Rounds that make you wonder, "what's all the fuss about?"

Status
Not open for further replies.
A caliber that is almost as powerful as 7.62x39. Almost as cheap to shoot if you make your own bullets and reshape and reload discarded .556 brass.
I'm not in the least interested in subsonic 30 cal rifle rounds, even though I own multiple suppressors.
I have a couple x39 uppers and have built several. I wonder if I built more and labeled them '300 blackout magnum'- it might start a fad.
 
A lot of fighting in the Civil War was dune under 100 yards by men standing abrest firing in volley.


Average combat distances in wars is an interesting and highly debated topic. This article is has a very informed discussion of combat distances in the Civil War

The Rifled Musket in Civil war Combat Evolution or Revolution?

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/th...il-war-combat-evolution-or-revolution.128269/

Something that should not be forgotten about Civil War battles is field artillery. Field batteries would literally sweep lines of infantry away. Based on my own examination of the battery position at Poe Field, charging Confederate Infantry were exposed 200 to 400 yards away from the Union Artillery which wiped them from existence. Particularly memorable is the grim statement by a Union cannoneer that "we bury our dead".

A Little of Chickamauga http://www.online-literature.com/bierce/768/ by Ambrose Bierce

Units did conduct bayonet charges, there are accounts of Officers using swords as their units were over run, and Cavalry did sword charges. However, getting close meant accepting a lot of causalities before getting within arms length of the enemy.

It is interesting to read that small arms engagement distances really have not changed since WW1, and therefore, probably not since the Civil War:

Infantry rifle combat distances unchanged since World War I

http://donaldmsensing.blogspot.com/2003/06/infantry-rifle-combat-distances.html

During the recent Iraq campaign, US Marine riflemen were interviewed about their experiences by after-action interviewers.

Almost all interviewed stated all firefight engagements conducted with small arms (5.56mm guns) occurred in the twenty to thirty (20-30) meter range. Shots over 100m were rare. The maximum range was less than 300m. Of those interviewed, most sniper shots were taken at distances well under 300m, only one greater than 300m (608m during the day). After talking to the leadership from various sniper platoons and individuals, there was not enough confidence in the optical gear (Simrad or AN/PVS-10) to take a night shot under the given conditions at ranges over 300m. Most Marines agreed they would “push” a max range of 200m only.


At these close ranges, maybe the military ought to go back to the 45/70, with smokeless powder of course. I am of the opinion that a mammal hit with a 500 grain soft lead bullet is going to experience more wound trauma than one hit with a 110 grain FMJ.
 
Last edited:
Average combat distances in wars is an interesting and highly debated topic. This article is has a very informed discussion of combat distances in the Civil War

The Rifled Musket in Civil war Combat Evolution or Revolution?

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/th...il-war-combat-evolution-or-revolution.128269/

Something that should not be forgotten about Civil War battles is field artillery. Field batteries would literally sweep lines of infantry away. Based on my own examination of the battery position at Poe Field, charging Confederate Infantry were exposed 200 to 400 yards away from the Union Artillery which wiped them from existence. Particularly memorable is the grim statement by a Union cannoneer that "we bury our dead".

A Little of Chickamauga http://www.online-literature.com/bierce/768/ by Ambrose Bierce

Units did conduct bayonet charges, there are accounts of Officers using swords as their units were over run, and Cavalry did sword charges. However, getting close meant accepting a lot of causalities before getting within arms length of the enemy.

It is interesting to read that small arms engagement distances really have not changed since WW1, and therefore, probably not since the Civil War:

Infantry rifle combat distances unchanged since World War I

http://donaldmsensing.blogspot.com/2003/06/infantry-rifle-combat-distances.html

During the recent Iraq campaign, US Marine riflemen were interviewed about their experiences by after-action interviewers.

Almost all interviewed stated all firefight engagements conducted with small arms (5.56mm guns) occurred in the twenty to thirty (20-30) meter range. Shots over 100m were rare. The maximum range was less than 300m. Of those interviewed, most sniper shots were taken at distances well under 300m, only one greater than 300m (608m during the day). After talking to the leadership from various sniper platoons and individuals, there was not enough confidence in the optical gear (Simrad or AN/PVS-10) to take a night shot under the given conditions at ranges over 300m. Most Marines agreed they would “push” a max range of 200m only.


