'New' cartridges I'd like to see.


December 29, 2002, 11:06 AM
A few other threads gave me this idea. What non-existant cartridges would you like to see created, and made commercially available? (IOW, what would you like to wildcat, and have it become successful?).

As I mentioned in another thread I'd like an 8mm RUM, for starters, with a decent HPBT bullet.

Also, a mid-.40's bullet necked down from a .50BMG case. Looking for velocity, trajectory, accuracy improvements without surrendering a bunch of downrange energy. What the heck, it's only hypothetical (I think).;)

Anyone else?

If you enjoyed reading about "'New' cartridges I'd like to see." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
December 29, 2002, 11:22 AM
338 Win short mag, with slightly better velocity than the 338 win mag, in a Model 70 Classic Featherweight sportin' a 22" tube. Looking for just under 7 1/2 pounds with a sling, scope and 2 or 3 rounds in it. Would be BRUTAL on both ends, but the elk would need to be VERY afraid:D .

On another note I would like to see the VERY good 284 win chambered in more rifles on the shelf.

Brian Williams
December 29, 2002, 02:22 PM
22-44mag a 44 mag case necked down to 22
Would be nasty on Ground hogs with a 45gr hp

a 454 casull magnum for a single shot 1885 just a touch longer like 357 / 38 spec

December 29, 2002, 04:54 PM
Also, a mid-.40's bullet necked down from a .50BMG case. Looking for velocity, trajectory, accuracy improvements without surrendering a bunch of downrange energy. What the heck, it's only hypothetical (I think).

This has been done already.
Its called the 338Talbot, after Skip Talbot who did a lot of tinkering with 50BMGs. I think he's still active in the Fifty Caliber Shooters Association.
Barrel erosion was extremely bad in this cartridge.
338/50 Talbot (http://www.reloadbench.com/cartridges/w33850.html)

December 29, 2002, 05:10 PM
How about a .375 on a .338 Win mag case. (3.25 max over all length (98 mauser))

Glock Glockler
December 29, 2002, 05:31 PM
I have a thing for the 6.5mm bullets, so I'd like to see an assault rifle round with it. I was thinking a 7.62 x 39 case necked down to a 6.5mm, maybe a 120gr bullet at whatever velocity you could manage.

It would have fer better penetration than a 7.62 x 39 and 5.56mm, with a pretty flat tragectory, and it would retain it's energy much better at longer ranges.

December 29, 2002, 06:26 PM
Shot a couple Contenders and MOA Maximum silhouette pistols chambered in 6.5x39. Very effective little round for the case capacity.

I'd like to see a .40 caliber based on the .30-06. ;)

December 29, 2002, 07:14 PM
The 338/50 is a .34 cal round, not mid .40 caliber. I know about the 338/50 and the problems with it, thats why I'd go a bit bigger in the bullet diameter.

But that's the kind of stuff that has to be done, just to keep us all interested.;)

December 29, 2002, 08:07 PM
I would like to see Marlin chamber their 1895 for two new cartridges.

1. A .45-70 necked down to .375. This would be head and shoulders above the .375 Winchester, and would make the Marlin lever rifle into a true 200 yard elk gun.

2. A .45-70 necked down to .30 caliber. .30-06 level performance (or better) in a handy lever action.

Glock Glockler
December 29, 2002, 08:13 PM

Would you have any ballistic data (external or terminal) on that round? I would be most obliged.

Hmmm, I wonder if we threw a new barrel on an AK would that round work?

December 29, 2002, 08:25 PM
Factory loaded rounds in : 17ackley hornet, .7.5X55 swiss, 9mm largo, 8x56S mannlicher,.358 Norma, 375 weatherby, and .404 (for your mid .40 round):cool:

December 29, 2002, 10:01 PM

I think that anything already developed is about as good as it gets & if not, who'd really care? Really. The diff between a .308 & a .30-378 is a bunch, but realistic? no so much.

