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

[Archie]

I think the 'move away' from 'old' cartridges to 'new' is mostly advertising.

Some cartridges are essentially old cartridges in new wrappings and better suited to shorter actions. For instances, the 7mm-08 is pretty much the 7mm Mauser (performance) in a shorter package using higher chamber pressure. Should be a useful round. The .260 Remington is essential a 6.5mm/08 or a shortened and suited for higher chamber pressure 6.5x55mm. The .265 Creedmore is very much a .260 Remington with slightly changed shoulder angles.

Belted cartridges. Sales pitch. It's a deeper rim with an extractor groove. Makes more noise, develops a bit more velocity. Doesn't result in real difference. Good for bragging rights.

.30 WCF is still functional and useful for those who understand hunting. (I just don't like lever guns, but that's beside the point.)

 

[mcb]

.30 WCF is still functional and useful for those who understand hunting. (I just don't like lever guns, but that's beside the point.)

I would argue that is the point. 300 Ham'r doesn't do anything a good 30-30 can't do except 30-30 works best in a lever gun and 300 Ham'r works best in a AR-15. 6.5 Creedmoor and 6.5x55 Swede are very similar and yet 6.5 CM is size to fit in the modern short action bolt gun that 6.5x55 cannot fit in. There are heaps of examples of cartridges with very similar ballistics but optimized to work with a particular action. The marketing no doubt plays a role, especially early in a cartridges existence in most cases, but if the performance is not there the new cartridge fads away pretty quickly once everyone sees through the hype.

 

[jmorris]

Every time I turn around there is a video or article that the 30-06 is going obsolete. Well it is still in the top ten list but seldom #1.

Well, I think I would be doing pretty good if I can still make the top ten when I am 117 years old, in anything. Top 10 is pretty far from dead.

 

[CraigC]

I think the 'move away' from 'old' cartridges to 'new' is mostly advertising.

Some cartridges are essentially old cartridges in new wrappings and better suited to shorter actions. For instances, the 7mm-08 is pretty much the 7mm Mauser (performance) in a shorter package using higher chamber pressure. Should be a useful round. The .260 Remington is essential a 6.5mm/08 or a shortened and suited for higher chamber pressure 6.5x55mm. The .265 Creedmore is very much a .260 Remington with slightly changed shoulder angles.

And those differences aren't advertising, they're real, they exist. The 6.5CM has advantages over the .260, the main being standard twist rate. Just as the .260 operates at higher pressure than the 6.5x55 and it actually fits a short action, the same can be said for the 6.5's standard twist rate. The .260 was designed as a hunting cartridge with 120's. The 6.5CM was designed as a long range target cartridge with 140's. Since they needed a faster twist, they went ahead and concocted a new cartridge that optimized other aspects of its performance. Which is why the 6.5CM has a longer neck and sharper shoulder. Which allows the longer 140gr bullets to protrude less into powder capacity, while still fitting the AR10 magazine.

I like to think that I buy what I buy because it interests me or has a purpose. Or both. Do you really think people see an ad and run out and buy a firearm?

 

[Cowhide Cliff]

Depends on what you are doing with it. For hunting purposes the new ones will do nothing the old ones won't do just as well.

Most new ones are pushing the heavy for caliber bullets for higher bc and accuracy but you can accomplish the same thing with a custom chambered gun in one of the older calibers. Example the old 284 Winchester has been a recent go to for 1000 yard F class chambered to use 180 grain and heavier bullets.

 

[CraigC]

Depends on what you are doing with it. For hunting purposes the new ones will do nothing the old ones won't do just as well.

Most new ones are pushing the heavy for caliber bullets for higher bc and accuracy but you can accomplish the same thing with a custom chambered gun in one of the older calibers. Example the old 284 Winchester has been a recent go to for 1000 yard F class chambered to use 180 grain and heavier bullets.

Yep. Part of the point of the 6.5CM was to have a factory offering (guns & ammo) that would be competitive.

 

[Varminterror]

I think the 'move away' from 'old' cartridges to 'new' is mostly advertising.

I would challenge the opposite - a lot of old cartridges were only popular because of advertising, whereas marketing in the modern era is much, much more challenging.

Advertisers of older generations were able to sell absolute BS as truth, and unwitting consumers would buy it. My favorite example is the absolutely RIDICULOUS Weatherby advertisement that their rounds were so powerful that they would kill game even without hitting vitals… Nobody is buying BS advertising like that any more. Word travels fast around the world now, and it’s harder to fool consumers, so marketing has to do a much better job of delivering upon actual desires, rather than convincing someone a vacuum would change their life, just because they said it would.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

didn't the 30-06 kill the 30-40 Krag?

