Cartridge development / trends

[garandman]

Is cartridge development based on fads and trends (whatever sells) , or is their real science behind it? I admit to being a novice here. But I've noticed a few things....

224 Valkyrie ( a recent development, far as I know) is a short and fat case for a 223 bullet.

6mm and its dozen different varieties (Dasher, Grinch, BR, BRA, BRX etc) is basically a short and fat case for a 243 bullet. Or has the 6mm trend been going on for a while?

300BLK is a short (and not so fat) case for a 30 caliber bullet

Do shorter powder columns ignite better? And maximize internal ballistic speed in shorter barrels? And make for greater accuracy? Do they have different pressure curves than longer cases like 243, 308 and 30-06?

Yes, there are 100 articles I've found that talk about how these cartridges developed, but they are largely more technical than I can comprehend and they have some conflict in their claims.

Anybody give me short course of current cartridge development, and maybe where you think its going? Why the recent (?) developments and what's next?

 

[NorCalMikie]

IMHO, what it comes down to is, someone sees something or thinks "that might be cool", so they set out to build one but, if they REALLY did some digging, they would probably find that it has already been done in one way or another, but at least it's fun trying. If it gets "too detailed", the fun may just go out of it. It's suppose to be fun, not work. The folks that make "work" out of it" may not enjoy the build as the next guy that sees the fun part of it.

 

[jdh47]

I do not consider myself an expert but here are my thoughts. The PPC started a sort of revolution in that regard. The concept has been wildly successful. Most of our cartridges are offspring of existing cartridges. The 30-06 family and the .308 family are examples. The 7-08 is just a necked down .308. The .270 is just a necked down 30-06.
The Creedmoor line was developed for a distinct use and it has done well. It's not immune to the cat calls about the .270 from years ago. It has taken a lot of flack about it's legitimacy with a variety of complaints mostly concerning the owner expectations.
Most cartridges were put on the market for hunting purpose and not much actual development was done for accuracy or specificity of use. Mistakes were made by the large firearms manufacturers that introduced them. Remington's famous 6mm Rem. debacle and Savage started it with the good 250-3000 which they crippled by hampering it with light bullets. It was actually recommended by it's inventor, Newton, that they use the heavier bullet for it. Enter the .243 Winchester and the rest is history. The PPC was designed specifically to be a accurate competition Benchrest cartridge.
Looking at the records of what the winners of different disciplines compete with will give a good idea of what the trend is.
I can say this with certainty; if you want to get into a spirited argument about which is better just mention what you like. It won't take long for a chorus of denouncement from people raining on your parade. That's just human nature and it hasn't changed since the beginning of time.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

[JASmith]

In my view, the majority of new cartridges are developed for the ‘gee-whiz’ factor. The cool stuff sells better.

There are a few examples, however, of developments over the past twenty years where a cartridge genuinely makes sense.

For example, the 6.8 SPC and the 6.5 Grendel were both developed to fit within the AR15 envelope. For the average deer hunter, the performance of two cartridges more or less the same. For the longer range shooter, one does better. The shooter who wants a lots of rounds in a magazine is happier with the smaller case diameter of the other one.

These two make significant sense for those who want to use the AR15 or short action bolt rifles. Both have similar game harvesting capabilities to classics like the .257 Roberts and the .243 Winchester.

Another example comes from the very recent plastic-steel hybrid cartridges that allow a bump of 10,000 psi or more in the maximum pressure. This increase allows velocity levels consistent with larger velocities in larger cartridges but they are still within the span of velocities we have seen since the advent of the 220 Swift and 22-250 ithat were designed 90 years ago.

So, in answering the OP question. new cartridges are iften influenced by fads and trends, while some are genuinely new developments to fit constraints imposed by firearm design.

BUT limitations imposed by our current knowledge materials science and powder chemistry mean that near future cartridge development will be charactarized by tweaks and nudges.

That sad, I love to wildcat and genuinely look forward to new cartridge and firearm develomemts.

