PDA

View Full Version : Why no .25 caliber cartridge based on the 308?


Elkins45
December 25, 2010, 11:35 PM
I was thumbing through a reloading manual yesterday when it struck me that .257 is the only major caliber that hasn't had a factory cartridge built for it from the 308 case. We have the:

243 Win
X
260 Remington
7mm-08
308 Win
338 Federal
358 Win

I realize that .277 is missing, but it's very close to 7mm...and until recently there were only two factory rounds in that caliber at all.

See the X? That's where the 25 caliber offering ought to be. Why in the world make an oddball caliber like 6.5 rather than .257? The old quarter bore seems like a natural choice. Maybe because it would be so similar to the 257 Roberts?

Any thoughts?

DnPRK
December 25, 2010, 11:49 PM
It would be really close to 250 Savage too.

slammedsi
December 26, 2010, 12:21 AM
I've always had love for my 257 weatherby. It's accounted for almost all my white tail deer

jimbob86
December 26, 2010, 12:28 AM
I'm guessin' with the effort to meet demand for existing cartridges (remember the "Great Ammo Shortage of '09"?) there isn't excess industry capacity to futz with somenting new...... and the sluggish economy ...... there is not a lot of market pressure to reward making something new.....

I'd suspect that that idea has been floated and shelved by several manufacturers ...... there's a glut of cartridges out there now, and some (the various Short/Super Short/Ultra Magnums come to mind) will have to die to make room for "something different"..... Just guessin' ......

Scorch
December 26, 2010, 12:57 AM
It's called the .25 Super. It has been around a long time, but has not been offered commercially because there is not enough of a difference between it and the 243 or other 25 caliber cartridges.

And FWIW, the 6.5mm Remington is not based on the 308 case, that is the 260 Remington. The 6.5mm Remington is a belted magnum cartridge.

Elkins45
December 26, 2010, 01:01 AM
And FWIW, the 6.5mm Remington is not based on the 308 case, that is the 260 Remington. The 6.5mm Remington is a belted magnum cartridge.

Right! My Bad...I'll go back and edit.

25 Super, huh? I'll have to do a little research on that one. Thanks.

natman
December 26, 2010, 03:26 AM
Just not enough room to create a viable market niche, what with the solidly established 243 below and the new 260 Rem above. Even tighter are the 250 Savage to the left and the 257 Roberts to the right. It's pretty crowded in that neighborhood.

NWCP
December 26, 2010, 05:59 AM
With all that is currently available off of the .308 case you have to consider the success and long time use of the 25-06. It would have to be a very special round to find commercial wiggle room in an already established niche.

CPTMurdoc30
December 26, 2010, 07:53 AM
25 super is the way to go.

I think it would make a much better midrange cartridge over many of the 6mm rounds out there myself. But, then again I have always had a soft spot for the quarter bore.

I was thinking of rebarreling a 308 savage to the 25 Super. Should make a fine deer rife.

PawPaw
December 26, 2010, 08:17 AM
I'm also enamored of quarter-bores, and think that the .25-06 is one of the premier whitetail cartridges ever made. Wonderfully accurate with good killing power. Several of the guys on my lease use .25 caliber offerings and have had exceptional luck with them.

I've often wondered the same thing, why no .257 cartridge based on the .308 case is a factory offering. The only answer I could come up with is that the .243 has it covered on one end and the 7mm-08 has it covered on the other. The .260 Remington appeals to the 6.5mm crowd and is a niche cartridge and was finally standardized by Remington in 1997.

So, in my opinion, it comes down to money. The wildcat guys have the .25 Super, the factory guys have the .250 Savage, the .25-06, the .25 WSSM, and the .257 Weatherby. There is probably not much money to be made with a .25 caliber made on the .308 case and the factories can't see a profit.

dahermit
December 26, 2010, 10:43 AM
The reason for no .25 based on the .308 is likely as has been mentioned, the .250 Savage is so close it would be a virtual duplicate of a .25/.308.

troy_mclure
December 26, 2010, 10:49 AM
prolly because there is already a .25-06, why reduce case capacity?

dahermit
December 26, 2010, 10:55 AM
prolly because there is already a .25-06, why reduce case capacity? Perhaps one wants a short-action rifle for lighter weight. A 25-06 requires a long action.

troy_mclure
December 26, 2010, 12:01 PM
saves all of 3oz?

