New and old cartridges doing (nearly) the same

[High Plains]

I saw this on another forum and it makes a lot of sense to me. I especially like the last point.

The newest cartridges share some or all of these traits:
Minimal case taper
30 degree shoulder angle
Longer or shorter parent case of a much older cartridge
Faster twist rate compared to older cartridges of the same bore diameter
Designed to use heavy for caliber bullets
Closer tolerances on cartridge dimensions and leade angles than older cartridges of the same caliber
Rifles with the new cartridge in retail stores ahead of ammunition choices from more than one manufacturer and brass for handloaders
Designed in a standard line and an ultra light version
Marginal external ballistic improvement over older cartridges.

Later in the thread the comparison was made with a 300 H&H and a 300 PRC. Inside of 400 yards there is little difference in the external ballistics of the cartridges with 150 and 180 grain bullets. Forget about what is considered long distance hunting and what is not. I think the vast majority of hunters will not go beyond 300 yards on a good presentation of a big game animal.

 

[.45Coltguy]

No expert here, but, I find the difference between, say, the 6.5x55 Swede or 260 Rem and any of the new 6.5's minimal. Like I said, no expert here. Just don't see a big difference.

 

[Risky buisness]

It looks like that adding a different twist for barrels for some of the projectiles older rifle cartridges didnt fare real well with really worked out too. When it's time to rebarrel my .243 I'm going to set it up for 105 grain and heavier bullets. I probably won't ever need to do that to my .270 but, it's really an option too. While their isnt, in my view a terrible lot of difference between my standard calibers and some newer varieties, it makes sence to me to be able to use the long high BC bullets currently avaliable.

 

[mgmorden]

Yes, the differences are minimal, and I wouldn't say run out and replace your older rifle with a newer one, but assume a purchaser doesn't already have a .300 H&H Magnum hiding in a closet somewhere - why wouldn't they get the one that performs better even if its a marginal difference?

The only qualm I'd have about jumping onto something REALLY new is long term support. IE I've got a .225 Winchester sitting in the safe right now that's nearly impossible to find ammo or even components for. You can tell which ones are falling off though. .30 T/C doesn't appear to have much staying power, and I'd be leary of .300 Hammer or .300 RCM, but .300 PRC looks to be rather popular, as is .300 WSM. You're probably safe buying one of those (at least as much a .300 H&H which isn't exactly a real popular gun).

 

[Riomouse911]

Roughly 100+ years ago there were a few rifle cartridges that could handle just about any shooting a hunter could encounter.

Examples:

.375 H&H
.30-06
7mm Mauser
.250 Savage.
.22 Savage
.22 LR

IMHO, Any later rifle cartridge is really just a repeat of these older rounds, with tweaks here and there such as the caliber size, case length, velocity, twist rates, energy numbers, etc.

Had these been all that was ever introduced in the US, game would have been killed just fine.

Bullet performance improvement, like the partition, boat tails, etc. is one thing that makes these old timers even more effective than they already were. But those don’t sell new rifles, the latest and greatest cartridge does.

Just an opinion, nothing better or worse than anyone else’s.

Stay safe.

 

[45/30-06OKIE]

Yes, the differences are minimal, and I wouldn't say run out and replace your older rifle with a newer one, but assume a purchaser doesn't already have a .300 H&H Magnum hiding in a closet somewhere - why wouldn't they get the one that performs better even if its a marginal difference?

The only qualm I'd have about jumping onto something REALLY new is long term support. IE I've got a .225 Winchester sitting in the safe right now that's nearly impossible to find ammo or even components for. You can tell which ones are falling off though. .30 T/C doesn't appear to have much staying power, and I'd be leary of .300 Hammer or .300 RCM, but .300 PRC looks to be rather popular, as is .300 WSM. You're probably safe buying one of those (at least as much a .300 H&H which isn't exactly a real popular gun).

I find it funny 30TC is basically dead, yet 6.5 Creedmoor which is literally a 30TC necked down is basically the most popular round on the market today! Weird.

 

[mgmorden]

I find it funny 30TC is basically dead, yet 6.5 Creedmoor which is literally a 30TC necked down is basically the most popular round on the market today! Weird.

Basically comes down to what it was trying to replace. .30 TC was an attempt to improve on the .308 Win, which is just way too entrenched. 6.5 Creed was an attempt to improve on the .260 Remington, which was nearly non-existent on shelves and in safes.

 

[12Bravo20]

Part of the reason for new calibers is the fact that bullet design has matured and we now have bullets with better ballistic coefficiency. We can look at 2.43 and 6 Creedmoor as one example or 6.5x55 or .260 compared to 6.5 Creedmoor.

I'm still debating about what caliber to go with for my PSA PA-10. I will most likely go with 6 Creedmoor simply because I can use the same bullets for it as I do for 6 ARC.

 

[jdsingleshot]

Absolutely agree with Riomouse911. Since modern speeds don't surpass the 220 Swift, industry made slower cartridges like the blackout series attractive. And suddenly, we were supposed to find the 6.5 Creedmore a better long-range cartridge than the Win. .264 magnum.