Problem I see happening is the "new stuff" that we'll never get our hands on - all that new techno-stuff = wave radios 'n such. It'll matter down the road & really does suck that we'll have to use "mere" kinetic weapons against the "wave radios" in our next fight for freedoms.

hf well.

Back to basics. (sigh)

Sylvilagus Aquaticus
December 29, 2002, 10:09 PM
I know there's plenty of stuff that does it as well, but I'd love to see more 6.5 caliber cartriges legitimized, like the 6.5-06. Even if Winchester would produce the M70 in greater numbers in 6.5x55 I'd be thrilled, but then again, we've got .243's out the wazoo with 8% less case capacity than 6.5x55 and .308 with essentially the same weights. Kinda makes me feel 'bracketed'.


December 29, 2002, 10:32 PM

.338 win mag-ish performance out of a Featherweight has my fingers and toes tingling with excitement. Plain ol' .338 WM has plenty o'power, but everyone makes the rifles too heavy/stylish for hunting, as opposed to shooting.


December 30, 2002, 12:39 AM
7x39 AK

December 30, 2002, 01:21 AM
.50 ACP.

.35 Winchester Long Magnum Based on the .300 Winchester Magnum Case.

December 30, 2002, 10:43 AM
about the mid-.40 round based on the .50BMG have hit the 'on' switch in me.

Theoretically speaking, if you were considering at least some of the variables regarding a round of this type, where would you start.

Frohickey mentioned the .338 based on the .50BMG and throat erosion (a real problem). This is due to the velocity increase of expanding gasses through a much smaller hole. The neck acts as a venturi (rocket nozzle?). Burns and erodes the throat of the barrel, at the very least, in that cartridge. (An example off too much velocity, powder, or something).

Question. Given a known case maximum diameter (the .50 BMG, in this example), is there a 'better' neck size (interior dim), than the one used, that yields higher velocity without excessive throat erosion?

Second question. If the answer to the first question is 'yes', then is there an optimal shoulder angle for such a case that a) does not restrict gas flow too much, b) allows 'maximum' powder capacity. etc., etc.

Comment: I think this was one of the reasons that Roy Weatherby used his [I]fairly[I] unique neck design. In addition to avoiding the sharp transition into the neck at the interior of the shoulder than more 'conventional' sharp shoulders do, the longer transition allowed more powder in the case (in addition to the increased length required for the transition to a given bullet O.D.).

I'm not suggesting that this solution is the one to use here. Mainly because I am discussing an existing case, and it would be difficult (if not impossible) to go with Weatherby's solution for your average reloader.

Moving on. How does one come up with 'possible', reasonable answers to the first two questions?

Can you analyze the body of existing case design to find an 'ideal' ratio of neck size (I.D. = caliber) to case O.D., disregarding the actual dimensions of either.

If so, does this lead to a similar analysis of required or optimal shoulder angles?

I would think that we have good boundary conditions already. The existing .50BMG on the one hand, and an unsatisfactory limit on the other (the .338 dimension). Is there an accurate velocity/energy/trajectory solution between these two bounds?

I realize that this may be (and probably is) re-inventing the wheel. But heck, thats what this is all about.

December 30, 2002, 10:57 AM
The issues in my last post raise some other questions. In the example I'm using, i.e., necking down the .50 BMG, is there a barrel length that:

a) allows for efficient burning of the charge, resulting in max velocity


b) does not lead or contribute to erosion


c) results in as short as possible a time between max pressure, max velocity, and a return to ambient pressure in the bore?

This has to do with free recoil, in the end, although I'm sure one would desire a muzzle brake anyway. I know I would. But there is a time lag between ignition of the charge (firing), and the bullets exit from a barrel of given length. How much time (barrel length) do you allow for gas expansion. Heck, I haven't even gotten to twist issues yet. Still on interior ballistics issues.

