Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by SharpDog, Jul 26, 2018.
Just tell the guys at the range that your 6.5 Creedmoor self-identifies as a 6.5 PRC, you’re groovy...
My 308’s identify as 6.5’s. One tried to get an operation, but they reamed it too big and it’s a 30-06 now.
Cartridges of the World". My copy is the 2006 11th edition. Looking at the versions on Amazon, the book is now at the 15th edition, about two years between the 13th, 14th and 15th edition. I guess my 11th edition is hopelessly obsolete and I am going to guess, modern technology has allowed such a rapid development cycle for cartridges, that the book has to be updated every two years in order not to miss the latest and greatest.
Now, even with my hopelessly outdated 11th edition, finding a cartridge niche that has not been filled by an existing cartridge is extremely hard. I would say, just about impossible. At what point does a new cartridge become pointless?
Making money, selling things.
Or anything of the sort
At the point people stop buying new toys. Till then there will be a new "something" to appease the masses.
I know plenty of folks that try every new round that comes out.
Personally I love the 7rem mag, but I usually try a new cartridge every project. Sometimes they are oldies like the 6-284, or .250AI, sometimes they are new kids like the 6.5CM, 6.5 grendel, or .375 Ruger.
It makes me happy, and I for one, look forward to the next "useless" cartridge design released.
As Rudyard Kipling said “there’s nothing new under the sun”.
Of course, Kipling stole that from King Solomon. Evidently there’s nothing new for writers either
That’s me. Just got a new 7 Mag. Would I prefer a Creed? Probably, but .020 of an inch difference isn’t gonna sway me one way or another.
Counter-point, with the burden passed back to you to provide evidence:
At what point does a cartridge niche become “filled”?
I can already see it's going to replace the 6.5 Creedmoor. Didn't I read someplace that it will probably be the next military rifle cartridge.
When a niche becomes infinitely small. I have always had problems with the infinitely small. Took a while, seeing how infinite sums converge, to accept calculus, but I still don't like the infinitely small. I can understand infinitely big, but infinitely small is incomprehensible.
Just like the proliferation of all those cartridges in which the differences between them, are infinitely small.
I don't have a good, definite, alternate way to evaluate a cartridge, but what I have seen, based on reading in print magazines that go back more than a century, is that we have been taught to evaluate cartridges through mass marketing. The end goal, is maximizing profit for the Corporations, but that is invisible to the community. In print gunwriters have had over a century to hone the theory and practice of in print salesmanship. We believe, because we have been taught to think as they do, that certain specific characteristics are desirable, are the only proper characteristics that a cartridge must have, and thus, that is what we want in our cartridges. We think as we have we been taught. As our teachers want us to think. And as good students, we believe what we are told. If you read the literature of a century, you see changes, which are driven by the wants of the shooting community, so it is not all one sided.
As an example, I remember the great wild cat period where velocity was the one and only thing. The faster the bullet the better.
Anyone remember this?
I have seen cartridges, the next great things, sold as better than what is on the market, because the cartridge was shorter than a 30-06 but equaled the performance of a 30-06 at 300 yards. Someone thought that was enough, but I did not think the length of a 30-06 was intolerable.
A current trend is to sell cartridges based on their ballistic coefficient and performance at long range. I wish more people would go to CMP Talladega and attempt to keep all their shots in the X ring at 600 yards, then they might understand that 1000 yards is a heck of a long way. But I have noticed in the press, that 1000 yards is being treated as so 1980's, and the real thing is 2 mile performance. You know, when a cartridge is being sold as better than the competition because it is better at 1200 yards, that is getting to the infinitely small.
Things I do see ignored with cartridge roll outs are a number of issues, one being cartridge capacity. I think this is important how many rounds can you carry in a flush magazine. I don't like protuberances sticking below the weapon, they stick on things and make the weapon uncomfortable to carry in the hand. So when a weapon goes from five rounds in the mag, to three, I think that is undesirable. It may be due to the "improved" cartridge shape so popular. Improved cartridges have all the taper of a shotgun shell, which is, none to almost none. I like cartridge taper. Taper means the cartridge feeds better and extracts better. Taper is also more tolerant of slight misalignment. I think this is one of the primary reasons for three round magazines in what used to be five round internal magazines. These straight sided cases have to be precisely aligned with the chamber which also means, they are not very tolerant of misalignment. I shot tens of thousands of rounds in XTC competition, two of the stages require rapid fire with a reload. Having a case feed smoothly into the chamber and extract reliably is so nice. Cartridge taper does that. The slickest cartridge I have ever tried is the 300 H&H Magnum. The thing is almost a cone and it feeds so smoothly it is difficult to tell if a case has fed. I think the trend to straight sided cases is an indication that few shooters shoot many rounds from the magazine. And fewer reload from the shoulder. That was important once, guess not anymore. I also think 10 round single stack magazines that stick down further than the keel of a boat, will end up, so to speak, grounding on the sand bar. Another characteristic is barrel life. How long is the accuracy life of the barrel? A good match blank is $300 and a gunsmith is going to charge about $300 to turn, chamber, and install. Most of these 6.5 cartridges have barrel lives less than 2000 rounds, at full throttle. Two thousand rounds go very quickly. Thirty caliber barrels are generally acceptable between 3500 to 5000 rounds. Also differences in lethality are treated with psuedo science or ignored totally. This is a topic that will take several lifetimes to address and is still not full resolved. But if the end goal is hunting, is the new cartridge more or less lethal than what is on the market and how is that determined?