All the new cartridges are created to sell new guns. And ARs are a windfall for the ammunition companies that sell carloads to the spray-and-pray faction.

 

[jmr40]

No expert here, but, I find the difference between, say, the 6.5x55 Swede or 260 Rem and any of the new 6.5's minimal. Like I said, no expert here. Just don't see a big difference.

This is an excellent example to look at.

The 6.5X55 was developed in the 1890's and was designed around 160 gr RN FMJ military bullets. The 260 is the same caliber but was designed with 120 gr deer hunting bullets in mind.

Since the 1890's the 6.5X55 rifles have been made with slightly different chamber specs. barrel twist rates, and other minor differences depending on who made the rifle. Ammo manufacturers are all over the place too. Picking up a random factory rifle and factory ammo you are unlikely to get acceptable accuracy. You really need to handload for your individual rifle and having a custom rifle built is even better.

Remington envisioned the 260 as a deer hunting cartridge and twisted the barrels for light hunting bullets. The long-range target shooters figured out that the 260 was excellent when loaded with long high BC target bullets. Unfortunately, none of those bullets would fit in the mag box or chamber of a factory 260 rifle plus the barrels were twisted wrong. They started building custom 260 rifles with barrels twisted for the bullets they were using. The chambers and mag boxes were also out of spec for factory 260 ammo.

They went to Hornady and asked for a factory load and rifles that would duplicate what they were doing with custom 260's. The 6.5CM was their answer.

You CAN duplicate anything a 6.5CM does with 6.5X55 or 260. But not with rifles or ammo that can be picked up off the shelf.

It is the same story with 243, 244, and 6mm CM. Remington thought 244 was a varmint round and didn't design it to work with heavier deer bullets. The only real difference is that Winchester saw the 243 as a dual-purpose cartridge and designed it for deer bullets as well as varmint bullets. The 6mmCM just carries that one step further making it better than 243 with target bullets.

The 300 WM and 300 H&H are ballistic twins. But the 300 H&H needs a magnum length action, or a long action that has been heavily modified to accept the longer cartridge. The 300 WM is a bit shorter and easily fits in a standard long action rifle. This made it a lot cheaper to build and sell 300 WM rifles.

 

[jmr40]

. And suddenly, we were supposed to find the 6.5 Creedmore a better long-range cartridge than the Win. .264 magnum.

Just like the 260, the 264 was designed to work with HUNTING bullets. Target bullets of the same weight are much longer and may not even fit the mag box or chamber of a 264 Mag and require a different twist rate to be accurate. Long range target shooting isn't about muzzle velocity and flat trajectory. It's about retaining those speeds downrange. You can always adjust your optics to account for bullet drop.

You COULD custom build a 264 Mag to be able to do this. But that is what the 6.5 PRC does.

 

[mcb]

For the past 7 years I have done all my modern firearm hunting with cartridges designed after 2007. Over that same period of time the handguns I carry in the woods all use cartridges designed before 1900. Go figure.

For me my interests vary so much and hunting is as much as a venue to test cool new or old equipment as it is to hunt that sometimes the firearm of interest dictates the cartridge and sometime the cartridge of interest dictates the firearm.

I am rarely looking for the best cartridge or firearm to do my hunting, The choice of gun and cartridge are as much of a part of my hunting enjoyment as is the species I am after.

 

[Riomouse911]

For the past 7 years I have done all my modern firearm hunting with cartridges designed after 2007. Over that same period of time the handguns I carry in the woods all use cartridges designed before 1900. Go figure.

For me my interests vary so much and hunting is as much as a venue to test cool new or old equipment as it is to hunt that sometimes the firearm of interest dictates the cartridge and sometime the cartridge of interest dictates the firearm.

I am rarely look for the best cartridge or firearm to do my hunting, The choice of gun and cartridge are as much of a part of my hunt enjoyment as is the species I am after.

Yup.

And even if it is a $4,000 rifle, with a $2,000 scope, that chambers the latest round and is shooting five dollar laser-flat bullets capable of 1/2 MOA out to 1,000 yards; it is still all up to you to put that bullet where it needs to go in order to fill the tag.

Just like it was in 1823… and 1923…

Stay safe.

 

[d2wing]

The older cartridges still work great at normal ethical hunting ranges. But far more modern shooting is done at targets and comparably much longer ranges. As JMR said, cartridges have been updated to use longer bullets and different twist rates to perform better on targets at longer ranges.
I don't need them but I would switch to them if I was to start shooting at targets way out there. Some people are shooting at game at extreme ranges too. I am not a fan of that but some do it intentionally

 

[Chuck R.]

I love these threads, but for me it always comes down to:

Why would I not buy the better mousetrap?

I get it, the older stuff still works, but the newer cartridges combined with the changes in the platform (twist rate) are a better mousetrap. The 30 degree shoulder helps with case stretching, shorter powder columns lead to more consistent burn. The faster twists allow higher BC bullets to extend practical ranges. It makes hitting easier.