 

[Fuj]

I wild cat as a hobby with no intent to develop for the public.
With that said.....Over the last several years I gained a lot of
interest with the 284 Winchester case. I currently shoot a
short version that I worked up to work better within a short
action, and took that case and shortened it some more for
a cross between BR and Varmints. I compete with both as
part of the development. I guess the whole deal is to make
the package efficient, and find that perfect combination. I also
prefer to work with the 7mm/ 284. 6mm is a bit crowded
in the BR field. 7mm lets me work on new ground, and that
284 case has a much bigger boiler room no matter what length
in comparison to the many cats birthed off the .308 class case.
and still stay with a .473 bolt face.

At this point, It's hard to tell where thing's will go. As a kid, I
was excited about reading the new future in the Gyro-Jet. Did'nt
go far did it !! The new plastic case ammo is trending, but how
many of the purest BR shooters will lean that way ?? Probably
Nada. It will just be another case to dump on the ground as
litter, same as shotgun hulls and steel cased ammo.

 

[JEFFPPC]

I have no interest in new cartridges. I am interested in those that ar consistent winners. Case in point, the 6BRX case has been very good to me. But, if I was a few years younger I would switch to the 6BRA, a relatively new case that has proven to be very efficient, cases are a available, and its a winner. I am happy there are those who do enjoy tweaking and wildcatting or we might all be still shooting 219 Zippers.

 

[jackieschmidt]

The Internet is full of videos touting the praise of many of our “new” chamberings, mainly centered around being able to shoot higher BC Bullets than a similar but older design. For every video of praise, there are an equal number who say that if it is a hunting cartridge, what you are hunting will not know the difference.

Of course, the answer to that s,….”I can shoot at game clear out to 800+ yards”, to which the reply will be….”you should not be shooting at large game at much over 300 yards in the first place”.

The pure accuracy game is an entirely different animal. A bullets actual performance in a living thing is of no consequence. A rifle combinations ability to place one bullet as close to the one before in the middle of a target is all that really counts.

In Short range Benchrest, we sacrifice all other aspects of down range ballistics fo what is commonly called a combinations “agging capability”. That being defined as a combinations ability to shoot five groups and the average size of those five being what is considered competitive. In our world, we generally consider sub .200 agging capability to be that standard.

Arguably the three most accurate chamberings at the 100/200/300 yard distance are the 6PPC, 22PPC Short, and the 30BR. Any of these with the proper components will absolutely stack one bullet atop another.

But these are really not suited for ranges out past 300 yards, where other aspects of external ballistics take over.

here is an anecdote based on an actual happening.

Back in the late 1950’s, Winchester decided to to introduce a new flat shooting high velocity chambering that would set the shooting world on fire. They chose the 6.5 diameter bullet as the base, and developed the 264 Winchester Magnum. All of the gun magazines and writers of the time were given the full details, 3300+ FPS with 140 grn bullets. It would be the king of speed in the large game realm.

But they did their in-house testing with long barrels, certainly longer than anyone wanted to lug around. When the nw Mod 70 hit the market with 24 inch long barrels, it was soon learned that the much touted velocity hype took a beating.

The die was cast. Bad publicity killed it.

In the mean time Remington, who was still reeling from the 243 Winchester vs the 244 Remington fiasco, saw a hole to run through, and took what was basically the same case, (a necked down 300 Win Mag), and stopped at 7mm. They instituted a realistic ad campaign with real world velocity, the magazines loved it, shooters bought it, and the 7mm Rem Mag is still one of the most popular chamberings around.

The 264 Win Mag is almost extinct.

Now, we all remember when the 6.5 craze hit several years back. Shooters were taking advantage of the new high BC offerings in bullets and the 6.5 ruled the roost.

If Remington had brought out the 7mm Mag in 1999, you can rest assured that everybody would have necked it down to 6.5, declaring it the new king.

and what would they have.? Nothing more than a 264 Winchester Magnum.