Still, I think a good exercise would be where to place this cartridge in the pages of Cartridges of the World. Trying to find a spot to rack and stack this cartridge, between all the existing cartridges, or justifying a totally new chapter, would be a good task. It would force you to think about characteristics and what are important characteristics and defining characteristics. Between what two cartridges would this one fit, or, it is so new and revolutionary, that it requires a new chapter by itself? That would be a good think.
I shot a match yesterday, none of the 1,000yrd targets were only 10”.
When neither the military or civilian market wants it.
The ten ring on the F class target is one MOA, 10" at 1000. Some still shoot paper.
New LR BR record is 1.067" at 1000, 0.103 MOA. Well centered, 50/5X.
Shot with 6mm BR AI or minor variant.
I shot F-T/R for a while. .223 or .308. None of the Bullet of the Month distractions.
I agree, being a knowledgeable consumer is a plus. Understanding how a cartridge fits into the scheme of things is a plus. Understanding what a bullet does when it reaches the target (game, defense, or hunting) is necessary. I dont like when people say you NEED to have the latest and greatest, but that comes back to being and educated consumer.
My stance tho is that there is nothing wrong with having the option to CHOOSE from a host of cartridges. How is having more options, even if they are redundant, bad for any of us?
It gives all of us options, you can CHOSE to be a one gun (cartridge shooter), or be the guy that has a number of guns, and nothing that shoots the same round.
My wife and I are sorta like that.
She REALLY LIKES her .243, the gun dosent mater she just wants it to be a .243, and shes fine and happy with that. Perfect for her. Imagine if the .250 Savage had held off the 6mms and the .243 didnt exist, or was hard to get. Would she care? probably not, she would shoot a .250 Savage and that would be hers just like the .243 is.
I have no interest in a great many good cartridges, like the .243 or .308, or the .270 weve been going round about in another thread. Those, heck the .223, could literally do EVERYTHING I could ever ask of them, but I really enjoy trying new stuff and having unique, and semi unique equipment. Having more options to pick from makes me very happy. As a note I really enjoy pulling out my .250AI and showing it off......
That brings me back to the point of spending money on the sport, which supports the industry, which supports our rights in a round about fashion. My wife has less than 500 dollars into her shooting/hunting. Shes takes her gun, kills some stuff every few years, and puts it away.
Ive spent thousands on just AR products trying different things, thousands on reloading components and equipment, thousands on guns and gun parts, and id be inclined to say im probably way less invested in this sport than many of us.
Those guys have probably tried more than a few of the "new" cartridges that have come out over the years, or new guns, or new stuff...imo its all the same.
That was my point. Shooting X rings isn’t the only purpose for shooting 1,000yrds.
You will get faster pit service if you keep them all in the nine ring or better. If you can't keep them in the black, you won't want to hear the comments from the pit pigs. At the F class matches I attend, which is mostly mid range, you better have a high X count. And, the same is true of Smallbore prone. Lots of matches won or lost by X's.
I have never been a pioneer. Let those who have to jump in the water before everyone else, discover the rocks and piranha fish. I will adopt stuff when it has proven its worth. Having seen a number of rifles chambered in the cartridge du jour, priced cheap to sell, I would recommend buying a decent supply of cases. Ten years from now, the one thousand unfired cases you buy today, may turn out to be worth more than the rifle.
I saw some threads on WSSM cases, shooters trying to find new cartridge cases. Looks like 223 and 243 is available, at $1.09 a case, but 25 WSSM, out of stock. I will bet there are a number of 25 WSSM owners who would be willing to pay $2.00 a case, just to have some ammunition to shoot in their rifle. If you had purchased 1000 unfired 25 WSSM cases, that would total up to $2,000. The rifle, how much is someone going to pay for a rifle where the loaded ammunition, the cases, are out of stock, and have been out of stock, for years?
I had an AR that was a variant off of the WSSM, necked up to .358. Great round, but getting brass was spotty at best.
You’d think that Winchester would make runs simply to keep their name in good standing. Why would I try something new that won’t do anything an existing round won’t do if I can’t feed it?
How many loadings do you get out of a case?
Divide barrel life by reload life and that is how many pieces you need.
If the round is out of style when you must replace the barrel just go to the newest fashion.
If you are shooting an automatic that throws empties in the weeds or competing in unimproved ground, you will need a dependable supply.
Then again, at this point, who cares about the 6.5 Anymoor?
Tee hee hee!
No pits at the long range matches I shoot, so no need to tolerate the squealing of pit pigs.
You didn’t read my post - 6.5 creed brass can be produced from any of dozens of .473” rim cases, including the proliferant 308win. The WSM’s and WSSM’s do not share that luxury. A guy holding a 6.5 Creedmoor will never be left stranded without brass. Someone holding a 6.5 prc, 7wsm, 6.5rsaum, or 243wssm could easily be left without.
Here’s what I expect will be a mind blowing concept for you: what if the 6.5 creed, 6.5 PRC, 28 Nosler, 224 valk, 7wsm, 300rcm, 416ruger, 7 RUM, or any of the other new cartridges released in the last couple of decades weren’t designed to FILL niches between cartridges, but were instead designed to COMPETE against older cartridges already seated in specific niche applications? What if these aren’t niche cartridges? What if they’re just legitimately better at very common applications? I’d contest the 6.5 PRC with modern bullet technology will do anything the 7mm Rem Mag could do upon its release.
I’m sure glad Henry Ford didn’t share your sentiment, suggesting all new products must meet a different niche application than old products, else we’d still be driving Cugnot steam cars or Otto-mobiles. Competition is the lifeblood of capitalist industry - you don’t have to do something new with every product, you just have to do what the old product did, but better.
In other words, to condemn a new cartridge for its capabilities which match older cartridges is really to condemn the older cartridges too. Or maybe that’s your intent?
Separate names with a comma.