Why all the 6.5 Creedmoor Hate?

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

Bob,

22s are great to shoot! Was shooting a night match a few weeks ago at 190 yards was shooting a 1.5" target. They get pushed by the littlest of wind. Good on you for stretching it out!

@Inline6
Try it with sub sonics even more fun. My old BRUNO was doing 1.5 inches at 100 for five shots with Winchester 42gn hollow point subs for hunting. So ain't to shabby. 200 is fun. Pull trigger have a mouthful of coffee look thru the scope and watch the hit.
Love it
Bob

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

HAS to have the tractor!!

@Just Gina
I can see good ol Action Bob on his vintage tractor with the faded denim coveralls, ratty ol straw hat and corn cob pipe hanging out of his mouth and shot gun by his side. Ripping around the bottom 40 yelling out yee- ha ol girl now this is livin y'all. Then coming home and giving mummy a playful slap on the rump telling her how much fun he has just had. Then sitting down with a fine sipping whisky and dreaming of Africa.
Bob

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

@CBH Australia , your sources would be correct!

@Just Gina
@CBH Australia would know these things. He attends the Broken Heel festival, has a pink tutu and ballet slippers so HE should know these things. Top it off the poor man even admits to using dare I say a 243.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Bob

 

[Hunter-Habib]

It is a false analogy, because the 6.5 C is designed for long range, and long bullets, and different rifling than the Swede. I don't believe that that was an issue with the two 30s.

Also, most of the rifles that the C is put in are not warhorses, which is certainly what I want for any rifle I hunt with. The Swede is superbly accurate with bullets designed for hunting, and has been fit in rifles that are perfect for dealing with aggression of various forms. None of this is why the C exists. It isn't that I expect much bloodshed for the rest of my life, but I do own a property with relatively short open areas, horny moose, and bears that take their child custody duties seriously. In the overall picture, any rifle I own, had better feed every time.

I reload, though I could get Swede ammo if I needed it, far more easily than it was ever available when the cartridge was in it's heyday.

This looks like a nice one. Out of my budget though.

Purdey Bolt Action Rifle 31199

The double square-bridge action is engraved with our traditional rose and scroll pattern and fitted with a Swarovski Z8i 1.7-13.3x42 telescope-sight in quickly-detachable ‘scope-mounts and rings, with a three-position safety and black finish. The highly figured stock has a cheekpiece, a full...

www.purdey.com

On the budget end, Winchester is offering their Model 70 in this caliber.

Many of the younger British deer stalkers are using the 6.5 Creedmoor for roe deer these days.

 

[Hunter-Habib]

Anything based on '08 in NATO countries is something you can reload based on free brass. And while it is probably forgotten, for a rather short period, there was a lot of interest in Silhouette rifle shooting. It was cool because so little high power comp really penetrates the hunting fields. And then it died. At least as far a magazine articles every third month. But if people learned one thing it was that the 7mm-08 was a really good long range cartridge with some hit. It is cultural.

The fact '08 isn't as widely promoted to death is why it isn't hated.

The Creedmoor just go beaten to death. People are tired of it. Anyone who wanted 10 of them, already bought them. And there is a cultural divide between the younger crowd that doesn't hunt, but likes to pretend they are snipers. Or if they do hunt, sure isn't walking to find game, or recover it. To site the typical prejudices. And the old crowd that remember how much fun it was, before they got glued to their Lazy Boys.

See, the reasons you are listing for the 6.5 Creedmoor garnering hatred are more due to generational reception (or lack thereof) towards certain calibers. If used for target shooting and white tail deer sized game, then the 6.5 ballistically fares no better or no worse than any other 6.5 caliber cartridge.

Let’s use one 6.5 caliber related example, as reference. Major Chancey Hugh Stigand was fond of using the 6.5x54mm Mannlicher Schoenauer on elephant and Cape buffalo. Up until the day he got gored by an irate wounded animal which his 6.5mm failed to stop. For a while during the early 1920s, there was a public smear campaign amongst quite a few African hunters against the 6.5x54mm Mannlicher. But people eventually came to their senses and realized that you can’t blame a caliber for failing to reliably kill game larger than what it was designed for.

 

[Tam Dl]

Wow, Purdey. The question with either is whether they are set up for the Target stuff, which I assume is the case, because I believe that is the SAMMI spec. If so, I have no use for it.

In 30 pages, I suppose someone else mentioned it, but the other deal with these new chambers is that they are tighter. So on the one hand there could be an issue if one ended up over-pressure in a hot spot. But it does mean a more accurate cartridge. Some of the guns are also light in the loafers on extraction, since that is a super power of sorts on older target set-ups. That would violate my self-defense rule that one should learn to shoot the gun that one has, which in the Canadian, DG, or other circumstances, is going to me my bolt gun.

In theory I am all about accuracy, but in practice, I don't really need the factory's help, and I am not in the F-class type quest. So modern bumped FL resizing, should take care of any problems an old spec cartridge had with chamber tolerances. And still leave one able to use factory ammo without loosing the combat edge.

