Are New Cartridges Killing Old Cartridges or Is New Bullet Design and Technology?

no doubt there are still cartridges that sell well due to advertising,

Effective advertising is always a part of a well run marketing campaign. My point is rather that advertising can’t be daft any longer, and cannot make unsubstantiated and even idiotic claims which passed in the past.

Using your example of the “Zombie trend,” market analysis at that time proved folks would buy Zombie genre products (and I’d refute the claim prices were jacked by 30%, as I bought literally tens of thousands of Zmax bullets at equivalent and even discounted prices compared to Vmax’s - often because the Zmax products were marketed and sold in big batches which weren’t as readily available in Vmax’s at the time). It was pretty straight forward - the prepper fad had begun and naturally, ammo and component manufacturers loved the idea of consumers purchasing massive stockpiles, but the image of someone hoarding ammo and water in a hole they dug through the wall of their basement was falling somewhere between mall ninja, tinfoil hat, and killdozer, as the perceived potential of a high volume, sustained civilian engagement where such stockpiles were pertinent was (and is) largely imaginary. Enter The Walking Dead TV series, presenting a context in which holding high inventory volume to repel zombie hoards made considerable sense. How does a suburbanite justify owning tens of thousands of rounds of ammo, a tricked out arsenal of more guns than they could carry and effectively deploy concurrently, and maybe a big grill guard and oversized tires on their pickup they drive 12 miles each morning on paved roads to their office job, and how do they justify range time and training…? Civil devolution into anarchy is an imagined paradigm, so if you’re going to go, go big, and if where you’re going is “crazy,” then go big —> Zombies.

So market analysis at that time would show 1) customers want it, 2) product development costs are nill, and 3) payback is ONLY dependent upon higher volume sales by offering higher volume products to broader market buyers, with the only costs being advertising overhead. Slam dunk. They didn’t have to sell 2700 bullet boxes to a small market of preppers or small market of competitors, they could sell it to millions of fans of The Walking Dead, who kinda thought maybe it might not be a bad idea to have a bunch of defensive options available at hand, even if they weren’t ready to go full tinfoil hat in their own bunkers quite yet.
 
I’ll tell you exactly why, because a LOT of people share the same misconception, and it all stems back to a poorly written NRA Shooting Sports USA article about the conception of the 6.5 Creedmoor (and the online regurgitation of the misinterpretation thereafter).

The article opens by describing the Tubb 2000 rifle being used in XTC competition, and then describes the problems with the corresponding 6 XC design, which Dennis Demille set out to solve, which lead to his concept statement which Hornady engineers and ballisticians David Emary and Joe Thielen brought to life…

Most folks only remember the first names they read in any “history of ___” article, and unfortunately, David Tubb’s name is the first mentioned there.
Very well could be but my brain farts so much, it could've come from anywhere. :p
 
The .260 wasn't plagued with a slow twist like the .244. It was designed as a hunting cartridge with 120gr bullets and I'm 99% sure it does fine with 140's at hunting ranges.
Yes, that makes the .260 Rem - with the original Remington barrel - too slow in twist. It will not suitably stabilize a 10 gram or 160 grain bullet. Which is what made the 6.5mm caliber so successful. "But the lighter bullet goes faster, so it doesn't matter" said the hype.
CraigC said:
It just wasn't fast enough for 140's at 1000yds.
Obviously you've never heard about the Greenhill formula. Obviously you do not know that velocity once out of the barrel and spin rate are not linked.

CraigC said:
You can't just change the standard twist of a factory cartridge and expect people to figure it out, especially if it's not your cartridge.
Wrong again. The twist needed to stabilize a bullet is directly related to the ratio of diameter to length of the bullet.

CraigC said:
I'm fairly certain the 6.5 does just fine as a medium game round and in bolt actions.
It does. You obviously don't know about Walter Bell. He is known as the largest count of elephants killed in history. Favorite rifle was a 6.5mm Mannlicher. You should read the book by Mr. Bell titled The Wanderings of an Elephant hunter.
CraigC said:
I imagine more people shoot it through bolts than autos.
I am pretty sure that is a correct statement.



CraigC said:
Such as???[/QUOT]The question of 'what piques your interest?' Possibly the idea of 'new and improved'?
 
just to chime in, nothing does much more than the old cartridges do inside normal hunting distances. Inside 300 yards nothing gonna know the difference.

