New and old cartridges doing (nearly) the same

[mcb]

You can hate that new (or old) successful cartridge all you want but that does not change the fact it was/is a market success and that success was based on BOTH its performance metrics and other factors that are far harder to put numbers on. Most cartridge's that were/are big market successes owe that success as much to circumstances and luck as they do their raw performance numbers. Where would 30-06 be if the US military had not adopted it? Where would 270 Winchester be without Jack O'connor? Where would 40 S&W be without the FBI? Where would 6.5 Creedmoor be without Hornady's marketing perseverance for nearly a decade before the cartridge caught fire in the market. Where would 44 Magnum be without Inspector Callahan. etc.

I am sure we could also make a similar list of cartridges that have notable performance metrics that due to circumstances and (bad) luck were market flops. Where would 244/6mm Remington be if it had come out before 243 Winchester with the proper twist out the gate. Where would 5mm Remington Magnum be if Remington had not tried to make it a proprietary cartridge? .276 Pedersen might be a house hold name if the development of the M1 Garand had gone differently. etc.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Where would 30-06 be if the US military had not adopted it?

Well, it wouldn't exist at all, since it was specifically designed for the US military.

I am sure we could also make a similar list of cartridges that have notable performance metrics that due to circumstances and (bad) luck were market flops. Where would 244/6mm Remington be if it had come out before 243 Winchester with the proper twist out the gate. Where would 5mm Remington Magnum be if Remington had not tried to make it a proprietary cartridge? .276 Pedersen might be a house hold name if the development of the M1 Garand had gone differently. etc.

Better performance, or potential performance does not guarantee success. The .222 Remington Magnum is much better than the .223 Remington, especially with the heavy bullets that are now popular, but it doesn't fit into an M16 magazine, so it is just a side note in history.

Interesting note on the .243 Winchester cartridge, did you know that it's development was partially funded by the Army?

 

[Mosin77]

If the goal is to kill a deer, almost any centerfire rifle cartridge will do it. Arguably some better than others, and some at iron sights ranges only whereas others can do it at 700 yards if the shooter does his part…

There’s a ton of overlap in the firearms world. A lot of it has to do with the fact that in the industry (and for liability purposes to say nothing of marketing and packaging stuff) it’s easier to create a new chambering than to modify the specs of an existing one. It’s a lot easier and more lucrative to sell the 6CM than to write articles promoting necking down the 6.5CM or modifying the action of your rifle to accommodate heavier bullets in .243 win. Does the average person really have need of it? Probably not. In the old days most shooters were hunters first and foremost, whereas now long range benchrest competition seems to be getting more glamorous, at least in terms of generating new cartridges. A .243 is all you need for deer but for extending that range well beyond 500 yards, a 6CM will be better. And nobody wants to bring back other old cartridges in the 6mm range just because they’re not well enough known, you have the problem of old rifles out there in the woodwork, and If you’re doing it you may as well use current engineering thought to make the best cartridge possible. Which is why .244/6 Remington is not ever going to be the new darling -unless a company decides the romance of the cartridge alone is enough to sell it, which doesn’t happen much.

…and there are those who argue that a .243 really isn’t necessary because its parent .308 does the job just fine. And some will say .308 is superfluous too because the .30-06 does all that and possibly more. So ultimately a lot comes down to preferences. The 22, 24, 26, 28, 30 caliber class all have different attributes, and in each of those you have a lot of choice in terms of light vs heavy projectile, fast vs slow, low recoil vs “magnum” performance, etc.

Taking another example, there’s not much point in .22 hornet if you have a .25-20. And .22 mag falls into the same category. And .223 does the same thing a lot cheaper (but with more power and noise.) Someone might declare one or all to be pointless for their needs, and someone else might love one or the other for its attributes.

 

[tmd16556]

Shooting fashions change too. 100 years ago the goal was flat shooting by pushing small bullets at high speeds. 250-3000 and 220 Swift were the trick. Light bullets with slow twist barrels at high speeds and the ballistic coefficient of an empty beer can. Flat-shooting was the goal.

But, if you’ve ever shot with the optics of the era, you’re not getting a lot of resolution out of a 4x scope with a 3/4 inch tube and maybe 1 inch lens. Out past 400 yds you’re on your own. Most shooters stay under 400 so the difference in small, fast, fading bullets and big, slow, steady ones doesn’t matter much. Now that everyone wants to shoot at 1000, we see that slow and steady wins the race.

Old military cartridges did both well, but they were meant for volley fire and machine guns too. They're inefficient and have ”odd” lengths by today’s standards but are adaptable. Now everything has to fit in either a .223 or 308 length magazine too. That leaves a lot of old x57 Mauser based cartridges out in the cold.

 

[Bwana John]

in the last 50 years I’ve seen quite a few “new” cartridges, but the 6.5 Manbun has had the most successful marketing and public acceptance of any of them so far.