Also, I'm not looking at a crew-served weapon. One person needs to be able to use the thing, after all.:cool:

50 Shooter
December 30, 2002, 11:37 AM
Have you looked into the .408 CheyTac? It's fairly new and tests have shown it to out shoot the .50BMG as far as accuracy goes and it will stay supersonic longer.

It's not cheap either, expect to pay at least $5 a round. The reloading stuff is out there but you'll have to do alot of experimenting on your own.

Rifles aren't cheap either, EDM Arms makes the .408 in their take down version that runs about 5K. I would assume that a custom bolt gun in .408 would probably set you back at least 3K. If you have the time and money, I'm sure you might be able to find someone to wildcat the .50BMG to .408.

Check out these links,

Jim Watson
December 30, 2002, 11:45 AM
The .50 BMG is so big it necks up better than down. There was some work done with a round called the 16mm Vega once upon a time. Guess that would be a Destructive Device for us commoners, though.

Mike Irwin
December 30, 2002, 12:15 PM
People have been saying this for a long time, but I'm of the opinion that everything that needs to be out there is already out there.

We hit "windowdressing" phase sometime early after WW II, or perhaps even before.

December 30, 2002, 01:08 PM
I'd sure play around with a...

338-08 :D

Art Eatman
December 30, 2002, 01:14 PM
From the standpoint of "need" in hunting cartridges, I agree with Mike. The Weatherby stuff, e.g., is "want". Nothing wrong with that, of course, as long as one keeps need separate from want.

Bullet and powder development is another story entirely.

I'd say the biggest "deal" in modern cartridges comes from the search for maximum accuracy in the world of Bench Rest competition. The other area of gun/cartridge development is in the realm of long-range target competition. Natcherly, this latter translates into the world of long-range varmint shooting...

The thoughts about "new" cartridges remind me of a lot of the custom car stuff, whether for show or for go. "I'm doin' it this way because I wanna and because I can."

:), Art

Jim Watson
December 30, 2002, 01:47 PM
Most of the calibers listed are available as wildcats, or something pretty close. And if yours isn't, all it takes is money, and not much of that, IF you are buying a custom rifle to begin with. A chamber reamer ground to your specs is not expensive compared with the barrel and action. And it will have your name on it.

December 30, 2002, 02:21 PM
It's hard to come up with anything that hasn't been done already (or something really close). That doesn't stop us from enjoying the idea that maybe we can come up with the perfect wildcat.

I like the .50 APC idea. Should work out in a 1911.

How 'bout a .40 x 39? It's not a long range cartridge to begin with, so why not add mass & area for more stopping power at relitively short range?

December 30, 2002, 04:59 PM

I second The 338-08

December 30, 2002, 06:32 PM
Mike Irwin and Art are right. No reason to fool around with this stuff except to say we did. But that's half the fun.

On the 408 Cheyenne. Yep. Seen it. But it's not what I'm after.
(Not that I wouldn't buy one, with unlimited funds).:D

Whoever mentioned the custom reamer point is also correct. Like I've said (in other threads or forums), with enough money, you can solve darn near any problem. Even a non-existant one.;)

I'm just thinking about something unique, but if it doesn't render a gain to the shooter, somewhere along the line, then yeah, it would be a waste of money.

Someone said that the 50 BMG is a better case to neck up, than down. Maybe true, I don't know. But as noted, you run into the DD/BATF problem (or whatever they changed the agency acronym to).

I still think there is a mid-.40 (.425-.475) caliber wildcat of the .50 BMG that would be a butt-kicker. Maybey it's larger, in the .475-.485 range. I'm looking for a weight for velocity trade that doesn't lose a boatload of downrange energy, yet is accurate at really long range. (Beyond today's extremes). Also, that doesn't burn barrels like an oxy-acetylene torch.

As a long range (pun intended) goal, I think I'm gonna clean-sheet this, from an engineering perspective. Ought to be time consuming. If nothing else, you usually learn something beneficial by finding out what won't work. Sometimes, the search takes you into a whole new, completely interesting area, that you had no intention of getting into when you started.