Right? Six pages in and all I can think is my 270W was the 6.5 CM 50 years ago….. the more things change, the more they stay the same. It’s still the Indian, not the arrow.
 
Yes, that makes the .260 Rem - with the original Remington barrel - too slow in twist. It will not suitably stabilize a 10 gram or 160 grain bullet. Which is what made the 6.5mm caliber so successful. "But the lighter bullet goes faster, so it doesn't matter" said the hype. Obviously you've never heard about the Greenhill formula. Obviously you do not know that velocity once out of the barrel and spin rate are not linked.
What are you talking about??? Adequate for its purpose. Too slow for the 6.5CM's purpose. Your assessment is dead wrong.


Wrong again. The twist needed to stabilize a bullet is directly related to the ratio of diameter to length of the bullet.
Duh?!? You obviously have understood nothing I posted.


It does. You obviously don't know about Walter Bell. He is known as the largest count of elephants killed in history. Favorite rifle was a 6.5mm Mannlicher. You should read the book by Mr. Bell titled The Wanderings of an Elephant hunter.
Context??? This was a response to your comment "But I have no use for a long range pure target rifle and especially not one intended for a semi-automatic rifle." What WDM Bell did is irrelevant. Most his elephants were killed with the 7x57.


I am pretty sure that is a correct statement.
The only thing you got right.


The question of 'what piques your interest?' Possibly the idea of 'new and improved'?
The only one here confused about what was "new & improved" is you. I've been fascinated by 6.5mm cartridges for decades, long before the 6.5CM. I bought the 6.5CM because it's easier to procure, easier to scope and easier to feed than that 6.5x54MS I used to lust after. Sorry I don't fit the Fudd mold for your "duped by marketing" stereotype.
 
Again I am amazed at how incensed everyone gets that some new cartridge is more popular than an older cartridge that has similar performance. In most cases the new cartridge is gaining popularity due to a combination of some minor technical advantage (ie fits in an AR-15 or a Short Action, or has more room for a longer bullet etc) and quality marketing. The fact that the new cartridge is more popular for whatever minor or even trivial reason does not mean your old tried and true has gotten worst. Why do so many act like it's some insult or affront to their identity that some new cartridge is being used more often and their favorite cartridge less for some particular activity. The converse is also true as we see some here that seem offended that someone does not upgrade to a new cartridge.

I like strange less than optimal cartridges if only to avoid the caliber wars...
 
Right? Six pages in and all I can think is my 270W was the 6.5 CM 50 years ago….. the more things change, the more they stay the same. It’s still the Indian, not the arrow.

Except that the .270W was actually something innovative in 1927. Options for a flat shooting cartridge then were .256 Newton, 7x57, 6.5x55, or a wildcat.

Men didn't wear their hair in buns back then either.
 
I think its a generational thing, young shooter love the new calibers and oldies like myself love the older calibers while we still enjoy shooting the new ones.
 
I think its a generational thing, young shooter love the new calibers and oldies like myself love the older calibers while we still enjoy shooting the new ones.

Some of the "old" members here really hate on the new cartridges and say silly things like they are never going to try them and the only reason they have is cause their old cartridge can do the same. What a silly reason to not try something new.

I am a middle age dude that loves them all old or new, the funkier the better.
 
Except that the .270W was actually something innovative in 1927. Options for a flat shooting cartridge then were .256 Newton, 7x57, 6.5x55, or a wildcat.

Um… what?

“At least that thing was innovative…. Except for the half dozen things which had done the same thing for decades…”
 
Um… what?

“At least that thing was innovative…. Except for the half dozen things which had done the same thing for decades…”
You are absolutely right, a lot of the new calibers a great but some are just blown and over hyped.
I will take the creedmoor for example. While is an awesome caliber, It is not all that.
 
You are repeating yourself Craig. This conversation is functionally dead.
That's what happens when people misunderstand, misinterpret and mischaracterize your comments.


Again I am amazed at how incensed everyone gets that some new cartridge is more popular than an older cartridge that has similar performance. In most cases the new cartridge is gaining popularity due to a combination of some minor technical advantage (ie fits in an AR-15 or a Short Action, or has more room for a longer bullet etc) and quality marketing. The fact that the new cartridge is more popular for whatever minor or even trivial reason does not mean your old tried and true has gotten worst. Why do so many act like it's some insult or affront to their identity that some new cartridge is being used more often and their favorite cartridge less for some particular activity. The converse is also true as we see some here that seem offended that someone does not upgrade to a new cartridge.