 

[Tam Dl]

See, the reasons you are listing for the 6.5 Creedmoor garnering hatred are more due to generational reception (or lack thereof) towards certain calibers. If used for target shooting and white tail deer sized game, then the 6.5 ballistically fares no better or no worse than any other 6.5 caliber cartridge.

I don't see where you came to that conclusion, other than it appears to be your default. I am saying that the idea behind the Creedmore (and other similar recent cartridges), is entirely different than the ideas behind earlier 6.5s. A knowledgeable shooter can make them into what he wants. But they are all very different.

- The early ones where older, of course, though bred in a time of global conflict with bolt guns. They were mainly military guns civilians adapted.

So when civilians were not satisfied with them, they moved them in unintended directions to deal with tolerances or perceived underperformance issues. So we got handloading, and magnums

- After which we get the hunting influenced ones that were often overbore, say a Weatherby.

But as hunting faded, we get the new F-class type guns. We have a huge range of improvements, vast in the guns and the reloading, in everything. 2000 dollar reloading presses, for instance.

- This third generation is designed around tighter tolerances, higher BC bullets, and to achieve hits at ranges that are a very bad idea unless you are shooting combatants, or steel and paper.


The overall reality is that between these very different cartridge, it is somewhat easier to forward engineer, than it is to reverse engineer. I hear there are still some sticking with the Swede in F-class, but, presumably they don't have SAMMI spec chambers, or anything else. That works up to a point if one has a custom rifle, regardless of which case you are going to choose. You can get some level of performance in a fat chamber from reloading practices. But getting from a tight chamber to a proper all purpose chamber would require some light gunsmithing.

How does one navigate all this. This is a hunting forum, and an African, shoot-through-my-bones kind of place. So starting with the end in sight, I would start with bullet performance and work back. One doesn't need a PhD to figure out which cartridges, the rifles designed to handle tough bullet's were designed for. It is not the Creedmore. But if one wants to go high end, one might get custom guns and bullets, and also look at which cartridges work best with suppressors, that might be a more dense powder column thing. Depends how far one wants to go with it. Overall, I rate going bang number one, then accuracy, can't use suppresors, and so forth. But just buying into the industry spin isn't going to make it for me.

 

[Hunter-Habib]

Creedmoor my a$$

We know the Creedmoor wasn't a thing in those days .
I'd rather be an old Fudd than a Hipster.

Maybe, we can refer to the Man Bun as the Mattel rifle if Man Bun is going to offend.

@Hunter-Habib I'm not against the Creedmoor as such but I hate the nonsense and hype that people sprout about it or the inexperienced shooters who claim it beats everything hands down.

Horses for courses.

And as for the 7mm-08 I wanted one nearly 30 years ago and have had mine for 6-7 years.

Very sensible, CBH Australia. You don’t hate the 6.5 Creedmoor. You hate what it is touted as.

 

[Hunter-Habib]

I don't see where you came to that conclusion, other than it appears to be your default. I am saying that the idea behind the Creedmore (and other similar recent cartridges), is entirely different than the ideas behind earlier 6.5s. A knowledgeable shooter can make them into what he wants. But they are all very different.

- The early ones where older, of course, though bred in a time of global conflict with bolt guns. They were mainly military guns civilians adapted.

So when civilians were not satisfied with them, they moved them in unintended directions to deal with tolerances or perceived underperformance issues. So we got handloading, and magnums

- After which we get the hunting influenced ones that were often overbore, say a Weatherby.

But as hunting faded, we get the new F-class type guns. We have a huge range of improvements, vast in the guns and the reloading, in everything. 2000 dollar reloading presses, for instance.

- This third generation is designed around tighter tolerances, higher BC bullets, and to achieve hits at ranges that are a very bad idea unless you are shooting combatants, or steel and paper.


The overall reality is that between these very different cartridge, it is somewhat easier to forward engineer, than it is to reverse engineer. I hear there are still some sticking with the Swede in F-class, but, presumably they don't have SAMMI spec chambers, or anything else. That works up to a point if one has a custom rifle, regardless of which case you are going to choose. You can get some level of performance in a fat chamber from reloading practices. But getting from a tight chamber to a proper all purpose chamber would require some light gunsmithing.

How does one navigate all this. This is a hunting forum, and an African, shoot-through-my-bones kind of place. So starting with the end in sight, I would start with bullet performance and work back. One doesn't need a PhD to figure out which cartridges, the rifles designed to handle tough bullet's were designed for. It is not the Creedmore. But if one wants to go high end, one might get custom guns and bullets, and also look at which cartridges work best with suppressors, that might be a more dense powder column thing. Depends how far one wants to go with it. Overall, I rate going bang number one, then accuracy, can't use suppresors, and so forth. But just buying into the industry spin isn't going to make it for me.

I get what you’re saying, but the same holds true for any industry. Every year, car companies release new models. Phone companies release new models. Computer companies release new models. You could say that all this is superfluous, especially when the older models do their job quite satisfactorily. But corporations want to make money, so they make their research & development departments constantly put new products out on the market.

That’s what Hornady did with the 6.5 Creedmoor. They brought it out to the market in 2007, as the latest toy for long range shooters. It found good use with the whitetail deer sized class of game and if used for nothing heavier than this class of game… then, it leaves no reason to be unsatisfied.

