Is there anything new under the Sun?

[GeauxTide]

Just got the latest Handloader and the new 6.5 Weatherby Rebated Precision Magnum was featured. The "new" case is a rebated rim 30-06 case, with a 35 degree shoulder. Velocity matches, albeit with new powders, what I get with my 1913 vintage 6.5-06. One difference in my rifle is a long chamber throat, so I get 3070 with 129 Hornady, and 2935 with 140 Hornady. I can also use 25-06 or 30-06 brass. My rifle didn't cost $2,400, either.

[ligonierbill]

Dang! I'm still limpin' along with a 6.5x55.

[Pathfinder45]

So, it seems it's basically a 270 Winchester, except that it uses metric bullets..... hmmm....

[ligonierbill]

I had to think about this some more. Of the 40 rifle cartridges I load and shoot, 19 are from the 19th century. Of course, some are to keep an oldster shooting. But they include: 6.5x55, 7x57, 30-30, 38-55 (legal in OH-IO), and 45-70. Not much of a handicap to hunt only with those. Half of my rounds are 20th century, and only one (my planned 338 RUM) from the 21st. Not by the wildest stretch of my imagination would I ever need anything else. In fact, I have far more than I need.

That said, if I turned my personal body clock back 50 years and was starting a hunting set, these new rounds would interest me. Sure, they're just tweaked from existing, but that new Weatherby (read the article) looks pretty good. So does the 6.8 Westerner (or whatever the marketing title). Need 'em? Hell no. But I don't need most of what I have.

[Scorch]

Yes, I had a 6.5-06 years ago and it flat out beats the 6.5-284 that everyone was so hot on 15-20 years ago, and the 6.5 Creedmore everybody's in love with now. It's a loose copy of the 256 Newton that was introduced in 1913. It is a heck of a cartridge!

As far as 19th Century cartridges, I'm not so far behind that one, either. My regular go-to rifle is a 7X57 (I own 5 7X57s), and 30-30, and 32-20. I've got a few early 20th Century wunderwaffen as well.

[stagpanther]

It's hard to go wrong using a 06 case for anything.

[Jim Watson]

The "new" case is a rebated rim 30-06 case,

No, it is a larger diameter case with rim rebated to .30-06 diameter.
A stretched 6.5x284.

Whatever the ballistics might be, I think it and all the other Longer, Lower, Wider introductions of the last several years will be a strain on the "supply chain" and your proprietary hot shot will be difficult to feed.

[Drm50]

Get a Wildcat Manual, there is nothing new except propellants. 30 different cartridges of same caliber that give almost identical performance. I just caught a post the other day that guy “Designed” another cartridge for ARs by whacking a case like a carrot. I hope it wasn’t years in the making. Some are designed to fit shorter actions, some for longer case life very few for terminal performance. Somebody once said there are no bad cartridges, but there are bad rifles.

[44 AMP]

My biggest problem with all the new "wunderrounds" is two fold, one is, is their level of performance worth the cost to me, today, and the other is a bit bigger concern, where are these rounds going to be down the road 5 years, 10? more??

The list of adequate, and even excellent performing rounds being dropped by their makers because they don't sell enough of them is long. And when the now "obsolete" cases cannot be made from common and still available brass, what are you going to do with what's now an expensive and rare niche round?

And the rifle that shoots it??

Unless its some kind of collector's item, generally speaking the value of a gun for which there is no ammunition is quite low. SO....

IF the ammo maker's drop the round, we're stuck with what we can grab out of the existing supply before every other owner of the same thing does the same thing, and when that's used up, we've got a rifle we can't use and one no body else wants, because they can't use it, either.

SOME discontinued rounds can be made from still thriving rounds cases. Some cannot be. I've got a .350 Rem Mag. Ammo and brass is really scarce, HOWEVER, since it uses the same head & belt as other thriving magnum rounds, I can make brass for it, when I need to.

If you get a proprietaryA fat bodycase with a head rebated to 06 size, where are you going to find brass to make it out of, IF sales slump and the big makers drop it?

There are other examples its just kind of a crap shoot IF one of the new rounds will last on the commercial market, or not.

I am always mindful of the story of the 5mm Rem Mag. It was they hot new rimfire when it came out, pretty popular when it came out, but after a few years, interest waned, and after that Remington dropped the rifle. And a few years after that, they dropped the ammo, as well.

Being the only maker for the ammo, and it being a proprietary round (and a rimfire, to boot) there was nothing else one could make ammo from.

A decade or so later, you could buy a 5mm Rem rifle for less money than the cost of a single box of 5mm Rem Mag ammo, IF you could even find a box for sale.

The really smart course is to get a lifetime supply of ammo/brass when you get the new rifle. It adds to the up front cost considerably, of course, but consider that if the round survives commercially, you would be buying that ammo/brass anyway (though in smaller batches over time) and it it doesn't you'll have enough for your personal use, or enough to sell with the rifle (if/when) to make it attractive to someone...

