Author Topic: Good read - "Cartridges We Can Live Without" (Read 2668 times)

brasschaser · « **on:** July 27, 2004, 03:22:44 PM »

RifleShooter Article - http://www.rifleshootermag.com/ammunition/cartridges_without/

Zachary · « **Reply #1 on:** July 27, 2004, 04:18:18 PM »

Interesting thing happened to me today. I had ordered ammo for my .264 Win Mag and 6.5x55 rifles. I just received the ammo today - heck, I have the boxes right here next to my computer, and I just read the article.

There's no denying that the .264 Win Mag is, as the author put it, on it's way out. There are only 2 ammo manufacturers that make ammo for the .264 - Remington and Winchester. There was one thing that happened about a year or so ago that gave a loud hint that the .264 would be fading into the sunset - Winchester decided to no longer make brass for the .264. Still, I got a great deal on the gun - a Limited Run of Remington BDL SS, so I bought it.

As for the 6.5x55, I'm sure that US makers will still make ammo for it, at least just as long, if not longer than, the .264. Even then, I'm not too worried because you can get European factory ammo for the 6.5x55 that is actually generally more accurate and cheaper than US factory ammo - Sellier & Bellot. I own many rifles in many calibers and it seems that the S&B stuff, although it's inexpensive, is just as accurate or more than my Federal Premium or Hornady ammo.

As for the .260, I also own this cartridge. It's close to the 6.5x55 and I don't know why it isn't popular. I guess probably because people opt for the 7mm-08, and I don't blame them, because I have 3 guns in this wonderful cartridge.

Zachary

Mauser · « **Reply #2 on:** July 28, 2004, 02:41:55 AM »

I don't understand Boddington's purpose in this article. Is it really necessary to "kill off" cartridges because they either aren't popular or are inferior to similar, more popular cartridges? What, really, is the cost to the ammo makers in making 300 Savage for example? Don't they already have whatever dies they need? Certainly the bullets, primers, and raw unshaped brass are all the same as the 308 and other cartridges. The manufacturers already use standard packaging sizes. Maybe I don't understand the business but it seems like the additional costs would be minimal keeping these cartridges around.

If cartridge diversity was so expensive for the manufacturers why would Remington come out with the 338 Ultra Mag-a cartridge that was never destined for popularity. Also, why would Remington stay with the 8 mag and Winchester with the 264 mag decades after they were considered marketing failures? These companies are notorious for cost cutting (Winchester in 1964). If the costs are what Boddington says, these cartridges would probably have been dumped years ago.

Zachary · « **Reply #3 on:** July 28, 2004, 03:19:23 AM »

I spoke with a rep at Federal Cartridge about a year ago and I really don't remember the primary reason for it. Anyway, I do remember him saying that their Marketing people allegedly advised their bosses to drop, or at least lessen, certain cartridges from their line up. I don't remember all of them, but I do remember that the .260 was one of them. Well, back then, Federal had 2 .260s in their line up, and I think they still have that same amount today. So apparently nothing happened.

There's no denying that the .264WM is barely hanging on. I don't know of any gun maker right now that makes new production guns in the .264. I would think that Winchester is still selling .264 ammo because, even though it's not popular, they seem to have a monopoly on it. (I know Remington made ammo for it, but I'm not sure if they still do.)

Zachary

Mac11700 · « **Reply #4 on:** July 28, 2004, 05:38:43 AM »

That's just the way gun writers are...their editors come up with a story line and give it over to the writers...he does explain himself and his reasoning very well in the final paragraphs:

Quote

AND WHAT IF . . .
So, by my count, that's an even two dozen rifle cartridges we could do without. That would still leave us with far too many, but it would at least offset the new introductions of the last few years--with a net loss, which would be a good thing. And, before you start sending me death threats, just what would happen in the extremely unlikely event that all of these cartridges were dropped? Actually very, very little. You couldn't go down to the corner hardware store and buy them--but unless you've got an extremely unusual store at your corner, you can't anyway. Thousands of shooters continue to use the many grand old cartridges that have been dropped by the major manufacturers, so it isn't the end of the world. You would just have to work a little harder to keep the ammo locker full. You could load it yourself, but if you prefer not to there are dozens of small ammunition makers and custom loading firms that will load darn near anything, no matter how obscure.

