thought provoking...

[mjbgalt]

we all have heard how great the 6.5x55 Swede is, and I own one myself, so not knocking the Sweet Swede here...but...

if that long bullet at lower velocity is so great, why would a 120 grain .243 bullet not be nearly as good? with the same BC, and having the same velocity and long bullet...wouldn't the .243 be a great penetrator too?

if a .243 can move a 100 grain bullet at 3,000fps, adding another 20 grains should slow it down to maybe 2500 to 2600...right? which is about where the swede is loaded in its factory form.

why kid ourselves with these 85 grain bullets? why not eliminate the "just barely" that some folks think of the .243 for deer?

is anyone else seeing what i am asking? Just thought i would stir up some debate and maybe learn something in the process...

-Matt

[quickdtoo]

Sounds good, but who makes 120gr .243" bullets? Berger makes 115gr VLDs, but they required a 1:7" twist rate, that would be as good as it gets and would require a custom barrel since most 243 barrels are typically are 1:10" possibly 1:9" or 1:9½", many older barrels being even slower.

Tim

http://bergerbullets.com/PRODUCTS_game.htm

[Sweetwater]

In the 6.5x55, it's the sectional density with the ballistic coefficient that gives it the penetrating power. However, like the 7x57, it's reputation did not come with light bullets - it's the heavyweights in these calibers that give them such fine penetrating qualities. These sleek missiles penetrate like hotcakes because of their SD and arrive at reasonable distances with tremendous retained velocity because of their high BC. All of which is taken into consideration when these rifles are built, and have always been built accordingly, throated for heavy bullets.  Put in a lighter bullet, crank up the velocity, and the penetration will decline. Is this a consideration? Depends on what you are hunting. The bigger or tougher the game, the greater the need for deep penetration.

The 6.5 does what it was built for. What you propose for the 243 could work, strictly on a custom basis with custom ammo as none of what you propose is available today. Could it be? Don't know why not...how thick is your wallet?

Regards,
Sweetwater

[mjbgalt]

just wondering if the concept would translate, that's all. sounds like it would be great but the twist is not right, i didn't think of that, but it does make sense. a 120-grain 6mm bullet would look like a #2 pencil 

-Matt

[LaOtto222]

The longer the bullet, the more spin you need to stabilize it. A 120 6mm bullet is going to take a bunch of spin (fast twist rate) I would not be surprised if it would take a 1 -  7" or 6" twist to stabilize it, if it was of VLD design. When you start getting into the fast twist rates, you start causing other problems such as over stabilization of shorter bullets and the chamber pressures rising due to the bullet not going down the tube as easily. The ideal design has just enough twist to stabilize the bullet you want to shoot. Over stabilization is easier to live with than under stabilizing a bullet. Gun manufacturers are trending toward faster twists in their rifles. Remington came out with a 1 - 12" twist in their 6MM while Winchester came out with a 1- 10" twist in their 243. The 243 became very popular and the Rem 6mm did not take off. Remington thought of the 6mm as a varmint round and would not shoot the 95 and 100 grain bullets. Now you see a 1-8" twist once in while, I would not doubt if a major manufacturer started making their guns in 1 - 8" twists in the near future. Some 223's are now done in 1 - 9" twist so they will shoot the 75 grain VLD bullets. I personally do not like it, I have a 1 - 14" twist 223 and I find it perfect for me. I realize it is personal thing, but to me it is a varmint gun shooting light bullets (50 grain). if I want a long range gun, I am not going to buy a barrel with 1-7" twist and start shooting 80 grain bullets, I will buy a Remington 260 or something that is more appropriate. But that is just me and I realize I am in the minority. Just trying to keep this thread alive. Good Luck and Good Shooting.

[beemanbeme]

Great minds indeed think alike. At some time past, while I was being flamed out of a room for suggesting that a .243 wasn't lightning in a bottle, suitable for everything up to and including T-Rex, I said, had the .243 been provided with a good 120-125gr bullet at @ 2600-2800fps, we wouldn't be having these looooooong discussions about the .243's effectiveness. Instead they used a 100gr bullet at a "claimed" 3000fps which in fact was doddering along at barely over 2700fps. Apparently 3000fps was some sort of benchmark then as the .250 Savage was handicapped with a light bullet so they could achieve a claimed 3000fps.