[jetinteriorguy]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

My biggest problem with all the new "wunderrounds" is two fold, one is, is their level of performance worth the cost to me, today, and the other is a bit bigger concern, where are these rounds going to be down the road 5 years, 10? more??

The list of adequate, and even excellent performing rounds being dropped by their makers because they don't sell enough of them is long. And when the now "obsolete" cases cannot be made from common and still available brass, what are you going to do with what's now an expensive and rare niche round?

And the rifle that shoots it??

Unless its some kind of collector's item, generally speaking the value of a gun for which there is no ammunition is quite low. SO....

IF the ammo maker's drop the round, we're stuck with what we can grab out of the existing supply before every other owner of the same thing does the same thing, and when that's used up, we've got a rifle we can't use and one no body else wants, because they can't use it, either.

SOME discontinued rounds can be made from still thriving rounds cases. Some cannot be. I've got a .350 Rem Mag. Ammo and brass is really scarce, HOWEVER, since it uses the same head & belt as other thriving magnum rounds, I can make brass for it, when I need to.

If you get a proprietaryA fat bodycase with a head rebated to 06 size, where are you going to find brass to make it out of, IF sales slump and the big makers drop it?

There are other examples its just kind of a crap shoot IF one of the new rounds will last on the commercial market, or not.

I am always mindful of the story of the 5mm Rem Mag. It was they hot new rimfire when it came out, pretty popular when it came out, but after a few years, interest waned, and after that Remington dropped the rifle. And a few years after that, they dropped the ammo, as well.

Being the only maker for the ammo, and it being a proprietary round (and a rimfire, to boot) there was nothing else one could make ammo from.

A decade or so later, you could buy a 5mm Rem rifle for less money than the cost of a single box of 5mm Rem Mag ammo, IF you could even find a box for sale.

The really smart course is to get a lifetime supply of ammo/brass when you get the new rifle. It adds to the up front cost considerably, of course, but consider that if the round survives commercially, you would be buying that ammo/brass anyway (though in smaller batches over time) and it it doesn't you'll have enough for your personal use, or enough to sell with the rifle (if/when) to make it attractive to someone...

While this is true, if the cartridge rim is a common size you could always rebarrel a rifle to a more common caliber and at least somewhat salvage its usefulness. I used to follow one rule when picking a cartridge, if it’s commonly used by either police or the military you’ll always have ammo available. For me this list would have been, 30-06, .308, .223, 7.62x39, 9mm, .45ACP, .38sp, and .357mag. I’ve now added a second criteria for choosing a cartridge, if Starline produces brass for it I will consider it. The only aberration in my criteria is my .41mag, I have no explanation for that.

[44 AMP]

While this is true, if the cartridge rim is a common size you could always rebarrel a rifle to a more common caliber and at least somewhat salvage its usefulness.

Agreed, though it make take more work than just a barrel swap. It MAY take work on the feed system as well. Having a common rim size only means you probably won't have to have work done on the bolt face. Everything else will be something specific to your rifle's design.

Having a rifle you can use is always better than having a rifle you can't use, no question about that.

Having firearms chambered for what the military and police use, or have used is a good idea. But limiting yourself to those overlooks a number of good rounds that have been commercially successful longer than we have been alive, and will probably continue to be long after we are gone.

The .45-70 and the .45 Colt were once military rounds, but haven't been for well over a century, and are still around with new firearms being made for them. The .30-30 Winchester was never a military round and has well over a century of track record. There are others....

[Drm50]

I’ve been working on selling off my guns for couple years now. I have/ had no run of the mill junk. Most of my rifles are classic hunting models. If they weren’t they would have been hard to sell. The old classic calibers are disappearing from production. The manf can pedal all the Para Military calibers they can squeeze out. They don’t want to make hunting cartridges that are seasonal. They dabble in making specialty ammo that they can charge extra. Everything from White Tail to Zombie shooters. They also manage to crank out new cartridges, like bass plugs or womens clothes. People got to have the latest.

[std7mag]

My latest rifles are chambered in "obsolete" cartridges.
257 Savage, 257 Roberts, 257 Roberts AI, 284 Win, 280 Rem.
Latest rifle is 25 WSSM. Too young to be "obsolete", but never really hit it off mainstream.

My most modern cartridge is the 7mm-08. I did the improved, 40°, but that's just me.

I do have some wildcat cartridges drawn out. But they'll be more for myself than trying to get any notoriety.

I'd like to get a couple of "obsolete" builds put together to shoot some matches with. My sole purpose in this would be to hopefully eliminate the whole ideal of "inherently accurate cartridges"!

That phrase belongs in the trash heap along side tactical, or tacticool, however you wish to spell it. .

[44 AMP]

Along with "inherently inaccurate cartridges" add in the phrase "inherently accurate cartridges".

Not because they don't exist, but because their existence is a number's trick.

It only shows up when you look at numbers of rifles, NOT individual guns. You need to look at dozens or even hundreds of rifles (and rifles of the same designs) and their accuracy performance in order to have any kind of statistically meaningful data, and then decide if that data actually has real world relevance, which, for most of us, it does not.