So don't fret. The down side is increased cost of ammo, but the up side is ammunition that is better tailored to your rifle, with the bullet of your choosing.

By the way, whether you like it or not, I do predict that a lot of the cartridges mentioned--and some not mentioned--will be dropped by the majors over the next few years. So if you're shooting a cartridge that you know isn't winning any popularity races you can simplify the future by laying in a supply of ammo and, whether you handload or not, saving your cases. In today's world it's possible to find-or make-cases for darn near anything, but difficulty and cost varies widely. If you have just a couple hundred once-fired cases you can be almost assured of a lifetime's supply of ammo!

It is just one writers opinion anyway :wink:

Mac

Omaha-BeenGlockin · « **Reply #5 on:** July 28, 2004, 06:31:56 AM »

I generally try to stick with the popular tried-n-true cartridges ---so I'm not stuck with an obsolete rifle along with an obsolete cartridge.

A recent purchase is proving this out---French MAS 49/56 7.5mm----ammo for this thing is rare as hens teeth----I'm having trouble even finding empty cases to reload.

The dealer I bought the gun from has ammo----but its as expensive as the bargain .270----.30-06 at Wally World------since this is a semi-auto----that gets real expensive---FAST.

springer222 · « **Reply #6 on:** July 28, 2004, 02:16:38 PM »

Without getting into an in-depth market study, the main reason cartridge companies are not making ammo in "non-popular" calibers is because of inventory. Inventory is money and no-one wants to tie up money with ammo that does not readily sell. Everyone is reducing inventories to increase operating capitol, so ammo companies are focusing on products that turnover (volume).

Longcruise · « **Reply #7 on:** July 28, 2004, 02:48:38 PM »

Quote

French MAS 49/56 7.5mm----ammo for this thing is rare as hens teeth----I'm having trouble even finding empty cases to reload

Graf's has the brass and Lee makes the dies. :-)

Quote

don't understand Boddington's purpose in this article

For a paycheck!

Every month these guys have to come up with something to write about. Most of it has been said about a thousand times so they split hairs over and over. :grin:

The reason for all the enthusiasm over the Ultra and Short and super short and ad infinitum new magnums is it's something to write endlessly about, something to sell advertising for and something for millions of shooters and sportsman to think they need :-D

But, that's just coming from an old cynic who had to have a .264 mag back in 1963 cause it was nothing short of a ballistic miracle :grin:

Cement Man · « **Reply #8 on:** July 28, 2004, 03:39:14 PM »

Live without my 6.5 Swede? Oh no! How about an article on "Gun writers we can live without"? Just joshin.... :-)

Longcruise · « **Reply #9 on:** July 28, 2004, 06:00:37 PM »

Quote

Live without my 6.5 Swede? Oh no! How about an article on "Gun writers we can live without"? Just joshin....

Ceeeeement man, thats a solid observation! :grin:

mountainview · « **Reply #10 on:** July 28, 2004, 07:54:11 PM »

Hmmm. Why not extend the logic in the article even farther? Who really needs anything other than a 30-06, 12 gauge, and maybe a 22 rimfire? Would simplify everything for everyone but it would make for an extremely boring world.

Coyote Hunter · « **Reply #11 on:** July 29, 2004, 03:17:35 AM »

Get rid of everything but the following:

.22 Hornet
.223
.22-250
.243
.25-06
.260 Rem
7mm-08
7mm Rem Mag
.30-30
.308
.30-06
.300 Win Mag
.338 Win Mag
.35 Whelen
.375 H&H
.416 (I don't care , choose one)
.45-70
.458 Lott

Then as factory ammo becomes scarce, people who don't handload will sell off their "obsolete" rifles and handloaders like me can pick them up for a song!

vernonp · « **Reply #12 on:** July 29, 2004, 06:02:50 AM »

