# Why so many goofy rounds?



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Been looking over the cartridge collection posting lately and it baffles my why now days we have so many cartridges with so slight differences. I know about such things as action lengths and straight cases and shoulder angles and understand the benefits, but I am seeing some really odd stuff out there. I especially don't understand these really short extra fat rounds. Seems that for the most part 60 grains of powder pushing a 165gr .30 bullet is going to produce the same results regardless of the overall shape of the cartridge(given of course that the cartridge is at least some what modern design). Why would someone opt for one of these really hard to produce, difficult to reload cartridges that almost always require a custom rifle to use when there are time proven cartridges right at there fingertips. P.O. Ackley had a book full of custom "Improved and Wildcat" loads and in the end, his favorite was still a "factory" round (.220 Swift). I am thinking too many guys are spending way too much time reading way too much crap from magazines( I guess it's the internet now days) trying to find some magic when what they are looking for has been around for a long, long time already.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

IMO some of it is no different than the guy that needs a new bow every year or the new driver that is guaranteed to take away the dreaded slice or hook. Nothing replaces good old practice.


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

If one can make a name for themselves or make some money by simply tweaking a small part of an already popular round, you will see that happen time after time.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Why do we have the Ford Powerstroke, the Dodge Cummins, and the Chevy Duramax? They all tow the same trailer? Variety is present as the market dictates. I think we are blessed to have options and variety and have experienced a lot of fun and fulfillment messing around with Goofy Rounds. I only have one question for Randy.......do you have to use a goofy round to hunt a goofy elk?:mrgreen:--------SS


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Springville Shooter said:


> Why do we have the Ford Powerstroke, the Dodge Cummins, and the Chevy Duramax? They all tow the same trailer? Variety is present as the market dictates. *I think we are blessed to have options and variety and have experienced a lot of fun and fulfillment messing around with Goofy Rounds.* I only have one question for Randy.......do you have to use a goofy round to hunt a goofy elk?:mrgreen:--------SS


I get that completely. I guess it's the really shot fat rounds I don't understand. What is the theory behind them?


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

To sell more guns. Without the latest and greatest new cartridge of the year, we'd all be shooting grandpa's 30/40 Krag.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Loke said:


> To sell more guns. Without the latest and greatest new cartridge of the year, we'd all be shooting grandpa's 30/40 Krag.


Yeah, you're probably right. Well, at least the part about the "latest". Just seems some of these rounds are so silly they can't have any real practical reason to exist. They seem to be the very antithesis to the old "you can always pick up a box at the store in a pinch" The old 30/40 Krag had plenty of reasons to be replaced.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

It seems like there is a fringe group of hunters and shooters out there that like to hate the .270 win and .30-06 and other such popular cartridges. Some will even condemn these cartridges as "junk" while they extol the virtues of some wildcat few people have ever heard of that won't do anything the .30-06 and .270 won't do except be a pain in the @$$ to find brass an ammo for. Some people thrive on being a unique little snowflake that belong to some super special club that you don't belong to.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

There are also shooters out there that just want something different and they don't mind having to make a case out of a different round. I was in that boat for a while but then I got tired of reforming cases out of others where it took two of three different steps to get it to the final case. But they were fun once all the case forming was done, that was until you had to start all over again with a virgin case to make the one that you were shooting. A lot of this was with the .30 and .357 Herrett rounds for the T/C Contender

I now stick to the ones that just need the necks expanded or necked down and perhaps a fire forming to get the final case to take out shooting.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

What's funny is a guy could hunt everything from squirrels to elephant with 4 calibers or even 3 if he really wanted to.

Let's say .22 WMR for small game up to small predators.
.25-06 for large predators up to deer/antelope/black bear sized big game.
.375 H&H magnum for elk-sized game up to elephant.

There you go! Three calibers and you are all set!


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

BPturkeys said:


> I get that completely. I guess it's the really shot fat rounds I don't understand. What is the theory behind them?


