JohnBiltz
Member
If the military went to a new caliber it would be popular. The police going to .40 was enough to drag it into semi-popularity.
Will any new Rifle or Pistol cartridge/caliber become common?
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
- Status
Vern Humphrey
Member
Many of the "new" cartridges are simply re-makes of older cartridges, sometimes in a different format. For example, the .260 Remington is simply the 6.5X55 Swede in a shorter case.
Many of these re-makes have flopped badly -- for example, the .45 GAP, the "super short" magnums and so on.
Many of these re-makes have flopped badly -- for example, the .45 GAP, the "super short" magnums and so on.
When I read the title, I immediately thought of the 10mm Automatic and .40 S&W. Both were compromise cartridges designed to strike a balance between the bulk of the .45 ACP and the perceived weakness of the 9 mm Parabellum. The 10 mm came out in the early 1980's and the 40 S&W a bit later and it has taken them thirty years to reach widespread popularity. So, with respect to more recent cartridges, only time will tell, but I suspect many of us won't be around to see if the .300 AAC turns out to be a long-term success.
razorback2003
Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 1,231
22LR rifle, 223, 308, 12 gauge, and some sort of handgun in a common caliber would cover most people's needs. People who do not big game hunt could probably do without the 308 unless they are into target shooting.
Last edited:
Baron_Null
Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 210
I feel as though at this point much of the benefits of new cartridges are far more marginal than they used to be. Advances in firearms technology in general is slowing greatly, IMO.
It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just a matter of reaching limits with what is available. Advances in technology generally become more marginal over time, unless significant game changing discoveries are made.
As it is, the theoretical benefits of, say, the 6.5 Creedmoor over the .308 Winchester for the average person are far reduced from the theoretical advantages of .30-06 over .30-30 for the average hunter.
I think the only chance a cartridge has nowadays for ready adoption is if it is one of the first on the line to fill a new niche, while conforming to others. The .30 Blackout comes to mind, as it filled the niche of suppressor usage in a SBR, but conformed to enough in terms of working with the AR to make it available to a large pre-existing part of the market. .22 TCM comes to mind as a cartridge that filled a niche (high-velocity handgun cartridges) but didn't conform to enough of the market to really take off. RIA was the only option if you wanted one, and you had to get a double stack modern 1911 if you wanted one at all. Doing so excluded people like me, who wanted a plane-jane .22TCM GI 1911, and many others who either did not want a 1911 at all, or ones who did not want a RIA.
I'm not sure if there will be any new chambering which will make it big. However I don't believe any have the chance to overtake the "big boys" which dominate the market.
It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just a matter of reaching limits with what is available. Advances in technology generally become more marginal over time, unless significant game changing discoveries are made.
As it is, the theoretical benefits of, say, the 6.5 Creedmoor over the .308 Winchester for the average person are far reduced from the theoretical advantages of .30-06 over .30-30 for the average hunter.
I think the only chance a cartridge has nowadays for ready adoption is if it is one of the first on the line to fill a new niche, while conforming to others. The .30 Blackout comes to mind, as it filled the niche of suppressor usage in a SBR, but conformed to enough in terms of working with the AR to make it available to a large pre-existing part of the market. .22 TCM comes to mind as a cartridge that filled a niche (high-velocity handgun cartridges) but didn't conform to enough of the market to really take off. RIA was the only option if you wanted one, and you had to get a double stack modern 1911 if you wanted one at all. Doing so excluded people like me, who wanted a plane-jane .22TCM GI 1911, and many others who either did not want a 1911 at all, or ones who did not want a RIA.
I'm not sure if there will be any new chambering which will make it big. However I don't believe any have the chance to overtake the "big boys" which dominate the market.
Amscor has a conversion kit for Glock as well 1911 A1 handguns for the .22 TCM. Not sure if it will solidify the round or not.
JohnBiltz
Member
At this point fire arms and ammo for them is a pretty mature market. We have had smokeless powder for over 100 years. For something to break big it probably needs a big government contract to get enough scale to have an advantage. That and the military attracts surplus buyers and imitators. If the military went to .45 GAP for example it would suddenly be a much more attractive round and its popularity would grow. If the price point then dropped lower than .45 ACP it would cut into the ACP market. I would not be surprised to see .45 GAP 1911s before long.
Look at 5.56, its not as though people love the round so much its just so cheap compared to the alternatives.
Look at 5.56, its not as though people love the round so much its just so cheap compared to the alternatives.
DeepSouth
Random Guy
I completely agree, there's no real "need" for anything else. We have calibers so close to the same I don't understand why some were made to start with. Like you said their just aren't any gaps left to fill.
