It seems to me that new calibers are pointless with all that are available and it has gotten more and more rediculous innthe last few years. I assume someone is making money off them somehow but i am not sure how. When you standardize a caliber say hornady with the 6.5 cm do firearm manufacturers pay you to chamber rifles in that caliber? Ammo, dies ect? Or are they just trying to sell more rifles or dies or ammo?
Motivation for “new” calibers
- Thread starter john 800
- Start date
There was once a saying that a good tradesman doesn't blame his tools.
These days it's the tools who blame the results they get on their equipment and ask for bigger & better.
These days it's the tools who blame the results they get on their equipment and ask for bigger & better.
We as humans are naturally drawn to the latest and greatest, so greedy capitalist pigs in a never ending quest for higher profits give us new and shiny brass and the requisite hardware to reap the advantages: real or imagined.
NZ_Fclass
Silver $$ Contributor
You make some good points, but, my 10c - Not so long ago, if a calibre was in metric measurement, US shooters would not think it worthy, so overlooked the 6.5mm and it's ballistic advantages. How many 6.5mm Remington Magnums were sold? Now 'long range" shooting is a "thing", the 6.5mm in faster twist barrels ( and 7mm for that matter) have become popular. Without having to call them .264 or .284 so you could understand the diameter without reaching for a pocket calculator ( remember them?).
It's not so long ago that the .223 was only available in 12 twist barrels from the major manufacturers. Was it Tikka and soon after Savage that started offering 8 and 9 twist? Then we all wanted bigger 22's. to push the longer bullets.
The 308x1.5 was around long before it was domesticated and the 7mm BR Remington and 6mmBR Norma appeared. I have load data in an original "Pet Loads".
The ammo companies are more successful when reactive than proactive. Ammo made to satisfy a "need" will do better than one just testing the water. Many factory cartridges have failed, as there was no need for their existence, but those developed from wildcats in use for, say ,F-Class, PRS or Benchrest may succeed when becoming a factory cartridge- the Creedmoor's being the classic example, success when the parent 30TC went away ( we didn't need another 308). Others chase the AR15 market, looking for a better magazine length cartridge ( 6.5 Grendel etc). Anything the military use will always be the next big thing - 277 Fury, 30 Norma, 338 Norma.
The list of failures is long ( 10mmBREN, 244 Remington, etc) Things evolve. New cartridges arrive, others go. 6mm Remington, 303 British, 280 British, 7x57, 6.5 Swedish have all dropped in popularity, now bought by fanboys only ( me included, love my 303's) Some will make a comeback - .222, 6x45.
Just enjoy.
It's not so long ago that the .223 was only available in 12 twist barrels from the major manufacturers. Was it Tikka and soon after Savage that started offering 8 and 9 twist? Then we all wanted bigger 22's. to push the longer bullets.
The 308x1.5 was around long before it was domesticated and the 7mm BR Remington and 6mmBR Norma appeared. I have load data in an original "Pet Loads".
The ammo companies are more successful when reactive than proactive. Ammo made to satisfy a "need" will do better than one just testing the water. Many factory cartridges have failed, as there was no need for their existence, but those developed from wildcats in use for, say ,F-Class, PRS or Benchrest may succeed when becoming a factory cartridge- the Creedmoor's being the classic example, success when the parent 30TC went away ( we didn't need another 308). Others chase the AR15 market, looking for a better magazine length cartridge ( 6.5 Grendel etc). Anything the military use will always be the next big thing - 277 Fury, 30 Norma, 338 Norma.
The list of failures is long ( 10mmBREN, 244 Remington, etc) Things evolve. New cartridges arrive, others go. 6mm Remington, 303 British, 280 British, 7x57, 6.5 Swedish have all dropped in popularity, now bought by fanboys only ( me included, love my 303's) Some will make a comeback - .222, 6x45.
Just enjoy.
Last edited:
To me it would seem some of the cartridges developed didn't fail due to any fault of the cartridge, but rather the firearm they were designed for.
6.5mm Rem Mag & 350 Rem Mag for example. Issue was more with the short barrel Remington 600 & 660 they were chambered in. Were they chambered in the 700 with the longer barrel, they may have been more widely accepted.
Ditto for the 284 Win being originally chambered for the Model 88 & model 100.
I'm shooting more of the old "obsolete" cartridges. And rather enjoying them in modern bolt action rifles.
284 Win, 257 Roberts, 257 RobertsAI, 250 Savage.
Building a 7X57 Mauser for my daughter.
6.5mm Rem Mag & 350 Rem Mag for example. Issue was more with the short barrel Remington 600 & 660 they were chambered in. Were they chambered in the 700 with the longer barrel, they may have been more widely accepted.
Ditto for the 284 Win being originally chambered for the Model 88 & model 100.
I'm shooting more of the old "obsolete" cartridges. And rather enjoying them in modern bolt action rifles.
284 Win, 257 Roberts, 257 RobertsAI, 250 Savage.
Building a 7X57 Mauser for my daughter.
