Posted on 02/12/2011 12:41:49 PM PST by smokingfrog
Hunters and shooters are notoriously eager to try anything new, and the proliferation of new center-fire rifle cartridges during the last decade is evidence of that. So recent are these cartridge introductions that none of my reloading manuals, which were published as recently as 1999, provide data for them.
Remington got into the act with its “Ultra Mag” series — a 7mm, .300 and .375 — all with oversize cases designed to be used with long-action rifles. Unfortunately, each of them requires an approximate 20 percent increase in powder capacity to gain 5 percent of velocity with the resultant additional recoil and muzzle blast. And don’t forget that the 7mm Ultra and .300 Ultra, at least, require a 26” barrel to properly burn those large charges of slow-burning powder! In 20 years I predict these three cartridges will be among Remington’s other bad ideas — the 6.5 Rem. Magnum and the .350 Rem. Magnum. The latter was introduced in 1955, the 6.5 in 1966, yet both have been defunct for decades.
Winchester took a different approach, introducing a plethora of short, fat new cartridges that it named the “Winchester Short Magnums” (WSM), addressing hunters who like short actions. The new WSMs were introduced in .24, .25, .27, .30, and .325 (8mm) calibers. The .270 WSM and .30 WSM have some dedicated fans, but the entire lineup, in my estimation, was a solution looking for a problem. Look for the .270 WSM and .300 WSM to survive, but two decades from now the rest of the short magnums will go the way of the .264 Win. Magnum … long since discontinued.
(Excerpt) Read more at jamestownsun.com ...
Anybody been watching the news Discovery show about gunsmiths? (Sons of Guns)
Energy is proportional to velocity squared. A five percent gain in velocity is a 10 percent gain in energy.
I’m not getting hooked on ultra-magnum cartridges for hunting, for military use yes.
But I do use a better bullet, namely the latest Barnes Tipped Triple Shocks.
Don’t have cable/satellite myself. Tried watching on the Discovery Channel website, but for some reason the videos would not play for me.
That energy pushed the bullet forward and the rifle backwards. Not all the energy went to the bullet. Some of it resulted in greater recoil.
Would we not expect half in both directions, requiring 20% increase in energy for 5% increase in bullet velocity?
Until now centerfire ammunition performance has been based on the IMR series of powders developed in the 1930’s and 1940’s. It is now possible to achieve 100 – 200 fps higher performance ammunition than standard without paying the price of excessive recoil or finicky accuracy. The heart of Superformance ammunition is revolutionary new 21st Century powders which achieve unprecedented performance and efficiency in small arms. Superformance produces levels of performance that previously could only be achieved by mechanically compacting large amounts of powder in the cartridge case (Light Magnum, High Energy).
I use H4895, its a bit more stable at colder temps for my .308win in my SA M1A. The only really new powder I have adopted is Longshot for when I load 185gr Barnes Tactical M/LE in the .45auto, its a duplicate load of the Corbon DPX.
In there anything in North America, with the possible exception of large bears, that will not sucomb in one shot to a well-placed 105 year old 30-06 round?
Sure glad that didn't happen to my .30-40 Krag (circa~1892).
” (Saving an inch of overall rifle length with the short action doesn’t close the sale for this writer!)”
Saving that inch (Ruger .275) mean standard stock and action compatibility. That was the goal of the designers. In the while, they also managed to provide more velocity in a shorter barrel and provide a greater powder capacity over the .375 H&H.
Generally yes (I don’t know how accurate the 20% number would be). But my point was that if the writer was honest he would have used energy NOT velocity in his statement.
Since kinetic energy is 1/2 times mass times velocity squared, the mass of the shooter and rifle is many times that of the bullet, the energy of recoil is equal but insignificant compared to the energy of the smaller bullets acceleration. The “velocity squared” component being the deciding factor.
You can homeload anything from 125gr to 220gr bullets from Ballistic Tips for small and medium game, to Partition's for big game.
You can take anything from coyotes to brown bear and elk.
Find the right bullet for your rifle and you can take medium game to 600yds.
It weighs 7lbs with scope...straight 4X being my choice...again LIGHT.
"Call me an old curmudgeon but that’s my opinion."
Let’s see...22 LR, .270 (1925), 30-30 (1895), 30-06 (1906), .375 H&H Magnum (1912)...there isn’t much you can’t do with those.
And if you could only have one, then a 30-06 would be awful tough to beat!
With a 220 grain partition I would not hesitate to use an aought six on a Kodiak...provided I had 50meters to pull my .44mag for safety in the event I missed vitals:)
There’s very little bsiness that can’t be settled in a satisfactory manner by a well-placed .30-’06 or .30-’30.
red jacket firearms..a good company.
I’m not real knowledgeable about guns but I like the show. I had heard the term “Confederate church bell” before but didn’t know where it came from. Now I know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.