Think of what the top cartridges are now vs 40 years ago........not much change. To be honest innovation everywhere in the area of firearms is pretty much at a stand still as far as I can tell, and has been for a good while.
redneck2
Member
Some guys do the happy dance because some new superwhizbang cartridge comes out. Increases velocity by 1/2% and they're all giddy. The new Nosler comes to mind. But then, Weatherby did the same thing sixty years ago.
With a given bullet diameter and weight, and a given amount of powder you're going get a certain velocity. You can squeeze, twist, reshape a brass case all you want. In the end the laws of physics take over.
Probably the exception are the .40 S&W and the 5.56/.223. Still, the .223 is very mildly superior to a .222 mag, which was an existing round. I suspect adoption of the "new and improved" round had more to do with the owner of the head stamp rather than performance.
As Kipling said, there's nothing new under the sun. Of course, he stole that from King Solomon.
With a given bullet diameter and weight, and a given amount of powder you're going get a certain velocity. You can squeeze, twist, reshape a brass case all you want. In the end the laws of physics take over.
Probably the exception are the .40 S&W and the 5.56/.223. Still, the .223 is very mildly superior to a .222 mag, which was an existing round. I suspect adoption of the "new and improved" round had more to do with the owner of the head stamp rather than performance.
As Kipling said, there's nothing new under the sun. Of course, he stole that from King Solomon.
Elkins45
Member
10mm was never a compromise. It was conceived as an improvement over the 45 because it was loaded to much higher energy levels than any 45 auto round. The compromise came later when the FBI downloaded their guns to what were essentially 40 S&W levels, making an opening for a cartridge of the same power level but that could be shoehorned into smaller guns.
As far as I'm concerned, 300 blackout is already a success because I'm a reloader and a bullet caster. As long as they keep making 5.56 military ammo I will have a good supply of cases, and I have 1000 pounds of lead in the barn.
The new Nosler cartridges are doomed IMO, as are all of the short magnums. None of them do anything that can't already be done with existing cartridges.
Being a bit of a luddite, I won't need anything I don't have now. 223 for varmints, 30-30 and 308 for big game and my 44 and 444 for hogs. Being able to tailor loads to suit the game is nice.
(I have a few others but these are the go to calibers in my house. Giving my '06 and 243 to my kids.
I seriously doubt that many of the "new" cartridges will be on many shelves in five to ten years. What happened to all the hot new WSM, WSSM, RUM and so on calibers?
(I have a few others but these are the go to calibers in my house. Giving my '06 and 243 to my kids.
I seriously doubt that many of the "new" cartridges will be on many shelves in five to ten years. What happened to all the hot new WSM, WSSM, RUM and so on calibers?
another pake
Member
I'm not willing to say that new calibers won't gain and maintain popularity and staying power. We'll continue to see them flourish and fade because we enjoy shooting.
Do we need them? Duh, what does that have to do with anything?
What has changed for me is how I purchase the new products. My local shops, including both large and small ones, don't carry as much as I need/ want at the prices I want to pay. But somebody on-line does, and it's at my door in 3-4 days. An example for me is the Rem 6.8 mm SPC, .277. I've heard it said that this round can't last or become economical until the military adopts it. Maybe, maybe not. But for those who know, the round has already been adopted by several foreign militaries and is being serviced by S&B, Federal, Hornady and a growing list of others. Factory loadings becoming much more available, but not yet at your local store.
Watch for sales at PSA and places like that and get sub .50 cent rounds for very good hunting ammo. Reloaders can purchase excellent components, some de-milled, and roll their own for much less. Even if you don't reload you could buy 50 cent rounds from PSA, have fun and shoot them, and sell the once fired brass for .30.
Accurate plinking and hunting for .20? Sounds good to me, but I'm not recommending that you do it. I will say though that the next big shortage won't bother me in the least.
Do we need them? Duh, what does that have to do with anything?
What has changed for me is how I purchase the new products. My local shops, including both large and small ones, don't carry as much as I need/ want at the prices I want to pay. But somebody on-line does, and it's at my door in 3-4 days. An example for me is the Rem 6.8 mm SPC, .277. I've heard it said that this round can't last or become economical until the military adopts it. Maybe, maybe not. But for those who know, the round has already been adopted by several foreign militaries and is being serviced by S&B, Federal, Hornady and a growing list of others. Factory loadings becoming much more available, but not yet at your local store.
Watch for sales at PSA and places like that and get sub .50 cent rounds for very good hunting ammo. Reloaders can purchase excellent components, some de-milled, and roll their own for much less. Even if you don't reload you could buy 50 cent rounds from PSA, have fun and shoot them, and sell the once fired brass for .30.
