Author Topic: Least Favorite Cartridge (Read 8386 times)

mannyrock · « **Reply #60 on:** January 26, 2010, 05:50:25 AM »

AtLaw,

I admire your spirit, but apparently you need to re-read my post. I did not say that as a general proposition, the .257 was no better than a .243. What I said was that given a clean shot through the lungs, the .257 doesn't kill any better than the .243.

Regards,

Mannyrocjk

AtlLaw · « **Reply #61 on:** January 26, 2010, 05:58:09 AM »

There ya go, trying to confuse the issue with facts...

moorepower · « **Reply #62 on:** January 26, 2010, 07:46:23 AM »

So let's see , a .30-06 is equal to a 300 H&H??? If you use a .243 you have to hit where your aiming to kill a deer??? A dead moose killed with a .308 is not as dead as one killed with a .30-06, even though in Europe the 6.5 swede has killed tens of thousands, and in the good old USA .30-30's and the 300 Savage were the go to guns for elk and moose?? One truth is a .45-70 can do and has done anything that any of the above rounds did, so why do we need anything but th proven .45-70.

S.S. · « **Reply #63 on:** January 26, 2010, 05:13:59 PM »

Quote from: jedman on January 25, 2010, 02:12:05 AM

For me it would be the 30 carbine, I dont like cartridges that headspace on the mouth and it just doesnt have a niche , It really doesnt do anything very well. Jedman

One of my all time FAVORITES. Excellent round for what it was designed to do.
Actually has killing ability far out of porportion to it's size.
Would not trade my WWII M1 carbine for 2 ARs.
Have one from spare parts also that is an excellent shooter.
It sits patiently in the corner behind my chair.

S.S. · « **Reply #64 on:** January 26, 2010, 05:16:32 PM »

THOUGHT OF ONE I DON'T LIKE !
an empty one.....

bronco73401 · « **Reply #65 on:** January 26, 2010, 05:26:29 PM »

This should ruffle some feathers.....223 rem.

Lead Poison · « **Reply #66 on:** January 27, 2010, 09:43:11 AM »

7.62x39...the Mini-30 I had was the most inaccurate rifle I think I have ever fired.

Swampman · « **Reply #67 on:** January 27, 2010, 09:47:38 AM »

I forgot the 7mm-08. It is my least favorite.

moorepower · « **Reply #68 on:** January 27, 2010, 11:36:28 AM »

.30-06

Reverend Recoil · « **Reply #69 on:** January 27, 2010, 12:26:40 PM »

Cartridges I do not need:
25 auto
32 auto
38 Super - only availible in a 1911 pistol and doesn't beat the 9mm by much
40 S&W - I have a 9mm and a 45 ACP
41 mag - same frame size as the 44 Mag
Any of the 480 or 500 revolver cartridges. Get a rifle.
243 Win
256 Roberts - Anything 6.5mm beats the 243 Win & 256 Roberts
270 Win - If you have a 6.5mm & 30-06
7.62x39 - This inaccurate round ain't so cheap anymore.
35 Rem, 358 Win, 35 Whellen - poor bullet selection for big heavy game
any of the short magnums
416 Mag
16 ga - unless it's a fine English best double gun
28 ga
410

highwayman · « **Reply #70 on:** January 27, 2010, 03:06:09 PM »

the 25-06. i see no need for it.

scootrd · « **Reply #71 on:** January 27, 2010, 03:46:16 PM »

Rifleshooter mag published a Craig Boddington article simular to this thread entitled -

Cartridges We Can Live Without

Here are his picks for those that should fall by the wayside

Link here http://www.rifleshootermag.com/ammunition/cartridges_without/index.html

.223 WSSM
.243 WSSM
.25 WSSM

I see no point for the WSSMS

securitysix · « **Reply #72 on:** January 27, 2010, 05:17:30 PM »

Quote from: Reverend Recoil on January 27, 2010, 12:26:40 PM

38 Super - only availible in a 1911 pistol and doesn't beat the 9mm by much

It's also available in the EAA Witness made by Tangfolio in Italy and the Taurus PT38 made in Brazil. The Tangfolio is a CZ-75 clone and the Taurus is a Sig Sauer clone.

Westbound · « **Reply #73 on:** January 27, 2010, 07:39:08 PM »

7.62x39. 30-30 ballistics without the ability to handle heavy bullets that make the 30-30 work so well.
If I had to have a cartridge I dislike, the 7.62x39 wins.

I have to agree with scootrd, the WSSM cartridges just look dumb. Do we really need a .224 bullet moving at 500,000,000 feet per second? And in an action shorter than a bolt gun 22lr? Isn't a coyote just as dead when he gets nailed with a .223???
I suppose they appeal to the crowd that favors velocity over every other consideration (possibly even accuracy).

R.W.Dale · « **Reply #74 on:** January 28, 2010, 07:39:18 AM »

Quote

7.62x39 - This inaccurate round ain't so cheap anymore.

the round itself is as accurate as any other, it's just that the x39 is let down by the universally crappy rifles chambered for it.

