[Shawnee]

An interesting bit of trivia worth noting ....

If all hunting cartridge development had stopped cold in 1935 (and calibers designed for the military are excluded)... would today's North American hunter be hurting for decent calibers to use ?

After all, we would be limited to...

.22 Hornet introduced in 1930
.220 Swift 1935
.250 Savage (.250/3000) 1915
.257 Roberts 1934
.270 Winchester 1925
.30/30 1895
.300 Savage 1921
.300 H&H magnum 1925
.32 Winchester 1895
.35 Rem. 1908
.35 Whelen 1921
.375 H&H magnum 1912
.404 Jeffries 1909
.416 Rigby 1911
.44-40 1873

The interesting thing (to me) is that - when you take a close look at that list - all of those "old-timers" were/are emminently suited for the types of hunting being done - and usually still being done here.

That (to me) underscores the fact that when hunting cartridge development was largely in the hands of hunters looking to answer the needs of hunters - rather than slipstick engineers being paid to dream up something "new" for the purpose of generating profit - they came up with very good stuff.

Personally, I would suggest that the only really valuable hunting calibers developed since 1935 - the only calibers that have brought truly valuable performance improvements - have been the .22/250 and those calibers based on the .308 case - namely the .243 Winchester, the .260 Remington, and the 7mm/08 Remington.

:cool:

[oregonhunter]

informational

[Art Eatman]

The .250-3000 Savage was already being necked down to .224 in the 1930s. Jerry Gebby finally copyrighted the name "Varminter" in, I believe, 1937.

I'd have to browse through Phil Sharpe's "Complete Guide to Handloading" to dredge up the names of many of the wildcat cartridges from the 1920s and 1930s. Lots of busy gunbugs playing around with new ideas...

IMO, the real advances in performance have come from the powder and bullet folks, particularly the latter.

[GooseGestapo]

WOW !
You left out the .30/06, which a number of the cart. on the list were created to duplicate, such as the .300Savage.

I was beat to it, but yes, the .22-250 existed in wildcat form. Also, many such as the 7mm08 were developed to overcome the old surplus rifle problem with fully loaded ammo. (loaded to full potential, it duplicates fully loaded 7x57).

Also, the .35Rem came out in 1906, same year as the '06. Rifles weren't available till '08, however. Got one of those too!

[Shawnee]

Hi Gooose...

I wrote in the OP...

"(and calibers designed for the military are excluded)... )"


;)

[R.W.Dale]

Hi Gooose...

I wrote in the OP...

"(and calibers designed for the military are excluded)... )"

All the best ones were

30-06
7x57
8x57
7.65x53
6.5x55

[Shawnee]

"All the best ones were

30-06
7x57
8x57
7.65x53
6.5x55"

Actually I recall reading somewhere that many of the more successful early calibers were based in varying degrees upon the first three of your list, Krochus. Of course it's hardly a surprise that cartridge wildcatters and developers would select existing rounds (ie. the military being a logical source) to begin their experimenting with.

:cool:

[homers]

For me, nothing beats a sweet 7x57. Seems to do more damage than the ballistics/energy state on paper, but according to many on forums, isn't ethical to use on anything bigger than deer (not elk, not moose).

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

What about .38-55, .45-70, .40-60, .25-20, .32-20, and .38-40? And Euro calibers like 9.3x74R and such? When were all these invented, since you're already researching? :)

[matrem]

Not only would we not be "hurting", we would spend more effort on the important aspects of killing game.
We would all do just fine if those were the only calibers available!

[Shawnee]

Hi Sauce...

Most of those are sourced in the 1875-1925 period. Some of them were designed as hunting cartridges (eg. 38/40 and .38/55) and some were intended somewhat more as "anti-personnel" or cartridges with tangent hunting uses (eg. the .25/20 and .32/20). The .45/70 began life as a military brat.

From what I've read, the .38-55 has developed something of a resurrection as people using them for reenactments etc have discovered it can certainly bring home some venison. Imagine that !:what:

:cool:

[Grassman]

Some how I think we would still find a way to hunt. Give me an old 30/30 and I would still be happy.

[frogomatic]

well, if you can't kill it with a 416 Rigby...

[hotlead]

What about the 'wildcat' .25-06?
Not included because its .30-06 case/military?
I think all of those cals. are more than enough.

[Ridgerunner665]

Good write up Shawnee...

One more round that was worth keeping is another of the 308 based rounds...358 Winchester. It never has been very popular, but it is a powerful game stopper in a small package...not all that far behind the 35 Whelen (similar to comparing the 308 and the 30-06)

I'm happy to say that I own a 358 Winchester...its a Browning BLR...that I decided to keep put up as an investment, not that I didn't like it a lot...just didn't want to wear it out.

[mejeepnut]

If no 25-06 then why 270?It comes from either the 30-06 or 30-03 depending on who you talk to,both military.

[Ridgerunner665]

The 25-06 was not commercially loaded until 1969...thats why its not in there.

[mejeepnut]

I didn't realize the 25-06 was so new

[Ridgerunner665]

The 25-06 was a wildcat designed by A.O. Niedner in 1920...but it was not adopted by Remington until 1969.

[M'bogo]

Well you left out at least one good hunting round. The .280 Ross a great rifle round introduced in an average (sometimes less) rifle.

M'bogo

[Ridgerunner665]

True...that round was ahead of its time and technology...and much like others introduced under the same circumstances...it suffered the same fate.

[M'bogo]

With 1935 being the cut off date the .357 magnum just squeaks in also. It was born in 1935. Its taken its fair share of game over the years in handguns and rifles. Heck the old reliable 44-40 didn't even make the list. I seem to recall a round called the .44 Special putting all sorts of critters down before 1935 also.

M'bogo

[M'bogo]

Double Post

[M'bogo]

Three-pete?

[Ridgerunner665]

44-40 is on the list.

[M'bogo]

44-40 is on the list.

Ooops...I missed seeing the 44-40.

How about the .405 Winchester instead?

M'bogo

[Shawnee]

M'Bogo...

The list is not meant to be exhaustive (although I had intended to include the .405 and just forgot). It was meant to show enough varied rifle calibers to demonstrate by 1935 the bases had been pretty well covered. I'm sorry you missed the point.

I omitted the Ross because its' design was aimed at the British military who were thinking of changing away from their .303 British. Yes, the Ross did later see fairly wide popularity in Africa.

:cool:

[M'bogo]

I did not think that was your point in the original post. It read "After all, we would be limited to..." and I just saw that the list was a few calibers short.

It is interesting to think about what we would be shooting the military input on the small arms makers and ammo.

M'bogo