosler combined technology silver tip, these I have worked up to impact the same point at 200 yards and with a little practice I know what they are doing out to 400.
I don't need confusion in my life.
I like to keep it simple.

Bob

No knock on .25s. They are more than adequate for most game and there are more than a few current offerings from Sierra, Hornady and Berger, to name a few. I just meant there wasn't a big selection of bullets when those cartridges were introduced versus what was available for the other calibers at that time.

Agree with you on bullets. Select one or two and stick with them. The following may only partially apply to factory rifles but having said that, when buying a reamer for my rifles, I usually have one bullet pre-selected that I will shoot. That way, I can spec the reamer and barrel twist to suit.

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

No knock on .25s. They are more than adequate for most game and there are more than a few current offerings from Sierra, Hornady and Berger, to name a few. I just meant there wasn't a big selection of bullets when those cartridges were introduced versus what was available for the other calibers at that time.

Agree with you on bullets. Select one or two and stick with them. The following may only partially apply to factory rifles but having said that, when buying a reamer for my rifles, I usually have one bullet pre-selected that I will shoot. That way, I can spec the reamer and barrel twist to suit.

@Hogpatrol
When I have my barrels done I just get standard twist and have it throated for the longest bullet I intend to use like the 115tsx in 25 cal or the 225 accubond in 35. This is providing the magazine is long enough. Fortunately the mag on my Whelen allows coal of 3.4+ inches and my 25 I can go as long as I want the mag is 3.5 inches.
That way I can sear bullets out and fully utilize the powder space.
Bob

 

[shark_za]

To really catch on a caliber needs to fit a specific niche and do something that others do not.
I see 4 things driving development of cartridges, and its also clear in these 8.
1. One upmanship
2. Target competition
3. Military - something better to fit AR sized rifles
4. Silly regulations

One upmanship results in very few keepers beyond the proprietary makers, regulations could lead to changes all over the world; keep an eye on these ideas spreading as part of gun control and "safety"
Target shooting is always good and technology here trickles through to current calibers rather than replacing them. One or two may find a footing, specially if it covers military uses as well.
We do need a good intermediate cartridge like the 6.5 Grendel, this makes good sense for small game in the bushveld.

So the hunting world gets better bullets, powders and we also get to see why we would rather stick with what we already have.
I have heard farmers chatting about not letting people hunt with 6.5 Creedmoor on their properties, too much wounding with fanboys shooting target bullets at game.

 

[cmk]

May not be true for other countries but consumer spending is almost 70% of GDP in the United States. More new of cartridges, guns, powders, bullets, primers, cases, hunting venues, target matches, etc. equals more jobs which fuels more consumer spending. We are a mobile, consuming society. Having said that, one can't really compare the U.S. with its 2nd Amendment freedoms to any other country in the world. Automobiles may be our first love but guns aren't far behind.

I guess that this is true in most countries, though I don't know the percentages. I'm just a bit saddened that we're walking the path of mass-producing cheap, low-quality stuff that is meant to break (or at least to be replaced). This is not just hunting/shooting related gear, but TV's, phones, freezers, cars, clothes etc.

Not that many decades ago, manufacturers took pride in building things that were meant to last. A fridge from the 60's was built like a tank. Now we as consumers are being told (and are telling ourselves) that we "need" all this new stuff, and it is ... just unnecessary. Actually, most rifles will probably last (be functional) for several decades, but then comes an article like the one that started this thread, and LOOK!! SHINY-SHINY!!, and we part with our money.

If my freezer breaks, I'm not likely to find a repairman or spare parts, so I'll have to buy a new one. But I would rather have it the other way and spend the money on keeping a good thing working, than this senseless overproduction of goods that is not really needed. I believe it would create more jobs locally in every economy, rather than sending the money to some big corporation with overseas production in low-cost countries.

I totally agree with you that our economies are driven by consumption, but I would rather see we consumed bullets, powder and professional gunsmithing services, than buying a new <insert cheapo-brand> rifle in <insert ridiculous cartridge> every few years. That would probably bring more joy to us all for the same amount of money. It's just that the money would end up in other pockets.

Oh, I realize that I went off ranting a bit again.