Well I'm no expert but I do have eyes to see the cases that are winning shooting matches and setting records. Look at the PPC's, BR's, Creedmore's, 284's, etc. They all have a few things in common; shorter, fat cases with sharper shoulder angles and little case taper. I have worked a ton with the 7MM Dakota and the 7MM STW. While they are very close in case capacity, they have very different case shapes. The STW is long and skinny, the Dakota is short and fat. I have noticed that the Dakota consistently has less shot to shot deviation. Maybe it doesn't mean a lot, but I think that there is something to case design as relating to how efficient the powder charge is burned. There are also theories that shorter actions are stiffer and more consistent than longer ones. I have no supporting data to prove this one way or the other but it seems logical to me. What else would explain that I have never seen any 338 Magnum beat a 6MM. BR at a 600 or 1000 yard match?-------SS


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Looking back you can see many case designs that come about hoping to optimize a certain powder. Most modern cases started out as black powder cases and have been modified and re-modified. One of the most noteworthy was the shorting of the 30-06 to better optimize the powder charge size...whalla....308. Not being a target shooter I guess I haven't kept pace with the trends in this area. Where most shooters/hunters are looking to shave an inch off their groups, the target guys are looking to trim off a fraction of an inch. I suspect they aren't using 4831 or 4350 powder either. The new powders must just work a little better in those short fat cases. Interesting. I did learn long ago that a completely full, even slightly compressed load is almost always best.
Something else I wondered about is primary ignition location withing a case. I've always thought that we are igniting the powder from the wrong end. Any thoughts on that or has somebody already thought of/doing/tried this?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

makes sense. I thought about a bit after making my post and realized it was pretty ignorant to say what I said. They come from those that shoot a ton and not from the guys that don't shoot often enough.


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

Springville Shooter said:


> Well I'm no expert but I do have eyes to see the cases that are winning shooting matches and setting records. Look at the PPC's, BR's, Creedmore's, 284's, etc. They all have a few things in common; shorter, fat cases with sharper shoulder angles and little case taper. I have worked a ton with the 7MM Dakota and the 7MM STW. While they are very close in case capacity, they have very different case shapes. The STW is long and skinny, the Dakota is short and fat. I have noticed that the Dakota consistently has less shot to shot deviation. Maybe it doesn't mean a lot, but I think that there is something to case design as relating to how efficient the powder charge is burned. There are also theories that shorter actions are stiffer and more consistent than longer ones. I have no supporting data to prove this one way or the other but it seems logical to me. What else would explain that I have never seen any 338 Magnum beat a 6MM. BR at a 600 or 1000 yard match?-------SS


And you will see that they are not burning more than 40-50 grains of powder. This translates to less recoil, muzzle blast, and vibrations to the gun. I have a hunch that if you were to scale up the rifle to mimic the cartridge to rifle size ratio of the smaller rounds, the results just might be similar. But then again, who wants to tote a 200 pound rifle out to the range.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

colorcountrygunner said:


> What's funny is a guy could hunt everything from squirrels to elephant with 4 calibers or even 3 if he really wanted to.
> 
> Let's say .22 WMR for small game up to small predators.
> .25-06 for large predators up to deer/antelope/black bear sized big game.
> ...


That's kinda complicated. A 12 gauge shotgun would work for all three of your examples.

None of it makes any sense. Just get rid of all the lame and redundant hunting calibers; geeze, you can buy meat at a grocery store. Then just have two guns, one for Zombies and another to shoot road signs.

.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

wyogoob said:


> None of it makes any sense. Just get rid of all the lame and redundant hunting calibers; geeze, you can buy meat at a grocery store. Then just have two guns, one for Zombies and another to shoot road signs..


Second damnedest post I have ever read, very good.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

BPturkeys said:


> Been looking over the cartridge collection posting lately and it baffles my why now days we have so many cartridges with so slight differences. I know about such things as action lengths and straight cases and shoulder angles and understand the benefits, but I am seeing some really odd stuff out there. I especially don't understand these really short extra fat rounds. Seems that for the most part 60 grains of powder pushing a 165gr .30 bullet is going to produce the same results regardless of the overall shape of the cartridge(given of course that the cartridge is at least some what modern design). Why would someone opt for one of these really hard to produce, difficult to reload cartridges that almost always require a custom rifle to use when there are time proven cartridges right at there fingertips. P.O. Ackley had a book full of custom "Improved and Wildcat" loads and in the end, his favorite was still a "factory" round (.220 Swift). I am thinking too many guys are spending way too much time reading way too much crap from magazines( I guess it's the internet now days) trying to find some magic when what they are looking for has been around for a long, long time already.