Many people dislike it because they find it to be superfluous or over-hyped and that’s perfectly fine. But we can’t say that it’s inherently a flawed caliber.

 

[lockingblock]

If someone wants a 6.5 for field use on game, the 6.5 PRC solves the majority of the complaints from the Creed. It just needs a long action. The PRC is an absolute winner of a cartridge. Tight chamber specs, perfect throat geometry, high velocity, fast twist barrels…it’s a winner.

 

[Inline6]

@Inline6
Try it with sub sonics even more fun. My old BRUNO was doing 1.5 inches at 100 for five shots with Winchester 42gn hollow point subs for hunting. So ain't to shabby. 200 is fun. Pull trigger have a mouthful of coffee look thru the scope and watch the hit.
Love it
Bob

That is all I shoot, have to use sub for the predictability. To date my longest hit is 800 yards with a 22lr. In a competition setting it was 700. Another gentleman and myself were the last 2 standing in a field of over 60 shooters. We did not not connect at 750, we
moves back to 700. At that range my bullets were 118' in the air and the wind was blowing them 13' to the side time of flight is over 3 seconds. My scope can carry me out to about 940 yards before it runs out of adjustment. It is a very addicting sport.

 

[Velo Dog]

“The people who hate the 6.5CM”:
1.
Probably don’t actually hate it.
I certainly do not hate it.
Neither do I have a “$6K custom rig” (my 6.5x55 is a CZ 550 FS with vintage Leupold 3x scope)
Outshot by someone with a cheap Tikka rifle, nope hasn’t happened to me.
But then again, I don’t remember seeing any Tikka rifle among my friends sporting goods.
All this Creedmoor-mania is just silly (read my #3 comments) but hate is not the right word.
2.
We are just grouchy because now suddenly and without warning, ammunition for our 6.5x55 caliber rifles is no longer available.
3.
The fact that the 6.5CM is nothing more than an aggressively advertised, ballistic twin of our 100+ year old 6.5 cartridge, in other words it’s simply a marketing scam that adds insult to injury.
“Injury” being the sudden and without fair warning, discontinuation of 6.5x55 ammunition.
This makes us even more grouchy.

Hi again black tail,

I see that you have now blocked me.
Ok, no worries.
Sorry for whatever it was and not sorry.

But, best wishes for you in all things anyway.

Cheers,
Paul.

 

[Velo Dog]

My thought on the acceptance of the .300 WM is that it fits into a standard length (therefore less expensive) action. The .300 H&H requires a full magnum length action. As more standard length actions are available brass is also easier to come by. As there is more demand for the Win. more loaded ammunition and cases are manufactured to meet demand and availability goes up.
The cost of a magnum Mauser action is the only reason I chose to go with the WM. It also gets about 100 fps more speed than the H&H with 200 grain bullets so I couldn't see a down side.

Hello Doug,

Those are the exact same sales pitches Ruger is using for their .375 Ruger cartridge, vs the original .375 H&H cartridge plus, the 6.5 Creedmoor vs the 6.5x55 Mauser cartridge.
Well except that, I don’t know if the Creedmoor peddlers are claiming an additional 100 fps or not.
If I’m wrong and they are claiming higher velocity than the “Swede”, they are, to keep it polite —> “exaggerating”.
The downside is that, unless we are willing to ignore our favorite rifles and buy their latest, often shoddily made, eyesore junk rifles, they kill off our tried and true caliber’s ammunition supply.
That is mean spirited and I do not take to being mistreated very well.

On that note and regarding my earlier comment on .300 H&H ammunition shortage, while its ballistic twin .300 Winchester has flooded the market, I remain steadfast.
Within my personal hand-loading and rifle shooting experiences, out to approximately 400 yards / meters, when using a high ballistic coefficient projectile, it only needs to reach somewhere around 2800 fps, to fly in a relative low arc of the bullet path.
In other words, “flat” enough trajectory to make hitting my mark out to about 400 meters / yards relatively easy, from field positions (and repeatedly so).

So, 2800 fps vs 2900 fps in my experiences, does not make much if any real difference, when shooting typical hoofed game, out to that distance.
100 fps might make some difference for shooting golf ball size groups at 400 meters from sand bags but I wouldn’t know (or care).
I doubt that more than a relatively few hunters would have any serious interest in that either.

With .300 magnum hunting rifles and cartridges, 100 feet per second is no reason for everyone to jump up from our shooting benches and start high fiving.
Admittedly, almost all of my experiences in training with and hunting with the .300 magnum, are regarding 180 grain spitzers.
I know your 100 fps comment was submitted regarding 200 grainers.
Perhaps there is some truly Significant advantage to a little extra velocity when using that specific weight .30 bullet ?
With 180 gr bullets, another 100 fps has shown me no significant difference, out to 400 meters / yards.
Well except that my favorite of the three .300 H&H rifles I used to own, was most accurate at the 2800 -2850 fps level (again admittedly 180 gr spitzers).
.300 H&H vs .300 Winchester = close enough in hunting scenarios to be called ballistic duplicates or ballistic twins.

