Most Worthless Rifle Caliber
- Thread starter greg531mi
- Start date
- Status
JohnBT
Member
Sport shooting? What's sport shooting got to do with anything? 
Some of you folks have upset a few .17HMR owning members at RFC. Maybe I should tell them that the major discussion here centers on .223 vs. .308 and whether or not there really are different shades of tactical black.
John
Some of you folks have upset a few .17HMR owning members at RFC. Maybe I should tell them that the major discussion here centers on .223 vs. .308 and whether or not there really are different shades of tactical black.
John
Black Snowman
Member
17 HM2, but it wasn't on the list. For someone who is a much better target shooter than I it might have merit, but it's flatter shooting than 22 lr is a moot point at the ranges I can hold a gun steady at. For me it's the most redundant, but that wouldn't be the case for everyone, as illustrated by the fact it was made.
Brian Maffei
Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2002
- Messages
- 128
Funny...
I just ordered 1,000 rds. of worthless .30 carbine, and they actually charged me money for it. I think I got scammed.
I just ordered 1,000 rds. of worthless .30 carbine, and they actually charged me money for it. I think I got scammed.
<<<(Help! Somebody stop me, please!)
Another "worthless" one IMO: The .50 BMG.
What in this world does sports shooting need with such an overpowered hole-puncher?>>>
But I'm sorry for the folks in CA who have had their freedom to choose this "worthless" caliber taken away by an act of stupid PC legislation.
Hope everybody recognizes that I was mostly joshing.
Another "worthless" one IMO: The .50 BMG.
What in this world does sports shooting need with such an overpowered hole-puncher?>>>
But I'm sorry for the folks in CA who have had their freedom to choose this "worthless" caliber taken away by an act of stupid PC legislation.
Hope everybody recognizes that I was mostly joshing.
mustanger98
Member
QUOTE]Can I do a write in vote for the 45 GAP?[/QUOTE]
Exactly what gap does it fill? (I know, Glock Auto Pistol)
I don't see where they said it'll do anything .45ACP won't do. Only difference is Glock wanted a cartridge with their name on it. Sound familiar?
Exactly what gap does it fill? (I know, Glock Auto Pistol)
I don't see where they said it'll do anything .45ACP won't do. Only difference is Glock wanted a cartridge with their name on it. Sound familiar?
Cosmoline
Member
The usefulness of the 7.62x39 will be justified for all time because of two factors: SKS and AK-47
I've always disliked the .30 Carbine, though. Why didn't they use a rimless .357 Magnum which could be loaded into a revolver with half moon clips?
I've always disliked the .30 Carbine, though. Why didn't they use a rimless .357 Magnum which could be loaded into a revolver with half moon clips?
I always wondered why they didn't make the M-1 Carbine in 45 ACP. It is true that the ACP has pretty bad ballistics if you want any kind of range but out of a rifle it would do a little better. Out to 150 yards it should still have been OK for the purpose that the M-1 Carbine was made for.
But I digress...
Today at the shop I work at I stumbled across and old Vetterli rimfire. I realized that no matter how useless some cartridges are to me, they are very useful to someone.
I still think that the 45 GAP and the .450 Marlin are unnecessary.
But I digress...
Today at the shop I work at I stumbled across and old Vetterli rimfire. I realized that no matter how useless some cartridges are to me, they are very useful to someone.
I still think that the 45 GAP and the .450 Marlin are unnecessary.
MagnumCaliber357
Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2004
- Messages
- 305
my vote, the .41 short. my uncle used to have a derringer chambered for it. it was only good for the smallest of roddents
WhiteKnight
Member
Actually, my rifle-sighted 870 is doing quite well, thanks.
WhiteKnight
Member
Well, if you're saying that it is worthless because it's simply a much flatter trajectory version of a 30/06 with lighter bullets, than, well, I disagree.
However if the .270 seems to you to be a bastardized form of the '06, then you should have put your vote towards the SSMs, as they are the redheaded stepchildren of the already guano .270.
cracked butt
Member
I wouldn't turn my nose up at a rifle chambered in any of those cartridges, they all have uses for one thing or another.
IMHO the most useless cartridge is the .25 Remington
IMHO the most useless cartridge is the .25 Remington
ojibweindian
Member
Where's the .25ACP in this list? All those listed have some merit; the .25ACP, though, is a different story. Too weak to be used for self defense, and it isn't much good for anything else, either.
HankB
Member
In response to the original poster . . . I have to say, his comments about the .17 HMR have merit. Expensive as heck . . . if I wanted a very small varmint cartridge with less bark than a .223, I'd get a .22 Hornet. Today's .17 HMR reminds me of yesterday's 5mm Remington Magnum rimfire with a better press package. (And now we have TWO .17 rimfires that aren't interchangeable!)
.30 Carbine . . . not much use for one. Maybe war stories I heard from veterans with 1st hand experience about this cartridges inability to reliably down an enemy soldier have colored my opinion.
.204 Ruger . . . this oddball proprietary cartridge is an answer in search of a problem. (I'd also add Ruger's .480 in here, too.)
