Author Topic: Cartridges we can live without... (Read 9350 times)

beemanbeme · « **Reply #30 on:** September 21, 2005, 01:30:42 PM »

Oh well, you gonna remember those folks have gotta write something. So many inches a month to fill up. It was nothing more than a fluff article meaning nothing. I didn't read the article but you
notice that he picked cartridges that had already pretty much died in the marketplace.
If he gets a lot of flack, he and his editor will love it. It means folks are buying the mags and reading the articles.

The Sodbuster · « **Reply #31 on:** September 21, 2005, 01:39:44 PM »

If you agree there's too many superfluous cartridges out there (and I don't), then become a lefty like me. Suddenly you'll find your choice of cartridge in every manufacturer's rifles severely limited. And if you find a rifle you'd like in a cartridge you'd like, I hope you're happy with the base rifle model, and don't want anything like a stainless action and barrel, varmint model, mannlicher or tactical stock, or most other "fancy" options.

Thank goodness for Savage. To most other manufacturers, we're the red-headed stepchild.

TX Devil Doc · « **Reply #32 on:** September 21, 2005, 02:30:06 PM »

Krochus wrote:

Quote

Since you seem to be colonel boddington in disguise...

Gentlemen, if you review my past messages, you will see I have YET to express my opinion.
Therefore, these are Boddington's opinions. I found his article on a website to which he contributes.

I'll reserve my opinion for later.

TxJester

Dave in WV · « **Reply #33 on:** September 21, 2005, 03:16:33 PM »

I can do without any cartridge I don't have. What you can do without may be far different. I'm a 30-06 fan but I won't go as far to say get rid of the .280 as IMO I'd rather have one than a .270. I have a 7mm-08 but if I had a Mannlicher stocked rifle my first choice for chambering would be the 7mm Mauser and second would be the 9.3x62 for tradition's sake. But what do I know? I own a .243 and use 100gr Core-Lokts to kill deer out of pure ignorance as I don't realize the .243 won't kill deer unless you put one through an eye ball or other (just right placement) or use a "super bullet". :eek:

2ndtimer · « **Reply #34 on:** September 21, 2005, 07:02:11 PM »

As long as we are inviting flames, (and roasting Col. Boddington), I would go so far as to say, while the 30-06 is a great and versatile cartridge, I believe that probably 80% of the hunters and shooters using it would be better off with a 6.5x55 Swede. Much less recoil, equal effectiveness on deer sized game (which is probably all that 80% of USA hunters realistically go after) and the potential for better accuracy. Just to prove that I am not a "only really old calibers are worthwhile" kind of guy, my other rifle is chambered for the .270WSM, which I am wondering how it escaped Boddington's hit list. (It doesn't do anything you can't do with a standard .270 Win, sometimes has feeding issues, ammo is expensive, etc.) I wouldn't give up either one of them, but if I do get another rifle, it will either be another 6.5x55 or maybe a .260 Remington. Kind of going for "understated effectiveness" for medium game.

kiwi98j · « **Reply #35 on:** September 21, 2005, 10:48:12 PM »

Quote from: Slamfire

Callin' him Col. is obsolete, he's been a "Gineral" for several years now. As for the cartridges I'll second Greybeard's nominations. :lol:

Actually, he never was a General. He was nominated by Pres Bush but was passed over without a confirmation vote by the Senate.

An officer nominated by the President to be General may assume the rank (duties and responsibilities) of the position and is referred to as "General -select" but is not entitled to the grade (pay, privilege and authority) until the nomination is confirmed by the Senate when he/she is then commissioned as a "General Officer". As the President did not choose to re-nominate Boddington for another confirmation - he is no longer entitled to the rank or title. He retired after being passed over so cannot be considered again.

For enlisted personnel above E-4, the term "acting" means the same as select and "promoted" is confirmation by a promotion board.