Moving right along.
I am totally uninspired by the manufacturer’s saving money in shifting toward shorter and shorter rifle actions these days.
This, especially since they don’t seem to pass those savings on to the consumer.
If they’re doing so, they sure seem uncharacteristically silent about it.
Furthermore, Remington and CZ were able to make very affordable H&H length actions for many long years.
I have bought sold and traded many of both brands.
They were in calibers from .300 H&H up to and including .500 Jeffery.
I was saddened to see especially those big beautiful Brno and CZ magnum repeaters discontinued.

It is simply too bad that some clever marketing rascal told the makers and retailers to claim “short cartridges are better”.
Worse than too bad is that so many people actually believe it.

Last but not least, some other grumpy old man observations:
The manufacturers successfully tricked many consumers into believing their false claims of the 7mm-08 being “better”, when yet we already had our well established, flawless and ballistic twin, the 7x57 Mauser cartridge.
That scam also resulted in 7x57 live ammunition becoming difficult if not impossible to find in stores now.

It’s remarkable that the 7-08 took off like a brush fire, when virtually all brands of repeaters built for it, have very short magazines, rendering them useless with heavy bullets.
More than a few 7x57 owners might roll their eyes at such tomfoolery.
I sure do.

Ok, I’ll shut my geezer trap now.
Let the slings, arrows and firey darts begin.

Best Regards
Paul.

 

[MS 9x56]

Velo Dog, in truth the new rifle users are mostly about magazine capacity and rate of fire and deathly afraid of recoil. Unfortunately for us the sun is setting on our generations preferences and market influence.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

Hello Doug,

Those are the exact same sales pitches Ruger is using for their .375 Ruger cartridge, vs the original .375 H&H cartridge plus, the 6.5 Creedmoor vs the 6.5x55 Mauser cartridge.
Well except that, I don’t know if the Creedmoor peddlers are claiming an additional 100 fps or not.
If I’m wrong and they are claiming higher velocity than the “Swede”, they are, to keep it polite —> “exaggerating”.
The downside is that, unless we are willing to ignore our favorite rifles and buy their latest, often shoddily made, eyesore junk rifles, they kill off our tried and true caliber’s ammunition supply.
That is mean spirited and I do not take to being mistreated very well.

On that note and regarding my earlier comment on .300 H&H ammunition shortage, while its ballistic twin .300 Winchester has flooded the market, I remain steadfast.
Within my personal hand-loading and rifle shooting experiences, out to approximately 400 yards / meters, when using a high ballistic coefficient projectile, it only needs to reach somewhere around 2800 fps, to fly in a relative low arc of the bullet path.
In other words, “flat” enough trajectory to make hitting my mark out to about 400 meters / yards relatively easy, from field positions (and repeatedly so).

So, 2800 fps vs 2900 fps in my experiences, does not make much if any real difference, when shooting typical hoofed game, out to that distance.
100 fps might make some difference for shooting golf ball size groups at 400 meters from sand bags but I wouldn’t know (or care).
I doubt that more than a relatively few hunters would have any serious interest in that either.

With .300 magnum hunting rifles and cartridges, 100 feet per second is no reason for everyone to jump up from our shooting benches and start high fiving.
Admittedly, almost all of my experiences in training with and hunting with the .300 magnum, are regarding 180 grain spitzers.
I know your 100 fps comment was submitted regarding 200 grainers.
Perhaps there is some truly Significant advantage to a little extra velocity when using that specific weight .30 bullet ?
With 180 gr bullets, another 100 fps has shown me no significant difference, out to 400 meters / yards.
Well except that my favorite of the three .300 H&H rifles I used to own, was most accurate at the 2800 -2850 fps level (again admittedly 180 gr spitzers).
.300 H&H vs .300 Winchester = close enough in hunting scenarios to be called ballistic duplicates or ballistic twins.

Moving right along.
I am totally uninspired by the manufacturer’s saving money in shifting toward shorter and shorter rifle actions these days.
This, especially since they don’t seem to pass those savings on to the consumer.
If they’re doing so, they sure seem uncharacteristically silent about it.
Furthermore, Remington and CZ were able to make very affordable H&H length actions for many long years.
I have bought sold and traded many of both brands.
They were in calibers from .300 H&H up to and including .500 Jeffery.
I was saddened to see especially those big beautiful Brno and CZ magnum repeaters discontinued.

It is simply too bad that some clever marketing rascal told the makers and retailers to claim “short cartridges are better”.
Worse than too bad is that so many people actually believe it.

Last but not least, some other grumpy old man observations:
The manufacturers successfully tricked many consumers into believing their false claims of the 7mm-08 being “better”, when yet we already had our well established, flawless and ballistic twin, the 7x57 Mauser cartridge.
That scam also resulted in 7x57 live ammunition becoming difficult if not impossible to find in stores now.

It’s remarkable that the 7-08 took off like a brush fire, when virtually all brands of repeaters built for it, have very short magazines, rendering them useless with heavy bullets.
More than a few 7x57 owners might roll their eyes at such tomfoolery.
I sure do.