Yep -- although the Army switching over so soon was also a key issue. Krags just weren't around all that long.

The Krag did have a good reputation -- the long, heavy 220 grain bullet at around 2,000 fps was an efficient elk, grizzly and moose killer, compared to a 150 grain at around 2,700 from the .30-06.

 

[Archie]

I would challenge the opposite - a lot of old cartridges were only popular because of advertising, whereas marketing in the modern era is much, much more challenging.

I do hope you're not referring to many rounds that did better or at least equal to many 'new' rounds.

Advertisers ... were able to sell absolute BS as truth, and unwitting consumers would buy it.

I think I object to the word 'unwitting'. Perhaps 'non witting' but perhaps that is what you meant. I have to agree in the case of muzzle velocity. Much of that seems to be rather optimistic estimates.

My favorite example is the absolutely RIDICULOUS Weatherby advertisement ...

Yes, I have to go along with your comment regarding the entire Weatherby concept basis.

Nobody is buying BS advertising like that any more.

Yes, they are. Except the claim is "new and better". Stressing high velocities while downplaying the light bullets. And/or the notion that muzzle energy is the first consideration.

In reality, Varminterror, we pretty much agree. Perhaps some difference in specific issues, but the same concept.

 

[Archie]

And those differences aren't advertising, they're real, they exist. The 6.5CM has advantages over the .260, the main being standard twist rate. Just as the .260 operates at higher pressure than the 6.5x55 and it actually fits a short action, the same can be said for the 6.5's standard twist rate. The .260 was designed as a hunting cartridge with 120's. The 6.5CM was designed as a long range target cartridge with 140's. Since they needed a faster twist, they went ahead and concocted a new cartridge that optimized other aspects of its performance. Which is why the 6.5CM has a longer neck and sharper shoulder. Which allows the longer 140gr bullets to protrude less into powder capacity, while still fitting the AR10 magazine.

Remington made a bad mistake. Twice. Once with the .244 Remington and then with the .260 Remington. They assumed users would prefer a light bullet in both cases. So the .243 Winchester (very much the same as the .244 Rem except for rate of twist, and that's a rifle different, not a cartridge difference) ran off and became a success. Very similar story with the .260 Rem. Conceived as a lighter bullet load the factory used a slow twist.
The 6.5CM is likely a wonderful round. But I have no use for a long range pure target rifle and especially not one intended for a semi-automatic rifle.

I like to think that I buy what I buy because it interests me or has a purpose. Or both. Do you really think people see an ad and run out and buy a firearm?

I don't you well enough to tell, but YES, people do run out and buy a new firearm all the time. Mostly as it's 'new' and in many cases, they think it will improve their shooting. By the way, "..because it interests me..." brings up some thoughts.

 

[Archie]

I would argue that is the point. 300 Ham'r doesn't do anything a good 30-30 can't do except 30-30 works best in a lever gun and 300 Ham'r works best in a AR-15. 6.5 Creedmoor and 6.5x55 Swede are very similar and yet 6.5 CM is size to fit in the modern short action bolt gun that 6.5x55 cannot fit in. There are heaps of examples of cartridges with very similar ballistics but optimized to work with a particular action. The marketing no doubt plays a role, especially early in a cartridges existence in most cases, but if the performance is not there the new cartridge fads away pretty quickly once everyone sees through the hype.

I like what you say, but I aver the preference for the AR platform is due to advertising and hype. One cannot take a deer unless one is outfitted to repel a human wave attack.

 

[mcb]

I like what you say, but I aver the preference for the AR platform is due to advertising and hype. One cannot take a deer unless one is outfitted to repel a human wave attack.

I think you are right for some people but I think part of the push to hunt with AR's is a result of a pushback against the various attempt to ban them. During the 94 AWB the anti-side kept saying you don't need and AR to hunt deer, so when the AWB sun-setted many manufactures set out to make the AR a very capable hunting rifle, Hence cartridges like 450 Bushmaster, 30 Remington AR, 300 Ham'r, 350 Legend etc. I personally have done all my hunting with an AR for the past 6-7 years. But with only 4rd 450 BM and 30 RAR magazines I hope the human wave attack is slow...

 

[Varminterror]

Except the claim is "new and better". Stressing high velocities while downplaying the light bullets. And/or the notion that muzzle energy is the first consideration.

Which cartridges, in particular, are marketing on these specific claims?