Slamfire · « **Reply #36 on:** September 22, 2005, 12:49:46 AM »

Thank you for elucidating me. However, I will stand behind one part of my post. Since he's retired it is obsolete to call him Col. When I retired, I lost all my influence in the Electricity business. :-D

ringo · « **Reply #37 on:** September 22, 2005, 03:32:48 AM »

This list makes most of what resides in my safe obsolete, good bye old friends. You are no longer up to the task of punching paper or hunting game, it is time to put you into retirement. I would not wish to burden the Police dept. with such ancient, obsolete junk, so how would one go about disposing of all my milsurps, customs and general hunting rifles? I guess the only thing I will get to keep is my 338 win mag! I have really lived a pathetic life full of poor choices, collecting all this junk, hunting with sub standard chamberings. How was one to know what was effective for the last 40 years putting meat in the freezer up to 2 weeks ago is just scrap metal now, sniff! Now I have to explain all this to my wife, lots of luck, about all the new purchases I have to make.

Bart Solo · « **Reply #38 on:** September 22, 2005, 11:04:30 AM »

I read Bottington's article and have to say that while he agrees with me that the 6mm Remington is superior to the .243 Winchester in almost every way except sales. Still he wants to axe the 6mm Remington. I guess that is because sales trump quality. Actually the 6mm failed many years ago when it was called the .244 Remington. The rifles in 244 Remington had barrels that didn't have the right twist for 100 grain bullets. The .243 Winchester's did and in the couple of years it took Remington to make the correction the 243 won out. Too damn bad. I am not giving up my 6mm Remington. I have a lot of brass and I hand load.

Lawdog · « **Reply #39 on:** September 22, 2005, 11:06:08 AM »

Quote from: victorcharlie

Quote from: Graybeard
What I can do without? All belted rounds and all rounds with the term magnum attached to them.

Yep.......I agree......

victorcharlie,

I am curious. What do you and Graybeard have against belted cartridges? :?: I would like to know your reasons. Lawdog

rockbilly · « **Reply #40 on:** September 22, 2005, 11:58:51 AM »

:shock: Give up the 6.5x55, is y'all sick? There are tons of 6.5x55 guns and ammo sold in the USA. I don't know where it actuall stands, but I think from the way they sell their popularity is strong. This ole boy has about 10-12 in the safe, thats military and sporitorized versions as well as a Wincherster Model 70 Light Classic.

I do agree, there are too many choices, a few basic calibers would do the trick, but the fun of loading and experimenting would be gone.

Anybody playing with the 5 mm Craig? If you have one of the old 5mm this is a way to shoot fairly cheap, and by reloading you learn to love the little gun even more. The 5mm Craig is an excellent of what happens to an obsolete caliber. :roll:

jerkface11 · « **Reply #41 on:** September 22, 2005, 01:15:19 PM »

Nice to know the .257 roberts and 6.5x55 should go but the guy thinks 307 winchester should stay. When was the last gun in 307 made? How long has it been since they made ammo for it? Ruger still makes a .257. And several companies make a 6.5x55 with multiple loads available for both. I say seargent bodingtons magazine is obsolete.

5.56er · « **Reply #42 on:** September 22, 2005, 02:30:16 PM »

yes col craig boddington is a bonafide Idiot, but He does not no the full potential of some of the cartridges on his list because he has probably never used them on game. I read an article were he used a model 71 winchester in 348 on black bear so he has really run out of things to talk about I think he was shell shocked or something beacause I just don't agree with much of anything he has to say

NONYA · « **Reply #43 on:** September 22, 2005, 03:10:01 PM »

everything but the 7mm Rem Mag..lol...why do without any of them?The more options the better!

poncaguy · « **Reply #44 on:** September 22, 2005, 04:02:18 PM »

Well. there is one "magnum" I'll stand up for....the 270WSM.......I can do without the others for sure.

China Fleet Sailor · « **Reply #45 on:** September 22, 2005, 08:32:20 PM »

I'll stand up for another mag: .338 WinMag.

It's the best thing going between 30 and 40 caliber.