One person's pointless is another's progress. Some guys would be perfectly content to see wall to wall '06's at their LGS. Others think with every new cartridge they've found nirvana.
While I haven't bought any of them, I actually like the direction many modern commercial rounds are going. Velocity wise there's not much new under the sun but it seems like things are coming around full circle to where cartridges where in the earlier part of the 20th century. Now they're being introduced for the AR platform but they're reminiscent of the many modest capacity rounds that were on the market back then.
With rounds like the 6.5CM, PRC, and others, there's consideration being paid to using longer high B.C. bullets instead of trying to squeeze the largest case possible into the action. Maybe not revolutionary improvements but I think a good direction given the higher BC bullets on the market now.
While I haven't bought any of them, I actually like the direction many modern commercial rounds are going. Velocity wise there's not much new under the sun but it seems like things are coming around full circle to where cartridges where in the earlier part of the 20th century. Now they're being introduced for the AR platform but they're reminiscent of the many modest capacity rounds that were on the market back then.
With rounds like the 6.5CM, PRC, and others, there's consideration being paid to using longer high B.C. bullets instead of trying to squeeze the largest case possible into the action. Maybe not revolutionary improvements but I think a good direction given the higher BC bullets on the market now.
powderbrake
Gold $$ Contributor
Companies are in business to make a profit for the owners and shareholders, and new products are the lifeblood of a company. So they bring out new guns, improved guns, and new calibers. It is similar to the different colors of paint at the hardware store, somebody likes the ones they have, and some other person wants a color which they don't make.
Basically the are offering more choices to the shooter, which is good. In addition, the hand loaders and wildcatters are constantly trying to improve the performance of a cartridge, and those move into the public domain when a company decides to make that caliber round or gun. This is also good for us.
So if you like your present calibers, good. If you like to "Ackley Improve" your cartridges, that is good as well.
They way I see it, the more cartridges, the merrier, it's a reloaders paradise.
Basically the are offering more choices to the shooter, which is good. In addition, the hand loaders and wildcatters are constantly trying to improve the performance of a cartridge, and those move into the public domain when a company decides to make that caliber round or gun. This is also good for us.
So if you like your present calibers, good. If you like to "Ackley Improve" your cartridges, that is good as well.
They way I see it, the more cartridges, the merrier, it's a reloaders paradise.
I think flathead V8s and three on the tree is where technology should have stopped.
CJ6
Silver $$ Contributor
Post #4.I only wish everyone knew the difference between cartridge and caliber.
I opened this thread expecting to see a .29" diameter bullet or something.
joshb
Gold $$ Contributor
Oh My God! I’m back in the Seventies!”Greedy Capitalist Pigs”???? Sure! We “as humans” want something new and different. Look at women’s fashions. You don’t have to buy into it! You have free choice! Sheesh! Nobody has a gun to your head!
joshb
Gold $$ Contributor
Of course they are. Call it progress or innovation, whatever. Bite if you want to or just walk away. Personally, I think the 6.5x55 is the be all end all cartridge and it’s over 100 years old!
Whoa, hang on feller. I musta not had the sarcasm filter on tight enough. I'm not a socialist, lol...
Hmmmm, interesting. I can relate what my motivation was\is developing my new cartridge.
It is specific to a certain discipline - PRS. I selected the 131gr Blackjack and worked backward (downward?) from there.
I wanted a case with ALL of the following qualities:
- touching the lands from INSIDE magazine length
- neck length of 1 to 1.5 caliber
- minimal trimming
- high efficiency
- available, quality parent brass
- bullet bearing surface ABOVE the powder column, not in it
- small and large primer brass
Since this case doesn't exist, I made my own. There has been the usual rabble: "Why didn't you just use XXX", "That isn't going to work", "I'm the smartest person ever and I think...", etc...
Sometimes all of the boxes cannot be checked, and the only way to accomplish all of your goals is to put them to pen and paper, pull out the checkbook, and get busy burning money.
As new bullets and powder emerge there will always be a way to take advantage of case and cartridge design.
It is specific to a certain discipline - PRS. I selected the 131gr Blackjack and worked backward (downward?) from there.
I wanted a case with ALL of the following qualities:
- touching the lands from INSIDE magazine length
- neck length of 1 to 1.5 caliber
- minimal trimming
- high efficiency
- available, quality parent brass
- bullet bearing surface ABOVE the powder column, not in it
- small and large primer brass
Since this case doesn't exist, I made my own. There has been the usual rabble: "Why didn't you just use XXX", "That isn't going to work", "I'm the smartest person ever and I think...", etc...
Sometimes all of the boxes cannot be checked, and the only way to accomplish all of your goals is to put them to pen and paper, pull out the checkbook, and get busy burning money.
As new bullets and powder emerge there will always be a way to take advantage of case and cartridge design.
hoz53
Gold $$ Contributor
Its nothing new ---Of coarse -- when new cartridges are introduced by companies its all about the money. In say the past 100 years some new cartridges have been improvements , while many have been pure marketing hype, to try and sell something.
>> Look at the popularity of the 6.5 Creed--and its nothing but hype. lol
Last edited:
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.