The incredible missing rifle calibers

[FirstFreedom]

It has occurred to me for quite some time that we have been creating new cartridges and messing with wildcats for several decades now, but with all the endless variation on existing accepted rounds, etc., there seems to be glaring omissions of entire "families" of rounds in a couple of non-existant calibers. What do we have in the "sweet spot" of bullet diameters between 22 and 30? Every caliber but two is more than adequately represented:

30
...
28 (7mm)
27 (277)
26 (6.5mm)
25
24 (6mm)
...
22

Twenty-THREE and Twenty-NINE are missing, obviously. I particularly would like to see something in .23 caliber that splits the difference between .22-250 and .243. Any thoughts?

[Handy]

We could use fewer calibers, not more. Having calibers that are spaced as close as even .02" right now is a little ridiculous.

[FirstFreedom]

Having calibers that are spaced as close as even .02" right now is a little ridiculous.

That's correct. Having calibers .1 apart is not - 5 times the difference. Red herring.

Regardless of how you feel about the needed number of calibers, can you explain why, given the vast tinkering that's been done - I think we can all agree that the sum total is *too much* tinkering - but in all of that, why did no one ever come up with a 23 cal?

[Handy]

No, I'm saying that there are "holes" where common sense prevailed. The fact that there is a .25 and .27 are just the results of historical happenstance rather than a planned fill of any sort of gap. Just as we have multiple cartridge cases that produce near identical ballistics, we have caliber graduations that do not reflect an important difference in potential performance. You'll note that the Europeans haven't even bothered with those .25 or .27 calibers, handicapping themselves with .5mm graduations. ;) How have they been able to survive without a viable 6.75mm round? :D


Filling in those other calibers would just be an exercise as useful as 88 Octane gas and the 5/8 ton pickup truck. Rifle calibers should go the way of autopistols: .22, .25, .32, .36, .40, .45, .50.

[Lycanthrope]

I fail to see the problem with more options. If you don't want them, don't buy them.

I hear a lot of criticism of the short magnums, because they aren't any faster or that they don't hit any harder than the full sized counterparts. They do, however, allow for stiffer/shorter actions and have better flame travel characteritics which helps with accuracy. Since they also use less powder, they may be cheaper to produce if the market grows. (All this from a guy who spends a lot of time with his overbored belted magnums)

If I could create a .45 that only took half the powder to load to todays .45 ACP velocities, I'd be a rich man. When you start burning 20,000+ rounds a year you may be glad for new developments.

[FirstFreedom]

How have they been able to survive without a viable 6.75mm round?

Tee hee. I'm sending my letter to GM off today, requesting a 5/8 ton pickup - that sounds PERFECT for my needs! ;)

I guess I can see the *simplicity* argument of sticking to .5mm increments (about 2/10ths), which leaves out the 25 and 27, and just stick with the *even-numbered calibers*.

1. 22 (5.5mm)
2. 24 (6mm)
3. 26 (6.5mm)
4. 28 (7mm)
5. 30 (7.7mm)

Or, OTOH, Handy's idea of sticking with autopistol calibers. I like that idea less though.

The main reason though that this .23 idea sticks with me, is just the general lack of heavy bullet choices with good BCs in .22. .22 bullet sectional densities & BCs in most loadings seem to suck sweaty gonads compared to 6mm bullets.

But like our resident doppleganger points out, no harm in more options either!

Handy, can you elaborate on the historical happenstances that led to the 25 and 27 cals?

[Big-Foot]

First, I'd say it's English vs Metric designers. Since the .277 is closer to true 7mm I wonder who dreamed the .284 up.

Yeah we have too many. The .277 is so close in diameter to the .284, and the .257 to the .264 that we could lose two calibers and still make it through life ok. But once a cartidge like the 25/06 becomes successful it makes it difficult to drop a whole caliber.

[Jim Watson]

At one time P.O. Ackley made and fitted .23 calibre barrels for sale in states where .22 centerfires were not allowed for game hunting. The chambers were the same as some of his big case or Improved .22s.

Mauser submitted a 6.8mm/.278 to China but they stayed with 8mm.

The 7.35 Italian is a .29 calibre if you go by bore diameter as many designations do.

There is very little new under the sun.

[Handy]

FF,

I just meant that calibers used to be largely proprietary to a specific gun maker. So they would introduce whatever, without regards to the larger market or any sense of need. If you wanted to buy a Savage, it would be in .300 Savage. That is the primary source of all these wacky, overlapping and unnecessarily fine caliber differences.

Now that we are in an age when you can buy a Remington in .308 Winchester, there's no reason to muddle things again.
.22 bullet sectional densities & BCs in most loadings seem to suck sweaty gonads compared to 6mm bullets. So why not just use 6mm? :confused:

[Jseime]

with the # of available bullets in .243 and .22 i think its safe to say its unnessesary (pardon my spelling) to have a .23 as for some of the others there are really neat cartridges for them but i have to say we really dont need them if there were rilfes based on need we'd have a .223 a .243 a .270 and a .30-06 for the big stuff we'd have something big and nasty like the .416 rigby but that world just woulndt be interesting would it

[rbernie]

And, of course, the 275H&H wasn't really a 7mm/.284 - it was a .288 caliber.

[PSE]

there is no shortage of fine cal. out there. what we need are better guns to shoot them out of.