What is the twist rate for a 6.5 Swede?  Don't they shoot up to like 160gr bullets?  The .244 Rem would stabilize 100gr RN bullets but not SP's. They had a 1/14 twist.

[SHOOTALL]

so ya'll think that the 243  might need to go thru. what the 223 is going thru. ? more bullet weight to improve .
sounds reasonable !

[flintlock]

Ain't nothing wrong with the .243, LEAVE IT ALONE!!!!!

My 100 grainers pass through the lungs on the deer I shoot, and bust up shoulders as well...

If you want a heavier bullet, get a bigger bore...

A few of us actually like the little .243, just as it is...

[mjbgalt]

easy there, flintlock. i happen to agree with you. i have owned a whole bunch of .243's. Remington, Savage, Ruger, and Browning. I am just saying that it's more capable than most think.

i like the swede too, just wondered if the .243 could be more than just a little brother to it.

-Matt

[quickdtoo]

The 6.5 Swede has common twist rates from 1:7½"  up to 1:9".

Tim

http://www.gunnersden.com/index.htm.6-5x55-swedish-mauser.html

http://www.surplusrifle.com/shooting/swedetarget/index.asp

http://www.gmdr.com/lever/65swedtext.htm

http://www.huntingnut.com/index.php?name=news&file=article&sid=42

[Lone Star]

...Instead they used a 100gr bullet at a "claimed" 3000fps which in fact was doddering along at barely over 2700fps....

I wonder where the poster read this "fact"?  According to the 34-year old Speer #9, in a table of chronographed .243 factory loads in a 22" barrel:

Fed 100 - 3030 fps
Rem 100 - 2959 fps
Win 100 - 2899 fps

All of these loads exceed "barely over 2700 fps" by a considerable margin.....

I'm not against using abnormally long bullets in small calibers, but as students of ballistic history are aware long, heavy bullets in small bores have been tried repeatedly for over 110 years without sticking.  The old 6mm Lee Navy used 112-grain bullets at 2560 fps yet failed to set the world on fire.  The .22 Newton used a 90-grain bullet at 3100 fps, again not further developed.  Ditto the .226 Barnes QT, 125-grains at 2700 fps.  Problems with all of them centered around high pressures/low velocities due to long bearing surfaces along with heavy fouling.  These issues probably could be reduced today - but really, why?  Do we need more oddball cartridges to fill imagined gaps?  Perhaps those who are proponents of scrapping cartridges like the WSSMs yet favor these oddballs should ask themselves this question..... 


.
.

[Sweetwater]

According to my Speer #5 manual - 1962 -
no data for a 243 Winchester with 100gr bullets. It lists 90gr at just over 3200fps and 105gr at just under 2900fps - also a 22" barrel with 10" twist.

This same manual lists the 250 Savage with 100gr bullets at over 3000fps with a 24" barrel and 10" twist.
This same manual lists the 257 Roberts with 100gr bullets at just under 3200fps with a 24" barrel and 10" twist.

I personally doubt a deer or antelope could tell the difference.

Page 65 of this manual starts a section on pressure signs to watch for - for those concerned with such things. I find this particular manual interesting reading and far different from what is published today. We are a long ways from 1962. But, used as a guide, it is
great reference material.

Guess I got a bit off topic there. Sorry. Reviewing what JD Jones has done with his 'Whisper' series of cartridges and other ventures with 'heavy for caliber' cartridges, I believe my response remains yes, feasible, and basically limited by the thickness of your wallet. Might want to consider 140-150gr bullets as a goal for that legendary penetration, maybe something like RL22 or IMR4831 or possibly even slower to get these going. If you are into actions with interchangeable barrels, you might see that as a vehicle to pursue this adventure. Caution, prudence and extreme attention to detail is warranted here. Sounds exciting and do-able.