Elkins45
December 26, 2010, 12:09 PM
prolly because there is already a .25-06, why reduce case capacity?

Isn't this the same question that could have been asked about the creation of the 308 vs. the 06?

My personal interest would be in using military brass so i could shoot a bunch and keep a bunch of ammo on the shelf with out breaking the bank for factory brass. Yes, I know I could do the same with a 7-08, but I don't currently stock 7mm bullets and the last thing I want is to add a new caliber to my bullet cache. I already keep .257 pills for my 25/06 and .257 Wby.

If Shaw chambered barrels in 25/08 (.25 Souper) I would build one on a Savage action just to say I've done it. I would like to have one but I could buy a whole lot of brass for the cost of most quality custom chambered barrels.

Colorado Redneck
December 26, 2010, 05:07 PM
Not much difference in powder capacity, well established and well accepted, and evidently functions as a "short action" round. Don't own one, but know a guy that has taken all big game except brown bear with his 257. So, the market for the 257 caliber may have been limited and no room for a 308 based 25.

smoakingun
December 26, 2010, 05:13 PM
maybe because the .243 is only .007" away? Seems a .250 would be redundant. But I think that about a lot of cartridges.

AfterLife
December 26, 2010, 09:20 PM
i wouldnt think there would ever be a 25/308 of any sort made.

GeauxTide
December 26, 2010, 09:25 PM
A few companies had 257 Roberts and 250 Savage chamberings. Didn't sell very well. Besides, a 260 Rem will turn in better performance with 100s and 120s than any short, standard 25. Then, there are the 140gr pencils.........

publius
December 26, 2010, 11:35 PM
Because the "oddball" 6.5 is superior!:p

pythagorean
December 27, 2010, 11:32 AM
I've always had love for my 257 weatherby. It's accounted for almost all my white tail deer

In .25 the Weatherby is all by itself even competing against bigger or lesser calibers. One of the best long range cartridges ever designed.

L_Killkenny
December 27, 2010, 11:38 AM
Real simple here........lack of need. The .243, 7mm-08 and .308 are so firmly entrenched that even the .260 is having trouble making inroads into the market. And the .260 may be the best of em all. There is nothin a .25, .308 based cartridge will do that a .243 won't and if you need bigger the .260, 7mm-08 and the .308 are better.

LK

CPTMurdoc30
December 27, 2010, 05:02 PM
I disagree that the 243 can do what the 25 super does.

Anything you do with a 243 I can do with a heavier bullet and no more recoil in a 25 super.

The 25 super or 25ppc would make a great medium range bench rest cartridge in my eyes.

the sad thing is the match bullet selection is slim to none in the quater bore area.

If I wanted a light weight mt rifle for deer or goats a short action savage or 700 with a nice 20" light weight barrel and a Leupold VX-3 with a ultralight McMillan Hunter edge ultralight stock. Should make for a lightweight great shooting package.

JerryM
December 27, 2010, 05:45 PM
Economics. A .25 on a .308 case does not fill a need.
Regards,
Jerry

dahermit
December 27, 2010, 06:44 PM
saves all of 3oz? Compare a short-action Ruger MkII .243 with a Ruger MkII 30-06. The short-action is down right dainty compared to the long action. Also, some people prefer the bolt throw a short action.

dahermit
December 27, 2010, 06:48 PM
prolly because there is already a .25-06, why reduce case capacity? Easier on the shoulder, ears, barrel life, hand loading powder cost.

hivel37
December 27, 2010, 09:50 PM
A gun writer from 30-40 years back named Warren Page came up with a 25-08 and called it the .25 Souper, instead of Super. As others have pointed out, the demand wasn't there.

pythagorean
December 27, 2010, 10:11 PM
If you want long range destruction then the .257 Wea Mag is the end. Totally on the North or South American continent.
If you need to feel an elephant or Cape Buffalo or other needs more, then you need the Lott or .416 or .375HH.
Or some other invention since.
Can't you make your first shot count or do you think there is magic in whatever else came up?
.458 Winchester (or Lott) or use .257 Weatherby.
All the rest is a waste of time.