 

[Mr. 16 gauge]

Anyone remember a few years back when we were told that we "needed" the Remington Ultra mag cartridges and the Winchester "short magnum" cartridges? Anyone recall seeing a box of ammo for said cartridges on the shelf of their local gun store or larger sporting goods store? You know what they call a gun without ammo, right?................a club!
Not everyone reloads..........not everyone has surplus $$$ to spend on expensive brass, bullets, etc. I stick with the old, "tried and true" because I know I can A.) get brass....sometimes for nothing (in the case of my .30-06, .308, 9mm, .45 ACP, etc......just by diving in the scrap bucket at the range). B.) They've been around for quite some time.............so they'll still (most likely) be around.....at least until I pass and C.) they get the job done. I wish some of the bigger ammo companies would reconsider bringing out "new and improved" items and instead spend the money on other things, such as increased quality. I don't want to buy a rifle that I have to eventually replace; I want to purchase an heirloom that I can hand down to my grandkids, and they can pass to their grandkids, etc.
....and I want them to be able to shoot/hunt with it; not hang it on a wall for display.

I think most hunters/shooters will read the article with interest, but I doubt that many will drop their magazine to run out and buy said "new and improved".............some will (those that just HAVE to have the 'newest' (like the kid on the block with all the new 'toys'), but most won't.

I've been wrong before..............I never thought that the .40 S&W would catch on with it's rebated case, but I pretty sure it's here to stay, even though I personally feel it's neither fish nor fowl.

As for the 8mm Remington magnum: I always liked the thought of the cartridge, read about it back in the early 80's when it first came out, and almost bought one a few years back.......then I checked out prices on ammo, sources of bullets and other reloading components (and types and availability), and reloading data. I decided.....for practicality...... to go with the .338 Win. mag instead in a first generation Ruger 77; I haven't been disappointed. Why didn't the 8mm catch on? I've been told part of it is that American's HATE the metric system......their may be some truth to that, but I think that it also really didn't do anything that the .338 couldn't do, and the .338 was established before the introduction of the 8mm Rem. mag.

Someone posted that they think 1 or 2 might catch on, the rest will fall into the "obsolete" category.......I think they are right. Still, it's something that comes about every so often where gun writers have something to write about and shooters have something to discuss over a beer..............................

 

[Ridgewalker]

Reminds me of the 1960s as in...”hmmm, should I trade in my antiquated useless old 30-06 on a 300 WM or 7mm Rem Mag?” No. I’ll just stalk in to within 300 yards. After all, once I shoot it I’ll have to get there anyway.
I’ll have to admit, being a nerd, I enjoy watching and reading all the “this one is the best because...” info. It may be, but at what cost? What purpose? I’m a simple man with simple means.

Still wishing I didn’t have to sell my 257 Bob to pay a semester’s college tuition.

 

[Johnny reb]

As for the 8mm Remington magnum: I always liked the thought of the cartridge, read about it back in the early 80's when it first came out, and almost bought one a few years back.......then I checked out prices on ammo, sources of bullets and other reloading components (and types and availability), and reloading data. I decided.....for practicality...... to go with the .338 Win. mag instead in a first generation Ruger 77; I haven't been disappointed. Why didn't the 8mm catch on? I've been told part of it is that American's HATE the metric system......their may be some truth to that, but I think that it also really didn't do anything that the .338 couldn't do, and the .338 was established before the introduction of the 8mm Rem. mag.

There are several good bullets manufactured now for the 8mm rem mag. I know it is not very popular but it hits like Thor’s hammer. As far as the new rounds being developed. I think it’s a good thing. If it gets someone interested in hunting or trying to shoot tiny groups way out there. We as gun owners need all the support we can get.

 

[broncolcj]

I second that thought about the 6.5 Grendel. I have a lovely CZ 527 in that caliber and, honestly, it is one of my favorite rifles. Superb accuracy and easy handling for just the use you describe.

To really catch on a caliber needs to fit a specific niche and do something that others do not.
I see 4 things driving development of cartridges, and its also clear in these 8.
1. One upmanship
2. Target competition
3. Military - something better to fit AR sized rifles
4. Silly regulations

One upmanship results in very few keepers beyond the proprietary makers, regulations could lead to changes all over the world; keep an eye on these ideas spreading as part of gun control and "safety"
Target shooting is always good and technology here trickles through to current calibers rather than replacing them. One or two may find a footing, specially if it covers military uses as well.
We do need a good intermediate cartridge like the 6.5 Grendel, this makes good sense for small game in the bushveld.

So the hunting world gets better bullets, powders and we also get to see why we would rather stick with what we already have.
I have heard farmers chatting about not letting people hunt with 6.5 Creedmoor on their properties, too much wounding with fanboys shooting target bullets at game.