Most Worthless Rifle Caliber

[Meplat]

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).

Errr....I DID check my ballistics. With the .270, one has to use 57.2 grains of IMR 4831 powder to achieve 3000 fps. (THIS IS A MAX LOAD). In order to get compararble results with a heavier bullet (160 grain .284) one needs 60.1 grains of the same IMR 4831. (ALSO A MAX LOAD) What this nets for the 7 mag at five hundred yards is a heavier bullet with a higher sectional density, larger (albeit slightly) bullet diameter, with 31% more retained energy. Trajectories are pretty close, with the .270 losing about 2" more in the drop department (not enough to matter on game sized animals) and drifting about five more inches in a 10 mph cross wind. Five inches of drift WOULD be noticable.

The difference between 57.2 grains and 60.1 grains is 4.9%...not QUITE the claimed 50%.

Not by any means knocking the .270 - it's a FINE caliber. Seen too many graveyard dead deer from it to argue that. It has not been -at least in the rifles I've owned - as inherently accurate as the 7 Mags I've owned, but then again, I don't get to shoot as many rifles as a gunwriter would, so I can't say for certain that one is more inherently accurate than the other.

What I CAN say is that the 7 Mag does indeed skunk the .270 at any ranges of five hundred yards or beyond.

And since I don't personally shoot at deer at ranges of five hundred yards (if I can't get closer than that, I don't think I'm doing much hunting), it really is kind of a moot point. I just have confidence in the 7 Mag that I carry. That is invaluable. It's not the caliber, with me it's the rifle. I'll be glad to load 4.9% more powder to have a rifle that I FEEL (yeah I know it's all in my head) I can't miss with. I know a lot of folks who feel the same way about their .270's, .30-06's, .280 Remingtons, etc., etc., etc. That's all to the good, cause any of them will cleanly take game out to any reasonable hunting range. If one feels his rifle won't let him down, it probably won't. Shooting is way too much a mental game for that to not be true.

 

[charger]

Not that its a great factor anymore,but the 33WCF was about as undignified a way as they could have picked for the great 86 to bow out..You stick this smokeless round into the largest framed lever made and barely get thuddy thuddy performance. What a tragic death

 

[R.W.Dale]

MY vote goes for the 25-06 . It launches a 120 grain bullet only about 50 FPS faster than a 30-06 can launch a 150gr bullet. Shure the BC is higher but that's only good for an inch of trajectory over the 06 at 300yds.

I've shot most of the cartriges based on 30-06 and NONE of them actuall have less recoil but some have more

As for 7.62x39 I challenge anyone to proove to me the cartrige is innaccurate. The cartrige isn't inaccurate it's just that most rifles so chambered are.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

That prize has to go to the .17 Ackely Improved Bee.

 

[Rico567]

As I expected, the .30 carbine won, but I didn't vote for it, because it's basically a pistol-energy round in a weapon that was designed to be just that: a surrogate for rear-echelon troops who couldn't hit squat with the .45 ACP pistol. They could have gone for more equivalency, since the .30 Carbine hits with about the same energy as a .38 Special, but the thing is what it is, and it ain't a rifle round. The misapplication of the weapon to combat troops over several decades isn't the fault of the gun or its designers.

My assessment: the .30 M1 Carbine round isn't a rifle cartridge, and should never have been included in the survey.

 

[MCgunner]

Well, since I'm not a rear-echelon troop, it's totally worthless to me and that's why it got my vote. I know of one revolver that chambered it, a Blackhawk, wasn't very popular. So, yes, being designed for the carbine, it is a rifle round.

If it hadn't been included, I think I'd chosen the .17HMR, probably. I fail to see the need. But, I don't shoot prairie dogs since I'd have to travel a thousand miles to find one. Still, it's been done before many times. If I wanted something in that niche, I'd buy a .22 Hornet, neat little round. But, I handload.

