Am I weird?

[Scott Tschirhart]

I’m just not turned on by any of these “new” cartridge developments.

The last “new” cartridge that caught my attention was the.300 Blackout and I have been killing with that one since it became commercially available

The .308 Scout Rifle is still first up in the safe and I still carry my old short .30-30.

Am I weird, or just an old fudd?

[Walt]

Yeah, both!

[GunnyMack]

I'm with you Scott, not many of these new cartridges spark much interest on me. There are a couple I like , 6.8 Western intrigues me- though I'm not a fan of .277. Do I need one? NOPE.
When the 5.7 came out I thought it would make a neat varmit gun but using a .221 bullet just makes it un appealing.
Being a 338 lover when Federal brought out their 338 Federal I jumped on it.
I like the 450 Bushmaster but would prefer it in 458...
I do like the 360 Buckhammer as far as new.
The 400 Legend looks promising but ...

[Walt]

Almost all of my shooting is with revolvers but in centerfire rifle calibers I am all about tried and true. Among them are .222 mag, .223, .22-250, .243, 6.5 CM, 7mm mag, .30-30, .308, .30-06, .375 Win and H & H and .45-70.

Yep, I'm a tried and true fuddy duddy.

[marlinman93]

Can't say I've been impressed or wanted almost any new cartridge development? None of them seem to do anything that hundreds of older cartridges can't do, so no desire to get a gun, dies, brass, etc. for some new whiz bang cartridge.

[JimT]

I think you will find most of us older guys have figured out what works for us and ain't all that interested in experimenting in depth anymore like we did when we were younger. Probably part of the aging process ... getting older and wiser. Or just settled into the comfort of doing what we know works.

[samsi]

No, just sensible. The majority of new cartridges in recent years have been in one of two camps, the first is all the high BC stuff intended for PRC. It seems to be very popular based on the product offerings, but not my thing.

The second group are cartridges engineered toward traditional levergun performance but dimensioned to comply with requirements set by the unknowing in former shotgun only hunting zones. I don't live or hunt in any of those, so my boring old stuff still works just fine.

Over the last 20+ years I've played around with a multitude of the more modern defensive pistols and not managed to bond with any of them. I went back to the 1911, it just works for me. I guess I'm a Fudd too.

[junkbug]

Didn’t Elmer Keith write about basically the same sentiment? As a young adult, he was a passionate experimenter. By the time he was closing in on 60, his interest in new and experimental guns was mostly academic, and a part of his job, a job he loved. But he found his .44 magnum, his Ithaca 10 gauge, and he was content. I am not sure about rifles, though.

[Bill in Oregon]

I'm still captivated by both the old and the new. Currently working with a Danish M-1867 rolling block in, essentially, .45-70, and a Ruger American Gen 2 Predator in 6mm ARC. Maybe one of these days I'll grow up and settle down.

[oldebear1950]

mye four favorite calibers, 45 colt, 45 acp, 38special/357 mag, and 45-70. And if I had a good 30-30 or 30-06, would be ready for just about anything

[Walt]

Years ago I owned a Ruger .458 Win Mag Tropical Rifle. It was a gorgeous rifle with a Circassian Walnut stock and I loved it except for one issue. A previous owner had it MagnaPorted and since I shoot only cast bullets, lead coming through the ports coated the front sight and base with lead each time I shot it. I tried greasing the front sight, I put tape on the base, I tried everything I could think of until it became a chore to clean it. Once when I needed motorcycle parts and I didn't want to draw from the family budget, it went by the wayside. Despite my complaint it was a wonderful rifle and I would love to have it back. Heck, I can say that about a number of guns.

[Griff]

I only have two guns that are chambered in cartridges developed after I was born... A 375 Marlin and a Remington 700 in 7mmRemMag. Excepting a M-1 Garand, 1903A3, 1911s & a mdl 65 S&W, both firearm &/or cartridge were developed prior to 1900. I only have 2 shotguns whose design post-dates 1900, a Winc mdl 12 & a Remington 870. So, weird? I say not, unless I must include myself.

