bolt action guys... interested in more efficient cartridges???

[Magnum Wheel Man]

curious... my kick right now seems to be more efficient cartridges in my bolt actions... don't get me wrong, I still love my '06's & magnum cartridges, but with everything costing more & components tougher to get ( like powders ) my newest custom is a 6.8 SPC... yep... pretty anemic compared to a .270 Winchester, but, a more efficient, thus cheaper to shoot cartridge to cartridge...

as a Contender collector as well, I have all the "special" quirky Contender chamberings based on the 223 cases & 30-30 cases...today I was on Midway's site looking at which cases are actually in stock after this latest "shortage" ( I'm wondering if I'll ever be able to buy more 22 Hornet cases ??? )... anyway I see they have 7mm TCU brass cases in stock, as well as 6 X 45 both of which I shoot in my Contenders, so I have dies & etc. for them ( both are based on the 223 parent case, necked up to 6 & 7 mm ) both are plenty accurate in my Contenders, & would make nice lite & efficient bolt action cartridges... got me thinking about something similar after the 6.8 is completed ( I can't buy 25-06 cases right now, but can buy 7mm TCU )

anyone else been thinking about efficiency, & component availability, when looking at their next new bolt action???

[Savage99]

Efficiency to me is using what I have well without spending more.

You could have loaded a 270 W. to 6.8 (whatever it is) down far more "efficiently".

Components have come back. This has happened before. It's ending now.

6.8??

[Magnum Wheel Man]

I know components are starting to catch up ( & I already have the 6 & 7mm cartridges mentioned in the Contenders )... so that is efficiency for me as well

shortages will happen again, that we can be sure of, & prices will continue to go up on everything...

short magnums ( I don't own one ) but they are ( I'd assume ) more efficient than the full length magnums ??? so the industry is already tailoring towards more efficiency... for me those cartridges based on the 223 case make sense, since I'm already loading for them

[603Country]

The industry may be moving more toward efficient cartridges, but just like always some will survive and some won't. And there's no shortage of efficient cartridges from the past (250 Savage, for instance) It appears that most of the super short magnums aren't that popular. And it appears, to me anyway, that a lot of the new rounds based on the 223 case only exist because folks can shoot them in the AR platform. It's an ongoing search to find a cartridge that is more effective than the 223, so that an AR-10 doesn't have to be bought. The only problem with that search is that the big limitation is the small case. Big nails can't be driven with a tack hammer. Uncle Sam wanted that small case, so here we are. So what has evolved from that are quite a few marginal rounds. Yes, they are efficient, but I don't want one.

I shoot the 223 a lot, and I like it, so I'm not bashing it or any other efficient round. It's just that most of us talk efficient rounds until we want just a bit more velocity and downrange thump. Then we drag out the old 270 or 25-06 or any Weatherby caliber. They aren't efficient, but brother they'll do the job, and they'll do it way out there.

I have a 260 on order, and I can't wait to get it. But I will admit that I sure wish it'd hit about 3000 fps with a 120 gr Nosler in a 20 inch barrel. It won't quite get there. Darn it.

[Savage99]

The primary goal of companies is profit.

The major enticement to get you or I to buy something is the word: "New"!

New cartridges sell new guns and other gear.

They will come out with 'new', more efficient things and then 'flatter' shooting, less recoil, more power etc. On and on.

Of late they have reinvented obsolete cartridges that were bloopers back then. The 45-70 is up at bat now. What's that best for?

It's only best at the moment to sell another gun.

[steveNChunter]

Efficient cartridges are the way to go if you're going to shoot paper all day, but for hunting, the overbore, powder-guzzling long range cartridges have their place.

[jmr40]

Even from a hunting perespective efficient cartridges have their place and have won me over. Compared to my tried and true 30-06's my 308's do the following.

They use about 20-22% less powder.
They are only 3-4% slower with equal bullet weights.
They have about 20% less recoil in rifles of equal weight
OR
Equal recoil in a rifle that is almost 2 lbs lighter.

For the reasons above I haven't had one of my 30-06 rifles in the woods hunting since buying the 308's.

While I have no experience with them I'd bet the 6.8 and 7-08 are similar or better.