Black Jaque Janaviac · « **Reply #46 on:** September 23, 2005, 03:22:25 AM »

His list makes little sense. He attempts to claim that it's based on practicality. But then he elects to keep the .35 Whelen. The Whelen isn't that popular, tho it should be. I think he just likes the Whelen, which is hard to blame him. You just gotta like a cartridge named after a guy who heads into the British Columbian mountains to spend a winter of "rest and relaxation".

Slamfire · « **Reply #47 on:** September 23, 2005, 06:23:52 AM »

Quote from: Ron Byers

I read Bottington's article and have to say that while he agrees with me that the 6mm Remington is superior to the .243 Winchester in almost every way except sales. Still he wants to axe the 6mm Remington. I guess that is because sales trump quality. Actually the 6mm failed many years ago when it was called the .244 Remington. The rifles in 244 Remington had barrels that didn't have the right twist for 100 grain bullets. The .243 Winchester's did and in the couple of years it took Remington to make the correction the 243 won out. Too damn bad. I am not giving up my 6mm Remington. I have a lot of brass and I hand load.

A lot of that won't stabilize 100 grain bullets in a .244 was a myth. One writer said it, and a bunch more copied it. Once in a while one would try it and report it worked! Of course you can't refute a myth.

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #48 on:** September 23, 2005, 10:04:03 AM »

Quote from: Lawdog

Quote from: victorcharlie
Quote from: Graybeard
What I can do without? All belted rounds and all rounds with the term magnum attached to them.

Yep.......I agree......

victorcharlie,

I am curious. What do you and Graybeard have against belted cartridges? :?: I would like to know your reasons. Lawdog

I would like to hear it also.

RaySendero · « **Reply #49 on:** September 23, 2005, 10:29:35 AM »

I'll try to only list current available cartridges that I will probably never own so this is my personel list:

Graybeard · « **Reply #50 on:** September 23, 2005, 10:45:03 AM »

You've read my reasons at least 100 times. One more seems a tad redundant.

Captain_Obvious · « **Reply #51 on:** September 23, 2005, 02:57:38 PM »

Here is my list of rounds that should definitely go:

223 WSSM- total no-brainer. What is it good for?

243 WSSM- give me a 243 Winchester anyday!

25 WSSM- 25-06 is better and I can prove it.

7mm WSM- 7mm Remington Magnum handles heavier bullets better.

7mm Remington Ultra Mag- completely impractical for the given bullet weights.

7mm STW- not necessary, 7mm Remington Magnum can achieve its performance when properly loaded.

7mm SAUM- easily overshadowed by the 7mm Remington Magnum.

300 WSM/SAUM- offer no ballistic advantages over the 300 Winchester Magnum.

325 WSM- about 100 fps slower than advertised, clearly disadvantageous when compared to the .338 clan.

30-378 Weatherby Magnum- completely impractical the given bullet weights.

338-378 Weatherby Magnum- completely impractical for the given bullet weights.

458 Lott- 458 Winchester Magnum does just fine, last I looked.

600 and 700 Nitro Express- ABSURD!

* the 270 WSM is not included in this list because it fills its own niche and therefore does not merely duplicate another cartridge.

Bart Solo · « **Reply #52 on:** September 23, 2005, 07:35:38 PM »

Quote from: Slamfire

A lot of that won't stabilize 100 grain bullets in a .244 was a myth. One writer said it, and a bunch more copied it. Once in a while one would try it and report it worked! Of course you can't refute a myth.

But it was a myth that doomed the 6mm Remington-a cartridge I believe is superior to the 243 in nearly every way but which has played 2nd fiddle ever since the 244 was said not to stablize 100 grain bullets. I use 100 grain bullets in mine and never have a problem. Of course, my rifle is called a 6mm and not a .244.

billpool · « **Reply #53 on:** September 23, 2005, 08:05:26 PM »

Quote from: missouri dave

Strikes me as boddington is one stuffed shirt so full of himself (and something else as well but self control got the better of me) I don't know how he gets it buttoned up. Sorry bout the rant.

:-D

HERE HERE!!!!!

218Bee · « **Reply #54 on:** September 24, 2005, 01:56:32 AM »

More choices>Less choices.