At these close ranges, maybe the military ought to go back to the 45/70, with smokeless powder of course. I am of the opinion that a mammal hit with a 500 grain soft lead bullet is going to experience more wound trauma than one hit with a 110 grain FMJ.
We are getting off topic, but today's battlefields move at a much faster pase then those of the Civile war or WWll.
It's a matter of supply and demand, or should I say demand and supply. The modern battlefield eats up ammo. If the demand for the ammo can not be supplied the soldiers can not fight. Larger bullets = more weight and space. That = less you can carry, less you can fight.
In combat I carried over 300 rounds of 5.56 on my person. The average Iraqi had no more then 90 rounds of 7.62 x39. I would hate to have tried to carried 300 rounds of 45/70.
We engaged some at approximately 500 meters one day. I assure you that their heavier bullets cause us no trouble at that distance. But at the end of the day I had ammo left over and an AK that someone no longer had use for.
Back on topic:
There have been many different rounds come and go over the years. Some have faded into obscurity, some still survive on our reloading benches.
I have wondered why the 16 gage is still hanging on and the 28 gage has gone by the wayside. But then the 410 is still riding happy. Out of the three, I would prefer the 28 gage, but that's just me.
 
I've got a list of rounds that make me scratch my head in either amusement or confusion. In the end, it's your money, buy and shoot whatever you like. But these make me wonder "Why?"

Revolvers:
.41 magnum and special. Does nothing that can't be found in many other more common calibers.
Quite a few of the .32 offerings. The majority of them are anemic or merely ballistic clones of each other.

Autoloaders:
.25 Auto. Self explanatory.
.40 S&W Offers nothing not found in other pistol calibers and a weak imitation of the 10mm
.45 GAP Answer to question nobody asked

Rifles:
Short Action magnums. Apparently, you need a bigger cartridge. Time for a long action.
about half of the .30-06 derivatives. The .25-06 and .35 Whelen are notable exceptions.

Shotguns:
28 gauge I want to like it because I've seen some beautiful guns chambered in 28. But it does nothing that can't be accomplished with a 20ga at less than half the cost.
3 1/2 inch 12 gauge. It's nothing more than a 10ga load done wrong. The shot pattern is too strung out in flight. All you effectively hit with is a hard recoiling 12 gauge.

Now the ones that we'll never miss if they go away because they've been obsoleted by either more efficient cartridges or firearm manufacturing processes:
.380 ACP 9mm pocket pistols are as small or smaller now. No reason to shoot the .380 anymore.
.22 WMR has been supplanted by the .17HMR in accuracy, range and terminal performance.
.22 Hornet for the same reason.

Probably more than were once at the top of their game but have been supplanted by advances in engineering. But I'm tired.
 
The advantage of the 6.5's is the higher BC bullets available and the ability to drive them fast without punishing recoil. That doesn't really matter at 100 yards. That starts to matter at several hundreds of yards.
Yes.
There is a reason the 6.5's (esp. 6.5x47 Lapua) are the dominant calibers in Long Range (600 yd., 1000 yd), and High Power rifle silhouette competitions. I use 6.5x55 SM for High Power rifle silhouette, myself, just because I don't shoot well enough to justify a custom rifle in 6.5x47....:notworthy:
 
Last edited:
Maybe over-hyped is as far as I'd go.
As much as it's over-hyped by fans it's probably misunderstood by detractors.
It's not about energy, energy is actually a very poor benchmark for performance anyway.
It's about easy, it's easy to convert/build an AR and get it to run, it's easy to load for and easy on the pocket book.
It's accurate within reason and has enough oomph to double as a 100-150 yard deer/pig gun.
 
As stated above, the .300BO is highly misunderstood. Where it really shines is with suppressors. No, the average 200-220gr .308" bullet is not going to expand at subsonic velocities because they're designed for the .300 magnums and people shooting game with those bullets has contributed to any negative reputation it might have. If those folks had used bullets designed to expand at subsonic velocities, the story would be very different. The bonus to the .300BO is that it can also be used to great effect on deer-sized game at supersonic velocities and for this, bullets like the 110gr Barnes do very well. The .300 is able to play this dual role that the .223 is not very well suited to, because a subsonic .223 is just a .22LR. It's a specialized cartridge, not intended to replace your .308 or .223. The .30 Carbine comparison is invalid as well. The Carbine is not only slower with 110gr bullets but it is completely unsuitable for 220gr bullets due to limited overall length and twist rate. Not even in the same ballpark.

IMG_0397b.jpg
 
Most of these are easy.

.41 magnum and special. Does nothing that can't be found in many other more common calibers.
The .41Mag offers much the performance of the .44Mag with less recoil. While never factory offered, it would work in a mid-frame Ruger Blackhawk. The .41Spl fits easily into .357 sized guns, a bigger hammer in a similar package.


.40 S&W Offers nothing not found in other pistol calibers and a weak imitation of the 10mm
Like the .41Spl, it offers a bigger bullet in a 9mm sized package with only slightly increased recoil. Neither can be said of the 10mm.


Rifles:
Short Action magnums. Apparently, you need a bigger cartridge. Time for a long action.
It's not just about action length. The short action magnums are more efficient cartridges and work better in shorter barrels. As noted in another thread, the .338Ruger offers .338-06 performance in a rifle that is 4" shorter and a full pound lighter than a comparable .338WM. Same for cartridges like the .375 and .416Ruger. They duplicate the performance of the bigger cartridges in a shorter, lighter rifle.