Ok, I’ll shut my geezer trap now.
Let the slings, arrows and firey darts begin.

Best Regards
Paul.

Well, not to exactly. When I bought the action to build a CRF .300 magnum the standard length action was much less expensive than a full length magnum action. Developed in 1963 (60 years ago) the .300 Winchester Magnum is not exactly a newcomer in shooting circles is it? Using 180 or 200 grain bullets the .300 WM outpaces the .300 H&H by roughly the same amount as the H&H outpaces the .30-06. You can see this in.any reloading manual. If 100 fps makes no.difference you might as well just shoot the '06.

About 15 or 20 years ago I decided that deer hunting in Western Washington was too hard on my nice walnut stocked rifles. The country is very wet and steep, so I was.looking for a light, stainless, synthetic stocked rifle. In a Remington 7 I had the choice of .243, 7-08 or .308. I chose the 7-08. At 6.25 pounds empty and before scope, the rifle with 140 grain Accubonds has proven to be excellent for my purposes. Is it better than the 7x57? Not at all, but a 7x57 to fit my needs would have required a custom job and a lot more money. Would a 7x57 meet my needs any better than the 7-08? Not at all. I use it to hunt deer, not elephants, and really have no need to use 175 grain bullets.

Manufacturers of anything, not just rifles, pursue market demand. If they think they can find an unfilled spot in the market they will try to exploit it. If they could sell as many guns in 7x57 or .300 H&H as they do with the 7-08 or .300 WM, they would build them, but the market just isn't there. I'll give you another example of this. The AR-15 is a copy of the U.S. military rifle. People wanted this so manufacturers have made and continue to make them. Or you could look at the Win M 70. The demand for them to build it on the CRF action after they tried to convince the public that the PF action was just as good wasn't really accepted. So now they're back to CRF. The manufacturers chased the market, they didn't create it.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Velo Dog]

Hi again Doug,

I appreciate your response, well stated for sure.
I understand your opinion.
And although I don’t completely agree with you, I do completely respect your opinion and I respect you for posting it.
It is good that we can discuss differing opinions without drama.

At any rate:
It has been my observation that when the gun industry announces their latest cartridge as being “better” than a well established ballistic twin to their new one, while simultaneously halting the manufacture of said, well established ballistic twin cartridge, the industry is not as you contend, pursuing demand.
I submit that they are creating demand.

You are correct that the .300 Winchester marketing began in the early 1960’s.
But the ballistic twin to it, the formerly world wide established .300 H&H was born about 40 years earlier, around 1920.
The industry began crowing in the early 1960’s that the Winchester version is “better”.
Now lately, said industry’s halting their production of .300 H&H ammunition has annoyed me, to put it mildly.

Ballistics:
I repeat that in my experiences, once you reach the approximately 2800 - 2850 fps mark with a 180 grain .30 caliber spitzer, you have yourself a very fine flat trajectory hunting cartridge, suitable for most hoofed game, world wide, out to about 400 meters / yards.
Boosting the same bullet another 100 fps has not shown me any noticeable advantage, toward being able to hit my targets out at that distance or any point in between.

The .30-06 ?
It is another favorite of mine.
However when I was a beginning hand loader, I had tried to load this otherwise wonderful cartridge with 180 grain bullets up to 2800 fps.
Before reaching my goal, the spent primers and fired brass began to show pressure signs so, I abandoned my efforts.
Then, I began looking at the .300 magnums like a cat looks at parakeets.

Cost of rifle actions:
Here in Anchorage Alaska (the land of high prices), during the mid to late 1980’s, I bought more than one Remington Model 721 in .300 H&H, for only $200. to $250. each.
These were not just actions alone but complete, unaltered factory made rifles.
They were used but in excellent condition, inside and out.
Around that same time, a brand new Remington 700 or Ruger M-77 in .300 Winchester, was selling here for perhaps about the same to a bit more than that.

Either way, I fail to see the point in Winchester’s version of the .300 Magnum, except to show their corporate banker that agressive marketing really works.

The “better” .300 Winchester doesn’t even need that belt, due to its sharp, pronounced shoulder.
In the case of sharp shouldered cartridges, the title of “belted magnum” is clearly a marketing scam, intended to fool potential customers into getting excited and buying the product without first researching it.
Straight wall rimless rifle cartridges and slow tapered rimless ones with scant shoulder or no shoulder, need the belt.
The industry’s strategy to entice countless sporting goods consumers, seems to have worked out pretty well.

The cost of CRF rifle actions:
In the mid-1990’s, I bought a used but excellent condition FN Commercial Mauser Model ‘98, .30-06, (marked “Sears Model 50” on the barrel), for about half to 2/3 of what a complete rifle of the Model 700 Remington or Ruger 77 in similar condition would’ve cost me then.
Next, I had Gunsmith Dave Caboth convert the FN to .300 H&H.
It required re-barreling, installing a longer magazine box, opening the bolt face and hand filing the rails a bit.
(And, maybe he re-shaped the extractor claw plus, milled out some steel from one receiver ring) ?
Anyway, this process gave me a genuine CRF Model ‘98 Mauser, in the .300 H&H caliber, for not a huge amount of cost, due to using a standard .30-06 length action.