A lot of the new rounds just does not make sense. The new 243 wssm balistic wise is the same as the Remington 6mm. Why would anyone want the new round over the old. A lot more expensive ammo and you are gaining nothing. --I am checking on buying a new rifle and it seems that the rifles that I like only come in the short magnums or heavy rifles.---- I like the new winchester super shadow but it only comes in the short magnums. I like the Winchester coyote, it weighs 9 lbs. I would love to have a rifle like Remingtons sendero in a 7 lb. 308 or 7mmo8. I only hunt Texas whitetail, Axis, Fallow and Black buck for the most part and I do not need any of the short magnums, or long magnums for that matter.---I think I am going to get the Tikka t3 lite stainless in 308. The best price I have found on this is $519. Anyone know where I can buy it for less? Thanks for your input.---vernonp

brasschaser · « **Reply #13 on:** July 29, 2004, 07:28:29 AM »

Great idea there Coyote Hunter. I thought the guy made some pretty good points. Especially in regards to new production rifles and the calibers they choose. Like with the .260 Remington, it's a better round than the 6.5 Swede, and the two are so ballistically similar it doesn't really make sense to have both of them being chambered in new rilfes. If the .260 is to succeed rifle manufacturers need to drop the 6.5. Notice Savage has already dropped the .260 after a short stint, and besides remington and ruger, there's not many manufacturers making .260 rifles. Winchester and Howa have both gone with the 6.5 for some odd reason, which is counter productive. I think it's great to shoot and load for older and "obsolete" cartidges, I really enjoy shooting surplus rifles, but it doesn't make sense to make new production rifles chambered for these. If we could standardize on the better cartridges for the various calibers we would have more selection rather than duplicates that don't succeed. The author did a good job pointing out the best of the bunch and what their actual advantages are.

ratherbefishin · « **Reply #14 on:** August 02, 2004, 04:29:39 AM »

No matter what the popular magazine writers say, or even what the ballistics are, ex military cartridges are unlikely to ever be dropped for the simple reason there are so many rifles out there.The vast majority of guns are probably in the hands of the casual shooter,on farms, or weekend resident hunter.That means 30-30's, 303's[ in Canada]30-06, 223,308 and 6.5X55 swedes will be the mainstay of the civilian arsenal.
The .17 rimfire and 22 magnum may be ''better'' rounds than the humble 22, but I suggest they will never surpass the quantity of 22 shells sold.
Most of the rest while agreed superiour ballistics simply can't compete on a sheer volume basis with the calibers in common useage.Besides, if they didn't come up with ''new '' calibers,the demand for new rifles would decrease.There is a very simple reason the afore mentioned calibers are still in production- they work .

brasschaser · « **Reply #15 on:** August 05, 2004, 08:54:01 AM »

Quote from: ratherbefishin

No matter what the popular magazine writers say, or even what the ballistics are, ex military cartridges are unlikely to ever be dropped for the simple reason there are so many rifles out there.The vast majority of guns are probably in the hands of the casual shooter,on farms, or weekend resident hunter.That means 30-30's, 303's[ in Canada]30-06, 223,308 and 6.5X55 swedes will be the mainstay of the civilian arsenal.

I'll agree with ya there about those cartridges never being dropped from production in the US, with the exception of the 6.5. While there's a good deal of imported Swede rifles, it's not really a mainstay here. Just look at how few even produce rifles in that caliber, and most US hunters have never heard of it. But you can be certain that it will always be produced overseas since it's so established there. The few ammo makers here that produce it unfortunately create weak loads due to worries over liability in use in these older rifles. And that's really got the 6.5 tied down. That and the fact that it's not up to the advantages in case design of the .260 Remington. Pretty much anything derived from the .308 is a winner. While you could say the .308 is an aging cartridge, it still is pretty much unmatched for those wanting accuracy, standard velocities, efficient powder usage, and a short action. The 6.5 and others however, have met their match. The 6.5X55 vs. .260Rem is kind of like the 7.62x54r vs. .308 to me. I wouldn't pass up a good rifle in one of those older imported calibers, but would certainly prefer a rifle in one of the newer rounds.

cowpoke · « **Reply #16 on:** August 08, 2004, 04:01:02 AM »

I agree with Cement man , an article on gun writer we can do without is in order.