 

[Roverguy]

Novelty sells. 375 Ruger doesn’t do anything that 375 H&H didn’t already do. But I wasn’t going to find a pretty accurate rifle in 300 H&H for $300.

Plus, I love a good “30-06 will take care of anything in NA, so your ‘7mm Gitsum’ is just a stupid marketing gimmick”, threads. Almost as much as I love a “What is the ideal cartridge/rifle/pistol/atlatl for bears?” thread.

 

[Varminterror]

100 years ago the goal was flat shooting by pushing small bullets at high speeds.

I’d challenge that the current market of shooters rather realized that light for caliber bullets at high speeds aren’t actually flat shooting… folks in the past just had lower standards for precision and weren’t shooting as far, so they thought “flat for 280yrds” was actually meaningful.

Wildcatters have been rebuilding cartridges for generations already to correct easy mistakes their designers made, making more of those respective cartridges.

Why would we be disappointed that more of that development is now being owned by manufacturers which will propagate guns, ammo, brass, and dies into the market for more shooters to enjoy their benefits than just the scant few wildcatters which would have otherwise… that’s not a bad thing to happen for us.

 

[mcb]

in the last 50 years I’ve seen quite a few “new” cartridges, but the 6.5 Manbun has had the most successful marketing and public acceptance of any of them so far.

But everyone acts like 6.5 Creedmoor's popularity happened over night. Unless you were in specific competitive shooting circles you probably never hear of 6.5 CM before 2017 maybe 2016, but Hornady designed in the cartridge in 2007 and made 6.5 Creedmoor a SAAMI cartridge in 2008. Hornaday pushed and supported that cartridge for nearly a decade before it took off in a serious way in the market. How many cartridge out there might have become a similarly popular cartridges but their parent company gave up on them after two or three years of lackluster sales. The 30 Remington AR was a prime example. Remington introduce it in the same years as 6.5 CM (both in 2008) but only made one model firearm in the cartridge and only for about two years and gave up on the cartridge because it was not an overnight success. They never made any variation on the 30 RAR AR platform let alone put the cartridge in another action type. They also never make any variation based on the cartridge either (it was very loosely derived from 450 Bushmaster but they bastardize that). 6.5 Creedmoor was almost immediately followed up by 6mm Creedmoor and years later we are also getting 22 Creedmoor. Imagine what 30 RAR could have been if we had 22 RAR, 6, 6.5 & 7mm RAR etc. Remington had no vision, Hornady did, and we see where the two cartridge introduce at roughly the same time are now. You may or may not like 6.5 Creedmoor but that was a hard fought for marketing success and not a fluke and it shows.

If it matters I don't own a 6.5 Creedmoor but I do own a 6mm Creedmoor and a 30 Remington AR. I use the 30 RAR more than the Creedmoor, go figure...

 

[doubleh]

I see it as a way to sell more of everything related to shooting. There is a thing that people do that I call "having to have the latest and greatest" and it applies to many things besides firearms although the latest may not be that great over the previous one. Newer and better even when not all that much better sells and that keeps companies in business and growing. It's all about the almighty (not so mighty in the last few years) dollar and getting as many possible. It is known as capitalism.

It has taken me some time but now I tend to wait to purchase new until there is a significant improvement over the old thing I am using unless the old thing turned out to be total junk.

 

[CraigC]

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.

^^^ This, 100%.

There aren't going to be any revolutionary changes with metallic cartridges, only incremental improvements. Not every improvement is intended to make deer deader, which always seems to be the question people ask. The 6.5CM was not designed for hunting. It was designed to do what the 6.5x55 and .260 cartridges did in a short action that fits the AR10 magazine, operates at higher pressure than the Swede and uses a faster standard twist than the dead .260. Other minor improvements were made but the cartridge was designed for long range target shooting. So folks could buy an off the shelf, affordable rifle and be relatively competitive in PRS.

Just like the .300's weren't designed to make deer deader. The H&H is a true magnum length cartridge, which is very uncommon in modern production. The Winchester version fits a standard long action and the various short magnums fit a short action. In addition to being more efficient cartridges, they produce the same performance with less powder and usually in a shorter barrel. All of which equals a lighter rifle.

A lot of folks choose guns and cartridges for romantic reasons, myself included. I've always wanted an old Mannlicher-Schoenauer 6.5x54, because I fell in love with it in my youth. Sometimes we cling to those romantic notions, sometimes we modernize them and sometimes we let them go. For me, I modernized it. Years later I found a gently used Sako 6.5x55 Mannlicher carbine with a Leupold 1.5-5x and it became a worthy more modern version of that MS. If I were to endeavor to acquire one today, I'd probably just rebarrel my full stock Ruger Hawkeye .250 to 6.5CM. Because the concept is really more important than the cartridge.