That said, if I ever decide to own another .300 Magnum, I will have a Brno model 602 rebarrelled.
I have 2 of the excellent Model 602’s, both in .375 H&H, but I only need one in .375 caliber.
Hopefully rebarrelling this 5 shot beauty will then, need no extra action work.
Shouldn’t be very expensive, compared to buying a whole new rifle in my choice of .300 magnum calibers.

The 7mm-08:
If the industry had simply made stainless / synthetic rifles in 7x57 and charged consumers the very few extra dollars required to cover the small amount of extra material in standard length actions, the world would be a better place.
I totally understand that you do not need or want to use 175 grain bullets in your 7-08 carbine.
No worries.
They won’t fit in the magazine anyway.

Meanwhile, there are those of us who might at times want to use their 7mm rifle for large wild boar, black bear, elk, nilgai, even moose, in thick foliage.
This is especially important to parents (and grand parents like me), who want to take young people hunting for larger than deer size game but, don’t want to scare their prodigies off with excessive recoil.

Dreaded Assault Rifles:
The truly huge market for AR-15’s in the USA is in my opinion, not created by demand to begin with.
This massive market was / is, again in my observations, created almost entirely by the Hollywood Movie Industry.
The remaining numbers of people who want them but don’t pay attention to fantasy movies are (again just IMO), distrusting of our narcissistic and thoroughly mean-spirited government.
Seems to me that without the movie industry, this AR-15 market would not be anywhere near as successful as it is today.

Side Note:
In case anyone reading this makes a mistake, no I don’t have any complaint against AR-15 ownership.
I’m all for you folks, even though I don’t have one any more.
(Got tired of picking up, tumbling and reloading all that empty brass).

The Winchester Model 70:
Winchester really tripped over their carrot in 1964.
As usual, the following is only my opinion.
It is based solely on my observations…….

Winchester’s flop was not simply the transition from proper Model ‘98 Mauser style, large claw extractor, into the feeble, tiny “push feed” extractor that brought Winchester’s reputation and bank account crashing down.
The main factor in Winchester’s self destruction of the 1960’s and 70’s was the fact that they foolishly made their push feed rifles to a Very Low standard of quality, (very, very low), from butt to muzzle.
And, they also foolishly continued to call this piece of rubbish, “Winchester’s Model 70, The Rifleman’s Rifle”……
Wow, I could’ve told them to not do that and I’m a moron (my ex-wife will verify this).

My Parting Shot As It Were:
You say the industry tends to pursue market demand.
In some instances, I agree with you.
However, when they huff and puff that (name whatever newest cartridge) is “better” than an already well established ballistic twin cartridge and likewise they halt production of said well established ballistic twin cartridge, I say that they are creating the market, not pursuing it.
Such mean spirited marketing strategies are based on desire to creat monopoly, in the rifle and cartridge market place.

I can see right through it and again, I’m only a moron (just ask you know who).

I’m whipping a dead horse here.
Thanks for tolerating my rant here.

Kind Regards,
Paul.

 

[Rocked and Loaded]

The rifle industry clearly both follows trends and shapes them with advertising, production, and sponsorship.

They pick up on the next hot thing and then push that to make sure their investment in r&d and retooling pays off. Remember the short/fat magnum craze?

It’s good business though. It’s hard to convince people they need to buy new rifles en mass for a cartridge that’s been available for 100 years plus.

I don’t blame them for wanting to make money and sometimes the cartridges actually stick. Most don’t. That’s just the business and it’s happened for decades. 308 win has managed to establish itself while the 280 rem never quite caught on. Cartridges of the World is full of objectively good cartridges that never made it big and have either died out or remained obscure wild cats.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

Hi again Doug,

I appreciate your response, well stated for sure.
I understand your opinion.
And although I don’t completely agree with you, I do completely respect your opinion and I respect you for posting it.
It is good that we can discuss differing opinions without drama.

At any rate:
It has been my observation that when the gun industry announces their latest cartridge as being “better” than a well established ballistic twin to their new one, while simultaneously halting the manufacture of said, well established ballistic twin cartridge, the industry is not as you contend, pursuing demand.
I submit that they are creating demand.

You are correct that the .300 Winchester marketing began in the early 1960’s.
But the ballistic twin to it, the formerly world wide established .300 H&H was born about 40 years earlier, around 1920.
The industry began crowing in the early 1960’s that the Winchester version is “better”.
Now lately, said industry’s halting their production of .300 H&H ammunition has annoyed me, to put it mildly.

Ballistics:
I repeat that in my experiences, once you reach the approximately 2800 - 2850 fps mark with a 180 grain .30 caliber spitzer, you have yourself a very fine flat trajectory hunting cartridge, suitable for most hoofed game, world wide, out to about 400 meters / yards.
Boosting the same bullet another 100 fps has not shown me any noticeable advantage, toward being able to hit my targets out at that distance or any point in between.