 

[JEFFPPC]

I wild cat as a hobby with no intent to develop for the public.
With that said.....Over the last several years I gained a lot of
interest with the 284 Winchester case. I currently shoot a
short version that I worked up to work better within a short
action, and took that case and shortened it some more for
a cross between BR and Varmints. I compete with both as
part of the development. I guess the whole deal is to make
the package efficient, and find that perfect combination. I also
prefer to work with the 7mm/ 284. 6mm is a bit crowded
in the BR field. 7mm lets me work on new ground, and that
284 case has a much bigger boiler room no matter what length
in comparison to the many cats birthed off the .308 class case.
and still stay with a .473 bolt face.

At this point, It's hard to tell where thing's will go. As a kid, I
was excited about reading the new future in the Gyro-Jet. Did'nt
go far did it !! The new plastic case ammo is trending, but how
many of the purest BR shooters will lean that way ?? Probably
Nada. It will just be another case to dump on the ground as
litter, same as shotgun hulls and steel cased ammo.

I have seen the Elf in action at 400 yds I was impressed. If it repeats, Gary is on to something.

 

[davidjoe]

Short. fat powder columns in rifle rounds have not been selected by the US military. That could have to do with feeding from a magazine, belt links, a sharper and shorter pressure peak, or something else. But the sharper pressure peak is real and has a brass life/round count impact, not that first world militaries reload.

But military rifle cartridges all over the world closely resemble traditional bottleneck proportions that predated the marketing push to achieve magnum velocities from short action receivers. This was all about hunting when introduced.

Short action receivers were thought to be lighter to carry in the field and more accurate because they are stiffer the same way a shorter barrel is, but moreso given the slenderness of the steel in the middle of actions cut for both top loading and a magazine, where longer rails are certainly less rigid than shorter ones.

 

[0.1 Aggregate]

First understand that firearm and ammunition manufacturing is a business. You have to sell product to stay in business, and once the marketplace is saturated with .308s, 7mm Magnums and 6.5 mm Creeds your sales will fall off. Like any other business, introducing new products stimulates sales. This puts pressure on development teams to bring out new cartridges on a semi-regular basis. It really doesn’t matter if it is a good idea or not, as long as it stimulates sales for awhile until the next cartridge introduction. Sometimes the new stuff really is a good idea and sticks around, more often it sells for a short time and is forgotten. All this is complicated by a fickle consumer base and slipshod revenue-driven firearms “journalism”.

Personally, I’ll grab the occasional golden acorn, but mostly stick to proven cartridges (my last was the .300 WTF). But that’s just me, I do little to feed the cartridge-of-the-month machine.



.

 

[Beiruty]

Simply maximize BC, then Velocity, reduce recoil is the winning combination.
How much energy do you need?
What is the speed of the bullet at given distance you need? Example 1.0Mach at 1-miles. Then you selected the cartridge bullet that can do that.

Specify what you like to do with the rifle/bullet, then you can find your choices available to accomplish your goal.

 

[Fuj]

Good thread !!

Too many times hype thru the internet pushes the envelope
of reason. I won't say i got caught up in the 6.5 Creedmoor
craze but in my honest opinion,, if Remington would have
givin' that cartridge a proper twist rate out of the gate and
pushed it hard, the Creedmoor might not have had the traction
it gained. Hornady out snookered Remington. .....Used to be
that Winchester put out the cartridges that we all looked
forward to. especially prior to hunting season. There was no
internet, so rags like Gun and Ammo, and Shooting Times.
kept me up to what was going to hit the shelves that year.
Now it seems Hornady puts out the new items for the shooting
public. Like was said; It';s a business.