Yeah, I'm with you. The whole gun thing is GOOFY. Here's an example:

I'm a big fan of the .256. (goofy #1) That's right, .256" not .257". (goofy #2) 
I have a 256 Newton. (goofy #3 and #4 ) It fires a 6.5 projectile. (goofy #5)
I have three 256 Winchester Magnums. (goofy #6, #7 and #8 They use .257" projectiles, not .256". (goofy #9)
The 256 Magnum is not a magnum. (goofy #10)
I have a 256 Ferret. (goofy #11) It's the exact same cartridge as the 256 Winchester Magnum except the 256 Ferret bullet should be crimped and the 256 Winchester Magnum bullet doesn't have to. (goofy #12 and goofy #13)
One of my 256 Winchester Magnums is a Marlin Model 62. (goofy #14) Not to be confused with the Winchester Model 62. (goofy #15)
I can chamber my 256 Newton cartridges in my 30-06s. (goofy #16)
I can chamber my 256 Winchester Magnum cartridges in my 357 revolvers. (goofy #17)
Pointed 256 Winchester Mag bullets won't feed in 256 Ferret or Marlin Winchester Magnum Model 62 actions. (goofy #18 and #19)
I have two 256 Winchester Magnum Thompson Contender hand guns (goofy #20 and #21) You shouldn't shoot 256 Winchester Magnum rifle cartridges in a 256 Winchester Magnum hand gun. (goofy #22)



.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Yes, I said "256 Ferret" - The only rifle caliber on the planet that doesn't come in an Ackley Improved. 

.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

The Model 25 Remington comes in the 25-20 Winchester.

The Model 8 Remington comes in the .25 Remington.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

As in all things, us old geezers just don't understand. Life reminds me of the three old gals in the TV commercial trying to explain and understand how Facebook works...you know..."this isn't how that works, it's not how any of this works"


----------



## 35whelen (Jul 3, 2012)

I like oddball cartridges but only ones that do certain things, like throw a heavy, medium caliber bullet at moderate velocities. If more people liked cartridges like that, the manufacturers would make more rifles and ammunition. Then they wouldn't be oddball anymore and my life would be so much easier. But most people prefer flatter shooting which means faster velocities,smaller diameter, lighter bullets. So my preferences remain outside the norm.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Give us some examples 35. Like 338 Federal, 358 win., 350 Rem Mag, 8MM Mauser?----SS


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

Elmer did. But more people agreed with Jack.


----------



## 35whelen (Jul 3, 2012)

Yup. Springville shooter. I only have experience with the whelen and .358 win but I would like to experiement with the .33s. .338 fed, .338-06, . 338 marlin. If I had the money I'd have a .348 win. Maybe one of the fancy British .33s like the .333 Jeffery or .318 Wesley Richards. Nearly all of these are redundant if you already have one of them but I just got a sweet spot for moderate cartridges in the .33 to .375 range.


----------



## 35whelen (Jul 3, 2012)

I load the .375 ruger to more moderate velocities too. I'm hoping to develop a load for 250 gr gmx or ttsx in the 2500-2600 fps range once I get my hands on the bullets


----------



## Frisco Pete (Sep 22, 2007)

In addition to the above answers about the improved efficiency of the Short/Fat powder column compared to their standard belted mag counterpart, there are a couple of other reasons behind the idea.

But first I would like to add that besides the efficiency, the short/fat powder column lends itself much better to reduced loads for the handloader. So a 300 WSM is a superior platform if a person wants to load light loads for specific reasons. In essence, it could go from very light all the way up to duplicate 30-30, 300 Savage, 308, and '06 velocities with less variation and SD issues than when using a 300 Win Mag case.
This asset may be of interest to a person interested in big bullets at moderate velocities, as the loading flexibility of the SF cases would enable reduced velocity loads with low SDs.

That is why nowadays, instead of using both the 308 and 300 Win Mag to test the accuracy of their bullets, NOSLER now just uses the 300 WSM and reduces the charge to 308 levels to replace the 308 in testing.