I built a heavy barreled savage so chambered and it would produce 100yd groups in the .2's and would shoot sub MOA even with steel cased ammo

Quote

7.62x39. 30-30 ballistics without the ability to handle heavy bullets that make the 30-30 work so well.
If I had to have a cartridge I dislike, the 7.62x39 wins.

what makes you think x39 won't shoot heavy bullets? I've shot 170grn FP bullets through my 7.62x39mm rifles at velocities within 100fps of the same bullet from a 20" 30-30

moorepower · « **Reply #75 on:** January 28, 2010, 10:47:58 AM »

7.62x39 can be used to make 6ppc, which is accepted as the most accurate benchrest round made.

mannyrock · « **Reply #76 on:** January 28, 2010, 11:15:04 AM »

Apparently, the WSSM rounds aren't favored by much of anybody, since they are fast growing extinct. I was dumbfounded that ANYBODY would buy rifles in those calibers. Remember what P.T. Barnum said.

smong2000 · « **Reply #77 on:** January 28, 2010, 01:07:35 PM »

1st it was short mags, then super short mags, then ultramags. What's the next fad, medium mags?

Oh wait, that would be regular cartridges...

Who would want those....maybe some 'in between' mags like something between .22 and .24 or between .25 and .26 or between .277 and .284 or .308 and .311 or...

They gotta come up with something new that we can't live without.

Westbound · « **Reply #78 on:** January 29, 2010, 07:05:36 AM »

Quote from: krochus on January 28, 2010, 07:39:18 AM

Quote
7.62x39. 30-30 ballistics without the ability to handle heavy bullets that make the 30-30 work so well.
If I had to have a cartridge I dislike, the 7.62x39 wins.

what makes you think x39 won't shoot heavy bullets? I've shot 170grn FP bullets through my 7.62x39mm rifles at velocities within 100fps of the same bullet from a 20" 30-30

I stand corrected!
Do you run into pressure issues moving the heavier bullets?

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #79 on:** January 29, 2010, 08:36:40 AM »

One of the members here shot 150 gr bullets in 7.62x39 out of his SKS with no problems.

R.W.Dale · « **Reply #80 on:** January 29, 2010, 09:17:23 AM »

Quote from: Westbound on January 29, 2010, 07:05:36 AM

Quote from: krochus on January 28, 2010, 07:39:18 AM

Quote
7.62x39. 30-30 ballistics without the ability to handle heavy bullets that make the 30-30 work so well.
If I had to have a cartridge I dislike, the 7.62x39 wins.

what makes you think x39 won't shoot heavy bullets? I've shot 170grn FP bullets through my 7.62x39mm rifles at velocities within 100fps of the same bullet from a 20" 30-30

I stand corrected!
Do you run into pressure issues moving the heavier bullets?

No and surprisingly they feed slicker than shot through an AR15 and are quite accurate in spite of being .002" undersized. Other folks like using the Hornady 174grn RN .311 Some fellas load the x39 subsonic using bullets up to 220grs

The right charge of H335 will get the hornady 170g FP up to right at 2K fps from my 20" AR15. Most of my 20" 30-30's would be doing good to get this same bullet up to 2100 maybe 2150 in a "fast" barrel.

Really the only stumbling block to shooting heavy 7.62x39 loads is the usual suspects amongst load date don't bother testing and coming up with such loads. Just like there's no reason 30-30 won't shoot bullets heavier than 170grns it's just that you're on your own as far as data goes.

highwayman · « **Reply #81 on:** January 30, 2010, 08:07:26 AM »

would like to add the 7mm mag. alot of flash and recoil for what you get if you ask me.

Flashole · « **Reply #82 on:** January 30, 2010, 02:46:54 PM »

Can't say I ever ran across any I hate. I have 8 bolt action and 7 lever action rifels and the one that I like least is 270. I had a 204 and did not keep it very long and don't think I would ever own one again.

=FLASH=

skit · « **Reply #83 on:** January 30, 2010, 05:26:01 PM »

for me, its the 7mm rem mag. of the four that i used and tested not one of them lived up to the hype.

Empty Quiver · « **Reply #84 on:** January 31, 2010, 06:11:36 AM »

After watching this thread for a while I've been convinced I don't think much of the .243 either. Never could see a reason to own one and mostly forgot about it. It's the centerfire version of a .17 rimfire too much for small game not enough for big game.

243dave · « **Reply #85 on:** January 31, 2010, 07:51:26 AM »

Mine was the 223wssm but you guys have changed my mind. Now its the 243win, I never realized it is to small for any big game. I better go see if any of the deer has jumped out of the freezer and is running around in the garage.

jdt48653 · « **Reply #86 on:** January 31, 2010, 11:31:33 AM »

LOL,this thread should be in the laughter section,so far somebody hates
every cartridge that somebody else loves,heres mine-308win

Empty Quiver · « **Reply #87 on:** January 31, 2010, 12:23:43 PM »

We have arrived at the root of the ever increasing number of cartridges. They are all worthless, every one of them. The manufacturers do their level best to turn out a good one. As we can see they aren't done yet. More chamberings will appear and will prove to be worthless as well.

The archers are still trying to perfect the Mongol recurve, the English longbow, and Allens compound and make them more useful. I think folks have given up on Atlatl's and spears but I'm probably wrong.

jedman · « **Reply #88 on:** January 31, 2010, 03:14:24 PM »

The one I havent heard anyone dislike is the 22 LR, How a bout it , anyone not like the 22 rimfire ?

bobg · « **Reply #89 on:** January 31, 2010, 04:27:07 PM »

My least favorite would be the 223.
bobg