Do we need more new "Factory" cartridges?

I have always felt that if you can't kill it with a. 30/06, you probably shouldn't be shooting at it in the first place. Same with handgun cartridges. We have enough now. Having said that, it's fun to play with new toys now and then, and as someone pointed out above, it's their money.
 
I will go on record and say we don't need any more new cartridges but if the powers want to make new ones that's OK. I draw the line at being asked to believe all the hype that goes along with each new trinket.
Some of the stuff they put out with each new introduction has one asking if a ballistic miracle has occurred.
 
I've worked with a lot of cartridges (only about ten handgun chamberings) over the last fifty-five or so years including many wildcats. Enjoyable and interesting work doing load development for all of them until you one day come to the realization that there are so many duplicate and overlapping cartridges.

Yet it's hard to put a practical perspective on all this. It's fun and keeps boredom in check when you hunt with a 7x61 Sharpe & Hart Magnum instead of a dull 7mm Remington Magnum despite the two cartridges being ballistically identical.

Long throat your 7 Rem Mag and ditch the S&H!
 
It's the unimaginative era of shooting at present.

I could do without a bunch of the cartridges introduced in the past 20 years, trading the attention expended on them in favor of renewed attention on some truly dandy cartridges that no longer generate a proper amount of attention from today's shooters who don't know any better.

For rifles: .220 Swift, .250 Savage, .257 Roberts, 6.5X55, .270 Winchester, 7X57, .280 Remington, .300 Savage, .32-20, .38-55, .405 WCF. I'm even sensing that the grand old .30-06 is teetering off its perch in recent years in favor of a distinctly lesser though admittedly still effective round, the .308. All these are excellent, useful cartridges that well accomplish shooting chores. So much of what we have these days is nothing more than a reformed "bottle" containing the propellant charge, a "differently dimensioned" cartridge case that does nothing special and produces the same amount of cartridge performance as the oldies can and they were here first!

But, we must have short actions you see and it must be able to feed in a semi-automatic. And, we must have compact, short-barreled rifles. Standard weight, ballistics improving longer barrels are so yesterday.

For handguns: revolver cartridges generally are languishing. The traditional straight walled magnum revolver cartridges, the mighty triumvirate of yesteryear, the .357 Magnum, .41 Magnum, and .44 Magnum aren't nearly as popular with the masses as they were when I was young. For crying out loud, the .38 Special languishes these days except for application in sniveling snubs! The .32-20 is a uniquely appealing cartridge, offering good handgun performance and endless small game, plinking, and handloading entertainment as a rifle cartridge, even as an economical stand in for the .22 Long Rifle with the right loads. Instead, we reinvent the wheel with .32 H&R Magnum, and .327 Federal magnum.

In automatics, the .38 Super sputters into life for a few seasons of popularity on occasion, but has taken a back seat to the wretched 9mm Luger of late. We touted the .40 S&W to the high heavens for some years after its introduction then turned on it and denigrated it into the ground in recent times.

Handguns too, suffer from "less is more." Shooters gravitate to 9mm or even this sniveling .30-whatever-it-is and want handguns to be ever smaller, ever lighter than last year's models.

Handloading is less popular among the unwashed masses today, less accessible too with a dearth of components available, but then so is factory ammunition at present. Few want to study their chosen cartridge and experimentally load for it to maximize its use. They'd rather just buy guns chambered for the latest and greatest cartridge that claims some sort of unique performance benefit.

Then there's the problem of "all semi-automatic, all the time." For so many, if it's not semi-automatic, whether rifle or handgun, then it's not worthy of consideration. Gotta have lots'a bullets.

There's a whole 'nother world of good shooting to be had outside of plastic pistolas and AR 15s, the 9mm Luger and the .223.

Just a feeble morning bleat from an admitted fogy.

No Christmas card for you!
 
innovate or die.
Plane, simple business practice.

If you don't want to buy, don't.
If you want to try the latest Bleeding-Edge do-hickey, good on ya.


Do we really need a tweeked version of the car we bought a couple years ago? Same philosophy.
 
