What do you think is the most underrated handgun/rifle cartridges?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with the .257 Roberts.
I’ve killed more than 110 whitetail deer (lost exact count 20+yrs ago), also mule deer and pigs. A full 1/3 of my running total. All but five with the same rifle.

Curiosity has led me to explore dozens of other possibilities.
Currently the 6.5 Grendel is the object of my attention. A .257 Bob in an AR platform.

The .260 and 6.5 Creed are excellent me-Too’s.
My first love, the .30/06, is sometimes just a bit too much of a good thing. But, always “enough gun”.
 
.30 carbine in both rifle and pistol under 100 yards. I have a Ruger Blackhawk in .30 carbine and it is very accurate, hard hitting, and loud. I also really appreciate the .357 Mag in both a revolver an a Marlin lever gun as it is also hard hitting, accurate, and not as loud. For a longer flat shooting round I really like my old 6mm Remington.
 
There are a lot of great thoughts here. Along the idea of the .30 carbine.... I think the 7.35 Italian might have been ahead of its time. At least in concept. The metallurgical technically might have been lacking to make it happen in practice.
 
I’ve become a fan of the .32 H&R magnum in a small, 6-shot, snub nose revolver (.327 Fed Mag LCR, or one of the several discontinued S&W J-frames). 6 rounds in a pocket-size revolver, acceptable self defense power with some of the modern ammo options, and very, very shootable.
 
all the smaller handgun cartridges take a beating for self defense use - as if only for elderly or arthritic folks, and really - for an average person, any gun works the same since most are never fired, and infrequent shooters probably handle .22, .32, .38 far better than 9mm … never mind some of the hand cannons people immediately jump to during caliber debates.
 
.22LR

You can shoot it out to 200 yards fairly easy. You will learn a lot more with $20 worth of .22 than $20 worth of 308 or 9mm.

But most ranges are full of people shooting static targets at 7 yards with 9mm or 25 yards with an AR.
 
The list probably is 3 pages long.
I would say as posted above unappreciated fit better the 6,5x55 Sweden and venerable 45 Colt.
 
220 swift, 7.62x25 and 38 super.

I personally feel, considering how popular the 6.5cm is that the 6.5x55 doesn't get enough love.
 
The 40-82 of course, big enough to go after anything that goes bleat, and in its original configuration speeds out of the barrel at a near blistering 1500 fps. When the gas check came along back in '05 it became capable of an easy 1800 fps.

Enough of you haven't heard of it to underrate it. By 1910 it was probably dead, and in truth with smokeless, I can duplicate anything it'll do with the 40-65, same bullet, cheaper case formed from a 45-70, and a magazine capacity of one greater.

Another underrated number is the 38-70, made by taking the 45-90 case down past 40-82 dimensions to use the same bullet as the 38-55 or 38-56. Because of its rarity, Snooky Williamson in his classic lever action book said he knew practically nothing of it, having only killed fifteen to sixteen deer with it. I've killed about the same with it, enough to develop a considerable affection.
 
I think 30 carbine is under appreciated.
I don’t have any experience besides reloading them, and blasting various things with my carbine, so I can’t prove anything....
But I do like it a lot and think it’d be a mighty fine home defense cartridge

I agree. Considering "underrated " I cannot think of a better example. The round got a bad rap I joined the Corps in 1959. We were issued M1s. If I recall correctly I did not get an M14 until 1962. Before we received then the M1 was our battle rifle, and the M1 & M2 Carbines were still in limited use. Grunts would compare the rounds of the M1 and the carbine and seeing the extreme difference in size assume the 30. cal was too puny to be a good battle round. But that was a misjudgment. Use as it was originally intended it was an excellent round. It the Carbine was developed to give pistol issued personnel like office and weapons crews a more powerful effective than he 45 M1911.

In Nam grunts started wit the M14. M1 Carbines were.
 
I agree. Considering "underrated " I cannot think of a better example. The round got a bad rap I joined the Corps in 1959. We were issued M1s. If I recall correctly I did not get an M14 until 1962. Before we received then the M1 was our battle rifle, and the M1 & M2 Carbines were still in limited use. Grunts would compare the rounds of the M1 and the carbine and seeing the extreme difference in size assume the 30. cal was too puny to be a good battle round. But that was a misjudgment. Use as it was originally intended it was an excellent round. It the Carbine was developed to give pistol issued personnel like office and weapons crews a more powerful effective than he 45 M1911.

In Nam grunts started wit the M14. M1 Carbines were.

My Great Uncle developed a great liking for the little M1 carbine. He could put a rapid fire show on with one. I'll never be as good as he was in his prime. He learned on targets provided by the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top