Heck, if someone asked me for a short definition of human existence, I don't think it would be far wrong to say it is all summed up as the search for something uncommon and 'new' (new being relative), just to say you did.

December 30, 2002, 07:14 PM
How are you gonna ever equal the .50 BMG it has ballistic coefficients over 1 . Nothing even comes even close in "downrange energy" retention in calibers smaller or bigger (except 20mm) that you can fire from shoulder. If barrell"scorching is an issue .338 Lapua is about as big and flat shooting as you can get. A .378 or 416 Weatherby fall far short of it as ranges exceed 600 yards. A 300grain BT .338 bullet flys flatter and retains energy better than anything bigger except .50bmg BT.:cool:

Art Eatman
December 30, 2002, 10:07 PM
With all the heavier bullets now available for hotshot .22s, I wonder how one of these Short Fat Magnums in .22 would do? Push something around 70 grains as fast as a Swift does with a 40-grain? :)


Jim Higginbotham
December 30, 2002, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by HSMITH
338 Win short mag, with slightly better velocity than the 338 win mag, in a Model 70 Classic Featherweight sportin' a 22" tube. Looking for just under 7 1/2 pounds with a sling, scope and 2 or 3 rounds in it. Would be BRUTAL on both ends, but the elk would need to be VERY afraid:D .

On another note I would like to see the VERY good 284 win chambered in more rifles on the shelf.

Interestingly enough one of my favorite gunshops has a set of RCBS dies labled ".338 WSM" - an odd designation since there is no factory cartridge and the wildcats usually list as caliber/parent case.

Who knows, maybe RCBS knows something we don't:)

Jim H.

December 30, 2002, 10:45 PM
Lest my first brain dump be misconstrued, I'm way in favor of those out there playing with their fave pets - makes for new stuff & who knows? maybe something very revolutionary come of it. We could only hope.

Nothing else, playing is in our nature & that, in itself, is plenty good enough for me.

Maybe the next real advance will be a barrel sleeve-thing that allows a quick switch-out replacement. 'Course, we've already pretty much got that with just a new barrel .....

Trying to think of the throat erosion, etc. sits we got for the high intensities.

I can envision a home-done switch-out thermal fit though. Hmmmm

December 30, 2002, 10:49 PM
Art I don't think it can be done practically. I have seen attempts at everything to try to get 68 or heavier bullets past 3700fps and it does not seem possible at least with 30 inch or shorter barrels. If you work with the old Powley"computor" wheel you'll see the expansion rates of powders cannot be funneled down .22 barrel to push heavy long bullets much past 3600fps. within "normal "pressure curves. Dr. Ramon Somavia of my local fame tried to get long heavy bullets going fast in early and mid fifties. Even with slow powders the best he could get .25 caliber 160 grain bullets to go was around 3600fps with overpressure rounds. 200 grainers went 3300fps with 416 rigby case necked down using .50 BMG powder. I have his .258 super condor with some of his old 160 loads which went 3550 out of 30" barrel when I last chrono'd them in 90. This is on 1917 action and it was HOT! This rifle has 20X Unertl programmer with ballistic drop setting for scope inside lens cap to 1000yds. verified by my tests.I saw other discarded barrels with notes on them . Like 416X.228 using 100 grain .228 bullets velocities were in same range 3600fps. I have friends that shoot .22-06 improved quick twist and they can only get 3600 fps from 75 grain .22 bullets with 28" barrels.:banghead:

Andrew Wyatt
December 30, 2002, 11:18 PM
I'd like to see a .375 WSM , a .450 WSM, and a .300 WSSM.

July 15, 2003, 03:10 AM
1. 358-39 for AKs, based on the whisper concept.