Now, why would anyone vote for the 7 mag? It is a super useful mountain caliber for big game hunters, elk, mule deer. Yes, it's more gun than a .270, so what? I wouldn't consider the .270 worthless either. It's an excellent long range deer caliber and is even used by some to hunt elk, though I bought a 7 mag figuring why settle for less cartridge. Actually, I wasn't thinking the .277 bore, but .280 Remington for the 7mm bullet selection which is way better than .277 bullet selection. I figured if I didn't need to power, I could download it to .270/.280 levels. But, I found it a bit excessive on white tails so it collects dust. It is, however, not worthless.

I, too, am more into the particular platform so long as the caliber is adequate. Currently, I'm really into my light, accurate, short, handy, rugged little M7 stainless in .308 Winchester. I love that thing!

On 7mm Rem Mag vs .270, a quick look in the Speer #11 shows 'em getting 3000+fps out of the 160 grain 7mm load. The best 150 grain .270 load runs a little over 2800. Yes, the 7 is superior and 150 grains is getting heavy for the .270. Either gun can take elk, just that the 7 delivers more, further out. Ballistic Coefficients for the 7mm family of bullets is second only to 6.5mm, another reason to go with the big 7 and the reason I didn't consider the .270 when I was looking at 'em.

 

[bowfin]

/*ALL MAG loads- Too much recoil, most people cannot hit the broadside of a barn with them, because they kick like a mule, they flinch like a semi coming head on at you, also a price per box that would make you bankrupt if you shot it every week.*/

If you are a grown adult in good health and a 7mm Remington Magnum or .300 Winchester Magnum "kicks too much", you either aren't holding it right or have psyched yourself out. Period.

Once you get over your flinch, you will find Magnum cartridges inherently more accurate in the field than standard cartridges, due to less wind drift and less bullet drop, making range estimation and wind doping less problematic.

As for the price of the cartridges, I reload, so my Magnum ammunition is probably cheaper than the standard cartridges you buy at Wal-Mart.

Magnums plus you might be a worthless combination, but that doesn't mean Magnums plus me would be. I can show you the pictures...

 

[belton-deer-hunter]

i voted .22 mag

it is so small that you can do anything it will do with a .22lr at a fraction of a price and anything that it will kill like deer (and yes it will kill deer dont ask how i know) is illegal to use

 

[bowfin]

Has anyone who voted for the .30 Carbine read the book "A Rifleman Went to War"?

The author was a champion competitive marksman that fought in several campaigns in the Pacific, and he preferred the M1 Carbine and its caliber over the M1 Garand for everyday carry and use.

 

[foghornl]

Not really a worthless round, but most of the Weatherby Magnum rounds are waaaaayyyy overpriced. Last night, I wandered into my local Gander Mountain, and a box of 20 .257 Wthby Mag was $55.


Can you say "Sticker Shock" ? ? ? I knew you could.

 

[mtboho]

.17 hmr

what is it for? Has anyone really been sold on it.I also don't see the reason for the .204. I really think they are running out of ideas on new guns, they are reaching. bring back something that alot of people really liked and offer cheaper ammo. like the 250 savage!!! know there is a gun. or you don't hear much on the .222 that was quite a coyote round. I would like to see a reintroduction of once forgot rounds!!!!!

 

[bowfin]

.17 HMR

I am conflicted about this cartridge. I have finally convinced myself that it would be a good pest cartridge for pigeons and starlings and rats due to its accuracy edge over most .22s. (Do we all agree that gun for gun, the .17 HMR is more accurate at 50+ yards?).

It is pricey, but that is a personal choice.

I wouldn't shoot at anything weighing over ten pounds with the .17 HMR, though.

 

[MCgunner]

Has anyone who voted for the .30 Carbine read the book "A Rifleman Went to War"?

The author was a champion competitive marksman that fought in several campaigns in the Pacific, and he preferred the M1 Carbine and its caliber over the M1 Garand for everyday carry and use.