[barbarossa]

I ve never fallen for the latest wiz bang cartridges and have always stuck by the standards like 45/70,30/06,270win etc.My reasoning is the fact that for the most part you can walk in to just about any gun store and find them on the shelf.I ve seen a lot of new cartridges that are good but after awhile the hype goes down and the next thing you know they get get dropped and your left with a gun that it s hard to find rounds for

[Ji in Hawaii]

Yes, you are weird, but that is a prerequisite to belong to this forum. I am no fan of black guns, but a levergun always gets me excited. That being said, the only new cartridge that even got me vaguely excited is the 360 Buckhammer mainly due to the rim, and straight wall. A new Henry with loading port, and NO external safety button in this chambering could be interestiong, though an old patinaʻd 1894 Winchester in 38-55 would be even more so.

360 Buckhammer

360-buckhammer.jpg

[yooper2]

Not at all. Most new cartridges are repackaged versions of the old standbys. I mostly shoot hyphenated cartridges myself. The only 2 new ones I've latched onto are the 480 Ruger and 375 Ruger. The 480 because I always wanted a 475 Linebaugh but could never find one I could afford and the 375 because the lovely little Hawkeye rifles are made in left hand. I'd prefer a 375 H&H but with the CZ 550 left hand discontinued I couldn't pass up a good deal on one of the first run Hawkeyes without the muzzle break.

Eric

[AJMD429]

.
In the world of physics, and external ballistics, there are only three things that really matter when it comes to creating a cartridge...bullet mass, velocity, and shape (ballistic coefficient). For any given diameter, the available shapes (from stubby wadcutter to pointy boattail) determine the resultant mass, and to get that mass to a given velocity requires a given bulk of powder and size cartridge, assuming a reasonable pressure. That in turn determines the firearm design able to fire the cartridge.

So for a given diameter bullet, there are several cartridge options, from short straight-walled ones a pistol could use, to longer ones a carbine would be better for, to bottleneck ones a rifle would be best for. Small differences in diameter or velocity aren't significant but if you were to set diameters of say 0.20", 0.25", 0.30", 0.35", 0.40", 0.45", and 0.50", it would be difficult to say anything significant was left out. So seven calibers. Then set velocity goals of 1,000 fps,, 1,500 fps, 2,000 fps, 2,500 fps, 3,000 fps, and 3,500 fps again it would be hard to say anything vital was missing. So six velocity goals.

Six potential size cartridges for each of seven calibers, to attain maximum velocities from 1,000 fps to 3,500 fps. Thus 42 cartridges could pretty much do it all. Realistically you could likely do the same with just five calibers instead of seven, further reducing the needed cartridges to thirty.

The 'problem' is that we have evolved gun design, metallurgy, and things that affect whether a given cartridge will work in a popular gun, or not, so instead of elongating the action or designing an entirely new gun, we design a new cartridge to fit the gun we like. Then if that cartridge is nice, we eventually design a gun to better exploit its features, but by then another cartridge has become popular.

Much of this is due to limits in terms of what bullet shapes are available in a given caliber, which is ironic, as there is no fundamental reason for instance that there can't be high-ballistic coefficient bullets in 44 caliber; there are in 408 and 50 caliber...

The good news for people who like to buy new stuff is that it provides a never-ending source of new cartridges and gadgetry.

However I think logistically it would be better for a nation to have a more streamlined set of available cartridges in case there came I need for the citizens to act to preserve freedom, because it would make a more limited inventory necessary.

We already see (as some above have noted) that the 'military' cartridges are well-proven, and cover most needs, actually.

5.56/223
7.62/308
9mm Luger
45 ACP

...just those four cover MUCH territory, other than small-game, which mostly a 22 LR can do up to where a low-power load 223 or even 9mm from the right gun could suffice.