I am in the 22-250 -308-223-270 crowd. You can get supplies everywhere.<except primers>The administration put a halt to primer imports several years ago. I have never owned a 270 but I visited a small town in Missouri close to Jeff city during deer season and drove around and everyone had a deer hanging in their front yard. We had a social meeting that night <mayor and all>

and all the deer were killed with 270's. Maybe it was a city ordinance.:) AND 30-06- If you went to dcm meets you could shoot 147 grain for free. You could buy a container 260 rounds fmj in clips for $50 and it set on the shelf. I bought some and didn't even have an 06.

What city? I'm in Jeff City.
 
Wildcatting was (is?) a great way to experiment and find new utility with what were once abundant supplies of surplus arms and ammo.
For example, Elwood Epps of Orillia, Ontario, Canada developed a whole line of improved cartridges on the 303 British case, all intended for use in converted Lee-Enfield and P14 surplus rifles. They were very popular. The cartridges were as small as .25 caliber and went up to something like a .35 caliber. Each one was intended to have hunting applications for the varied big game in Canada.
All the better that the rifles could be custom fitted with nice stocks, etc. for less money than a new Winchester or Remington. American (or all imported) firearms were always pricey in Canada.
That's a little bit of a digression from the OP, but sometimes new cartridges can be a great way of taking advantage of existing resources.

300 Blackout (aka 300 Whisper) was/is a great way to utilize abundant supplies of 5.56 brass. My recollection is that JD Jones developed a whole line of "Whisper" cartridges. But, only the .300 seems to have taken off.

Ultimately, "natural selection" determines the winner and losers (with perhaps a bit of circus hype) in the cartridge market.
Funny thing...sometimes a plethora of new stuff leads to a renaissance or rediscovery of old stuff. I believe somebody mentioned 6.5 Mauser already...
 
Last edited:
30 Super Carry? 115 gr. Gold Dot at 1150 fps. Higher magazine capacity than 9mm. "New and improved" semi-auto cartridge seems to fit the 25-32 "hole". Some may like it, some may get one just because it's new...

Or 7.63x25 Mauser, 7.62x25 Tokerev?

30 super carry is exactly one of those offerings. In fact Ill call it in the butter zone. Now, get it well established in a few nimble little carbines of various action type, and watch the show.
 
I always like to see a new cartridge. I don't like most of what I see, but, I am never going to see something that I like if they don't keep bringing out new cartridges.

What I get a chuckle out of is that everything that is old becomes new again. If you take hard look at many cartridges that have come out in the last few years and labelled the latest and greatest whiz bang, you will probably find something ballistically identical, and pretty much the same round somewhere in the past. And often, those rounds never made much of a splash in their time. An example is the 6.5 x55 Swede. It has been around and available in this country since probably 1898 when it was invented. No one really seemed to care much about it. Enter the 6.5 Creedmoor which is essentially the same round. The shooting world has gone nuts over it. Go figure.

6.5 Creedmore and 6.5 Grendel work well in their intended platforms, AR10 and AR15. that's where a lot of focus has been lately. the AR15 in particular has become the winchester model 94 of our current era. These are more about making these rifles more useful than anything
 
I bought a 270 WSM on a spur of the moment and soon found out it was mostly a big nothing over the standard 270. I like to have never got a fool to relieve me of that turkey. Glad it is gone.
I feel the same way about most of these new introductions. The 6.5 Creedmore is a prime example. It will not do one thing better than the 6.5X55 Mauser or the 260 Remington. It has just gotten loads of hyped up press. Nothing wrong with it but nothing new either.

Agree 1000%. These odd cartridges are a waste of time and money.

The real motivator for all of them is $$$.
 
I thought about putting the .30-40 on the list. Nothing alive and walking could tell the difference between it and .308 if fairly struck. The .30-40 produces quite pleasing velocities with lighter weight .30 caliber bullets and good ol' 220 grain round nose give it a unique flavor of stomp on big game. I've used it a bit.