Pehaps, but to me, it's completely worthless.

 

[MCgunner]

Not really a worthless round, but most of the Weatherby Magnum rounds are waaaaayyyy overpriced. Last night, I wandered into my local Gander Mountain, and a box of 20 .257 Wthby Mag was $55.


Can you say "Sticker Shock" ? ? ? I knew you could.

Can you say handload? I knew you could. I handload all rifle rounds, including .30-30.

 

[foghornl]

Point well taken, MCgunner. I don't handload right now, but if I had a rifle that cost $2.75 a shot and I wanted to shoot more than 5 rounds a year, I would certainly 'roll my own'.

I really gotta take another look at setting up a reloading station at home.

 

[bowfin]

/*Pehaps, but to me, it's completely worthless.*/

...and so is an F-15 Eagle to me, as well as a saxophone, a little black dress, and the Mandarin Chinese language, but I hesitate to make sweeping statements about each, since others have found them extremely useful tools to satisfy their wants and needs.

 

[444]

"Has anyone who voted for the .30 Carbine read the book "A Rifleman Went to War"?
The author was a champion competitive marksman that fought in several campaigns in the Pacific, and he preferred the M1 Carbine and its caliber over the M1 Garand for everyday carry and use."

You must be thinking of a different book. A Rifleman Went to War was written by H.W. McBride about his experiences in WW ONE. He never used a .30 Carbine or an M1 and was never in the Pacific. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/09...104-8776904-5207121?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

 

[RugerOldArmy]

I find a lot of the .204 Ruger comments quite uninformed. It does have a niche for varmint hunting. Comparing .204 Ruger with .22-250 and .220 Swift based on velocity and energy ignores a number of factors:

- It has a higher BC for a given bullet weight
- It uses less powder and the barrel last longer, and is cheaper to reload
- It is more wind resistant than 40 gr slugs in .22-250 and .220 swift
- It shoots just as flat and does the same job just as well
- And probably the best feature: Like .223 Rem for varmints, it has no recoil, so you still have a view of the target after you shoot. The Swift and .22-250 have just enough recoil to make you miss seeing the point of impact.

That said, I chose .22-250, and when the barrel gets shot out, it'll be .22-250 AI

 

[clange]

7.62x39 gets my vote.

Dosen't kill people well, dosen't kill animals well. .223 and/or .308 are better. .223 is lighter AND better.

The only advantage 7.62x39 has is price, and wolf .223 at $120/1000rounds about blows that away.

Are you serious? You first say 7.62 doesnt kill well, then you go on about wolf .223 blows it away? Last time I checked wolf .223 doesnt fragment, which means it pretty much sucks at killing things compared to 7.62x39.

Yeah, good 5.56 does a better job within fragmenting range, but wolf .223 is not good.

.308 is just in a different class. Theres a reason 7.62x39 is medium powered, thats what assault rifles are. If they wanted a full powered full auto they would have made it in 7.62x54R.

 

[MCgunner]

Are you serious? You first say 7.62 doesnt kill well, then you go on about wolf .223 blows it away? Last time I checked wolf .223 doesnt fragment, which means it pretty much sucks at killing things compared to 7.62x39.

Yeah, good 5.56 does a better job within fragmenting range, but wolf .223 is not good.

.308 is just in a different class. Theres a reason 7.62x39 is medium powered, thats what assault rifles are. If they wanted a full powered full auto they would have made the it in 7.62x54R.

I've killed deer pretty well dead with the 7.62x39. "Won't kill anything?" Really? It's close to .30-30 in power. That's about the most successful hunting cartridge of all time.

 

[GotCoffee]

I voted 17HMR because if its windy the 22lr is more accurate at the same distance such as shooting p-dogs. Wind really moves that 17 slug. Also 17 ammo is way too expensive.

 

[maskedman504]

This thread was kind of interesting for me to read until I realized IT IS FROM 3 YEARS AGO!