I think it's been said multiple times the average deer is killed within a couple hundred yards IF that. But, why wouldn't I want to get more use from my deer rifle by having it set up to shoot LR at the same time?

So, IF I was starting from scratch, why would I buy say a .270 Win, over a 6.5 PRC? Why a .300Win over a 300PRC?

I'm actually guilty of this cause I just had a 300WM built, but I've got a bunch of brass, dies etc. I've also spent a bunch of money getting rifles setup up for woods/ still/stand hunting specifically with "old" cartridges.

I think a lot of this, which comes across like older guys shaking their fists at the kids on their lawn, is because we've gotten attached to a favorite, and just don't want to admit there's a better option.

This doesn't apply however to any %^%$* guy with a .358 Sambar telling me that my .350RM is outdated!

 

[Remington1911]

Besides the new stuff has cool new names.

 

[earlthegoat2]

I’m going to use the 7mm PRC (just got the barrel yesterday) for way less than it is capable of and could have just as easily gone with 7mm Rem Mag.

The PRC barrel came up at a good price first though so that is what I have now.

I might put 40 rounds through it in my lifetime or before I get rid of it. Would have done the same with the Rem Mag so ammo availability or price aren’t playing much of a part either way.

 

[Speedo66]

Perhaps since much higher powered scopes are now in common useage, leading to longer shooting distances, people want the maximum possible from the caliber they’re using.

So any little extra tweak is seen as something worthwhile.

 

[lightman]

Lots of good and interesting points everyone! Most of the rifles that I have had rebarreled have faster twist than the original barrel. The exception to this is my 22-250AI and the last 308 that I built. In the 22-250 has a 1-14 because I planned to shoot 50 and 55 grain bullets and that I like to see targets explode. I went 1-10 in my 308 just because it works.

I'll admit that I'm a little slow to adopt changes. My 300WSM has replaced my 300WM. My 6mm choice was a 243 Winchester just because it will do about everything that most of the new 6mm's do plus good brass is available and mostly plentiful.

 

[PapaG]

About the only “new” cartridges that have excited me are (and I mean when they were actually new): 17 HMR, 22 WMR, 243, and 44 magnum. I get by with very few chambering in quite a few guns. Mostly, 12 ga, 22 lr, 38/357, 44, 45, 30-30 and 308-30-06.

 

[mcb]

I want to play with 8.6 blackout, especially the subsonic stuff. But getting a 338 suppressor and the new 8.6 Blackout rifle are a bit more expense than I want at the moment given my other expensive hobby is tapping out my shooting budget. I guess I will keep shwacking the armadillos with my ancient 300 Blackout...

 

[mgmorden]

I get it, the older stuff still works, but the newer cartridges combined with the changes in the platform (twist rate) are a better mousetrap. The 30 degree shoulder helps with case stretching, shorter powder columns lead to more consistent burn. The faster twists allow higher BC bullets to extend practical ranges. It makes hitting easier.

I think that's the crux of it. A lot of older gun guys with lots of existing rifles tend to think of it as the market telling them their rifles are obselete and that they need to replace them.

In reality there are people coming of age and buying their first guns (or first guns for a task - eg hunting, defense, etc) every single day. They're not looking to replace their .30-06 with a 6.5 Creedmoor - they're looking at buying their first rifle and are weighing the options from scratch. Sure you CAN buy newer rifles and cartridges if you have an established collection/arsenal but that's not necessarily what they're being marketed towards.

Eg, if you already have a .300 Win Mag I wouldn't even remotely consider getting a .300 PRC. The difference and improvements are incredibly minor. HOWEVER, if you don't have either of them and are looking to purchase a new rifle in that class, it's hard to argue that the .300 PRC isn't a little better. The ONLY reason you might go with the older Win Mag would be cheaper factory ammo, but given that such guns typically aren't used for bulk blasting, ammo costs often aren't the deciding factor.

 

[jmorris]

Sounds like someone that doesn’t do the marketing hype thing. Everyone knows new is better than old and a cool name also helps with killing power…

How we get stuff like 300blk (a round that failed when called 300 fireball, .300-221 & 300 whisper) with such popularity despite many, many better choices and rounds that were actually pretty good that go the way of the dodo.

 

[Jim Watson]

Slamfire was showing wild shots at 600 yards after good groups at 300, he concluded bullets from .270 and .308 were key holing after going just so far. Weird.

 

[Ranger99]

IMO hunt with whatever you want to
as long as it's legal and ethical.
The '"newest " thing I've taken a wt deer
with is 40 years old this year
(357 MAXIMUM- 1983)
I don't need anything "better " because
i know how to take game with what
I already have.
The biggest downside I see for
people is that they never gain any
familiarity with their iron.
They only shoot from bags, can't make
an ethical offhand shot, can't walk a
couple of miles to their spot without
slinging their rifle, and generally spend
more time with it in their lap at home
than putting projectiles down the hole
at the range, and/or other things