It would be a long long article.

longwinters · « **Reply #17 on:** August 08, 2004, 09:05:05 AM »

Vern,

I think the price you are finding on the Tikka is pretty much the going price. Although I would ck out the internet for sales. At times I have seen em for around $500.00 but the prices seem to change plenty.

Long

lilabner · « **Reply #18 on:** August 10, 2004, 06:56:14 AM »

Sure, a lot of the new cartridges fill no real need. But, they do stimulate sale of guns and without sales, the gun manufacturers would go belly up and without the gun manufacturers, the Second Amendment would be in even deeper trouble than it is now. So, more power to the new cartridges and those who invest in the new guns to use them!

turfman · « **Reply #19 on:** August 12, 2004, 07:12:29 AM »

Well I guess the gunscribes have written everything about the new slurry of cartridges. I read and article in G&A about 6 or 7 yrs ago when boddington proclaimed that the .264 win and .257 weatherby were about as good as you could get for antelope.( I guess he didn't like the 7mm rem that week) I can see where there are some that you can't really do much with, but I'm sure that won't stop someone from buying them. As far as it goes, the .264 hasn't had a good factory load ever; but yet it hangs on. The swift hasn't been a real seller for over 50 yrs, but it keeps going. On a personal note; I'd love to find a cherry1903 mannlicher schoenauer. I don't see anyone chambering for that and probably hasn't for 50 yrs; But I still want one.

I don't really see the whole point of the newer cartridges they are making now. So, what do you gain off of a 300wsm that alrady hasn't been done. What no belt......short action....Big deal. Talk about redundant.

turfman

MGMorden · « **Reply #20 on:** August 12, 2004, 08:32:59 AM »

Quote from: brasschaser

I'll agree with ya there about those cartridges never being dropped from production in the US, with the exception of the 6.5. While there's a good deal of imported Swede rifles, it's not really a mainstay here. Just look at how few even produce rifles in that caliber, and most US hunters have never heard of it. But you can be certain that it will always be produced overseas since it's so established there. The few ammo makers here that produce it unfortunately create weak loads due to worries over liability in use in these older rifles. And that's really got the 6.5 tied down. That and the fact that it's not up to the advantages in case design of the .260 Remington. Pretty much anything derived from the .308 is a winner. While you could say the .308 is an aging cartridge, it still is pretty much unmatched for those wanting accuracy, standard velocities, efficient powder usage, and a short action. The 6.5 and others however, have met their match. The 6.5X55 vs. .260Rem is kind of like the 7.62x54r vs. .308 to me. I wouldn't pass up a good rifle in one of those older imported calibers, but would certainly prefer a rifle in one of the newer rounds.

The market is generally saying different. The gunshop owners I've talked to have stated that 6.5x55 is starting to become a lot more popular around here, and overall it's doing a lot better than .260 Remington. Yeah the .260 might be a nice cartridge, but I think the 6.5x55 SE will outlast it by a ways.

I really don't like the article though. It's very self centered. It's all focusing on what this author wants. He doesn't like this, and this, and this . . . so the ammo makers should stop producing? I think not. How about lets let our wonderful capitalist society work it out and the manufacturers will keep whats profitable and ditch what's not.

Heck I handload most of my ammo (just ordered an SKS though so that'll be one I don't reload for), but I still don't want to see factory ammo dry up. Companies that don't make ammo for a particular round generally don't make brass. Grafs seems to keep a lot of rare brass on hand (I get my 7.5x55 Swiss brass from them), but I certainly don't want to have to start getting Lapua or Norma brass for my 6.5x55 Swedish (or, more likely, buying PMC or S&B ammo and reloading that).

Questor · « **Reply #21 on:** August 12, 2004, 08:43:17 AM »

What we really need to do is get rid of the 30-06, .270, 30-30, 7mm, .223, 300 Win Mag, 338 Win Mag, 375 H&H mag, 9mm Luger, 45ACP, 38 special, 44 magnum, and 357 magnum.

That way we could see what rises to the top in the next generation of cartridges and it will give the gun writers a reason to exist, at least for a little while.