44 AMP
December 28, 2010, 01:51 AM
The three main answers have all been stated, but not all together, so here goes....

Economics: Companies bring out products they expect will sell, and not cut into the niche of other products they make. If they cut into the competition's niche, so much the better.

Ever wonder why the .260 Rem came out so much later than the 6mm, 7mm, & 9mm bore sizes on the .308 case? .308 in 1952, .243 & .358Win in 1955, then 40 years or so before we get a factory .33 or 6.5mm on the .308 case. I think the why is because these particular bore sizes are less popular, generally, and any popularity they would generate would cut into sales of previously existing cartridges.

Need: closely tied with economics. A 25 cal on the .308 case doesn't fill a real need for the shooting public. .250 Savage and .257 Roberts bracket it, and .25-06 can go beyond it.

Ability: As mentioned, there is not a really large selection of .25 caliber bullets. Match slugs are uncommon in .25 cal, but not in 6.5mm. So, even though you think a .25/08 might make a fine match gun, or long range shooter, you have a better bullet selection in 6.5mm & .30 calibers.

And there are a couple "common" calibers that you missed, probably because they are not quite as common in the US as the others. I'm sure they have been wildcatted by someone out there, but so far, no factory cartridge based on the .308 Win case in .37, .40/.41 or .45 calibers.

mdd
December 28, 2010, 08:44 AM
Dahermit, I can agree with you about the preference of a short action based on length of bolt travel. The rest of your argument of weight difference is biased to the short action. A better example of weight difference would be a 308 and a 30-06 with the same barrel length in the exact same model of rifle. That way your barrel circumference and length is as close to identical as can be.
Obviously a 243 ruger m77 is going to feel dainty next to a 30-06 of the same model but then so does an apple next to a bowling ball.

dahermit
December 28, 2010, 10:07 AM
Dahermit, I can agree with you about the preference of a short action based on length of bolt travel. The rest of your argument of weight difference is biased to the short action. A better example of weight difference would be a 308 and a 30-06 with the same barrel length in the exact same model of rifle. That way your barrel circumference and length is as close to identical as can be.
Obviously a 243 ruger m77 is going to feel dainty next to a 30-06 of the same model but then so does an apple next to a bowling ball. I am sure that you have some point in your post, but it is ambiguous and vague. May I suggest the following form:

A long action is better than a short one because:
1.
2.
3.

Art Eatman
December 29, 2010, 10:35 AM
Calm down and de-squabbleize or hear a door slam...

Elkins45
December 29, 2010, 05:45 PM
If you need to feel an elephant or Cape Buffalo or other needs more

I don't need to feel either.


Can't you make your first shot count or do you think there is magic in whatever else came up?


There's no need to insult me. I can shoot just fine.


.458 Winchester (or Lott) or use .257 Weatherby.
All the rest is a waste of time.

There you have it. And to think the gun companies are still wasting their time making the 22LR and the 30/06!

joegator
December 29, 2010, 09:14 PM
Considering the popularity of the .270, especially compared against the .280, I would think a 130 grain 27 caliber version of the .308 would be a hit. I'd buy a .273.

PetahW
December 29, 2010, 10:48 PM
http://www.loaddata.com/members/search_printable.cfm?metallicid=1968&MW=&PM=&PT=

.25 Souper Load Data

Notes:
"This cartridge is quite similar to the Improved .250/3000 but came at a much later date and did not gain popularity to any degree. It is made by necking the .308 Winchester case to .25" with no other change."

"Coming after the introduction of such fine and popular cartridges as the Improved .257 and of course the very fine standard .257, it was not much more than "just another wildcat" with little to recommend it over existing .25 caliber cartridges similar in design and capacity."

Standard twist: 10"
Special twist: 12", 14" (Ackley Data).

.

