Ten To Go

[CB900F]

Fella's;

Since 1960 there have been dozens of rifle cartridges introduced into the market. Many of them are redundant, answering questions nobody in this world asked. But, it's simple, list ten rounds you think the world could easily do without that are newer than 1960. I don't care if you list a reason or not, or simply say that you hate the dratted thing, although if we get reasons it's gonna bring up more discussion.

Telling us why so-and-so is absolutely dead wrong about one, or two, or whatever number, of his choices is not an option, start your own thread about that please.

My personal list exceeds ten, but this isn't just about me, it's determining what the most useless rounds are from the whole board's standpoint. Let's go with stuff that can be found outside a collecter's vault also. Smallest to largest please, just to provide some commonality in the listing.

1. .223 WSSM. There are so many reasons, I won't use the space, we all know 'em.
2. .225 WSSM. If only they'd made it a WSM.
3. .260 Remington. With the advent of the Creedmore, I think it's a dead dog. I know you don't, I don't care.
4. 6.5 Remington Magnum. It's on it's deathbed, let it go.
5. .270 WSM. Why? The 7mm WSM is so very much better, and no I don't have either one.
6. 7 SAUM. Remember the comment about answering questions nobody asked?
7. .300 Blackout. So they didn't want to pay the royalty fees. Die cheapskate!
8. .30 Remington AR. There's somebody at Remington getting paid to think up this stuff!?
9. .300 SAUM. See 7 SAUM comment.
10. 8mm magnum. The marketplace has spoken. Go away - soon.

Well that oughta light a coupla fires.
900F

 

[ricebasher302]

I actually like some of these, own none of them, and for various reasons, I feel they lack validity.

1. 17 Mach II
2. 7mm RUM
3. .450 Marlin
4. 7mm SAUM
5. .300 SAUM
6. .300 Rem AR
7. .300 Blackout
8. .308 Marlin Express
9. 338 Marlin Express
10. 25 WSSM

 

[Jim Watson]

I couldn't list ten cartridges that I have any use for at all. None of the multitude matter to me.

 

[CB900F]

Mr Watson;

That didn't make sense to me. You've got over 17K posts on a firearms website & you say: "I couldn't list ten cartridges that I have any use for at all. None of the multitude matter to me.". Please explain.

900F

 

[I6turbo]

I couldn't list ten cartridges that I have any use for at all. None of the multitude matter to me.

If I understand correctly what you're saying, I think I am in the same boat. If I listed every rifle cartridge that I could reasonably see myself having a legitimate use for, I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be 10 of them. I kind of prefer consolidating into fewer cartridges instead of proliferating into more.

 

[redneck2]

Actually, I really like the WSSM's. But not for any of the typical reasons.

Indiana has some strange laws regarding deer hunting. In a rifle, you have to use a cartridge with a case between 1.16 to 1.80 max, and .35 caliber or larger. Did this in rifles to limit range due to population density.

We take the WSSM's, neck them out to .35 caliber, then chamber them in either AR's or bolt rifles. My AR took a deer at 270 yards last year. It's got a LOT of thump. Way more than a standard AR. It's a true 300 yard rifle shooting a 200 grain bullet.

 

[witchhunter]

Old geezer here. I think that almost all of the cartridges designed after 1960 with the exception of the .204, .223, 6PPC, 6BR, and 7mm Remington Magnum can easily be done without. Nothing against any of the new stuff, it's just that most of them duplicate a cartridge that is already established that will do the job. We would have fewer choices, but there are several that would do the job that are a lot older than that. That being said, I want a 6BR bad....and a .260, .20 Vartag and a bunch of other new stuff. But I want a .222, a .218 Mashburn Bee, a 45/70, another 32/20, and a 38/55 too.

 

[tahunua001]

3. .260 Remington. With the advent of the Creedmore, I think it's a dead dog. I know you don't, I don't care.