Or better yet, keep them all and then continue the practice of developing thousands of nearly identical American big game cartridges. We need to fill in all the niches, and after we're done with the .308's, .309's, .310's , and .311s, we can do the .3081's, .3082s, .3083s, etc.

Longcruise · « **Reply #22 on:** August 12, 2004, 09:11:22 AM »

Quote

As far as it goes, the .264 hasn't had a good factory load ever; but yet it hangs on.

Ah yes, the .264 Win Mag! :grin: It was my first high power rifle. $129 in 1963 for a Win mod 70 (pre 64 of course) with a Weaver V8 scope.

It's long gone and the only thing I ever shot in it was Win 140 Power Points. Talk about destructive!!!!! :shock:

The .264 could be a wonderful cartridge if it were loaded with a premium 125 grain bullet with a good BC. Otherwise, the 270 win with 130 grainers does it all just as well IMO

turfman · « **Reply #23 on:** August 13, 2004, 01:07:23 AM »

$129. I bet you wish you had it now. I have the westrener my father bought for me used in 1978. So since 81 it has done the job beautifully; harvesting many whitetails, two couse deer, unlimited woodchucks, 1 elk and a whole bunch of paper targets. I recently retired it in favor of a ruger mkII in .264; and recently purchased a very nice old sako in .264. So as far as that goes I'll keep the .264 torch burning by myself if need be.

looking at the article again I'd be hard pressed to go hunting with what I have in my gunroom if these calibers were to drop from the earth. Thank god I still have a 30/06 and a whelen( I think he says that one is ok). oh wait I do have a 32/20 also; guess I'll have to cut the 1873 into pistol length :roll: .

turfman

Longcruise · « **Reply #24 on:** August 13, 2004, 08:16:46 AM »

It gets obviouser and obviouser that what he can do without is not the same as I or you can do without!

I too think the new wave of magnums is a foolish waste, but who am I to judge what the public wants. They sure don't do any harm to the continuation of the shooting sports.

I cant get along without 7.5X55 or 7.62X54R even though most of the shooters of the world could care less

JC · « **Reply #25 on:** November 08, 2004, 09:51:02 AM »

I tell you guys what I like, I can't find the magazine it was in but one of the Gifted Elite " writers" made a comment on the accuracy of the 338 Win Mag. I was reading that while My 338 was drinking in some Shoters Choice. I looked at the article and I figured that my .5 Moa groups were wrong. Because I know that the target I held would lie to me before my favorite gun writer would.
As for the 6.5x55 swede, I don't see it leaving us too soon. Wouldn't it be great to have a Ruger #1 RSI in the Swede. I have a jones for an Encore barrel in 264 winmag.

Questor · « **Reply #26 on:** November 08, 2004, 12:23:49 PM »

A writer's gotta write. This is just one of those recurring topics like "Is the 30-06 any good?", "270 vs. 30-06", "Best deer rifles", "Best deer cartridges", "Best lever action deer cartridges", "Brush busters: fact or reality". No high marks for creativity, but those topics have become standards.

Lawdog · « **Reply #27 on:** November 08, 2004, 12:57:45 PM »

The "rag" writers have been trying to get rid of many of the old favorite cartridges for years. When the popularity of the .222 Rem. took off everyone said the .22 Hornet was as good as dead. Those of us with Hornet rifles should give them to the museums. Now look and see which is still being chambered(and gaining in popularity) and which isn't. The main problem with the .260 Rem as I see it is that it is too close to the 6.5 Swede. In newer firearms the Swede has the advantage of slightly more case capacity and an accuracy record that stands for itself. I dont see much of a future for the .260 Rem. as the 6.5mm Swede will be around for many years to come. Lawdog

Sigma · « **Reply #28 on:** November 09, 2004, 01:46:16 PM »

Lawdog is right on.

Regards

pastorp · « **Reply #29 on:** November 09, 2004, 03:20:59 PM »

Don't sell the 260 down the river yet. I love mine. Kills like a big rifle. And being based on the 308 case there will always be brass available to load. Regards, Byron