Another reason for the Short/Fat cases is that they can be chambered in short (aka 308 ) length actions. Benefits to this are the same power in a lighter shorter action with a reduced bolt throw length, and a shorter rifle overall length. For a person seeking a handy, light mountain rifle, these are all benefits. There also may be a theoretical accuracy advantage to the stiffer short action with its smaller ejection port as well.
There is also an even greater benefit when the short mags are used in a short action semi-auto or lever like the Browning BAR and BLR. They really shine in those repeaters (for the same reasons the U.S. Army went from the '06 Garand to the short action .308 M14).

Here is an example of two Winchester Model 70 Classics, one chambered in a WSM round and the other in a traditional belted mag when it comes to length. Handling each is real life there is a definite difference:









The last possible advantage to the new Short/Fat rounds is the fact that these rounds do away with the worthless belt that has plagued, yet defined "belted magnums" ever since Roy Weatherby used the belted H&H case to base his wildcats on. The old H&H rounds had a belt so they would headspace in both bolt actions and the hallmark British double or single-shot rifles.
The belt takes up room, so elimination of that has enabled the short/fat rounds to be fatter for more powder space. This concept has also been carried over to the long Ultra Mag types as well for increased performance. In addition because these rounds headspace on the belt instead of the shoulder, rifle manufacturers have often gotten sloppy with chamber tolerances. This basically affects reloaders as excessive belt to headspace dimensions in some chambers create excessive stretch ahead of the belt leading to cracks and very short case life. This can be worked around, usually, but is not a positive attribute. 7mm Rem Mags seem to be the very worst offenders in this. Whereas the beltless short mags headspace on the shoulder just like "regular" rounds do.
Creating the belt also leads to higher case rejection ratios for brass manufacturers, increasing the cost of brass. Unfortunately, because reloaders and shooters have been accustomed to paying more for Magnums, the ammo people still charge the same for beltless mags as belted mags. Undoubtedly there is a slightly larger profit margin.

So the Short Magnums do have an actual reason for existence, and have some small but positive attributes over their older long belted brothers and fulfil a niche desired by some shooters and hunters.

However I would also agree that the manufacturers went overboard after they found out there was a big sales potential upon the introduction of the 300 WSM and its sibling a year later - the 270 WSM. Everyone else brought out competing, but different short mags, and it was topped off by the silly WSSM super short rounds.


----------



## Frisco Pete (Sep 22, 2007)

Loke said:


> Elmer did. But more people agreed with Jack.


The problem was the simple cup-and-core bullet technology in those days was so poor that high velocity often made bullets behave poorly upon terminal impact. So heavy bullets that were long - aka had a high Sectional Density - at moderate velocities usually had less catastrophic failures. And the smaller the bullet diameter, the more difficult it is to make the bullet perform. So larger Calibers tended to work better. Basically the switch from black powder and large bores with lead bullets to high velocity small bores and the necessary jacketed technology caught the bullet technology without good answers at the time. It was a quantum technology leap at the time.

Keith the cowboy tended to use average, cheap bullets, while O'Conner the Professor was always on the lookout for better quality slugs and was an early user of John Nosler's Partition. The Partition with its controlled expansion made high velocity reliable. Elmer never used Partitions as far as the print record goes.

Nowadays we have a lot of high tech controlled expansion bullets so high velocity with its flatter trajectories (and lesser recoil, or same recoil for much more speed) has become king. So Jack may have won, but he understood that for high velocity to work reliably, you needed better bullets. Elmer went the other way and failed to see (in rifles) that the bullet construction was the problem.

Certainly today's hot trend of ultra long range hunting is made partially successful due to today's premium bullets.


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

There are valid arguments for both theories. Both are right, but not for all situations. At normal hunting ranges (200-400 yards), either will get the job done. On thin skinned game at long range the small bore high velocity side wins. But when it gets up close and personal with a pissed off grizzly in the willows, I would prefer the biggest, fattest bullet in the shortest, easiest to maneuver rifle I can find. A 26" barreled, 257 Weatherby with a 6-24x50 variable scope will be at a distinct disadvantage in that scenario.