2. 700 grain 510 caliber with a shortened 378 Weatherby case for leverguns. :eek:

3. .375 Lazzeroni.

max popenker
July 15, 2003, 05:02 AM
Gabe wrote:
1. 358-39 for AKs, based on the whisper concept.

exactly that actually already done. see the 9x39mm cartridge on the pic below. sub-sonic heavy bullet, not the VLD, but the AP instead :cool:


July 15, 2003, 12:04 PM
"cleaner" version of the 7.62 x 39 round.

.30 caliber bore, and a rimless casing, maybe on the .308 W case size. Something like the .308x1.5 round. The idea is for a medium power hunting round, more accurate than the Russian round and better suited for a light semi-automatic rifle than the .30 WCF.

It would have to come in a new rifle. Perhaps something like a Ruger Mini, or an updated Remington Model 8. Something the size and shape of a 1894 Winchester, but semi-auto and designed to be used with modern scopes or red dots.

And to echo someone's call for a legitimized 6.5-06. That would be a long range thumper.

John Ross
July 15, 2003, 02:33 PM
Regarding necking down the .50 and barrel erosion: One partial cure is to design your case with a sharp shoulder and a LONG neck. There is less "sandblasting" effect in the throat (and more in the case itself) with this setup. My 6mm Ackley barrels go twice the rounds of those for my .243 Ackley.

Regarding necking up the .50 and getting a DD: Maybe not. The rule is "Military-type (or nonsporting) weapons with bores over 1/2 inch." A .577 or .600 Nitro is not a military type weapon. Neither is my 4-bore (1.000") or 2-bore (1.325") Your wildcat based on the .50 case might not be, either. You'd have to write ATF to get a ruling, but I think they'd have a hard time saying a single shot that fired cast bullets was a "military type (or nonsporting) weapon."


July 15, 2003, 04:10 PM
cheygriz, I also would like to see a souped up lever action round. I'm thinking something like .30-40 Krag +P would be cool, or maybe a .30-40 necked down to .25 cal, they could call it the .25 Krag or something...

If ya want to get really crazy, how about .30 Carbine necked to .17 cal?

Mike Irwin
July 15, 2003, 04:30 PM
"maybe a .30-40 necked down to .25 cal"

That, IIRC, used to be a fairly popular wildcat, actually.

There was also a British version using the .303 as the base.

July 15, 2003, 05:12 PM
I'd like to see a .40 caliber based on the .30-06.

With the winking smiley, I'm not sure if you're serious or not, but I think there's a Whelen cartridge that is a .40 based on the 30.06 case. I think it's called, oddly enough, the 40 Whelen.


July 15, 2003, 05:14 PM
Even if Winchester would produce the M70 in greater numbers in 6.5x55 I'd be thrilled

I love my Mod 70 Featherweight in 6.5x55. With a Leupold 2-7x33, it is just about right for "fun" shooting and hunting (or so I hope, this will be my first season with it). I took a leap of faith with the 6.5 swede based on what I read here and on TFL. I'm glad I did.


Mike Irwin
July 15, 2003, 05:26 PM
The .400 Whelen never made it for one very specific reason -- controlling headspace was nearly impossible.

The shoulder was far too small to be effective.

July 15, 2003, 06:46 PM
How about a .375 on a .338 Win mag case. (3.25 max over all length (98 mauser))
I have a .458-2" at work. It is a internally supressed mauser, based on a .458 Win Mag that is cut down to 2".
Really nice rifle. One of the quietest I've ever heard. Sounds like a powerfull airgun when fired. :cool:

July 16, 2003, 03:32 AM
I'd like to see a 6.5X60 with an "AI" type shoulder on the shortened 06 based case. The case volume would be just right for the expansion rate of normal propellants.
It would not be so far overbore as the 264 Mag. The projos would be of sufficient length and diameter to take advantage of the very latest in bullet technology. Very high BCs would be easily obtained. Recoil would be moderate. Long barrels and actions wouldn't be necessary.
I think we should call it the 260 AAR (All Around Rifle). Ooops, I think P.O.Ackley thought of this one!

If you enjoyed reading about "'New' cartridges I'd like to see." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!