Now I'm relatively new to BR, spending most of my years with
IPSC (pistol) and rifle (AR) speed steel matches. Looking over
the vast flavors of BR cartridges, and being a wild catter, I looked
to see if I could come up with something. I mean, is'nt that what
two gentlemen did to come up with the PPC ?? The 284 just seems
to me easy to work with.. The ELF that Jeff referred to is a 284
Winchester shortened to the same length as the 6-GT. I left it at
284 to explore the 7mm better. I could neck it down to 6mm but,
who needs another 6mm !! I think all the names have been used
up anyways. LOL So on the drawing board is to come up with a
short 30 based on my short 284, Try some of those Bart;s I here
yinz been lusting after.......

 

[PigButtons]

There is certainly some science involved, in the short fat cases for example. The wider flame front allows for faster products of combustion, so more pressure with less powder before the bullet goes far enough to effect the pressure drop associated with the increase in volume.
Heavier bullets carry more energy at distance and faster bullets fly flatter so the intersection of those two comes in between 6 and 7 mm because skinnier bullets get too long to stabilize and fatter lose BC unless you go way heavy and then you run out of component strength, primers, cases, bullet jackets, because of the pressure required to push them fast enough to fly flat.

 

[Tommie]

10% science. 90% hype. At best.
Just one example: the new 6.8 Westerner. Sooo much different than the .270 WSM. Yeah, right.
As others have stated, this is a business. Convince people that the new thing is a gotta-have so guns get sold.

 

[riflewoman]

A couple of considerations here. Short/long, fat/slender and any combinations. Powder ignition characteristics and primer gasvolume and temperature, all come in.

what the vast majority of shooters probably don’t realize is that a primer is not just a source of hot sparks. How a primer works is that they shoot hot gas into the powder chamber increasing the pressure and temperature so that ALL the powder essentially ignites simultaneously. There are enough real world examples of this like using small primers in large cases and getting misfires. Even though the powder next to the primer vent started to burn, there wasn’t enough to get the rest of it going so the bullet did not even exit the case. From that we are limited by the fact that we have essentially 4 levels of priming: SR SRM LR & LRM. Maybe some small variations inside these levels, but not enough to change the outcome. It is well known that a short “square” can has the most volume to overall size. So a “short &fat” cartridge will have the smallest size that can contain the required powder. You’re up against some pretty strict limits.

 

[std7mag]

Fuj & i are an exception, rather than the rule it seems as far as experimentation for benchrest cartridges.
Seems like the majority are "shoot what the winners shoot".
Benchrest shooters are not so inclined it seems to try new cartridges.
PRS, and F Class seem to be more open to new cartridges. The GT & ARC for example.

Hunting cartridges are a different story altogether. Hunters seem to readily jump on new cartridges.

If short & fat were the only criteria, then everyone would be shooting WSSM.

 

[rebel]

Well the ARC is nothing more than a 6mm Grendel, Hornady Marketing at it's best, nothing new under the sun. Still a good cartridge but don't pretend it's New. Good thread BTW.

 

[NZ_Fclass]

You have to notice that the gun business and shooting are a long way apart.

 

[tsyarnall]

Jackie, I sure do appreciate you.

 

[Fuj]

Fuj & i are an exception, rather than the rule it seems as far as experimentation for benchrest cartridges.
Seems like the majority are "shoot what the winners shoot".

I kind of view my nightmares as an all around cartridge. This
type of cartridge can not be large. Like you don't show up to
shoot a 100/200 match with a 500 Jeffery's. I think of all the
cartridges, the 6 Dasher could possibly be voted in as the best
all around. My thinking is to use the slightly fatter 284 case
to approximate Dasher and GT lengths and lean to 7mm over a
6mm. Length stays relative but a bigger boiler room needed
for the heavier bullets. Now I don't plan on killling a moose but
with one cartridge, I could shoot close course at Anderson Creek
then head 40 miles north and shoot 1000 yard Ridgway VBR
with the same rifle. Goal is to shoot a realistic 1/3rd MOA then
tweek from there. The combinations are endless, but for the
guy's and cartridges that put them in the same hole ?? It's no
longer worth doing any development. Now it's just a matter
of maintaining the delivery system.