----------



## Frisco Pete (Sep 22, 2007)

That's right. And that is why Jack O'Conner used his 375 H&H in dangerous game situations and in Africa. He owned and used medium and large bore rifles and used them, he just isn't known in popular lore for that. 

Roy Weatherby was the biggest proponent of high velocity of that era, but even he, who used the .257 with 100-gr bullets on the largest of African thin-skinned plains game (100-gr because of the slow twist rate of early Weatherby's in that caliber) invented rounds like the .340, .378 and .460 Weatherbys for use on dangerous game.

So yes, common sense was applied by those experienced hunters, though time has faded the perception of their contributions.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Frisco Pete said:


> That's right. And that is why Jack O'Conner used his 375 H&H in dangerous game situations and in Africa. He owned and used medium and large bore rifles and used them, he just isn't known in popular lore for that.
> 
> Roy Weatherby was the biggest proponent of high velocity of that era, but even he, who used the .257 with 100-gr bullets on the largest of African thin-skinned plains game (100-gr because of the slow twist rate of early Weatherby's in that caliber) invented rounds like the .340, .378 and .460 Weatherbys for use on dangerous game.
> 
> So yes, common sense was applied by those experienced hunters, though time has faded the perception of their contributions.


Jack always seemed to me to be nothing more than a cheerleader for the .270 Win and the Model 70 rifle(not to imply this wasn't a great outfit). I am pretty sure he would have foolishly tried using the .270 on dangerous African game had it not been for the game laws requiring a minimum .375 caliber for the taking of dangerous game.
Roy developed his big bore stuff out of the same need to comply with this .375 minimum requirement and in doing so brought the world insight into the capabilities of high velocity paired with heavy, large caliber bullets. 
Those were great times in cartridge development and certainly started us down the road that has taken us to where we are now.


----------



## 35whelen (Jul 3, 2012)

I appreciate fast n flat shooting cartridges. I own a .300 win mag and have owned a .270 win and .25-06. They are extremely effective in most hunting situations probably all situations brith modern premium bullets. As a gun enthusiast the medium velocity medium bore rifles just interest me most. Above all other firearms. They have their uses and their limitations but I am just really fascinated by em.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Many more uses than limitations in my book. 338-06 and 35 Whelen are both excellent 500 yard rifles with big power for reasonable recoil. If you happen to see an old model 700 classic in 35 Whelen at the pawn shop you'd better pick it up.--------SS


----------



## Fishhuntthendie (Feb 27, 2014)

I read the "Short and Fat" cartridge posts and I had to laugh as the various posts pretty much cover my feelings over the past 35 years of slinging bullets all over the place. I killed more animals with a good ol 7mm Mauser (first big game rifle I ever owned) and a 30-.06 than all my other rifles combined....which is in the 30+ range. That being said, as discussed by Springville Shooter and others, when I got in to long range shooting and trying to shoot .25 groups rather than placing humane kill shots on critters at 100-300 yards, the short fat cases caught my interest. I shot a lot...for work and for pleasure and I reload a lot for every rifle I own. Regardless of what magazine writers have stated....I rely upon my own "sniper logs" for each of my weapons and thus, I have tracked thousands of shots and load developments over the years. I am not an engineer or physics guy....but based on my own testing after having shot thousands of rounds, there is something to short fat cases and increased "potential" accuracy. This doesnt mean every short and fat cartridge is more accurate than my .06. However, all other factors taken into consideration, I have been able to consistently get better groups, lower extreme spreads and greater accuracy with some of the "short and fats." While I have not shot them all, I have extensively used and tested the 6.5-284, 7mm WSM and multiple 300 WSMs. With the right powder and primer combinations, I have personally found extremely accurate loads...from rifle to the next with similar combinations. My "unscientific" explanation (based on ES, accuracy, etc. and based on some discussions with my brother who does have a PhD in this crazy stuff) is that short and fats most likely burn the powder more efficiently and consistently. Not giving up my 30-.06 or other "standard" rifles any time soon but if you want to get in to extreme accuracy at long range, I would at least suggest it is worth a look at some of the short and fats. The 24" barrels with some of the newer powders also produce excellent velocity so you are no longer carrying 26-28" barrels along out in the woods. Just my 2 bits... to add to the discussion.


----------