Muzzle energy increases and high velocity numbers really haven’t been part of most rifle cartridge marketing schemes for a long time, getting us back almost 20yrs to the WSM/204Ruger ad campaigns.

 

[citizenconn]

ramble...ramble...where there is money to be made....ramble...ramble

You, sir, seem to be a ramblin' man.

 

[citizenconn]

True true. I wouldn’t mind handing about 3-4. But to have 20 or something, nah, too much for me to handle.

Me, too. That is why my dear old Dad is relegated to all of our reloading duties since he retired. Plus it keeps him off the golf course so much. I think we are at probably 13-14 different chamberings for reloading and will add a couple this year.

 

[Varminterror]

300 Ham'r doesn't do anything a good 30-30 can't do except 30-30 works best in a lever gun and 300 Ham'r works best in a AR-15. 6.5 Creedmoor and 6.5x55 Swede are very similar and yet 6.5 CM is size to fit in the modern short action bolt gun that 6.5x55 cannot fit in.

THIS is “marketing.”

We know a market desire - folks asked for the efficacy of a 30-30 or a 6.5x55, but NOT in a long action which is too long for the x55, and NOT in a levergun… so marketers heard that desire, determined there was sufficient demand to pay off the development, retooling, registrations, and advertising, and the market demand was met.

Big difference between that and fabricated markets and blatant lies in advertising.

 

[citizenconn]

And those differences aren't advertising, they're real, they exist. The 6.5CM has advantages over the .260, the main being standard twist rate. Just as the .260 operates at higher pressure than the 6.5x55 and it actually fits a short action, the same can be said for the 6.5's standard twist rate. The .260 was designed as a hunting cartridge with 120's. The 6.5CM was designed as a long range target cartridge with 140's. Since they needed a faster twist, they went ahead and concocted a new cartridge that optimized other aspects of its performance. Which is why the 6.5CM has a longer neck and sharper shoulder. Which allows the longer 140gr bullets to protrude less into powder capacity, while still fitting the AR10 magazine.

I speculate that the 6.5 CR was a happy circumstance of Hornady finding a use for the case of the .30 T/C which was a dud. As popular as .30 cal chamberings have been in the US, they probably thought the .30 T/C was a shoe-in to eventually replace the .308. They just did not understand the inelastic nature of the .308 Win in the market. Imagine if the 6.5 CR was designed first, then the .30 T/C (renamed the .30 Creedmoor) was released once the 6.5 CR started taking off. Would the .30 T/C (nee CR) be a big hit today? Or did they luck their way into a caliber where there really wasn't a strong standard in the US by picking the 6.5? The 6 CR has not become nearly as popular as the 6.5, with other 6mms becoming more popular is long range shooting. Only time will tell if the newish 22 CR will make a dent in the existing 22 cal market.

The 6.5 CR was designed as a long range target round that happens to be a pretty good medium sized game hunting round as well, with very similar trajectories to the .300 WM with about 40% of the recoil. I don't have the need to use anything more powerful for the hunting I do and if I did I'd use one of my PRCs that I also bought for longer range target shooting but that also happen to be excellent hunting cartridges.

If I had already been invested in a .300 WM for reloading would I have bought a .300 PRC? Probably not, though I do like the newer case design of the PRCs. I still have my .30/06s, .270s. 260s, and .243s and don't plan to sell them anytime soon. I think having more options is more better.

 

[Varminterror]

Would the .30 T/C (nee CR) be a big hit today?

No.

We’re seeing it firsthand already - there’s no logic to the story you presented. The 6.5 creed became popular because it is NOT a 308win, and other than the Fuddery of the April Fools gag a couple of years ago, there has been no interest in 30 Creed, and I have scantly heard about even 7mm creed… whereas 22, 25, and 6mm creed are enjoying great market share. Why? Because we’ve realized the low BC bullets of the 30cal pills light enough weight classes to really be well utilized by a case which only accepts ~42grn of powder don’t do as much as what can be done with the 6-6.5mm bullets being used in the same case.