Regards,
Sweetwater

[beemanbeme]

The claims I posted were for factory ammo and were back before every kid on the block had a Chrony.  Those figures were disputed anytime the ammo was tested by any of the gun magazines. Once chronographs became more affordable and commonplace, the factories scaled back their claims. 
Uh Oh, did I forget and tug on .243's cape??? 

FYI: when the .250-3000 Savage was introduced, with the powders of the day, the only way they could achieve 3000fps was with an 87gr bullet. 

[LaOtto222]

I have several older reloading manuals. I should throw them away, but I get a kick out of looking at them from time to time. I have generally found them to be very optimistic with regards to velocity and heavy on the powder charges. I use only newer manuals now, I do not even think about using data from one of those old things. Most of that data has been pressure tested with real pressure testing equipment. I think the older manuals load development are on the wrong side of the pressure peaks in many cases.

[SHOOTALL]

guess the 25-06 came along and they left the 243 for light bullets ?

[Sweetwater]

I think lawyers came along and scared the optimism out of the manuals.
I also believe the powder we have today is different than what we bought 40 years ago, even with the same name/number. Stuff changes and we have to be able to change with it.
I too use newer manuals for my load development, having found the milder load data more in keeping with my basic philosophy. The older manuals sort of round out my library and sometimes have a reference to something I didn't find anywhere else. 
I too am fully aware of the 250Savage-3000fps-87gr bullet scenario. Not a magic number to me, and one I don't have a need to duplicate. For those who do, enjoy, it's a great number.
For sure, am certainly glad we don't all have the same idea of the perfect anything. It would be a very dull conversation as there would be nothing to exchange for thoughts.

I still think this is a dandy idea to chase out.

Regards,
Sweetwater

[yooper77]

Didn't Roy Weatherby love the 100 grain bullet in his 257 Weatherby Magnum?

I am not comparing the 257 Weatherby to the 243 Winchester in anyway, but the 100 grain bullet in either will perform valiantly on big game.

The 243 Winchester will never die!

yooper77

[SHOOTALL]

but it might evolve !

[Steve P]

Like stated above, you can use heavier bullets in the .243, but you have to have a faster twist to stabilize them. 

Back in the days when I first started reloading, I was looking at Mauser actions, Remingtons, Winchester Model 70s, Savage 99s, and the occasional Ruger.   The reloading manuals then were using these same type guns to test their loads. 

Then we started getting new guns and new cartridges.  The ammo and component makers didn't or couldn't keep up with all the different guns that could shoot their ammo.  They started making the rail mount or 'shooting fixture' guns that were basically an action, trigger, and barrel hooked down to a bench.  No more recoil spoiling their shots or making their shoulders sore.   Many more tests could be done in a day.

Then we started getting into less expensive guns.  No longer hand made parts, they used machines to stamp out the parts.  These newer and less expensive guns did not appear to be able to handle the pressures like some of the older guns.  They were mass produces and sold thru stores like Montgomery Wards, Coast to Coast, etc.  The ammo dealers began backing off a little on the loads and making sure they were safe for ALL of the guns that could shoot that caliber.

Now days we have sooooo many guns and soooo many powders it is getting tougher to find specialized data like we used to have. Other than the opportunity to buy some of the older guns and components that are sometimes put on the market, this is likely gone forever.  Yes, Federal, and Hornady, and Remington, etc are all making their new fangled ammo and cartridges and 4000fps wonders.  Who can keep up with it all?  Not the ammo makers or the makers of reloading components.  Now you can have a comupter give you load information in 2 seconds that used to take weeks at the loading and shooting bench to find. 

For me, its a continuous journey.  I can stop and pull out my old Winchester or old Savage and shoot some loads made per manuals from the 60s and 70s.  Newer powder and primers so loads are worked up, but the guns still shoot velocities etc like they did years ago.  My newer guns may have the same name like they used to, Winchester Model 70, H&R etc, but my loads come from reloading manuals that have 1000s of loads, not 100s.  I have to be careful with my loads because I have seen these newer guns wear out and break faster than some of the older ones. 

You jump on the ride and see where it takes you.  Hopefully every place is safe and sound. 

Steve