Here's the list from fewest issues to most. There are lots of ties.Kidding aside, I’d like to see your list and how you came to your rankings
More like the .30-40 Krag. Both it and the .30-06 are suited to a wide variety of big game. Both are poor designs.IMHO if the Garand had not been changed and kept the .276 Pedersen chambering, the 30.06 would be in the same class at the .45-70.
Bullets skip to and bounce off deer, unless you shoot as 6.5 Quagmire.
This also goes a long ways to explaining the runaway popularity of the 6.5CM. It's really hard to find something actually wrong with it, other than great-grandpa didn't shoot it in his service rifle.
It stops at .33 cal - criteria for dangerous game cartridges would be different. You could also argue the 8mms and .338s are getting short changed if intended as a a bear stopping/long range crossover.Heh, my 375H&H didn't even make the list. Sucks that I have to struggle with such an inferior cartridge.
It's on the list, and near the bottom for good reason.If he was Swedish he did.
Maybe you missed the part about it being for the reloader.Maybe I've slept under a rock, but I never see AI ammo in factory form.
If we are allowing such reloads on the list, then other wildcats should be too IMHO.
No Lazzeroni stuff on there
- Being a wildcat or dropped from manufacturer support
- Pressure limited by a population of weak actions (results in poor load data)
- Commonly offered with a twist rate insufficient to stabilize SD .300+ bullets at 0F/sealevel
- Excessive recoil
- Awkward size between common action sizes
- Requires a powder slower than Retumbo for top performance with heavy bullets
- Brass must be formed
- Limited brass (limited for parent if formed)
@Llama Bob - if your calculator is meant to be an objective technical comparison of cartridge design efficiency and performance, then I cannot support some of your scoring metrics.
Some of your metrics have nothing to do with the cartridge design, such you’re not making an honest and unbiased comparison of cartridge designs.
I culled out reasonable technical metrics, but unfortunately, more than half of your list remains. The list below reflects your metrics which are:
A) Subjective
B) Consider rifles, barrels, components, and markets, rather than cartridge design
C) Are irrationally biased against common reloading practices or components
So in reviewing the “cartridge design comparison” you have made, I will state, it absolutely does not appear to actually be a comparison of cartridge designs, but an amalgam of random market influences, cartridge design features, rifle design features, and reloading considerations.
@Llama Bob - if your calculator is meant to be an objective technical comparison of cartridge design efficiency and performance, then I cannot support some of your scoring metrics.
t's on the list, and near the bottom for good reason.
All those factors matter to the reloading western hunter,
Nope. Because of a large number of design flaws that make it less useful than it otherwise could be.Because the 6.5 Swedish ballistics are over 120 years old?
It takes time, money, and effort which could otherwise be spent on shooting. It's not a fatal flaw - several cartridges with less than ideal brass supplies appear high on the list. But it is a downside. Just like having to swage your own high-SD bullets because the caliber is full of slow-twist cartridges isn't impossible, but is a substantial downside.I’m sure there are plenty of reloaders who are scared of fire-forming cartridges.
Nope. Because of a large number of design flaws that make it less useful than it otherwise could be.
Would you care to list that long list of design flaws?
Requires an unusual/intermediate size action
All problems the 6.5x55 has that the CM fixed.
- Excessive taper
- Insufficient shoulder angle
- Requires an action bigger than equivalent cartridges
- Requires an unusual/intermediate size action
- Pressure limited by a population of weak actions (even the euro flavor)
But the factors I included are objective, and do matter to a large number of reloaders and for good reason.
But the factors I included are objective,