The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: Bolt, Lever, and Pump Action

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 27, 2013, 08:50 AM   #1
Magnum Wheel Man
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2006
Location: Southern Minnesota
Posts: 8,552
bolt action guys... interested in more efficient cartridges???

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???
__________________
In life you either make dust or eat dust...
Magnum Wheel Man is offline  
Old August 27, 2013, 09:57 AM   #2
Savage99
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2004
Posts: 393
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??
Savage99 is offline  
Old August 27, 2013, 10:10 AM   #3
Magnum Wheel Man
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2006
Location: Southern Minnesota
Posts: 8,552
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
__________________
In life you either make dust or eat dust...
Magnum Wheel Man is offline  
Old August 27, 2013, 12:14 PM   #4
603Country
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2011
Location: Thornton, Texas
Posts: 2,373
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.
603Country is offline  
Old August 27, 2013, 12:17 PM   #5
Savage99
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2004
Posts: 393
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.
Savage99 is offline  
Old August 27, 2013, 02:05 PM   #6
steveNChunter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2012
Location: Southern Appalachian Mtns
Posts: 1,405
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 don't understand all that I know"

"I never said half the crap that people on the internet claim I said" - Abraham Lincoln
steveNChunter is offline  
Old August 28, 2013, 07:00 AM   #7
jmr40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 15, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 6,180
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.
jmr40 is offline  
Old August 28, 2013, 08:42 AM   #8
Hunter Customs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 26, 2005
Location: Osborn, Missouri
Posts: 1,862
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
Hunter Customs is offline  
Old August 28, 2013, 03:27 PM   #9
Paul B.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 28, 1999
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 2,703
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.
__________________
COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!
Paul B. is offline  
Old August 28, 2013, 03:53 PM   #10
Savage99
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2004
Posts: 393
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.
Savage99 is offline  
Old August 28, 2013, 06:49 PM   #11
Slamfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 4,133
Quote:
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.
__________________
If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading.
Slamfire is offline  
Old August 28, 2013, 06:55 PM   #12
Mystro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 26, 2004
Location: Central Pa.
Posts: 1,200
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.


__________________
"I'm a good guy with a gun" What do I care if I give up some freedom or rights?....The Goverment will take care of me. This kind of thinking is now in the majority and it should concern you.

"Ask not what you can do for your country, but what free entitlements you can bleed from your country"
Mystro is offline  
Old August 28, 2013, 06:57 PM   #13
taylorce1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2005
Location: On the Santa Fe Trail
Posts: 5,588
Quote:
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.
__________________
NRA Life Member
The Truth About Guns
taylorce1 is offline  
Old August 28, 2013, 11:11 PM   #14
Boomer58cal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 18, 2013
Location: closer than you think
Posts: 967
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
__________________
The number one cause of death in the 20th century. 290,000,000 citizens were first disarmed and then murdered by their own governments. This number does not include those killed in war.
We're from the government, we're here to help

Last edited by Boomer58cal; August 28, 2013 at 11:19 PM.
Boomer58cal is offline  
Old August 28, 2013, 11:43 PM   #15
Bezoar
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 19, 2004
Location: michigan
Posts: 578
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.
Bezoar is offline  
Old August 29, 2013, 11:02 AM   #16
RC20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2008
Location: Alaska
Posts: 2,145
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.
RC20 is offline  
Old August 29, 2013, 11:29 AM   #17
CharlieDeltaJuliet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 25, 2012
Posts: 750
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.
__________________
" The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to
keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect
themselves against tyranny in Government.
..." - Thomas Jefferson
CharlieDeltaJuliet is offline  
Old August 29, 2013, 12:09 PM   #18
Deja vu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 14, 2010
Location: Border of Idaho & Montana
Posts: 2,183
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.
__________________
Shot placement is everything! I would rather take a round of 50BMG to the foot than a 22short to the base of the skull.

all 25 of my guns are 45/70 govt, 357 mag, 22 or 12 ga... I believe in keeping it simple
Deja vu is offline  
Old August 29, 2013, 12:49 PM   #19
Boomer58cal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 18, 2013
Location: closer than you think
Posts: 967
Quote:
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
__________________
The number one cause of death in the 20th century. 290,000,000 citizens were first disarmed and then murdered by their own governments. This number does not include those killed in war.
We're from the government, we're here to help
Boomer58cal is offline  
Old August 29, 2013, 06:23 PM   #20
ratshooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 22, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 768
Quote:
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.
__________________
Have you ever danced with the Devil in the pale moonlight?

A village in Kenya called. They want their idiot back.
ratshooter is offline  
Old August 29, 2013, 06:44 PM   #21
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 7,118
Quote:
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 .....
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old August 29, 2013, 07:16 PM   #22
JerryM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 1999
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,884
I have always been interested in performance, and don't care a whit about efficiency.
Jerry
__________________
Ecclesiastes 12:13 *¶Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14 *For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
JerryM is offline  
Old August 29, 2013, 08:29 PM   #23
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 2,543
The .22lr is real efficient.
reynolds357 is offline  
Old August 29, 2013, 09:18 PM   #24
Bart B.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 5,464
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?
__________________
US Navy Distinguished Marksman Badge 153
Former US Navy & Palma Rifle Team Member
NRA High Power Master & Long Range High Master
NRA Smallbore Prone Master
Bart B. is offline  
Old August 29, 2013, 10:10 PM   #25
steveNChunter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2012
Location: Southern Appalachian Mtns
Posts: 1,405
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".
__________________
"I don't understand all that I know"

"I never said half the crap that people on the internet claim I said" - Abraham Lincoln
steveNChunter is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13736 seconds with 7 queries