...about half of the .30-06 derivatives. The .25-06 and .35 Whelen are notable exceptions.
This is a sport of increments. Everything has an incremental advantage or disadvantage compared to something else. There is no one size fits all cartridge, rifle/handgun or optic. And not everyone views these things as tools. Some folks just find some things more interesting than others. The .30-06 bores me to tears but the .338-06 and .35Whelen are far more interesting.


28 gauge I want to like it because I've seen some beautiful guns chambered in 28. But it does nothing that can't be accomplished with a 20ga at less than half the cost.
Whereas I find that the 28ga fits into a lighter package that hits just as hard as a 20. My 28's weigh ~5lbs. I see no disadvantage at all.


Now the ones that we'll never miss if they go away because they've been obsoleted by either more efficient cartridges or firearm manufacturing processes:
.380 ACP 9mm pocket pistols are as small or smaller now. No reason to shoot the .380 anymore.
.22 WMR has been supplanted by the .17HMR in accuracy, range and terminal performance.
I disagree with these entirely. Just like the 9mm, the .380 fits into smaller guns. Guns the size of yesterday's .25's and .32's. With the proliferation of guns like the Keltec, S&W Bodyguard and Ruger LCP, I'd say the .380 is probably more popular now than ever.

The .17HMR has greater effective range than the .22Mag but the latter is still a better choice for larger predators and varmints out to 150yds. With standard 40gr loads, you're doubling the mass of even the heaviest .17 offerings and that counts for something.
 
Yes a large, slow moving soft lead bullet will do more damage, that's why everyone hunts with a muzzleloader today. Right??
Modern high velocity cartridges mostly just gain us range and the conveniences of metallic cartridges. Muzzleloaders are extremely devastating within their effective range.


The 4570 Gov. is a great cartridge also. So why did we need the 450 Marlin?
To match .45-70 +P in a factory loaded cartridge.
 
Last edited:
.380 ACP 9mm pocket pistols are as small or smaller now. No reason to shoot the .380 anymore.
Tell that to my daughter that is missing the lower part of her right hand. She does not like to shoot my Glock 43, but loves her Glock 42.

My answer is "because my shoulder needed to be adjusted", 450 Marlin is, by a wide margin, the most painful 2 rounds I ever fired :(
Try shooting a big bore Winchester 94 chambered in 458 Rogers Express.
 
Uh, what???
My daughter had a bone tumor and her little finger on her right hand. After two failed surgeries to remove the tumor they amputated the finger and the lower part of her hand.
28uo7et.jpg

She found the recoil of the 9mm Glock 43 uncomfortable so I got her a 380 Glock 42. She loves the little gun.

So as you can see. Just because someone feels there is no need for something, doesn't mean that someone else doesn't have a need for it.
 
My daughter had a bone tumor and her little finger on her right hand. After two failed surgeries to remove the tumor they amputated the finger and the lower part of her hand.
28uo7et.jpg

She found the recoil of the 9mm Glock 43 uncomfortable so I got her a 380 Glock 42. She loves the little gun.

So as you can see. Just because someone feels there is no need for something, doesn't mean that someone else doesn't have a need for it.

Shooting left handed isn't an option for her? I'm right handed but left eye dominant so I can use my left hand OK. Is she right eye dominant too?
 
.380 ACP 9mm pocket pistols are as small or smaller now. No reason to shoot the .380 anymore.
Except that there is a lot of great .380s out there. Just because you don’t like them, well whatever.

.45 GAP Answer to question nobody asked
A bigger bullet coming out of a smaller gun. I think I may have heard that question somewhere.
 
Shooting left handed isn't an option for her? I'm right handed but left eye dominant so I can use my left hand OK. Is she right eye dominant too?
She is right handed and left eye dominant. She shoots long guns left handed but refuses to shoot a handgun left handed. But we all know how women can be. Or maybe she just wanted her daddy to buy her a new gun.
 
I agree, it's a sport of increments and many people enjoy tinkering with the niche rounds. More power to you, if that's what you enjoy. I play with model trains. Not everyone's idea of a good time. Same principle. From a purely pragmatic point, the vast majority of the cartridges offered in the last fifty or more years could vanish overnight and we'd plug along just fine, as they have far more common and "close enough" counterparts. But i also agree, that would be less fun.

Perhaps I was looking at the question too broadly, figuring in cost and availability along with performance. And apparently I don't see the attraction for quite a few of people's favorite rounds! Oh well. If we all thought the same, there would be no point to these forums.

As for the .45 Gap, I'll stick hard to that one. Compare the dimensions of the Glock 37 to a 1911. Darn close. Then realize that there are much smaller .45 ACP pistols on the market. So what exactly did Gaston accomplish? Diddly squat.
 
