Charlie98
Member
Whew! Good thing I didn't buy into the 6.5CM fad. I couldn't take it if I showed up at the range with yesterday's darling of the dance.
Whew! Good thing I didn't buy into the 6.5CM fad. I couldn't take it if I showed up at the range with yesterday's darling of the dance.
My 308’s identify as 6.5’s. One tried to get an operation, but they reamed it too big and it’s a 30-06 now.Just tell the guys at the range that your 6.5 Creedmoor self-identifies as a 6.5 PRC, you’re groovy...
I guess I could potentially be convinced otherwise if someone could explain what it's supposed to be for...
Or anything of the sortas does the 6.5 cm as well as the 308
At the point people stop buying new toys. Till then there will be a new "something" to appease the masses.At what point does a new cartridge become pointless?
Now, even with my hopelessly outdated 11th edition, finding a cartridge niche that has not been filled by an existing cartridge is extremely hard. I would say, just about impossible. At what point does a new cartridge become pointless?
That’s me. Just got a new 7 Mag. Would I prefer a Creed? Probably, but .020 of an inch difference isn’t gonna sway me one way or another.Personally I love the 7rem mag,
finding a cartridge niche that has not been filled by an existing cartridge is extremely hard. I would say, just about impossible. At what point does a new cartridge become pointless?
Counter-point, with the burden passed back to you to provide evidence:
At what point does a cartridge niche become “filled”?
c coefficient and performance at long range. I wish more people would go to CMP Talladega and attempt to keep all their shots in the X ring at 600 yards, then they might understand that 1000 yards is a heck of a long way.
At what point does a new cartridge become pointless?
I shot a match yesterday, none of the 1,000yrd targets were only 10”.
When a niche becomes infinitely small. I have always had problems with the infinitely small. Took a while, seeing how infinite sums converge, to accept calculus, but I still don't like the infinitely small. I can understand infinitely big, but infinitely small is incomprehensible.
Just like the proliferation of all those cartridges in which the differences between them, are infinitely small.
I don't have a good, definite, alternate way to evaluate a cartridge, but what I have seen, based on reading in print magazines that go back more than a century, is that we have been taught to evaluate cartridges through mass marketing. The end goal, is maximizing profit for the Corporations, but that is invisible to the community. In print gunwriters have had over a century to hone the theory and practice of in print salesmanship. We believe, because we have been taught to think as they do, that certain specific characteristics are desirable, are the only proper characteristics that a cartridge must have, and thus, that is what we want in our cartridges. We think as we have we been taught. As our teachers want us to think. And as good students, we believe what we are told. If you read the literature of a century, you see changes, which are driven by the wants of the shooting community, so it is not all one sided.
As an example, I remember the great wild cat period where velocity was the one and only thing. The faster the bullet the better.
Anyone remember this?
View attachment 798143
I have seen cartridges, the next great things, sold as better than what is on the market, because the cartridge was shorter than a 30-06 but equaled the performance of a 30-06 at 300 yards. Someone thought that was enough, but I did not think the length of a 30-06 was intolerable.
A current trend is to sell cartridges based on their ballistic coefficient and performance at long range. I wish more people would go to CMP Talladega and attempt to keep all their shots in the X ring at 600 yards, then they might understand that 1000 yards is a heck of a long way. But I have noticed in the press, that 1000 yards is being treated as so 1980's, and the real thing is 2 mile performance. You know, when a cartridge is being sold as better than the competition because it is better at 1200 yards, that is getting to the infinitely small.
Things I do see ignored with cartridge roll outs are a number of issues, one being cartridge capacity. I think this is important how many rounds can you carry in a flush magazine. I don't like protuberances sticking below the weapon, they stick on things and make the weapon uncomfortable to carry in the hand. So when a weapon goes from five rounds in the mag, to three, I think that is undesirable. I also think 10 round single stack magazines that stick down further than the keel of a boat, will end up, so to speak, grounding on the sand bar. Another characteristic is barrel life. How long is the accuracy life of the barrel? A good match blank is $300 and a gunsmith is going to charge about $300 to turn, chamber, and install. Most of these 6.5 cartridges have barrel lives less than 2000 rounds, at full throttle. Two thousand rounds go very quickly. Thirty caliber barrels are generally acceptable between 3500 to 5000 rounds. Also differences in lethality are treated with psuedo science or ignored totally. This is a topic that will take several lifetimes to address and is still not full resolved. But if the end goal is hunting, is the new cartridge more or less lethal than what is on the market and how is that determined?
Still, I think a good exercise would be where to place this cartridge in the pages of Cartridges of the World. Trying to find a spot to rack and stack this cartridge, between all the existing cartridges, or justifying a totally new chapter, would be a good task. It would force you to think about characteristics and what are important characteristics and defining characteristics. Between what two cartridges would this one fit, or, it is so new and revolutionary, that it requires a new chapter by itself? That would be a good think.
Perfect answer.....When neither the military or civilian market wants it.
The ten ring on the F class target is one MOA, 10" at 1000. Some still shoot paper.
That was my point. Shooting X rings isn’t the only purpose for shooting 1,000yrds.
I had an AR that was a variant off of the WSSM, necked up to .358. Great round, but getting brass was spotty at best.The WSM’s and WSSM’s don’t have such luxury.
The 6.5 Creedmoor doesn’t suffer from brass availability issues like the WSM and WSSM’s. ....
You will get faster pit service if you keep them all in the nine ring or better
Yet.
When a niche becomes infinitely small.