What would be the marketing strategy for a 30 Creedmoor? Recall the 6.5 creed’s success - hey, it’s like a 308 but with less recoil, flatter shooting, less wind drift, and better retained energy! And then the 6 behind that - hey, it’s like 6.5 creed, but with even less recoil, even flatter, and fast enough to have even less wind drift out to 1000-1200yrds. And behind that, the 22 creed - hey, it’s even LESS recoil, and even flatter shooting…

What would be the pitch for the 30 creed? Oh hey, it’s just like 308 which we didn’t want any more, so it drops and drifts more, loses energy faster, and recoils more than 22, 25, 6, and 6.5 creed… barf…

 

[CraigC]

Remington made a bad mistake. Twice. Once with the .244 Remington and then with the .260 Remington. They assumed users would prefer a light bullet in both cases. So the .243 Winchester (very much the same as the .244 Rem except for rate of twist, and that's a rifle different, not a cartridge difference) ran off and became a success. Very similar story with the .260 Rem. Conceived as a lighter bullet load the factory used a slow twist.
The 6.5CM is likely a wonderful round. But I have no use for a long range pure target rifle and especially not one intended for a semi-automatic rifle.

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. It just wasn't fast enough for 140's at 1000yds. Because it was never intended to be a 1000yd target cartridge. Which is why the guys shooting it in PRS blew out the shoulder and used a faster twist barrel. 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. So they just fixed everything else with it while they were at it.

I'm fairly certain the 6.5 does just fine as a medium game round and in boltactions. I imagine more people shoot it through bolts than autos.

By the way, "..because it interests me..." brings up some thoughts.

Such as???

I speculate that the 6.5 CR was a happy circumstance of Hornady finding a use for the case of the .30 T/C which was a dud.

Hornady didn't design the 6.5CM.

 

[Varminterror]

Hornady didn't design the 6.5CM.

Hornady didn’t initially conceive of the project, but Dennis Demille of Creedmoor Sports approached David Emary and Joe Thielen of Hornady to do the design and development work.

 

[CraigC]

For some reason I was thinking David Tubb designed the cartridge.

 

[WisBorn]

I feel that there are cartridges that are still alive only because of boutique ammo manufacturers and handloaders. With new rifles made by custom shops only. I was happy to see that Browning was still cataloging its BLR in 358win and a few rifle producers listening the 35 Whelen.

Ron Spomer has a YouTube short out about a need for a new 25 caliber.
We have the 6mm cm this will help with more high BC bullets in 24 caliber adding value to the 243win and 6mm rem.
God knows that we have enough 26 calibers, but a fast twist 264win can benefit from the high bc bullets.
How about a 257 PRC new bullets for the 257 Weatherby and 25-06. Watch out pronghorn antelope here we come. Not that I would reach out any further or even get lucky to draw a tag. It would just makes the shots easier for estimating the wind that is always blowing on the prairie...

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I would challenge the opposite - a lot of old cartridges were only popular because of advertising, whereas marketing in the modern era is much, much more challenging.

A few years ago, Hornady and several other companies figured out that if you just put the word Zombie on the package and increase the price by 30%, that the rounds will sell like hot cakes. It was a short-lived gimmick over a couple of years and production has now ceased, but they made a lot of money doing it.

Marketing in the modern era is likely more challenging because people are exposed to a wider variety of advertising and are probably a little better informed about options (or have access to the information to be informed if they want to be) than people, say 50 years ago. There are also a lot more cartridges/loadings/bullets available right now. However, no doubt there are still cartridges that sell well due to advertising, all the way down to how cool the labeling is on the product box.

Along similar lines, Sightmark (optics company) and Eotech came out with Zombie optics and Sightmark had other products (e.g., flashlights) with the Zombie label that sold quite well. Sightmark was able to actually rebrand some common products that weren't moving as well and turn them into good sellers. Eotech even went with a biohazard reticle. Marketing. It is a wonder.
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1008732197 (Eotech biohazard zombie holosight still for sale)

 

[Varminterror]

For some reason I was thinking David Tubb designed the cartridge.

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.

 

[.45Coltguy]

I feel that there are cartridges that are still alive only because of boutique ammo manufacturers and handloaders. With new rifles made by custom shops only. I was happy to see that Browning was still cataloging its BLR in 358win and a few rifle producers listening the 35 Whelen.

Ron Spomer has a YouTube short out about a need for a new 25 caliber.
We have the 6mm cm this will help with more high BC bullets in 24 caliber adding value to the 243win and 6mm rem.
God knows that we have enough 26 calibers, but a fast twist 264win can benefit from the high bc bullets.
How about a 257 PRC new bullets for the 257 Weatherby and 25-06. Watch out pronghorn antelope here we come. Not that I would reach out any further or even get lucky to draw a tag. It would just makes the shots easier for estimating the wind that is always blowing on the prairie...

Can't speak for the .257 PRC or the .257 Weatherby, but, pronghorn and a few mule deer have certainly died pretty quickly to my .25-06 using 120gr Hornady Interlock FB and H4831sc powder. Rifle is a Ruger MkII "All Weather". A wonderful combo.