I just have a hard time lumping .338 with .17
There is more difference in a .17 HMR vs .338 Lapua than there is between a .338 Lapua and a .600 Nitro express.
30-06 is over 100 years old, and even with 100 year old powder is still a potent round. A surplus WWI round will kill a pig today just fine.
.36 cal hasn’t been considered a small bore since the days of black powder muskets.
It is not modern smokeless powders that put under .50 cal in the medium size deer rifle, it was simply smokeless powder itself.
I think that applying the standards for black powder rounds to smokeless powder is a mistake. The propellants are just so different it is comparing apples and oranges.
no one is applying black powder standards to smokeless powder, the 36 caliber is a medium bore and the 50 caliber is a large bore. the .17 and .223 caliber guns were never really considered small bores though and really should be put in a class of their own but im not sure what that class would be called (micro bore?). small bore for rifles usually starts around 24-25 caliber depending on the source but there is a substantial difference between a .243 rifle and a .223 rifle in both general performance and practical use.
Eric, in Pierre van der Walts book he named all the different calibers under these three different categories...It is just too many calibers to copy direct from his book..the .416 Rigby and 404 Jeffery will be included in the Large Bore division....40 caliber...
Transitional Bore = .366 to .378
Large bore = .400 to .460
Super bore = .500-.700
i love Pierre van der Walts book, but i disagree with his belief that the .474 and .510 calibers are some how greatly different from the .458. the .458, .465, .474, and .510 are so incredibly similar in performance that separating them into two different classes is just silly. now i do agree that .585, .620, and .700 could be in their own category and have heard of them referred to as "ultra bores" but i personally think that title is a bit silly sounding.