Least useful modern caliber?

[BURN]

Yesterday, 03:46 PM #86
silent flatulence
member



Join Date: January 9, 2010
Posts: 26 The least useful round for me is the .45 acp. From what I've read it's just a slow heavy round with a rainbow trajectory, and mainly created so an old man named jeff cooper could shoot them through overpriced finicky 1911 guns and make fun of all other calibers.

JMB Forgives you...

 

[philuk44]

Seems to me I read that Jeff Cooper wrote that if you go to a gun fight with a .25 it should be empty since if you shoot someone with it it may piss them off and they will beat the crap out of you. FRJ

As I recall Col. Cooper said " If you shoot someone with a .25 and he finds out about it you might make him mad".......

Phil

 

[trol79]

I didnt read someone mentioning flobert amonition like 4 or 6 mm flobert, I have airguns that are more powerful. or aren't they modern enough ?

 

[lebowski]

None of the above.

More choices are better than fewer. There are lots of calibers out there I don't shoot and probably never will, but I don't see how there existence diminishes my shooting enjoyment one iota. If somebody else wants it, I have no problem with it being around.

 

[biohazurd]

I agree anything over .44 magnum is pretty much useless to me anyway, .25 ACP comes to mind also...

 

[NWCP]

Since you specified modern caliber I would have to say the FN 5.7x28. A cartridge looking for a reason to exist. Some close runners up in my way of thinking are the .357 Sig and the Ruger .327 Mag. for the same reason. JMHO

 

[Gungnir]

I've been thinking about this for a couple of days, I do agree the 357 sig seems to be a solution looking for a problem. Although it's not so bad as my top two.

IMHO the winners are the 6.5 Grendel and 50 Beowulf.

The Grendel because to be perfectly honest lies directly between the 5.56mm NATO and 7.62 NATO, and doesn't really add that much to either, it's a compromise round, slightly more powerful than the 5.56 and slightly less powerful but flatter than the 7.62, I can't honestly see any application for it.

The Beowulf to me is just a means for people to say they have a 50 cal rifle I really can't see any purpose other than that. If you want a real fifty, go buy a BMG.

Now add into this that ammo is only available from Alexander Arms, and you have perhaps the least useful calibers. If Alexander goes under, who's making your ammo, sure you can reload, but what if you don't reload, or want to.

 

[jackstinson]

The thing is that .25 ACP does not do anything that .22 LR does not do equally well or better, and at a far lower cost.

.25acp most certainly DOES DO SOMETHING BETTER THAN .22LR.....it shoots in .25acp chambered pistols (and one submachine gun).
Just because some people may not have a use for a particular cartridge, doesn't mean no one does. I have a lot of .22 Short and .22LR pocket pistols also, but the ammo is hardly interchangeable between those and my .25acp pistols. No ammo, no shoot.

Actually.....all the hate for .25acp here may be incorrect from the start. The thread does say "least useful MODERN caliber". The .25acp has been around for 105 years...it is hardly a modern cartridge.

 

[mesinge2]

Actually.....all the hate for .25acp here may be incorrect from the start. The thread does say "least useful MODERN caliber". The .25acp has been around for 105 years...it is hardly a modern cartridge.

Actually, what I meant by "modern" is that they still make new guns for these calibers.

Sorry for any confusion.

I only put "modern" to avoid calibers like the 11.25x36mm Montenegrin and other "obsolete" calibers


__

 

[Full Metal Jacket]

useless: 25acp. not cheap like the .22rimfire, costs as much as 45acp most of time, and is little more effective than a BB gun in a defensive situation.


327 magnum and 45GAP, although passing fads, are not useless in a defensive situation.

 

[MinnMooney]

all of the WSSM's

I've checked the 2 gun manufacturers - Browning and Winchester - who used to make rifles for the "new & exciting WSSM cartridges that really push the limits over their old counterparts and will make those old cartridges obsolete". Well, guess what. Both companies quit production after just 4 or 5 years so that will leave their customers in a real bad way. I'm sure that several ammo mfg'rs will continue to produce ammo in .223WSSM, .243WSSM & .25WSSM for another year or three but one by one they'll drop out and then it's all up to those who reload (and can find brass).

This has been happening way too often lately. The "propriatary" ammo is the worst. Only one rifle mfg and 1 ammo producer conjure up some new & fantastic cartridge that will revolutionize the shooting/hunting world. Then it goes nowhere so they both drop it and leave their customers hanging. Have you bought into the "Etronx" or "WSSM" hype only to see the value of your expensive weapon drop by 50-75%?