As a levergun guy, I'd take those four 'military' cartridges, and add leverguns in 22 LR, and maybe three centerfire cartridges (picking between the 30-30, 35 Rem, 32-20, 357 Mag, 44 Mag, 45 Colt, and 500 S&W), to cover pretty much anything those four missed.

[rock-steady]

The last new cartridge that got me was the .260 Remington. I got one when they first came out. I put a Leupold 6x scope on and had my rifle doctor work on the trigger and glass-bed the action.
Five shot groups of 1 inch or less at 100 yards is normal. I use Hornady 140gr Interbond bullets and IMR4895 powder. Many, many deer and hogs have come home with me using the 260. The 140gr bullet at or near 2,600fps kills way out of it's paper ballistics. Several of my friends started using the 260 and all sing its praises as well.

I got on the 300 Blackout bandwagon about 10 years ago and agree, it is definitely a keeper. I use the Hornady 125gr SST and H110 or W296.

When I really need some deer meat, I will grab the 260. Nothing fancy, just a good, accurate round that easy to shoot well.

P.S. You are not weird.

[Ji in Hawaii]

I was just thinking, and the newest design cartridges chambered in a current firearm I own is a 44 Magnum (1955) followed by a 308 Winchester (1952). Iʻll be 65 in a couple months, and I donʻt own a cartridge design younger than me.

[Streetstar]

A "new tech" high BC bullet loaded in a .270 would seem to address a lot of the questions the 6.5 creedmoor answered also

I dont have anything new either -- i suppose my 10mm's are new-ish though - if one considers 1985 or 6 to be new



Im a bit of a Fudd -- i dont see the point in the new Sig P365 Fuse (a full size variant ) when they already make a quite nice P226, 229 and even the 320 military pistol. But why does Chevrolet bother with new Corvettes when a 1972 Stingray , if maintained, would serve most needs quite nicely (and on and on and on)

[AJMD429]

.
I think of my most new-fangled gun and it is probably my Glock - comparable in vintage to this Corvette (1982)



Then my Thompson Contender is actually not a Mauser, Levergun, or other 'old' design - 1960's for that, like this Mustang...



I suppose young folks think of the AR as an 'Old Classic' but to me it is still a newfangled thing...however the AR-15 goes all the way back in time to THIS vintage...!!!



...then again so do I.....!!!

[Oldncrusty]

I must be strange as well. The last new rifle rounds I had a hankering for were the .260 Rem, and .338 Federal, both on the .308 case. I'll take anything on the .308, 06, 30-30, or H&H cases. For varmints, gimme a 22-250, Swift, or Hornet. For handguns, .32,(Long, H&R, .327, and 32-20) and .45 (Colt and .ACP) cover my needs.

[Streetstar]

I must be strange as well. The last new rifle rounds I had a hankering for were the .260 Rem, and .338 Federal, both on the .308 case.

I really wanted to try one of the Marlin Express rounds (338 and 450 ) when they were introduced in those fetching stainless leverguns with the green laminate stocks -- oh - maybe 15 years or so ago. Just never got around to it and the darn 45/70 did everything i wanted quite well

I do like the AR's and their modularity though, so there may be a .450 Bushmaster in my future (If i ever get around to it )

[GunnyMack]

You will find the bushmaster easy to load for, I've tried almost all the powders suitable and all have delivered very good accuracy with 250gr bullets, XTP and the Hornady tipped. I'd like to try some 300's but it's not that big of a priority.

[Scott Tschirhart]

One “new” cartridge I wish I had been in on was the .480 Achilles.

That one fascinated me because it wasn’t a rip snorter but rather a balanced cartridge in a useful power range.

[Oldncrusty]

One “new” cartridge I wish I had been in on was the .480 Achilles.

That one fascinated me because it wasn’t a rip snorter but rather a balanced cartridge in a useful power range.

I do regret passing up a Rossi Puma in .480 Ruger for $550.

[Scott Tschirhart]

Wow! I would too!

[piller]

I sort of see both schools of thought as having merit. I have a .327 Mag, a Ruger.480, a 30-30, and a .45-70. I have some handguns, too.