The cartridge for the next 30 years….

[Amos Keeto]

Less powder and recoil for similar performance. No belt. Not much really. But in all reality there is very little effective difference in hunting cartridges across a very broad range for 90+% of uses. Yet here we are all in another cartridge debate thread. The 7 rem mag has had a good run and more than likely will continue to. In terms of separation from where the market and cartridge design has been been going for some time now though, the belted cartridges are the most antiquated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The .300 H&H Mag (originally named Holland's Super .30) was the first commercial cartridge that "required" a belt. The shoulder of the case was so long, they put a belt on the case to simplify headspacing.
Since then, "belted case" and "magnum" have become synonymous. American manufacturers picked up on the popularity of "magnum" and began belting cartridges that really didn't "need" a belt, but marketing made "belt" a seller!

So, if you have a loading manual, do this!

Compare the .270 Win and the 7mm Rem Mag.
Compare the same bullet weight and the same powder. The .270 will do everything the 7 Mag will do with less powder.
Do the same thing with the .300 H&H with the .300 Win Mag.
Same bullet weight, same powder.
The H&H will do everything the WinMag will do with the same powder.
The difference is on the top end of the bullet weight and fps factors.
I used to bust a buddies chops over his 7 Mag being no more than a noisy .270!

 

[Pony Soldier]

The only complaint that I have ever had on the 270 was the meager choice of bullets.

 

[TVW]

.308

 

[Amos Keeto]

The only complaint that I have ever had on the 270 was the meager choice of bullets.

My reloading mentor started me with ammo for my .270.
He always (1973) used Sierra 130 gr BTSP.
From years of shooting that bullet, I've never seen any need to shoot anything different. Feral hogs, whitetails, mulies and antelope.
Out of curiosity, I loaded some Sierra 90gr HP. Awesome accuracy!

 

[3325]

No one doubts .270 Winchester will be here 30 years from now. If that's not enough oommpphh, .270 Weatherby will likely be here too.

Now, how about .270 WSM and 6.8 Western? Gets a little less sure in the minds of most, doesn't it?

So, if you have heirloom in mind .......

 

[Amos Keeto]

When the doctor told me I had to reduce recoil on my "new" prosthetic shoulder, I stayed with .277" bullets!
AR in 6.8mm Rem SPC!

Handloads, believe it or not, with Sierra 90 grain HP bullets.
Both 1 shot kills.
My first hog kill with the rifle was a sow of about 300 pounds. I wasn't sure it would be enough bullet.....but she dropped at the shot!

 

[Amos Keeto]

The only complaint that I have ever had on the 270 was the meager choice of bullets.

The Sierra 130 grain BTSP is the greatest .277" bullet ever produced. IMO LOL!

 

[HighUintas]

No one lives forever, no one. But with advances in modern science and my high level income, it's not crazy to think I can live to be 245, maybe 300.

308

 

[Wolfshead]

I would go with my .308 Win If I could only have one rifle.
I also have a 30-06 which many have listed and it’s a great round, and one I would also take, but as my second choice.
During Covid when you couldn’t get ammo (or hardly get any) the only stuff available that I saw in my area was .308 win and to a lesser degree 30-06. Some .270 but even leases than the previous two. Now that was my area.
I handload my rifle ammunition so it was not all that big of a problem to me then.
As a hand loader, and with the cost of components rising I, with savings in mind, still pick the .308 Win.
I can have a cartridge that I can use to hunt any of the game listed in the OP’s post, and with a short action case use less powder thus having it go a little further than say a 30-06.

 

[307]

It's really interesting in how people approach this thought experiment.

Ammo availability seems to be the most frequent justification for choosing a particular cartridge, usually one of the more traditional cartridges.

We saw during the pandemic that availability is sort of a weird thing. Some of the less common cartridges were available much longer than the common cartridges, but the common cartridges were the ones that "came back" with the most volume as ammunition returned to the shelves.

Many of the older cartridges were developed far before modern rangefinders (probably the biggest technology advancement in shooting in the last century?), modern ballistics (all types) understanding, etc.

Do we mainly defend what we already have rather than choosing the best currently available? Emotional attachment is probably a bigger factor than we recognize.

Regional differences in terrain and available game animals also a major factor.

Interesting discussion overall.

 

[Pony Soldier]

The frustrating part of our society are changes within our retail suppliers as to components. For years I could depend on specific components being in all of the stores. When I happened to be in town I could drop in and pick up things based on my available cash, projected need, and availability.

Now certain items are hardly ever available, they have quit making things that worked very well for decades, and success appears to be exchanged for chasing butterflies and politics. I find myself having to shop every time I drive into town at every sporting goods store in hopes that something of value will be available.

I now have to buy everything I find in fear that I will never see it again and maintain stockpiles never previously anticipated. As much as I like my 7RM, I find the availability of the heavier bullets virtually non-existant. Powder purchased in 1 lb containers is so rare that I have to look at 8lb containers in fear that I will never see it again if I don't buy it when I see it.

Availability appears to be driven by the whim of the general population rather than the tried and true. I think even more so in shot choices.

I don't buy preloaded shells so I have no idea what is out there or care but my component stockpile is vast in comparison to my direct needs. In sighting in a new scope I had to load a box of lesser desired bullets to get it close enough to not waste my stockpile of hunting bullets which are no longer made.

Choosing a long term rifle is dictated by guessing ammo supplies for 30 years as opposed to what you like.

 

[TheHammer]

I’m surprised nobody has mentioned 450BM. Joking…
Wait I should not** joke on this thread. In all seriousness, 308 or 300wm. If I was a .284 guy, it’s hard to argue with a 280ai especially if you hand load.

 

[DangerRanger]

I’m surprised that heirloom concept evokes larger cartridges that people want to shoot less on a forum that generally pushes the opposite way.

 

[grfox92]

I’m surprised that heirloom concept evokes larger cartridges that people want to shoot less on a forum that generally pushes the opposite way.

There are a lot of members, I think over 80k. Not all of them are on board with smaller cartridges.

Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk

 

[307]

If ammo supply was not compromised, and you can shoot whatever you choose, with equal availability, does that change your answer?

 

[9.1]

For some reason a 35 Whelan appeals to me.

This is what I did, but it was a mistake. If I were to start over, I'd go with something that can take advantage of modern bullet designs.

 

[DangerRanger]

There are a lot of members, I think over 80k. Not all of them are on board with smaller cartridges.

Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk

Well sure, Maybe this topic is more appealing to that group.

 

[grfox92]

Well sure, Maybe this topic is more appealing to that group.

Not saying my suggestion is the answer. I just know there are alot of members who don't buy into the small calibers and choose not to argue about it.

Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk

 

[3325]

I’m surprised that heirloom concept evokes larger cartridges that people want to shoot less on a forum that generally pushes the opposite way.

Oh, I'm on board with big bores. I just don't see the point of in betweens. For instance, if I feel like I need something more than the .270 or .30-06 class, I'm going up to a .375 or better. What I wouldn't do is pick one of the various 7s, 8s, 33s, 35s, etc.

 

[wind gypsy]

I’m surprised that heirloom concept evokes larger cartridges that people want to shoot less on a forum that generally pushes the opposite way.

"heirloom rifle" in a cartridge conversation = Rifle that isn't going to be shot enough to need a new barrel.

I'd have a hard time thinking of a rifle I'd want that I would plan on shooting so little over 30 years that it still has the same barrel on it.