[Hunter Customs]

I have two Savage 99 rifles, one is a 250-3000 the other is a 300 Savage, I would consider both to be efficient calibers, good for the larger game that can be hunted in Missouri.

When coyote hunting I use rifles in 223 caliber mostly, again an efficient cartridge.

As for components being available, I called 6 distributors yesterday, checked on 8 different powders I use, several caliber of bullets I use.

No powder available, no 22 caliber bullets that I use, 1 box of 25 caliber bullets (correct weight but not the brand I use) and 3 boxes of 308 bullets, so things are not looking to good around my area yet.

Best Regards
Bob Hunter
www.huntercustoms.com

[Paul B.]

I went to Sportsman's Warehouse here in Tucson yesterday in hopes of finding some Re22. Might as well have tried to urinate up a rope. No primer scattered various bullets, mainly the pricier premium types and thee cans of MR4000 powder. price was good and maybe I should have bought it but I had no idea what it's good for and none of the sample reloading manuals they had on hand had any data. If stuff is starting to come back it sure ain't reaching southern Arizona. Another wasted 60 mile round trip. THey did have some .22LR. Guess I shoulda bought some.
Paul B.

[Savage99]

A shop in CT had quite a bit of Alliant RL powders including RL 22 .

Not much Hogdon.

They had Rem and some Federal primers.

[Slamfire]

anyone else been thinking about efficiency, & component availability, when looking at their next new bolt action???

No.

I think Ken Waters was the gunwriter who created the whole idea of "cartridge efficiency". Gunwriters create these ideas, get them out in the public, and make a living yakking about them. I do not take this one very seriously. Given that combustion is inefficient by nature, the simplest way to increase combustion efficiency is to raise pressures, which is not good at all, so I am willing to live with lower pressures and “inefficient” fuel consumption.

There is an old saying in drag racing: “nothing beats cubic inches”. If you want to push something big really fast, you are going to have to burn fuel.

If you can’t afford the fuel bill, go with something slower.

[Mystro]

I think for efficiency, the 270 Winchester is outstanding as far as big game calibers. Look at the ballistics at 500 yards compared to other big game rounds. Energy, speed, and trajectory.

[taylorce1]

Originally Posted by steveNChunter

Efficient cartridges are the way to go if you're going to shoot paper all day, but for hunting, the overbore, powder-guzzling long range cartridges have their place.

I can reach out and shoot animals with smaller cartridges and do just fine. I think people tend to forget that there was a whole lot of animals taken with cartridges that were traveling less than 2800 fps for a lot of years. Accuracy trumps all other things when hunting, and I find smaller cartridges are easier to be accurate with.

[Boomer58cal]

bolt action guys... interested in more efficient cartridges??? No

Starting over with all new cartridges is inefficient. I already have .223, 7.62x39, 30-30, .308, 30-06 and 7mm mag. Well I do have less common cartridges the ones I listed are all common, and their quirks or lack thereof are well known.

Uncommon is inefficient in my opinion. Because these cartridges are all common they may be the first to leave the shelf but because they are all produced on a massive scale they will be the first to return. At least that's been my experience.

During the Great shortage of 2013 there have been things I could not find in large quantities, but there's nothing I could not find at all. Sometimes they weren't cheap though.

A bit off topic but my father has bought two bricks of 22 ammo every pay day since about World War II. People called him crazy. Today those same people haven't seen a brick of 22 ammo in almost a year and have been trying to buy ammo off him.
Boomer

[Bezoar]

you can have efficient or you can have versatility. Having both is tricky.


on paper the 223 is alot 'better' then the 30-30. yet the 30-30 was designed for 150-200 yard shots on MOOSE.

[RC20]

Really? Barely enough to take a deer. If you want to knock a moose off you better be close enough to pump about 8 or those 30-30 thingies into it! At 150 yards you could stop one of the bullets with a piece of paper.

That said, shooting a 223 is just not as much fun (for me) as shooting a 30-06 or 270 (shooting WWI 1917s mostly these days).

More by accident I did come up with the most efficient powder for it (TAC or Varget) but that was due to powder desperation.