The .308 Win is often referred to as an "inherently accurate cartridge" and compared against the .30-06. And, its true that the shorter round, and shorter actions can be more accurate if you compare enough of them. But any given 06 may shoot better and any given .308, and vice versa.

And also, if you compare different rounds in different design rifles then your "inherent cartridge accuracy" simply goes out the window.

It is the gun, more than the cartridge design that produces accuracy, or not as the case may be.

[waveslayer]

I think all the comments are correct, but let's look at it from another approach.

Use cars for example. Why all the changes, rolling up a window wasn't an issue but came along the electric window roller upper and downer.

Why are sports cars going away from the old manual to dual clutch automatics?

Why did Ford drop the 6.2 V8 in the Raptor and use the 3.5 Eco boost in the Gen 2's

Why is the .308 left in the dust versus 6.5 Creemoor or the new 300 PRC when we had the Win Mag?

All because small changes make large improvements over time and some rounds are easier to make Mass quantity of precision rifles these days accurate. Better powder, better bullets, better brass, better shoulder angles, better barrels, better chassis, better triggers, better scopes, the list grows and grows each year.

Do you need any of it? No, but I sure like my AC seats when it's hot out, just like I like my ZCO optics over my Nightforce...

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

[jmr40]

All because small changes make large improvements over time and some rounds are easier to make Mass quantity of precision rifles these days accurate. Better powder, better bullets, better brass, better shoulder angles, better barrels, better chassis, better triggers, better scopes, the list grows and grows each year.

And all of those things advance independently of each other. The 270 struggled for survival for 25 years and was nearly dropped by Winchester due to lack of sales. It was developed before reliable, affordable scopes existed. When they came along 270 became a viable cartridge.

Many cartridges and rifles that were developed 30+ years ago were designed with hunters, and hunting bullets in mind. Today hunters make up a very small percentage of center fire rifle buyers. New shooters are more interested in target shooting. Particularly at longer ranges than their fathers or grandfathers typically shot.

On paper some of the older cartridges look like they are the equals to more modern cartridges, but they simply aren't designed to shoot modern bullets. Others, more by luck than design, work well with modern bullets.

[44 AMP]

[Scorch]

"Obsolete" cartridges used to be called that because new factory loaded ammo was not available or no factory chambered rifles are available. Either of those definitions are hard to make stick anymore. You can buy ammo for black powder cartridges, some actually loaded with black powder, and you can have a new factory rifle chambered by some of the semi-custom makers for nearly every cartridge ever made, and other cartridges no longer manufactured by the ammunition makers are available from custom brass makers. So I hardly use the terms anymore.

40 years ago I worked for a company that specialized in making obsolete ammo, and we could make just about anything. 8mm Lebel, 401 WSL, 30 Remington and many other obsolete cartridges can be made by turning rims or extractor grooves, base stripping, swaging, etc, but the typical reloader doesn't have the tools or knowledge to do that type of case work. Mostly people wanted a box or two of ammo so they could shoot grampa's old gun, but they were shocked by how much a box of ammo cost because of the amount of labor involved. I hear it all the time still, people looking for the elusive unicorn box of old ammo because they just want to shoot the old gun, but the internet dug most of those caches of ammo a long time ago. And don't get me started on the "what other cartridge can I shoot out of it" ijits.

As far as new cartridges taking over the market, remember that a lot of our old standards were once the new kids on the block, and they had to earn their stripes the same way new cartridges do these days. Is it faster, better or cheaper than an existing cartridge? Does it have some inherent benefit over older cartridges? And we can all name a few dozen of the old standards that are no longer available. It's the way the free market determines survival of the fittest.

It only shows up when you look at numbers of rifles, NOT individual guns.

I think you got that backwards, they look good when you look at individual guns but not so much when you look at all the guns chambered for it.

Why is the .308 left in the dust versus 6.5 Creemoor or the new 300 PRC when we had the Win Mag?

It depends on how you tell the story, apparently. For people who don't want recoil and don't want heavy rifles, the 6.5 Creedmore sounds better than the 308, so they say that at 1,200 yds the 6.5 Creedmore has more energy than a 308. But who cares way out there? And for people selling the 300 PRC, it's just like on the playground when you were a kid, "mine's better". Same way the 300 Win Mag won out over the 308 Norma and the 30-06. Mines better. Apparently a lot of people agreed.

[reynolds357]

Originally Posted by GeauxTide

Just got the latest Handloader and the new 6.5 Weatherby Rebated Precision Magnum was featured. The "new" case is a rebated rim 30-06 case, with a 35 degree shoulder. Velocity matches, albeit with new powders, what I get with my 1913 vintage 6.5-06. One difference in my rifle is a long chamber throat, so I get 3070 with 129 Hornady, and 2935 with 140 Hornady. I can also use 25-06 or 30-06 brass. My rifle didn't cost $2,400, either.

According to King Solomon, there is not.
I honestly view that as one of the more worthless cartridges WBY has invented/chambered. It's funny to me that their last new cartridge was the 6.5x300 Wby and they then follow it up with this anemic mess.