The .30-06 ?
It is another favorite of mine.
However when I was a beginning hand loader, I had tried to load this otherwise wonderful cartridge with 180 grain bullets up to 2800 fps.
Before reaching my goal, the spent primers and fired brass began to show pressure signs so, I abandoned my efforts.
Then, I began looking at the .300 magnums like a cat looks at parakeets.

Cost of rifle actions:
Here in Anchorage Alaska (the land of high prices), during the mid to late 1980’s, I bought more than one Remington Model 721 in .300 H&H, for only $200. to $250. each.
These were not just actions alone but complete, unaltered factory made rifles.
They were used but in excellent condition, inside and out.
Around that same time, a brand new Remington 700 or Ruger M-77 in .300 Winchester, was selling here for perhaps about the same to a bit more than that.

Either way, I fail to see the point in Winchester’s version of the .300 Magnum, except to show their corporate banker that agressive marketing really works.

The “better” .300 Winchester doesn’t even need that belt, due to its sharp, pronounced shoulder.
In the case of sharp shouldered cartridges, the title of “belted magnum” is clearly a marketing scam, intended to fool potential customers into getting excited and buying the product without first researching it.
Straight wall rimless rifle cartridges and slow tapered rimless ones with scant shoulder or no shoulder, need the belt.
The industry’s strategy to entice countless sporting goods consumers, seems to have worked out pretty well.

The cost of CRF rifle actions:
In the mid-1990’s, I bought a used but excellent condition FN Commercial Mauser Model ‘98, .30-06, (marked “Sears Model 50” on the barrel), for about half to 2/3 of what a complete rifle of the Model 700 Remington or Ruger 77 in similar condition would’ve cost me then.
Next, I had Gunsmith Dave Caboth convert the FN to .300 H&H.
It required re-barreling, installing a longer magazine box, opening the bolt face and hand filing the rails a bit.
(And, maybe he re-shaped the extractor claw plus, milled out some steel from one receiver ring) ?
Anyway, this process gave me a genuine CRF Model ‘98 Mauser, in the .300 H&H caliber, for not a huge amount of cost, due to using a standard .30-06 length action.

That said, if I ever decide to own another .300 Magnum, I will have a Brno model 602 rebarrelled.
I have 2 of the excellent Model 602’s, both in .375 H&H, but I only need one in .375 caliber.
Hopefully rebarrelling this 5 shot beauty will then, need no extra action work.
Shouldn’t be very expensive, compared to buying a whole new rifle in my choice of .300 magnum calibers.

The 7mm-08:
If the industry had simply made stainless / synthetic rifles in 7x57 and charged consumers the very few extra dollars required to cover the small amount of extra material in standard length actions, the world would be a better place.
I totally understand that you do not need or want to use 175 grain bullets in your 7-08 carbine.
No worries.
They won’t fit in the magazine anyway.

Meanwhile, there are those of us who might at times want to use their 7mm rifle for large wild boar, black bear, elk, nilgai, even moose, in thick foliage.
This is especially important to parents (and grand parents like me), who want to take young people hunting for larger than deer size game but, don’t want to scare their prodigies off with excessive recoil.

Dreaded Assault Rifles:
The truly huge market for AR-15’s in the USA is in my opinion, not created by demand to begin with.
This massive market was / is, again in my observations, created almost entirely by the Hollywood Movie Industry.
The remaining numbers of people who want them but don’t pay attention to fantasy movies are (again just IMO), distrusting of our narcissistic and thoroughly mean-spirited government.
Seems to me that without the movie industry, this AR-15 market would not be anywhere near as successful as it is today.

Side Note:
In case anyone reading this makes a mistake, no I don’t have any complaint against AR-15 ownership.
I’m all for you folks, even though I don’t have one any more.
(Got tired of picking up, tumbling and reloading all that empty brass).

The Winchester Model 70:
Winchester really tripped over their carrot in 1964.
As usual, the following is only my opinion.
It is based solely on my observations…….

Winchester’s flop was not simply the transition from proper Model ‘98 Mauser style, large claw extractor, into the feeble, tiny “push feed” extractor that brought Winchester’s reputation and bank account crashing down.
The main factor in Winchester’s self destruction of the 1960’s and 70’s was the fact that they foolishly made their push feed rifles to a Very Low standard of quality, (very, very low), from butt to muzzle.
And, they also foolishly continued to call this piece of rubbish, “Winchester’s Model 70, The Rifleman’s Rifle”……
Wow, I could’ve told them to not do that and I’m a moron (my ex-wife will verify this).

My Parting Shot As It Were:
You say the industry tends to pursue market demand.
In some instances, I agree with you.
However, when they huff and puff that (name whatever newest cartridge) is “better” than an already well established ballistic twin cartridge and likewise they halt production of said well established ballistic twin cartridge, I say that they are creating the market, not pursuing it.
Such mean spirited marketing strategies are based on desire to creat monopoly, in the rifle and cartridge market place.

I can see right through it and again, I’m only a moron (just ask you know who).

I’m whipping a dead horse here.
Thanks for tolerating my rant here.

Kind Regards,
Paul.