260 is based on the 308 cartridge and is the only viable 6.5 cartridge for an AR10. since 6.5s have superior ballistics to 30 cals I would much rather have an AR10 in 260 than in 308 as a hunting rig.

7. .300 Blackout. So they didn't want to pay the royalty fees. Die cheapskate!

another AR cartridge developed for a serious reason. AR15s are just more inherently accurate than AKs. everyone knows this. but you can't just slap the harder hitting(at close range) 7.62x39 cartridge into an AR15 and expect it to work. the mags are all garbage, the bolts are wonky and the guns end up being mediocre most of the time. 300 BLK gives you nearly identical performance without requiring heavy modification to the AR15 platform. considering that at least 3 of the major players in the AR game now offer at least one model in 300 BLK I think it's safe to say it's here to stay.

now for my top ten.
1. 243 weatherbymag, I love weatherby but there is only so much damage a 100gr bullet can do
2. 8mm-06, 8mm just does not have that great of ballistics no matter how much powder you stuff behind it. either go small bore or big bore, 8mm will always suck at something.
3. 4.6 HK, lets face it, if you don't own an MP7, you have never bought a box of 4.6
4. 25-06, 25s have decent enough ballistics but they were all designed with 257 roberts in mind, 06 just pushes most of them past their sweet spot.
5. comepletely agree with OP on 223 WSSM, no amount of powder will make a 22 a MAGNUM anything.
6. well I'm out... apparently I'm just not enough of a caliber snob to hate that many cartridges.

 

[sixgunner455]

Looking back on the history of cartridges, there have always been "innovations", and a proliferation of cartridges, especially proprietary ones, from time to time. Many of them, as you say, are completely redundant.

There are a lot of cartridges out there that I will probably never own or shoot, a lot more than the ones that I probably will. That doesn't mean they would be useless to me, because there is so much overlap between various cartridges and cartridge families, but ... if I have a 6mm Remington, why would I need a .243 of any description? Or vice-versa. And if I had a 6.5x55, why would I need a .260, or a Creedmore, or vice-versa? And considering that -- if I have a .243 Winchester, why do I need a .260? What *real* performance advantage am I getting with that .5mm bump? What didn't the .257 Roberts and .250 Savage do, that necessitated the .243 Winchester and 6mm Remington in the first place?

I don't think I'm going to sit here and point at this cartridge or that one and say it should die. I know that various cartridges will pass into obscurity, but I really don't think we're going to see a real end to redundant rifle cartridges in our lifetimes.

 

[conrad427]

I don't think we needed the short mags, but they make for decent wildcat fodder.
1. All of the current rounds for making the AR something better.
2. All of the Compact magnums and short this and thats.
3. anything that is being sold as new and ground breaking when it was just a savage round improved and necked down a bunch of years ago.
4. anything that uses special powder that I cant buy to achieve velocities I did not need.
5. anything that uses 300% less powder to achieve 300% more velocity. Blah, blah, blah, case volume is case volume.

Hey, don't get mad, you asked.

 

[Jim Watson]

It is all just something to sell.
Guns don't wear out very fast and if it killed a critter once, it will kill one again.
The firearms industry depends on convincing you that your gun is obsolete and should be replaced.

 

[JoePfeiffer]

I'll toss in a cartridge whose only redeeming feature is the most amusing name in the history of rifle cartridges: the .22 Eargesplitten Loudenboomer

 

[ugaarguy]

Fella's;

Since 1960 there have been dozens of rifle cartridges introduced into the market. Many of them are redundant, answering questions nobody in this world asked. But, it's simple, list ten rounds you think the world could easily do without that are newer than 1960. I don't care if you list a reason or not, or simply say that you hate the dratted thing, although if we get reasons it's gonna bring up more discussion.

We don't do hate threads here on THR.

Telling us why so-and-so is absolutely dead wrong about one, or two, or whatever number, of his choices is not an option, start your own thread about that please.

We're a discussion forum, not a dictation forum. You don't get to make the rules here either.

For the above reasons this one is done.