Quote:
Originally Posted by Por_sha911
The problem with that is there is always another sub-variant (caliber) out there.
|
And more added every year. I have an older copy of
Barne's Cartridges of the World (1972). It lists over 1,000 metallic cartridges, centerfire and rimfire. Most are now obsolete, of course, but there remain dozens in "common use" today. The variation is staggering.
At the end of the day, though, how many do we really need, that provide a distinct enough difference or advantage over anything else? There is an awful lot of overlap and redundancy. There are constant efforts to "modernize", many of which simply "revisit". The current man crush the shooting world has displayed over all of the new 6.5 Whatevers is a great example - not a one is better in any way than the old 6.5x55, dating from 1896, and many are inferior.
Manufacturers always try to squeeze a new one in somewhere, in their attempts to sell us new guns. All of the "short magnums" were a recent attempt at this. 20 years on, most are now impossible to find ammo for, while the stodgy old stand-bys (like the .30-'06, .270, etc.) soldier on. The .40 "Short and Weak", the .357 Sig, and other wundercartridges are all dying a slow death while the .45 ACP and 9mm keep on truckin'. This is a tough game, and most new cartridges simply cannot find a gap into which they fit to justify their existence.
I've always advised folks who just want to shoot to go "mainstream", to stick with the tried and true "standards". Ignore the new proprietary stuff, like the new range of Nosler rifle cartridges. There is not a one of them that materially improves on the standard cartridges of similar bore size, except on paper. In the field we will never know the difference. Until, of course, we find ourselves on our dream elk hunt in Wyoming, and the damn airline lost our ammo. Just try to find .26 Nosler in the hardware store in Rawlins, WY, next to the .30-'06, .300 Win Mag, .270 and the like. Ain't gonna happen, and you'll be hunting with the guide's nephew's open sighted thutty thutty that is stocked with a wired on piece of driftwood. I've personally seen this happen.
Beyond the new whiz-bang overly marketed nonsense, we have the oddball and esoteric, often obsolete. These are the province of the hobbyist handloader, the guy who isn't doing it to "save money". It's an interesting pursuit in and of itself, reloading oddball and obsolete stuff, but it's kind of getting into "grad school" reloading. The field here is limitless, only bound by one's determination and inventiveness. My own .40-70 Sharps Straight is a good example of what we have to do once we start plying these waters. Here it is, standing next to and laying down next to a .45-2.4, aka ".45-90". Look at the head stamp. I'm forming brass for one
very obsolete cartridge from another
almost obsolete cartridge. And no, no one manufactures bullets in the proper diameter. We must cast our own:
In light of all of this, the newest rifle cartridges for which I personally reload, for example, are the 7mm Remington Magnum and the .223, dating from the early '60's. Other than the oddball and esoteric "just for fun" stuff, I prefer to let them "age" a bit before I commit to them. Next newest is the .458 Win Mag and the .308, both products of the mid '50's. From there, they age precipitously. The .220 Swift was 1937, the .300 Savage before that, and the .375 H&H 1912. My most "modern" handgun round is the .44 Mag, from the mid '50's, then the .357 Mag from the mid '30's, the .45 ACP from 1911, then right back into the 19th century.
Cartridges come and go. We do have a proven list of old standbys that will do anything we ask of any cartridge, rifle or handgun. It's best, if one wishes to begin reloading, to stick with these. There is readily available data, components are (relatively, in these days) easy to find, and if you misplace you ammo on an important hunt, you can run into town and buy more.