7.62x39 . . . here, we start to part ways. This is good, cheap plinking ammo, considerably more potent than .30 carbine, and is cheap to shoot in extremely reliable AK-pattern rifles and extremely cheap SKSs. Mild recoil, adequate for deer . . . and did I mention it was cheap to shoot? Sometimes, price is, in itself, an endearing quality.
And bad mouthing "all MAG cartridges" including the .375 H&H . . .
I've found - first hand - that the .375 is darned near ideal for large game, including lion, hippo, a couple of Cape buffalo, etc. Badmouthing the .375 is borderline heresy!
Personally, though, I'd add the new "short magnum" cartridges to the list. Despite what the writers in the gun rags insist, I've never found saving 1/2" of length in the action to be significant, or even noticeable. So cartridges like the .300 WSM and it's NON-interchangeable twin from Remington just hold no interest from me. Nor do the spinoff cartridges. Maybe the short & stubby case will have some attraction for hardcore benchrest shooters, but not me.
Still puzzled at the .450 Marlin and .45 GAP. Oddballs both.
Likewise the super-duper .300's like the .300/.378 Weatherby. I'm no acolyte of Jeff Cooper, but I think he has it right when he says that if the .30/06 isn't enough, you need more bullet, not more velocity.
.30 Carbine . . . not much use for one. Maybe war stories I heard from veterans with 1st hand experience about this cartridges inability to reliably down an enemy soldier have colored my opinion.
.204 Ruger . . . this oddball proprietary cartridge is an answer in search of a problem. (I'd also add Ruger's .480 in here, too.)
7.62x39 . . . here, we start to part ways. This is good, cheap plinking ammo, considerably more potent than .30 carbine, and is cheap to shoot in extremely reliable AK-pattern rifles and extremely cheap SKSs. Mild recoil, adequate for deer . . . and did I mention it was cheap to shoot? Sometimes, price is, in itself, an endearing quality.
And bad mouthing "all MAG cartridges" including the .375 H&H . . .
I've found - first hand - that the .375 is darned near ideal for large game, including lion, hippo, a couple of Cape buffalo, etc. Badmouthing the .375 is borderline heresy!
Personally, though, I'd add the new "short magnum" cartridges to the list. Despite what the writers in the gun rags insist, I've never found saving 1/2" of length in the action to be significant, or even noticeable. So cartridges like the .300 WSM and it's NON-interchangeable twin from Remington just hold no interest from me. Nor do the spinoff cartridges. Maybe the short & stubby case will have some attraction for hardcore benchrest shooters, but not me.
Still puzzled at the .450 Marlin and .45 GAP. Oddballs both.
Likewise the super-duper .300's like the .300/.378 Weatherby. I'm no acolyte of Jeff Cooper, but I think he has it right when he says that if the .30/06 isn't enough, you need more bullet, not more velocity.
ChiefPilot
Member
Some rounds suck, others are good rounds put into sucky guns. The .30 carbine might not be "all that and a bag of chips", but I absolutely love my M1 carbine. That alone makes it a descent round for me. I've used it for plinking and small game hunting, and cost-wise it isn't any more than .223 ($160/1000 rounds).
Fumbler
Member
Haha, you got me on that one. What I was really refering to was shooting game like fox or varmints at extended (compared to a shotgun) ranges.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Quote:
--------------------------------
I don't think it was exactly worthless, just unnecessary, but my vote is for the .32 Winchester Special. After all, why did we ever need another deer cartridge that duplicates the .30-30? For a time I owned a very neat mid-1950's Winchester 94 in this caliber, but kept wondering: WHY?
--------------------------------
The .32 Winchester Special was developed to provide a cartridge that could be reloaded with black powder. This has been "debunked" and "rebunked" -- but the upshot is the Winchester catalog in which the .32 Special first appears says it was designed to provide a reloadable cartridge with black powder.
About 40% of the combustion products of black powder are solids, and they foul bores badly. The surface area of the bore, of course, is what is fouled, so there is a balance point between caliber (which determines surface area per inch of bore) and the amount of black powder you can burn in that barrel.
In those days, smokeless powder was something of a mystry to the average handloader -- and the available powders were rather touchy. Many an old-timer liked the .30-30 but wanted to reload it with black powder.
The .30-30 (.30 WCF) is out of balance for black powder -- it would foul too quickly. By slightly enlarging the bore, to .32, Winchester got a cartridge that would work with both smokeless and black powder.
Another cartridge that fell into this out-of-balance situation was the .22 WCF. You would think it would have been an instant success, offering as it did the Holy Grail of a reloadable .22. But it never made it because it held too much black powder for the .22 bore.
Only when smokeless powders suitable for such a small case was it resurrected -- as the .22 Hornet.
--------------------------------
I don't think it was exactly worthless, just unnecessary, but my vote is for the .32 Winchester Special. After all, why did we ever need another deer cartridge that duplicates the .30-30? For a time I owned a very neat mid-1950's Winchester 94 in this caliber, but kept wondering: WHY?
--------------------------------
The .32 Winchester Special was developed to provide a cartridge that could be reloaded with black powder. This has been "debunked" and "rebunked" -- but the upshot is the Winchester catalog in which the .32 Special first appears says it was designed to provide a reloadable cartridge with black powder.