Last edited:
If I was reading correctly MSWS can cut a barrel to the contoured of your liking .
My barrel is not that heavy.
View attachment 233787 View attachment 233788

For those that like the 357 Sig. I bet you could get an AR barrel
A shooting bud of mine, is also an avid deer hunter. He lost too many deer with the 300 Blackout at dusk and stopped using the cartridge. The deer would run off after a good shot placement and he would not find them until the next day, hundreds of yards from where they were hit. This was in areas where the distance was under 50 yards! Bud switched to a AR10 type rifle in 308 Winchester and even then, had problems with bullet expansion through the rib cage. The hunting bullets he is using (I think they were Hornady) would not expand through the thin flesh. Deer would run off and die hundreds of yards later. He altered his point of aim so bullets hit between the shoulder and the neck, and after that, deer drop and die within yards of the point of impact. He has made a couple of three hundred yard shots with his 308 Win and been very happy with the results.

Military rounds have declined in power since the American Civil War. LaGarde, in his book “Gunshot Injuries”, 1914, stated that Civil War muskets created worse wounds than the service rounds of the period. There are lots of pictures and commentary on the wounding capability of round ball and musket balls, and it is all bad. Horrific wounds resulted when one of those huge soft lead bullets hit bone. I have read numerous books from Civil War Soldiers, no one complained about a lack of stopping power, solid hits were immediately disabling. LaGarde's contemporary rounds were 6.5 Swede, 7 mm Mauser, 303 British, 30-06 and 8mm Mauser, etc. It is interesting to find that early 303 British ammunition was lacking in stopping power compared to the 577/450 Martini which resulted in the infamous "Dum Dum" expanding bullets. All of the early, powerful smokeless military rounds have very flat trajectories out to 300 yards, (especially compared to blackpowder rounds) and lethality at 1000's of yards. Militaries wanted neither the recoil, blast, and heavy weight of these pre WW1 cartridges and had decided not to train their cannon fodder to a level of marksmanship to take advantage of the range of the WW1 era full power cartridges, so by the time you get to WW2, Armies are introducing “intermediate” cartridges. Intermediate cartridges are by their very concept, attempts to find the absolute minimum in acceptable lethality. As such, while they will kill, they don’t cause as much trauma as the earlier rounds, and so, animals hit with these rounds had a tendency “not to stay down”.


The 300 Blackout is a latest offering of an intermediate round, and as such, the hoopla is greater than the power of the round.




Was your friend using Subsonic or Supersonic? And with or without a suppressor?
 
A shooting bud of mine, is also an avid deer hunter. He lost too many deer with the 300 Blackout at dusk and stopped using the cartridge. The deer would run off after a good shot placement and he would not find them until the next day, hundreds of yards from where they were hit.
Your friend was probably one of those using the wrong bullet. Not the fault of the cartridge.
 
From a purely pragmatic point, the vast majority of the cartridges offered in the last fifty or more years could vanish overnight and we'd plug along just fine, as they have far more common and "close enough" counterparts.
Looking at it that way there've been dang few cartridges introduced in the last 50 years that really see commercial success enough to supplant older cartridges.
Lot's that get hyped in gun rags and get a few folks to jump on the wagon only to coast into another tiny niche.
 
My daughter had a bone tumor and her little finger on her right hand. After two failed surgeries to remove the tumor they amputated the finger and the lower part of her hand.
28uo7et.jpg

She found the recoil of the 9mm Glock 43 uncomfortable so I got her a 380 Glock 42. She loves the little gun.

So as you can see. Just because someone feels there is no need for something, doesn't mean that someone else doesn't have a need for it.

AMEN !!! :thumbup:
 
She found the recoil of the 9mm Glock 43 uncomfortable so I got her a 380 Glock 42. She loves the little gun.

So as you can see. Just because someone feels there is no need for something, doesn't mean that someone else doesn't have a need for it.
"That's for sure and for certain!" (Mathew Quigley)
Even I found the recoil of the Glock 43 I traded off Saturday uncomfortable, let alone how my wife with her arthritic wrists felt about it. But she loves her Glock 42.
Not to change the subject, and certainly not to imply that your daughter might be able to handle a different 9mm, Gunny, but the reason I traded my Glock 43 in on a Smith M&P Shield 9mm was because my own daughter bought a Shield 9mm for herself a while back, and she let me shoot it a few days ago. To me, the difference in felt recoil between it and my Glock 43 was amazing. So on Saturday, I traded in my Glock 43 on a Shield 9mm for myself.
I doubt my wife will ever be able to use it though. For one thing, with her arthritic wrists, she doesn't have the strength to rack it. But it doesn't matter anyway - as I said, she loves her Glock 42, and she knows how to use it. So, your daughter and my wife make at least 2 people that have a need for something that others might feel "there is no need for."
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top