Back in the day (60's) my family didn't have enough money to buy new rifles but we hunted anyway. I used a model 95 Winchester that my dad purchased from a neighbor in the 50's. I shot my first mule deer with that rifle. The cartridge worked just fine for everything out to 200 yds. I wish the rifle had been lighter but that has nothing to do with cartridge performance. It was a good cartridge that's still barely alive.
 
Back in the day (60's) my family didn't have enough money to buy new rifles but we hunted anyway. I used a model 95 Winchester that my dad purchased from a neighbor in the 50's. I shot my first mule deer with that rifle. The cartridge worked just fine for everything out to 200 yds. I wish the rifle had been lighter but that has nothing to do with cartridge performance. It was a good cartridge that's still barely alive.

Actual in-the-field performance differences between the .30-40 Krag, .300 Savage, and .308 (all with comparable bullets) are minimal.
 
I do not believe new calibers are for the ammunition companies as much as they are for manufacturers.

The ammunition companies can barely keep up with producing the calibers they already make much less bringing in a new caliber. Financially, they do not need a new caliber.

At some point a gun manufacturer will hit diminishing returns with their current products and desperately need - must have - something new to sell to make money and keep in business. Example: At at some point everyone will have all the 38 Special guns they want and will not buy more 38 Special guns.

Another way manufacturers try to increase their revenue is taking the same caliber guns they already make and change the finish, offer different barrels, offer unfluted cylinders, add sights /remove sights, different grip style, etc, etc, etc..

Smith appears to have successfully done this. Look at the many variations of 9mm caliber guns (both revolver & auto), 38 sped/357 mag caliber variations & 44 spec/mag variations they offer.

*********************************************************
Please! Don't get me wrong about the following comments on a new pistol caliber.

All I am saying is when I look at the following caliber I ask why. In no way am I slamming the caliber, just curious.

Example of a new pistol caliber:
Smith "30 Super Carry", what does this caliber offer which is not already available. Yes I know about the argument that you can put more rounds in a magazine than a 9mm. Doesn't one really need more than round count to justify buying a caliber gun?

Will the 30 Super Carry be a big seller and last more than 5 years, who knows. Or will it become another caliber like the 45 GAP, 357 Sig and others which have faded away.

The 30 Super Carry MUST to be bought by all the Smith Collectors who collect the of style gun which it is chambered in - just to have the caliber.

The Smith Collectors will probably a fare number of buyers, but then; what after the collectors fill their collection needs?

The 30 Super Carry does not meet caliber requirements for IDPA. If it did it would skyrocket in sales.

As to 30 caliber pistols:
The '7.65mm French Long' is "Identical" to the 30 Super Carry, did the ammo and gun manufacturers know this? Maybe they did know. Either way they would say they did know.

30 Super Carry is GREAT for "7.65mm French Long" gun owners, they now have easy to obtain ammo.

Just a comment: The 30 Luger out performs the 30 Super Carry.
30 Luger typically has a 90gr bullet where as the 30 Super Carry has a 100gr bullet.

Now my parting comment on the 30 Super Carry:
40 years ago I Definitely would have bought it to play with just like I did with all the other calibers I could lay my hands on back then, which were a lot of calibers when including the wildcats. Damn, I had fun!

But now a little older I think more about what works for me and my shooting habit. I am a shooter not a collector or experimenter anymore.

If I were a collector of the guns which will come chambered in the 30 Super Carry I would definitely buy them.

So, I guess the real answer to 30 Super Carry is if you are young and older and have the $$ to play and experiment this caliber is for you.
 
Last edited:
An additional comment on having a lot of calibers.

Recently I visited a friend, much younger than myself, and was a little shocked by his reloading room which I had not seen for quite a while.

I took a mental note of what I saw:
23 different powders.
All sizes of primer for pistol, rifle & shotgun.
I could not count all the calibers & bullet weights he had.
Same goes for brass; cans and boxes to galor.
2 of the large gun safes.

Well good for him he loves all he has and really only shoots a few.

He who has the most toys and most fun WINs!!

I wonder: If I had the income and/or the disposable funds would I be like him? Who know's, maybe I would.
 
Back
Top