I like strange less than optimal cartridges if only to avoid the caliber wars...
Agreed.


You are absolutely right, a lot of the new calibers a great but some are just blown and over hyped.
I will take the creedmoor for example. While is an awesome caliber, It is not all that.
It's exactly what it was intended to be. Did you think it was supposed to supplant grand dad's old `06?
 
You are absolutely right, a lot of the new calibers a great but some are just blown and over hyped.
I will take the creedmoor for example. While is an awesome caliber, It is not all that.

Yeah, the hype is annoying. I do my best to ignore the hype and look at the data. But personally I am rarely looking for the greatest, bestest, super-duper cartridge but I tend to hunt with something that is interesting to me and sometimes that interesting is the cartridge or gun has some limitation I must overcome as part of my hunt. The fact that some new cartridge does things better than the cartridge I am currently interested in has absolute no impact on my enjoyment of the cartridge.

And to come back onto topic more it would seem that at least for Remington Ammunition introducing the new 360 Buckhammer has if anything breath a bit of new life into an old cartridge. In a recent article on shootingillistrated Remington Ammo talks about a bunch of new products and one line item jump out with regard to this thread.

  • Core-Lokt for 360 Buckhammer and .35 Remington
Look at that! a super new cartridge right next to an old venerable cartridge. I wonder if both cartridge are loaded with exactly the same Core-Lokt bullet?

ETA: a quick look at Remington Ammunition's website sure makes it look like the 200gr 35 Remington and 200gr 360 Buckhammer are going to use the same round nose Core-Lokt bullet.
 
Last edited:
Except that the .270W was actually something innovative in 1927. Options for a flat shooting cartridge then were .256 Newton, 7x57, 6.5x55, or a wildcat.

Men didn't wear their hair in buns back then either.

Funny you mention the .256 Newton since the only 6.5 CM I've ever owned was when I rebarreled a Savage 110 from 6.5-06 to the CM and then promptly sold the CM barrel and put on a new 6.5-06 barrel because the CM didn't meet my expectations. So in 2009 I basically decided that the CM wasn't as good for my application, at the time, a cartridge that basically came out 94 years before it.

I think its a generational thing, young shooter love the new calibers and oldies like myself love the older calibers while we still enjoy shooting the new ones.

That generalization sort of makes me laugh since I am part of the younger generations on this board, I'm one of those dreaded millennials, and with the exception of the 6mm CM I bought last week the newest cartridge that I currently own is the 223/5.56. Even including the 6mm that makes the average age of the cartridges that I currently own over 100 years old.

That being said I do buy and try a lot of new guns and a lot of them are in newer cartridges, I just tend not to keep them all that long as they either don't actually interest me or don't work quite as well as the one I already have.
 
I don't think it's necessarily a generational thing. I may have before but not now. Yeah, there's a good bit of crotchety old farts but in the last 10yrs, I have seen/heard more closed-mindedness out of younger folks than I would've ever expected to. There's a strong urge to conform among the younger generation and it seems to be stronger than in generations past. Some folks are just like that, regardless of age. I pride myself on being open minded (not in the way some 'may' take it) and judging these things based on merit. I may hunt all season with a hand built flintlock and I may switch to a 6.5Grendel AR during general gun season. I got excited about the .400Legend, not because I'm a sucker for "hype & marketing" but because I already have a love affair with the .38-40 and have long wanted to revitalize the .401Powermag. One of those is older than me and the other is a generation older than the 6.5Swede people keep bringing up in 6.5CM threads. I have more leverguns than any other rifle type, chambering obsolescent cartridges like the .32-20, .38-40, .38-55, .375Win, .405Win, .44Spl and .50-95. I was interested in the 6.5CM of my affection for the 6.5x54MS, 6.5Swede and 30yrs ago, the .260Rem. Yet because I make positive comments about the 6.5CM, I get lumped in with the stupid "man bun" stereotype.

I think it says more about the folks doing the generalizing than those they're generalizing about. It's juvenile, at best.
 
Back
Top