Caliber Thoughts

[Mergie Master]

I was thinking about calibers the other night and came up with a mental question. How in the world did we (shooters in general) end up with these calibers that are so close together? I don't have any experience with some of them so I can't attest to the differences such as power, casing sizes etc. But the diameters are so close it seems ludicrous to have developed them all.

.218 Bee

.220 Swift and .220 Russian

.221 Remington Fireball

.222 Remington and .222 Remington Mag

.223 NATO

.224 Weatherby Mag

.225 Winchester

What would inspire a person or wildcatter to develop a round so close to a previous round? Just curious.

[USMCsilver]

You forgot about the .22-250.

It's nuts. Who gives a coon's shit about a thousandth of a difference when it come to ammo?

And, a bit off topic, but my vote for the monstrosity of the decade goes to the .45 GAP.

[MediaGuy]

.45 GAP is all they had for pistol ammo in my buddies SW in Wa. not to long ago, he was pissed.

[Swamp Rat]

The 45 GAP fills a non-existent niche.

There are sooooo many cartridges similar in performance and dimensions that it boggles the mind.

[CWPINST]

And that was before the WSSM lunacy.

[Mergie Master]

You forgot about the .22-250.

Woops! Yep missed that one.

It's nuts. Who gives a coon's shit about a thousandth of a difference when it come to ammo?

Well I can sort of see a wildcatter wanting to design his own to play around with. But these things are mass produced. I just can't see where there would be a market for a new cartridge a thousandth of an inch different from an older or more established cartridge. It just don't make sense.

And, a bit off topic, but my vote for the monstrosity of the decade goes to the .45 GAP.

I haven't really looked at the GAP, so I don't know much about it. Isn't it a Glock specific round?

[Swamp Rat]

The only pistols I have seen chambered in it (so far) is the Glock and the Springfield XD. Glock came up with the concept/design (GAP stands for "Glock Auto Pistol"). It was designed to more or less allow for a round that matched or came close to 45 Auto performance to be put into a package with a smaller grip dimension than the 45 Auto (45 GAP is a bit shorter in OAL).

[Mergie Master]

I thought I'd read the "Glock Auto Pistol" part somewhere. So I figured only glocks were chambered for it. I didn't realize the Springfield was.

Reminds me of how Weatherby designed calibers for their guns, like the .270 Weatherby Mag. Btw, I've read/heard that the .270 Weatherby Mag is good solid round.

[Swamp Rat]

257 Weatherby is what my brother insists is perhaps the ultimate "bean field" rifle cartridge - blazingly fast and flat shooting. I've always been trepidous about getting a Weatherby chambered gun due to the cost of brass and ammunition.

I saw a write-up the other day where a guy had a custom gun built in 6.5-06 Ackley Improved. THAT intrigued me - probably waaay over bore capacity, but my previous experiences with the 280 Ackley sparked some interest there.

[Geetch]

I have a Steyr .280 Remington that I wish I didn't have. Got rid of a Remington .270 after I bought it. I kick myself for that one.

[Mergie Master]

257 Weatherby is what my brother insists is perhaps the ultimate "bean field" rifle cartridge - blazingly fast and flat shooting. I've always been trepidous about getting a Weatherby chambered gun due to the cost of brass and ammunition.

There was a time when I dreamed of a Weatherby rifle. At that time I couldn't afford one though. As time passed I started thinking of Weatherby as just an overpriced "good" gun. I figured you were buying the 'name' more than anything really different than what you can get in other mass produced guns. That's pretty much how I still feel, although that thought process may be more a product of 'sour grapes syndrome' than actual fact.

I saw a write-up the other day where a guy had a custom gun built in 6.5-06 Ackley Improved. THAT intrigued me - probably waaay over bore capacity, but my previous experiences with the 280 Ackley sparked some interest there.

A friend of mine from North Augusta swears by his .280 Ackley Improved. His is a Jarrett rifle if I'm not mistaken and he'll about fight you over it's performance.

Btw, here's a somewhat interesting article on the .280 Ackley Improved.
.280 AI Article

[Mergie Master]

I have a Steyr .280 Remington that I wish I didn't have. Got rid of a Remington .270 after I bought it. I kick myself for that one.

I liked the Steyr Scout (I think it was) that Col. Jeff Cooper had a hand in designing. But I didn't like it as much as Steyr thought it was worth.

[FLS]

Marketing...
The best of the bunch is almost non existant today. 225 Winchester. It will do anything a 22-250 will do with one of the strongest cases out there. Great cartridge, but a marketing failure.
Same for the 280. It can do anything the 270 can, only better. Remington dropped the ball and neutered it for a semi auto.

[Geetch]

I don't have the Scout, but like that too.

FLS, do you like the .280? I'm not sure of the benefits of it over the .270. Plus ammo is harder to find.

[Mergie Master]

I don't know a lot about the .280, but I've read that you have more options in bullet weights than you do the .270.

I own and love the .270, but that isn't my fault, I read too many of Jack O'Connor's articles years back. I believe he, as a writer and fan of the .270, almost single-handedly made the caliber famous and sought after. The cartridge should be named after him in my opinion. Instead of .270 Winchester it should be the .270 O'Connor.

For years I enjoyed the running war of words between Jack O'Connor and Elmer Kieth. Jack pushed the idea of a smaller diameter high velocity projectile, it was his mantra. It could save the world and solve all the problems you could ever have. To Jack, guns and hunting was all about high velocity, nothing else mattered except for bullet placement. He believed that bullet placement could be better achieved with a gun that didn't punish you to the extreme. He killed all the African Big 5 with the .270, that includes elephants to prove it could be done. But because of his love of the .270, most people forget that he was the one man that made the .416 Rigby popular too.

Elmer Keith on the other hand was all about mass, heavy projectiles could do it all. High velocity guns smaller diameter bullets were for sissies like Jack O'Connor in Elmer's mind. Elmer was a magnum man to the death.

These two articles will give you an idea of the battles that raged between these two guys.

Keith admittedly despised Jack O'Connor. O'Connor never evidenced any feeling at all about Elmer Keith

Jack O'Connor and the Cult of High Velocity

[Geetch]

I don't reload, so the options for my .280 are pretty slim. At least I've found them to be lacking. I love the feel/smoothness of the rifle, the "twisted" hammered barrell, the unique bolt handle and the caliber gets the job done, but so does my .243. I'll buy another Steyr anyday, but don't care for the .280 strictly for limited mass produced ammo.

The only reason I bring up the .280 is because of the title of the thread.

[SCH20FWLNSUX]

Geetch, I have a 280 and love it. I've never owned a 270 to compare though. I'm with you about the ammo thing though, I like the NPs in mine but don't reload rifle yet so I'm stuck paying Federal's outrageous prices.

[Mergie Master]

I don't much worry about ammo costs in a hunting rifle. Let's face it, if you can afford the gun, the glass, the truck and the gas you can afford one box of cartridges a season. You aren't likely to shoot over 20 in a season and that includes checking your zero. If you are shooting more than that at deer, then you either have more deer than you need or you are a bad shot.

Now if you just enjoy punching paper that's a whole nother story.

[CWPINST]

There is a significant difference between a factory loaded .280 and a handloaded .280AI. The factory .280 has about the same performance with 140gr. or 120gr. bullet as a handloaded 7mm08 (with the slight edge going to the .280).

[SCcdp]

.280 AI is a helluva cartridge...