 

[Manco]

The Grendel because to be perfectly honest lies directly between the 5.56mm NATO and 7.62 NATO, and doesn't really add that much to either, it's a compromise round, slightly more powerful than the 5.56 and slightly less powerful but flatter than the 7.62, I can't honestly see any application for it.

I think the main benefit of the 6.5mm Grendel caliber is that it extends the effective range of engagement over 5.56x45 on the battlefield, even if it doesn't pack quite the punch of 7.62x51 (it doesn't take as much space or weigh as much as the latter, either). This is what has been lacking of late in some theaters (e.g. Afghanistan), and in addition it should give the M4 (and other carbines), which by some measures is marginal against human targets with 5.56x45 and a 14.5" barrel, a much-needed boost in close-range terminal ballistics. Any intermediate caliber would do the same (e.g. .280 British ), but among them, I like the 6.5 Grendel's higher ballistic coefficient.

Then again, if there isn't going to be widespread adoption by the military, then its usefulness for other applications is more limited.

 

[TonyRumore]

9mm Federal
.356 TSW

 

[Erik M]

I will have to jump on the bandwagon with .25acp.

personally I cannt see a market for the .327 stuff, I'll never own one.

 

[orionengnr]

.25
.32acp
.327MAG
.357SIG
.40S&W
.45GAP

any "Short Magnum" rifle cartridge, etc...

 

[bonza]

Bugflipper said:

a 41 cal on a 9mm case

How exactly would one go about seating a .41 caliber (10mm) bullet in a 9mm (.355") case?
Back in the mid-19th century some Plant revolvers were chambered for reverse-tapered cartridges, but they loaded & extracted through the front of the cylinder.....don't think it's going to work in an auto!!

 

[bigalexe]

don't think it's going to work in an auto!!

Actually if you could eject cases forward it would work, and also it would be quite nice if it worked really well because then cases would be flying away from you. However seating the cases in the chamber would be an issue because most cases seat based on the rim on the rear of the cartridge, whereas seating the cartridge backwards would require a rim on the front. Not to mention I would imagine it would be harded to produce a rolled front rim on a cartridge and keep it consistent than it is to fold the back.

 

[Stophel]

I might have said .223, but it is good for shooting groundhogs.

 

[David4516]

"Ain't nothing wrong with the 30-40 Krag."

+1

I'm a big .30-40 fan

I must disagree with the majority here. I often carry my .25ACP Beretta. I find it to be very reliable and accruate. I've tried small .32 cal pistols like the Kel-Tec and don't care of them. For example I found the P32 much more difficult to shoot.

So my logic is that I'd rather hit the bad guy with a .25 than miss him with a .32

As, as has already been mentioned, the .25 will function more reliably in a semi auto than the .22LR will.

I also agree with everyone else on the WSM calibers. I just don't see the advantage to them...

 

[DeepSouth]

Man this one is easy!

Nagant 7.62MM

I win.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Yeah, gotta go with .25 acp.

With honorable mentions to:

--.45 GAP (obvious)
--.32 acp (now that new .380s are smaller than the old .32s, why?)
--.460 S&W (it's a .45-70 with inferior pistol bullets)
--5.7x28 (ehh, ok, I see what it's for, but doesn't help those of us without full-auto)
--.357 Sig (good idea during the 10-round limit era of 94-04, but not anymore)
--.300 RUM or any .300 "ultra-mag" (overbore, overly brutal, and under-performing)
--The new Ruger short mags (late to the party; already been done to death)
--.450 Bushmaster (what's wrong with the .458 soccom; I forget)

even better. .380 auto, why have a gun that no one can find bullets for?

Ouch!

I'm reserving judgment on the .327 Fed mag (gets you 1 more round), the .204 Ruger (perfect goldilocks harmony between velocity & BC, blast & recoil, for varmints?), WSSMs and RSAUMs (fit in an AR rifle), WSMs (no belt), .30 RAR, and some others....

 

[skoro]

The term "least useful" brings to mind two extremes.

Too small: 25acp

Too big: .500 magnum

 

[Majik]

25 acp sounds like some backfired market ploy to get ppl that want something bigger than a .22

 

[Ed Ames]

25 acp sounds like some backfired market ploy to get ppl that want something bigger than a .22

Yeah... which is why it has sold steadily for 105 years.

 

[Majik]

you might be right