Elkins45
December 29, 2010, 11:07 PM
^^^^ This quote is what I find interesting. Everybody says "You don't need it because we already have the 257 Roberts or the 250 Savage. True, but why did we need the 7mm/08? We already had the 7mm Mauser.

The inconsistency is very interesting. Of all the 308 spawn, only the 243 really did anything that can't be done by a commercial offering, albeit in a long action cartridge. Well, maybe the 338 Federal, but only because the 338/06 is still a wildcat.

Since we really didn't NEED any of the 308 family (including the 308 for that matter) I still find it interesting that somebody didn't standardize one more of these unneeded rounds in 25 caliber.

Major Dave (retired)
December 30, 2010, 04:21 PM
Because ...

1. The 7mm Mauser had to be factory loaded to only 2,660 fps MV (139/140 grain bullet), to prevent the ammo companies from being sued when someone blew up an old military Model 93, 95, etc., converted to sporting use.

2. The 7-08 could be loaded to higher pressures than the 7X57, producing about 200 fps higher MV, since all rifles chambered for it were modern, strong actions.

3. 7-08, having a case length of 51mm (compared to 57mm) would fit short action rifles.
a. Shorter bolt throw, faster second shot.
b. Stiffer action, greater accuracy.
c. Lighter weight rifles.

Ironically, the .257 Roberts is a .25 X 57, and has all the disadvantages listed under "3", above, but not disadvantages in paragraphs "1" and "2".

jammin1237
December 30, 2010, 08:06 PM
one of the advantages for me is economics...if i already shoot 25-06 i can use the same bullets in necked up 243 brass... perfect for the new ar15 build...sweeeet... cant wait to show the ballistics on this one:)

happy new years folks

cheers

Major Dave (retired)
January 3, 2011, 10:38 AM
in addition to no 257-08, there is no .223-08 (5.56mm X 51).

Why not?:(

Gunplummer
January 3, 2011, 12:06 PM
It would seem that the production of a cartridge is tied to how many books, magazine articles, and rumors are attached to it. Initial presentation has a lot to do with how well a cartridge will sell. Remington was plagued with bad presentation and bad timing when bringing out new cartridges, and trying to standardize wildcats that turned out to have a small corner of the shooting world. There were never thousands of guys writing to the major arms companies begging for a .257/.308, and I doubt there ever will be. If you want one build it and be happy, but be advised that having built a couple wildcats, if you go to sell a wildcat it can be hard to unload at a decent price.

natman
January 3, 2011, 12:30 PM
in addition to no 257-08, there is no .223-08 (5.56mm X 51).

Why not?

For a given bore size, you can only take advantage of case capacity up to a certain point. After a while diminishing returns sets in and you keep adding more and more powder for a smaller and smaller increase in velocity, while barrel life goes down the tubes.

Rifleman1776
January 3, 2011, 01:01 PM
The question is 'why'?
There are a myriad of calibers now. And all seemingly have a magical special essence that makes them the greatest and bestest round ever developed.
All marketing hype.
In North America, IMHO, we could do with about three or four center fire rifle calibers and cover all needs. I know, that kind of thinking takes the fun out of the game. We could cover all needs, but not all wants. ;)

Scorch
January 3, 2011, 01:15 PM
in addition to no 257-08, there is no .223-08 (5.56mm X 51).

Sure there are, the .22 Middlestead and the 22 CHeetah.

And before we get all teary-eyed and wish we had a 22 on the '06 case, that's been done, too. It's called the .22 Ackley. And there is a 22 on the 57mm case (.22 TTH), as well. If you were to list all the wildcats that have been invented, you would take up too much space. People make them up just because they want something different.

Of all the 308 spawn, only the 243 really did anything that can't be done by a commercial offering, albeit in a long action cartridge. Well, maybe the 338 Federal, but only because the 338/06 is still a wildcat.
Yeah, and the 7-08, and maybe the 358 Winchester (now eclipsed by the 35 Whelen, a long action cartridge).

BTW, 338-06 is a SAAMI cartridge, it was standardized about 5 years ago by A-Square.