Accurate plinking and hunting for .20? Sounds good to me, but I'm not recommending that you do it. I will say though that the next big shortage won't bother me in the least.
CoalTrain49
Member
Very few new calibers being invented. Lots of new cartridges. Caliber is bore dimension, cartridge is chamber dimension.
I don't think many new cartridges will catch on. Possibly if the military adopts a new rifle/cartridge we might see some new stuff on the market that will become popular. That's usually the way it goes.
I don't think many new cartridges will catch on. Possibly if the military adopts a new rifle/cartridge we might see some new stuff on the market that will become popular. That's usually the way it goes.
george burns
Member
Until someone figures out how to make a bullett that expands more while still staying in the margin of penetration necessary to not go past the point of losing control. I can't see anything new catching on. That doesn't mean they won't attempt some new ones but unless the price is very low, it probablly is not really necessary. The 22 TCM is promising, but fr the flame and loudness, along with the size of the hole it makes. "Which is just about everything", it does have exceptional speed and seems to be accurate, but too loud and bright for home defense, along with the diameter oif the holes it makes.
Unless the wound cavity makes up for the diameter of the wound it make like a rifle round.
Then there is always the old Super-Vel, type that some of us carried before it became illegal, for which I have a long story that I won't bore you with. But after Reagan was shot, all that stuff was outlawed. Perhaps they will take another look at that type of defensive round as it seemed to work for what it was intended to do.
When I bought my PPK's in NYC, "early 70's, they told me it was the best ammo for stopping a bad guy, and sold it with the gun. It was a good thing I held onto the receipt, showing when it had been purchased, because no one went around and told everyone who had purchased it legally, that it had become illegal to possess, "there was no internet". And all of a sudden everyone who had this stuff in their gun, was a felon. I remember the stuff had a yellow epoxy tip on it.
Unless they can invent some ammo that expands more than current metals do, I don't see how it can be done. Lead hollowpoints with a copper jacket, or wad cutters, used to flatten out pretty well.
Unless the wound cavity makes up for the diameter of the wound it make like a rifle round.
Then there is always the old Super-Vel, type that some of us carried before it became illegal, for which I have a long story that I won't bore you with. But after Reagan was shot, all that stuff was outlawed. Perhaps they will take another look at that type of defensive round as it seemed to work for what it was intended to do.
When I bought my PPK's in NYC, "early 70's, they told me it was the best ammo for stopping a bad guy, and sold it with the gun. It was a good thing I held onto the receipt, showing when it had been purchased, because no one went around and told everyone who had purchased it legally, that it had become illegal to possess, "there was no internet". And all of a sudden everyone who had this stuff in their gun, was a felon. I remember the stuff had a yellow epoxy tip on it.
Unless they can invent some ammo that expands more than current metals do, I don't see how it can be done. Lead hollowpoints with a copper jacket, or wad cutters, used to flatten out pretty well.
Panzerschwein
member
6.5 Creed has taken the LRSW (Long Range Shooting World) by storm recently. It's become hugely popular for new rifles. I expect it to stay around for a good while and to become mainstream shortly.
zb338
Member
I notice that the 6.5 Creed has slipped into the lists of calibers on a lot of new guns and regular stuff as well.
Zeke
Zeke
entropy
Member
.375 H&H comes to mind as a round .35 or over without a rainbow trajectory.
Some rounds gain slow acceptance, despite being ballistically identical to other much older rounds. 7mm-08 comes to mind. Ballistically a twin to the 7mm Mauser, 90 years it's senior.
In the early 80's 3Gun was limited to .30 cal only - so some competitors wildcatted the 7.62x45 to get around the rule and compete with the AR15 in competition. It had already proven to stand up to the normal .30s in Service Rifle with better scoring in rapid fire competition, the handwriting was on the wall. Unfortunately the "battle rifle" mindset was the standard attitude among "professionals" so poodle shooters were simply not tolerated. The wildcat was summarily tossed from most competitions.
Then a niche gun developer saw some potential in a restricted market and kept working with it with silenced firearms for varmint control, and renamed it .300 Whisper. Which became .300 Blackout. While the original wildcat was dead on arrival in competition, as a silenced round it's done better, and supersonic has become accepted despite its short effective range and terminal ballistics.
There's the rub - we don't know what new cartridge may become popular, despite its less than stellar origins or it's limited performance. There are quite a few "better" cartridges to use in hunting or self defense in the AR, but the .300BO marches on selling new guns and taking away market share from others which are arguably better in one job or another. It sells largely because of the notion that .30 is inherently "more gooder" for lack of a clearer explanation, and trying to get that is difficult. In a lot of respects its not - but for the most part that is acceptable and the conversation moves on.