 

[Jim Watson]

Just like the .300's weren't designed to make deer deader. The H&H is a true magnum length cartridge, which is very uncommon in modern production. The Winchester version fits a standard long action

The original .30 Super H&H was little if any more powerful than .30-06. In the 1939 Stoegers it was listed with a 150 gr bullet at 3000 fps, a 180 at 2700 under "English ammunition", but Winchester was already loading the 180 to 3060 fps.

Since Winchester had been selling .300 and .375 H&H Model 70s for some time, I wonder why the .264, .300, .338, and .458 Winchester Magnums were short enough for '06 length guns. They could have matched Weatherby with no changes.

 

[CraigC]

The original .30 Super H&H was little if any more powerful than .30-06. In the 1939 Stoegers it was listed with a 150 gr bullet at 3000 fps, a 180 at 2700 under "English ammunition", but Winchester was already loading the 180 to 3060 fps.

Since Winchester had been selling .300 and .375 H&H Model 70s for some time, I wonder why the .264, .300, .338, and .458 Winchester Magnums were short enough for '06 length guns. They could have matched Weatherby with no changes.

No idea, probably manufacturing concerns. It probably saved a few pennies to consolidate.

 

[.38 Special]

@Jim Watson @CraigC I think it was mostly about pressure, in the African sun.

 

[Jim Watson]

Probably. 55 grains of Cordite might be a top load on the veldt.

 

[valnar]

There aren't going to be any revolutionary changes with metallic cartridges, only incremental improvements. Not every improvement is intended to make deer deader, which always seems to be the question people ask. The 6.5CM was not designed for hunting. It was designed to do what the 6.5x55 and .260 cartridges did in a short action....

I came here to say this. When the Swede was invented, there was no standardization of short or long actions. The receiver was built to the cartridge. Nowadays, a lot of new cartridges rehash the old ones, but make it fit within a short action (or AR mag) for convenience. We've been doing this since the .30-06 --> .308

 

[PistoleroWadcutterGANG]

I love both the old and new developments. I guess I just like using it all and learning from it. I've got one foot in the 45-70 years and the other in 6.5 Grendel / 7mm PRC / ballistics plotting world.

 

[codytrucker]

The original .30 Super H&H was little if any more powerful than .30-06. In the 1939 Stoegers it was listed with a 150 gr bullet at 3000 fps, a 180 at 2700 under "English ammunition", but Winchester was already loading the 180 to 3060 fps.

Since Winchester had been selling .300 and .375 H&H Model 70s for some time, I wonder why the .264, .300, .338, and .458 Winchester Magnums were short enough for '06 length guns. They could have matched Weatherby with no changes.

At the time Winchester was a major ammunition company , so developing cartridges that other gunmakers could easily chamber their rifles in was a huge financial consideration .

 

[Gun-Reck]

Rifles - are either functional tools for killing, or toys.

And, therefore, how much can one improve a shovel.

 

[Mosin77]

Rifles - are either functional tools for killing, or toys.

And, therefore, how much can one improve a shovel.

Incrementally. When you want a 6.5mm shovel that fits into a particular corner of your garage and you want it at a particular price point, a 6.5 manbun will probably be a better choice than a 6.5 Swede. I don’t need one, and you probably don’t either from the sound of it, but I do understand the thought process.

 

[Gun-Reck]

Incrementally. When you want a 6.5mm shovel that fits into a particular corner of your garage and you want it at a particular price point, a 6.5 manbun will probably be a better choice than a 6.5 Swede. I don’t need one, and you probably don’t either from the sound of it, but I do understand the thought process.

Toys.

The things that need killing, as the things that need digging, have changed very little since the rifle, or shovel, was invented and improved to modern standards.

 

[CraigC]

Toys.

The things that need killing, as the things that need digging, have changed very little since the rifle, or shovel, was invented and improved to modern standards.

True but does the 6.5x55 fit the AR10 platform? Was the 6.5CM designed for killing stuff?

Does the military buy a standard wood handled shovel from Home Depot? Or do they have something a little more specialized that fits into a rucksack?

 

[Gun-Reck]

Was the 6.5CM designed for killing stuff?

It was designed as a toy, and still is.

What things killed by the AR10 chambered in 6.5 CM - would not have been killed by the original chambering .308 cartridge?

 

[CraigC]

It was designed as a toy, and still is.

No, it's a rifle cartridge. One that shoots as flat as the .300WinMag but without the recoil, noise and blast. Which is exactly what it was designed to do and probably why the military is now using it over the .308.

 

[Gun-Reck]

No, it's a rifle cartridge. One that shoots as flat as the .300WinMag but without the recoil, noise and blast. Which is exactly what it was designed to do and probably why the military is now using it over the .308.

It's a toy, for playing with.

What does it kill better?

 

[CraigC]

It's a toy, for playing with.

What does it kill better?

Reading comprehension isn't your thing, is it?