Yup, that would be 7-08, but the difference is trivial - efficiency difference is minimal and you can push heavy VLDs with 7x57 a bit harder, so like ripnbst said - more case more power.
you wanna argue, .338 lapua, .416 Barret and .50 BMG, .22-250, any WSSM cartridge, .243 win., and you still havnt displaced the .300 win mag argue that one
Ammunition / cartridges are more or less just a compromise in power vs size vs recoil vs versatility.
The chemical reaction taking place inside, the metallurgy containing the reaction are what allows more power to be transmitted either total, or more efficiently, or faster; to the bullet.
And to that question, a resounding NO! to the last 100yrs having been wasted. We have most definitely come a long ways in both chemistry and metallurgy in the last 100yrs.
the 7x57 (and others listed) are presumably not crippled or unpopular because it fails in compromising size, power, versatility, and recoil, but rather that they were based on metallurgy that was in existence 100yrs ago. Similar to "Ruger only" loads for revolvers, or "Modern Rifle Only" .45-70 loads, that cartridge loaded to it's modern capability would exceed many of the original firearms capability to contain the pressures. And the reason it isn't popular not is just as you've said in it's favor: it's not much different than 7mm-08 in it's "old" loading; and it's close (but not quite) to what the .284 Win or 7mm Shortmags are capable of. So on both sides of the spectrum, it would be fighting against more modern cartridges that don't have the legal worries of blowing up an older gun.
The chemical reaction taking place inside, the metallurgy containing the reaction are what allows more power to be transmitted either total, or more efficiently, or faster; to the bullet.
And to that question, a resounding NO! to the last 100yrs having been wasted. We have most definitely come a long ways in both chemistry and metallurgy in the last 100yrs.
the 7x57 (and others listed) are presumably not crippled or unpopular because it fails in compromising size, power, versatility, and recoil, but rather that they were based on metallurgy that was in existence 100yrs ago. Similar to "Ruger only" loads for revolvers, or "Modern Rifle Only" .45-70 loads, that cartridge loaded to it's modern capability would exceed many of the original firearms capability to contain the pressures. And the reason it isn't popular not is just as you've said in it's favor: it's not much different than 7mm-08 in it's "old" loading; and it's close (but not quite) to what the .284 Win or 7mm Shortmags are capable of. So on both sides of the spectrum, it would be fighting against more modern cartridges that don't have the legal worries of blowing up an older gun.
Yep, I vote for more sleep, but seriously, how about the 45 colt black powder load, 250 gr. bullet at 910 fps and 460 foot lbs m.e.?
It would be plenty as long as you could make a good shot. Walter Bell killed over 1000 elephants with that round.
I also look at my RSI as my poor mans scout rifle. I think it fills that role nicely. Granted it doesn't have a magazine, but then you don't have to worry about loosing one. Its already got decent iron sights, and the 4X scope on her will do just about any range, I don't need all those mil-dots, donut-dot, paint-dots, or what ever they are called today, I learned to read before that.
I hear you. My German #4 on my AR is about as "busy" as I need. I like simple, simple is good.
Yay, somebody wants to play in my sandbox ... finally.
You got some tough ones.
1) Easy first: 22-250, wssm and 243 don't do anything 6.5x55 already done. Throw in an 1895 6mm Lee Navy in the mix ... and again 20th century is down the drain.
2) 50BMG, 416 Barret - 50bmg was not designed to be a rifle cartridge all together. Same goes for it's neck-down little brother. It is awesome that they can develop a firearm that can be carried by a human - but it's not technically a rifle by definition: "firearm designed to be fired from the shoulder". I'm sure you can find someone shooting a 30lb gun off hand, but it was not designed to be such.
3) 338 Lapua - that's a bad mofo. Honest replacement for 45-70: same recoil, same bullet weight - but shoves it WAAAAAAAY out there. It's not really in competition with "medium bore" rifles - it creates a bridge to heavy machine gun cartridges. The only thing I can say - how often do you need 1000ft/lb at 1500 yards - just call in the air strike
4) 300 Win Mag - hmmm pushes 6.5x55 point blank whopping 6 yards, kicks 50% harder and has a cool yet useless belt ... another waste.
Unfortunately neither chemistry nor metallurgy changed
Same propellant - isn't it crazy that all the variety of smokeless we got is the same stuff served in different shapes.
Same steel - Swedes and Germans had it down by late 1890s - their test load was 66,000 PSI. Old Mausers have been re-chambered to the highest pressure magnums.
Same brass - other than stretched, trimmed or necked.
Bullets - yeah, we have had some really good bullets developed in recent years, but I don't think that takes away from the perfection of original cases.
As I said people have been rechambering old Mausers to anything and everything. And it's not like modern guns don't fail. IMHO the only thing that didn't go for old European cartridges they didn't start with "30". Nowadays only "service rifle" starts with "30" - all the "smart ones" jumped on 6.5mm and 7mm bandwagon.
I sorta agree. Old common sense cartridges do virtually the same thing that newer better advertised and more well marketed cartridges do. But US gun owners tend to want our firearms and cartridges designed and manufactured by Americans. For all its shortcomings 30-06 is a fantastic cartridge. Its flexible enough to warrant its use on varmints to humans to elephants.
270 MoBoost. 308 necked down to .277. I found out a European guy beat you to it.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/03/11/270-schuster-and-can-cartridges-be-patented/
270 MoBoost. 308 necked down to .277. I found out a European guy beat you to it.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/03/11/270-schuster-and-can-cartridges-be-patented/