In the future I will only buy 8 lb containers and a couple of those will see me through any outage. Bullets and primers I keep enough backlog to not be an issue.

[CharlieDeltaJuliet]

I enjoy the 6.5CM, but still stick to my 300WM for most of my long range target shooting. With my clone load of the Mk 248 mod1 it is hard to beat for long range ballistics without moving to a .338LM.

The 6.5CM is my favorite round in general though. I love the velocity and fat trajectory of the round. There are many non magnum rounds that have earned their place in long range target/hunting.

[Deja vu]

I think power/energy is over rated. most of the deer I have killed are Mule deer killed with a 357 magnum carbine. Id say if you like efficient rounds go for it. Me ill stick with my 45-70 loaded with about 40-50 grains of powder per shot.

[Boomer58cal]

Really? Barelyenough to takea deer. If you want to knock a moose off you better be close enough to pump about 8 or those 30-30 thingies into it! At 150 yards you could stop one of the bullets with a piece of paper.

Apparently the geriatric 30-30 has grown impotent in its old age. Maybe we should give it one of those testosterone supplements or some viagra.

I recently heard rumors of Australian Jackalopes wearing plate armor.

LMAO Boomer

[ThomasT]

If you want to knock a moose off you better be close enough to pump about 8 or those 30-30 thingies into it! At 150 yards you could stop one of the bullets with a piece of paper.

Really? Paper will stop a 30-30 bullet at 150 yards? I suppose you have some sort of proof for that statement don't you?

I found a couple of bowling balls that I shot to pieces with my Marlin 30-30 at 300 yards. I promise you bowling balls are a hell of lot tougher than any paper you can come up with.

In 2000 Wolfe Publishing put out a magazine titled "Lever Actions" that dealt with only lever action rifles. There is a picture of a Moose killed by a man in Alaska named Palmer Stewart IIRC with a 30-30 rifle. Seems like his rifle was plenty for the job.

A 30-30 does a lot for work for only using around 30grs of powder. That makes it an efficient cartridge in my book.

[jimbob86]

Really? Barely enough to take a deer. If you want to knock a moose off you better be close enough to pump about 8 or those 30-30 thingies into it! At 150 yards you could stop one of the bullets with a piece of paper.

????



Maybe if the piece of paper was ....say 50 yards x 50 yards, and was tightly folded several hundred times......


I've seen several pass throughs on whitetail with my daughter's 30-30 .... the only bullet we have recovered from a deer taken with that rifle was the one that shattered both hocks and stopped under the hide of the far one ..... deer was on a full gallop at over 100 yards away ..... she did not lead him enough, but got the job done.

I'd not even hesitate to take her 30A after moose, with a 170gr Partition over 34grains of RL15 .....

[JerryM]

I have always been interested in performance, and don't care a whit about efficiency.
Jerry

[reynolds357]

The .22lr is real efficient.

[Bart B.]

Cartridge efficiency? Let's see what ratios might be used....

Grains of powder per 100 foot-pounds of muzzle energy?

Grains of powder per 1000 fps of muzzle velocity?

Grains of bullet divided by grains of powder times 1000 foot pounds of bullet energy?

Something else math-formulated by another thing?

We all gotta agree what defines "efficiency" first. There's lots of ways; what's the best?

It's like fuel economy in vehicles. Doesn't the expression have to use a monetary unit someplace to represent some economic feature? Pennys per mile the gas costs? Miles per dollar's worth of gas?

[steveNChunter]

When you think about the money you have invested in your rifles, reloading/cleaning supplies, hunting gear, an ATV, license/tags, gun safe, etc. It really makes saving ~10 gr of powder per round a non-issue, doesn't it?

Lets do the math. There are 7,000 grains in a pound. Lets generously estimate a pound of powder at 25 dollars. 25 divided by 7,000 is 0.003571428571429. So if you are using 10 less grains of powder per round you would take that big long number and multiply it by 10. That adds up to 0.035... So you save about 3.5 cents a round. So you save $3.50 on 100 rounds. Factor in the cost of bullets, brass, primers, and consider the velocity loss, and it seems to me it's worth the extra 3.5 cents to shoot a "non-efficient cartridge".