Okay Paul,

Let"s look at this. In 1912 Holland and Holland came out with the .375 H&H. The belt was deemed necessary due to head space issues. Following market demand for a .30 caliber (.308) round that was more powerful than the .30-06, they necked down the .375 to .308. From these two many people dreamed up wildcat designs including "magnum" cartridges that would fit into a standard length action, but all still based on the original H&H case. In 1958 Winchester came out with the .458 Winchester Magnum. The plan was to have a cartridge that was capable of taking the largest and toughest game on earth with a cartridge that fit in a standard length action. The belt was still necessary as the .458 has no bottle neck at all. More cartridges followed, now based on the .458 case. The belt was already there. The .338 WM was a big success.the .264 (6.5mm) not so much. Then Remington came out with the 7mm Remington Magnum in a new PF action, the Model 700. It was huge. The belt comes from the history of these cartridges, not some marketing ploy. The 700 was less expensive to build and sell than the M 70. To compete with Remington's market share Winchester resorted to the PF M 70 in 1964. They thought they were going after the Rem market share but their customer base didn't go for it in big numbers. So eventually they went back to CRF. BTW, I also love the .30-06. In 1973 at the age of 18 and not understanding the two action types I bought a M 70 in .30-06. To be fair, it has been a good rifle and I have taken many blacktails, one bear, one pronghorn, and several African PG with it. Eventually, I had it restocked and rebarreled, still in .30-06, and I still have it. It is very accurate.


Now for the short action rifles and cartridges. They are pretty much all based on the 7.62x51mm (.308 Win.). I do not know why the military changed from the .30-06, but they did. Now with many people having experience in the military and because it was easier to fit into lever actions, semi-autos, and even pumps there was.308 brass everywhere. Then Winchester came up with the .243 to go into the M 70, M 88 and M 100 for those that wanted or needed less recoil. It was a big hit. People wildcatted the brass every which way. Bench rest shooters in particular created the the 7 and 6.5mm. So then we got the .260 Rem, 7-08, .358 Win. 6 and 6.5 Creedmoors, etc. Some sold well, some didn't but again it was the manufacturers pursuing the market.

Best wishes,

Doug

 

[One Day...]

I can ring 9”x16” piece of steel every shot at 600 yards with an iron sighted cz452 22 lr on a calm day...

Is there a typo in there? Am I missing something?

Like Inline6, I have shot the .22 a fair amount in my life, and I have shot, and still shoot, steel out to 1,000 meters (measured), albeit with a .300 Win, and I find this statement hard to believe...

Here is what a 12" plate looks like at 600 meters through a 24x scope. Hint, go down 4 MILs to find it:

Here is what a 12" plate looks like at 600 meters, with naked eyes. See it?

Can't see it? OK, I will help...

Now, admittedly, 600 meters is 656 yards, and a 9"x16" piece of steel is 4" taller than a 12" steel plate, but, like CoElkHunter, I find it difficult to believe that one can SEE a 9"x16" piece of steel at 600 yards with naked eyes...

As to "ring(ing) 9”x16” piece of steel every shot at 600 yards with an iron sighted cz452 22 lr on a calm day", well, all I can say is that even the .300 Win shooting 180 gr match bullets requires 4.4 MILs of vertical correction, to compensate for its 104" drop (104" = 8.6 feet, mind you!). I cannot even begin to think what the drop of the .22 LR is at 600 yards...

Not to mention that the day better be "calm" indeed, as in 'no atmosphere calm' because it only takes a whisper to start requiring drift correction at 600 meters even with the .300 / 180 gr, so I cannot even begin to think what the .22 / 40 gr will drift at that distance even on a zero-wind day, if such a thing ever existed.

Like Bob Nelson 35Whelen, I am amazed at what modern CNC machining can do to a barrel, and the CZ 452 is a great little rifle (I own 2 for the kids and now grand kids), but put it all together, to get to 1) ringing the 9"x16" steel every shot + 2) at 600 yards + 3) with iron sighs +4) with a .22 LR, and I guess that maybe I too need shooting lessons from you, likely after an extended session at a good optometrist

 

[Doug Hamilton]

Is there a typo in there? Am I missing something?

Like Inline6, I have shot the .22 a fair amount in my life, and I have shot, and still shoot, steel out to 1,000 meters (measured), albeit with a .300 Win, and I find this statement hard to believe...

Here is what a 12" plate looks at 600 meters through a 24x scope:

View attachment 593664

Here is what a 12" plate looks at 600 meters, with naked eyes:

View attachment 593665

Can't see it? OK, I will help:

View attachment 593666

Now, admittedly, 600 meters is 656 yards, and a 9"x16" piece is a little taller than a 12" plate, but I find it difficult to believe that one can SEE a 9"x16" piece at 600 yards...

As to hitting it every time with an iron sighted .22, well, all I can say is that even the .300 Win shooting 180 gr match bullets requires 4.4 MILs of vertical correction, to compensate for its 104" drop (104" = 8.6 feet, mind you!). I cannot even begin to think what the drop of the .22 is at 600 yards...

But, hey, maybe I too need shooting lessons, likely after a session at the optometrist

Hey! I could do that....oh...wait...I thought you said 60 yards. Never mind.