I see it as being contrary to the normal cartridge adoption process - historically the shooting community has always preferred a cartridge that demonstrates clear superiority over the standard offerings, and it's been clearly the point of most discussions on other alternate AR cartridges, Not so much for the .300BO, tho. It's as if shooters have accepted it - because. Few shoot it suppressed, most are supersonic users, it's not cheaper than milspec, it doesn't range further than most other choices, it's got more drop at range, etc etc. We've basically just accepted it with all it's warts. That is a complete turnaround from the intense "mine is better than yours" thinking that usually drives new cartridge acceptance.
It's why predicting what will be a new standard is so hard - we aren't following the same rules anymore, if we ever did.
Then a niche gun developer saw some potential in a restricted market and kept working with it with silenced firearms for varmint control, and renamed it .300 Whisper. Which became .300 Blackout. While the original wildcat was dead on arrival in competition, as a silenced round it's done better, and supersonic has become accepted despite its short effective range and terminal ballistics.
There's the rub - we don't know what new cartridge may become popular, despite its less than stellar origins or it's limited performance. There are quite a few "better" cartridges to use in hunting or self defense in the AR, but the .300BO marches on selling new guns and taking away market share from others which are arguably better in one job or another. It sells largely because of the notion that .30 is inherently "more gooder" for lack of a clearer explanation, and trying to get that is difficult. In a lot of respects its not - but for the most part that is acceptable and the conversation moves on.
I see it as being contrary to the normal cartridge adoption process - historically the shooting community has always preferred a cartridge that demonstrates clear superiority over the standard offerings, and it's been clearly the point of most discussions on other alternate AR cartridges, Not so much for the .300BO, tho. It's as if shooters have accepted it - because. Few shoot it suppressed, most are supersonic users, it's not cheaper than milspec, it doesn't range further than most other choices, it's got more drop at range, etc etc. We've basically just accepted it with all it's warts. That is a complete turnaround from the intense "mine is better than yours" thinking that usually drives new cartridge acceptance.
It's why predicting what will be a new standard is so hard - we aren't following the same rules anymore, if we ever did.
Vern Humphrey
Member
I've got five of them.
After my second tour in Viet Nam, I felt I needed a "real" hunting rifle, not a Winchester Model 94 or a mil surp. After checking around, I bought a Ruger M77 -- in .30-06. of course. Later on, I got a CMP Garand, then bought an M1903A3 (which I had wanted since I was a boy.) Then I got a chance to pick up a pre-64 Model 70 Winchester, and finally my son-in-law's dad gave me another M1903A3.
Every time I think about buying a new rifle, if it isn't a rimfire or varminter, I read the tea leaves, run the numbers, and it always comes out ".30-06."
CLP
member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2010
- Messages
- 1,397
they're not "go to", but they're not obsolete either
LiveLife
Member
With the popularity of 9mm, I have been shooting 9mm out of 40S&W Glocks with thicker chamber/barrel walls for decades now and would love to see 9mm Major become mainstream.
Remember the 45 Super? Now ponder 124 gr bullet at 1400-1500 fps. Further imagine 124 gr bullet at 1600-1700 fps shot out of carbines.
We could call the new caliber 9mm Super and make modification so normal 9mm barrel could not chamber the 9mm Super ammunition and adjust the recoil spring rate for comfortable/manageable shooting.
Benefits would be smaller high capacity package with lower cost.
I mean, if 9mm is good, 9mm Super would be better, right?
Remember the 45 Super? Now ponder 124 gr bullet at 1400-1500 fps. Further imagine 124 gr bullet at 1600-1700 fps shot out of carbines.
We could call the new caliber 9mm Super and make modification so normal 9mm barrel could not chamber the 9mm Super ammunition and adjust the recoil spring rate for comfortable/manageable shooting.
Benefits would be smaller high capacity package with lower cost.
I mean, if 9mm is good, 9mm Super would be better, right?
Jim Watson
Member
I think they call that a .357 SIG or a 9x23 Win.
Or maybe a .357 Ring of Fire (TFL inventor.)
Or maybe a .357 Ring of Fire (TFL inventor.)
LiveLife
Member
No 9mm Super or 9 Super would have similar dimensions as 9mm but different case design to handle higher pressures.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Or to prevent people from firing high-pressure rounds in guns designed for the ordinary 9X19.
That's how the .357 Magnum came about -- because some people tried shooting .38-44 S&W rounds (which were very high pressure .38 Specials) in ordinary .38 Special revolvers. So S&W and Remington developed the new round that could not be chambered in revolvers not designed for it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