He's just filling up space on paper. I've read that many "controversial" writers were ...well..not. Their "controversies" were contrived to boost readership/sales.

I'm kinda partial to the "classics" so I find his opinions less than worthless.

Rick

R.W.Dale · « **Reply #55 on:** September 24, 2005, 03:22:18 AM »

Quote from: Ron Byers

Quote from: Slamfire

A lot of that won't stabilize 100 grain bullets in a .244 was a myth. One writer said it, and a bunch more copied it. Once in a while one would try it and report it worked! Of course you can't refute a myth.

But it was a myth that doomed the 6mm Remington-a cartridge I believe is superior to the 243 in nearly every way but which has played 2nd fiddle ever since the 244 was said not to stablize 100 grain bullets. I use 100 grain bullets in mine and never have a problem. Of course, my rifle is called a 6mm and not a .244.

Actually you're wrong a myth this is not rifles marked .244rem use a 1:12 twist rate witch is too slow to stabilize 100gr bullets, and rifles marked 6mm rem use a 1:9 twist rate. As you can see remington didn't just change the name of the .244 they also changed the twist rate. Of course by the time remington realized their goof up 243 win had already taken off.

Lawdog · « **Reply #56 on:** September 24, 2005, 08:12:49 AM »

Captain_Obvious,

Quote

Here is my list of rounds that should definitely go:

223 WSSM- total no-brainer. What is it good for?

243 WSSM- give me a 243 Winchester anyday!

25 WSSM- 25-06 is better and I can prove it.

7mm WSM- 7mm Remington Magnum handles heavier bullets better.

300 WSM/SAUM- offer no ballistic advantages over the 300 Winchester Magnum.

325 WSM- about 100 fps slower than advertised, clearly disadvantageous when compared to the .338 clan.

I edited your list because I agree with your other selections but with the above don't you think that some of these cartridges are still a little too new to be writing them off? You stated the following;

Quote

223 WSSM- total no-brainer. What is it good for?

Well for starters itÂ’s 150 - 200 fps. faster than the .220 Swift which makes the .223 WSSM the new velocity King of factory .22 centerfires. ItÂ’s accuracy is becoming well known in appropriate rifles(wonÂ’t comment on those light weight models being offered in the new WSSM cartridges). It offer increased range as well as an inherently more accurate cartridges design.

Quote

243 WSSM- give me a 243 Winchester anyday!

You like the .243 Winchester while others like the 6mm Remington and still others like the .240 Weatherby. The .243 WSSM is another .243 caliber that offer a more an inherently accurate design over the other .243 calibers. As with the other WSSMÂ’s it is selling very well so it must be offering something to someone.

Quote

25 WSSM- 25-06 is better and I can prove it.

No one ever said it was supposed to beat the great .25-06. Hey I am one of the biggest Â“Quarter BoreÂ” fans going. Own three .25-06Â’s at the moment but the .25 WSSM does come close to a .25-06 and does so in a much shorter bolt action rifle.

As for the WSMÂ’s they are all selling way too well and do offer to much to be considered cartridges that can be done without. The .325 WSM was never designed to compete with any of the .338 cartridges. You may not like the new WSM & WSSM but their are thousands of other hunters/shooters that do. Lawdog

Captain_Obvious · « **Reply #57 on:** September 24, 2005, 10:52:06 AM »

The 325 WSM was advertised to exceed the 338 in performance. This was claimed in an issue of Peterson's Hunting, and actually, the correct bullet diameter is .315.

R.W.Dale · « **Reply #58 on:** September 24, 2005, 12:18:55 PM »

Quote from: Captain_Obvious

The 325 WSM was advertised to exceed the 338 in performance. This was claimed in an issue of Peterson's Hunting, and actually, the correct bullet diameter is .315.

NO the correct bullet dia .323 AKA 8mm wsm! .315 is the measurment of the rifiling measured land to land.

Captain_Obvious · « **Reply #59 on:** September 24, 2005, 03:05:23 PM »

The diameter of the bullet is .315. The performance of the cartridge flags that of the 300 WSM.