About 40% of the combustion products of black powder are solids, and they foul bores badly. The surface area of the bore, of course, is what is fouled, so there is a balance point between caliber (which determines surface area per inch of bore) and the amount of black powder you can burn in that barrel.
In those days, smokeless powder was something of a mystry to the average handloader -- and the available powders were rather touchy. Many an old-timer liked the .30-30 but wanted to reload it with black powder.
The .30-30 (.30 WCF) is out of balance for black powder -- it would foul too quickly. By slightly enlarging the bore, to .32, Winchester got a cartridge that would work with both smokeless and black powder.
Another cartridge that fell into this out-of-balance situation was the .22 WCF. You would think it would have been an instant success, offering as it did the Holy Grail of a reloadable .22. But it never made it because it held too much black powder for the .22 bore.
Only when smokeless powders suitable for such a small case was it resurrected -- as the .22 Hornet.
According to the poll, twice as many believe that the 17hmr is more worthless than the .204 ruger.
Hmm.... 17hmr- rifle about the same price as a .22, but about twice the effective range, and twice the velocity. Ammo ain't cheap, but neither is 22 mag. There aren't very many people (or rifles) capable of pickin' off prairie dogs and squirrels at 150 yds with a .22
.204 ruger- guns are not cheap, the same price as a .223, 22-250, etc.
Why buy a gun that costs the same as a .223, is used for the same purpose(varmints) and whos ammo is roughly 4-5 times as expensive.
Now to me that's worthless.
Can you tell that I like the .17?
Schwatt
Hmm.... 17hmr- rifle about the same price as a .22, but about twice the effective range, and twice the velocity. Ammo ain't cheap, but neither is 22 mag. There aren't very many people (or rifles) capable of pickin' off prairie dogs and squirrels at 150 yds with a .22
.204 ruger- guns are not cheap, the same price as a .223, 22-250, etc.
Why buy a gun that costs the same as a .223, is used for the same purpose(varmints) and whos ammo is roughly 4-5 times as expensive.
Now to me that's worthless.
Can you tell that I like the .17?
Schwatt
nhhillbilly
Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2003
- Messages
- 544
17hrf
Vern Humphrey
Member
Okay, I'm a crusty old codger. But my .22 Hornet will do everything a .17 HMR will do, and more. And it's reloadable.
Now the .22 Hornet isn't for everyone, but I'd leave a .17 HMR in the rack and pick the .22 Hornet every time for smaller varmits -- or even larger ones up to coyote size.
Now the .22 Hornet isn't for everyone, but I'd leave a .17 HMR in the rack and pick the .22 Hornet every time for smaller varmits -- or even larger ones up to coyote size.
(Sheesh! No end of opinions from this guy! )
Can't help it, folks. I've just enjoyed this thread!
Anyway, I tend to think oddball, exotic, or obsolete cartridges in general are unnecessary or "worthless." (I define "oddball" as those that are not readily available, for example, at your friendly local gun emporium if you're not a reloader.) After having sought, and paid premiums, for such things as .405 Winchester, .32 Winchester Special, .41 Action Express, and .348 Winchester, I've grown tired and finally decided: "ENOUGH ALREADY! SURELY I CAN FIND SOMETHING MORE COST-EFFICIENT AND READILY AVAILABLE THAT MATCHES OR EXCEEDS THE PERFORMANCE OF THESE ODDBALLS I WAS SO ATTRACTED TO INITIALLY!" (Sorry for the "shouting." )
)Can't help it, folks. I've just enjoyed this thread!
Anyway, I tend to think oddball, exotic, or obsolete cartridges in general are unnecessary or "worthless." (I define "oddball" as those that are not readily available, for example, at your friendly local gun emporium if you're not a reloader.) After having sought, and paid premiums, for such things as .405 Winchester, .32 Winchester Special, .41 Action Express, and .348 Winchester, I've grown tired and finally decided: "ENOUGH ALREADY! SURELY I CAN FIND SOMETHING MORE COST-EFFICIENT AND READILY AVAILABLE THAT MATCHES OR EXCEEDS THE PERFORMANCE OF THESE ODDBALLS I WAS SO ATTRACTED TO INITIALLY!" (Sorry for the "shouting."
)
I'll disagree with that statement. Check your ballistics, the 7mm Rem. Mag duplicates the ballistics of the .270 Win. using only 50% more powder, with the exception of the 175 grain bullet, where it has a slight edge (and is essentially duplicated by the 30-06).
I own rifles in .22lr, 17HMR, .223, 22-250, .30 Carbine, 30-30, 32 Win Spl., 30-06, 25-06, and .270 Ackley Improved. The one that gets used the most? The .17HMR, for rock squirrels around the place. I can grab the .17 and pop a squirrel from the porch without having to look for hearing protection, and it is much more deadly on squirrel sized animals than either the .22lr or .22 Mag. The second most used is the 25-06, for coyotes, although it may be replaced by the .270AI when I have loads worked up.
The .30 Carbine may not be a hunting rifle or load, but with its history and fun factor, it doesn't have to be useful to have a place in my safe.
- Status
