new cartridge

[Forrest Halley]

Lott's always been iffy. The guns are popular. They don't sit still. It's a rush to shoot. The brass will come back for it.

 

[BeeMaa]

Love the 375 RUM. Assuming you build you're own, components are cheap compared to other similar cartridges due to that obscurity... you may have helped me talk myself into one now...

I have a friend with a 300RUM that's looking for a home.
Not sure, but I think it would be a pretty easy conversion to 375RUM.
PM me if you are interested.

 

[TTundra]

I have a friend with a 300RUM that's looking for a home.
Not sure, but I think it would be a pretty easy conversion to 375RUM.
PM me if you are interested.

I have an action waiting, though I appreciate the look out!

 

[CoElkHunter]

Better in every department but recoil.

That's why they've created massive, loud muzzle brakes. They make that RUM recoil feel like a .270 or less and clear the timid from the benches around you at the range. Then, when your hunting, take it off and put the thread protector on it. I don't own a brake, but then I don't own a nasty recoiling .375 RUM, only a milder recoiling Lott. Ha! Ha! Ha!

 

[CoElkHunter]

Lott's always been iffy. The guns are popular. They don't sit still. It's a rush to shoot. The brass will come back for it.

Forrest,
No worries, the Lott brass will return. Right now it's being hoarded like a lot of other components. Stay true to the Lott my friend!
CEH

 

[Forrest Halley]

Forrest,
No worries, the Lott brass will return. Right now it's being hoarded like a lot of other components. Stay true to the Lott my friend!
CEH

I love mine. It's just perfect. It's pretty, it hits hard and it challenges me. I've got enough to get by, but I do enjoy shooting it and letting deserving folks take the ride too.

As far as the other stuff, I cannot understand why folks go so far from the known for a mediocre result. As we so weak as a species that we have to chase a mousefart recoil with thousand yard paper punching ability?

I am happy with my standard rifles and chamberings. I am also happy with my boomers. I'm not under any illusion of the purposes they each serve.

 

[CoElkHunter]

I love mine. It's just perfect. It's pretty, it hits hard and it challenges me. I've got enough to get by, but I do enjoy shooting it and letting deserving folks take the ride too.

As far as the other stuff, I cannot understand why folks go so far from the known for a mediocre result. As we so weak as a species that we have to chase a mousefart recoil with thousand yard paper punching ability?

I am happy with my standard rifles and chamberings. I am also happy with my boomers. I'm not under any illusion of the purposes they each serve.

Latest and greatest Forrest! It's the American millenial way! Manufacturers produce the newest cartridge and rifles to increase profits and the young and clueless people buy them. Get on board Forrest! Maybe think about necking down the Lott to 6.8? The 6.8x.458 Halley? Ha! Ha! Ha!

 

[Bert the Turtle]

Seems like a reasonable idea. Got to have a 6.something these days. A 7mm just won't do any more. All cynicism aside, it at least seems well thought-out.

If a cartridge is still around after 30 or 40 years, I feel pretty confident it will be supported indefinitely. Can't really what is going to be a classic and what will be a flash in the pan. I don't have enough years left in me for new cartridges to earn a place in my cabinet.

 

[Forrest Halley]

Latest and greatest Forrest! It's the American millenial way! Manufacturers produce the newest cartridge and rifles to increase profits and the young and clueless people buy them. Get on board Forrest! Maybe think about necking down the Lott to 6.8? The 6.8x.458 Halley? Ha! Ha! Ha!

Not biting on that one. No way I'm giving up the .458.

 

[ChrisG]

chris,
extensive use of 6.5/06 vs 270 win has clearly demonstrated and advantage to the 270 in terminal results.
same with 6.5x55 vs 270, but more so.
the creedmoor is less powerful than either the above 6.5s, and has less point blank range.
and the new cartridge looks more powerful than the 270 win?
bruce.

I honestly find it hard to believe that the effect on game is that much more dramatic. In my experience (I havent shot 10,000 large game animals, so take it for what it's worth), effect on game becomes noticably more or less by what I would call the factor of 2. Until energy is doubled, I think you would be hard pressed to prove that one cartridge of roughly the same diameter, shooting bullets of roughly the same weight, is "dramatically" more effective. And by that I mean you could have a case stated empirically with statistics.

I, also, being a tremendous fan of airgunning, dont find a dramatic difference between a gun which produces 300 foot pounds and one which produces 600, so I guess that rule applies to rifles, and bullets which have enough retained velocity to expand. After all, at 800 yards the difference between a .270 carrying 700 foot lbs and one carrying 900 is moot if neither is going fast enough to expand and simply pencils through an animal.

Finally, catering to the long range hunting crowd and trying to make that mainstream isn't putting big game huntering's best foot forward. We are all about ethical kills and the challenge of the hunt. NOT the challenge of the SHOT. People want to do that, do it on something that doesnt wander off and die a horrible death 2 days later because they want to live in a fantasy where they are Carlos Hathcock, and just bought a rifle, whose manufacturer said it would be as easy as the ballistic charts on the back of their ammo box. Are there people who can and do ethically take shots at game animals beyond 400 yards? Yup. But according to internet forums and cartidge manufacturers, that is apparently put forward as the norm, rather than the exception. When I hear people saying that they bought a long range rifle because all they want was to try to shoot at game beyond *insert stupidly long range here*. I know they aren't actually wanting to hunt. They just want to target practice on something that bleeds if they hit it. They could care less about the heritage of the sport, its history, ethics or how their attitude and fantasy just reinforce the perception that hunters are a bunch of ignorant hicks who like killing for fun.

Thats what I think of the second a company markets a new rifle round fer lotsa killin' at 1000 yards. The stupid mathematical semantics they play to make it look like it is leaps and bounds ahead of everything currently out there just sounds like a kid trying to justify why they need yet another slightly different color GI Joe toy.

If thats offensive, I'm sorry... well no, not really. There are all kinds of advantages to learning to stalk in close and take an ethical shot. There are zero advantages to taking ridiculously long shots. Sometimes a longish (read 'within the capability of the bullet to expand and ensure quick death') shot can't be avoided and, carefully timed and executed, can be effective. But there is zero... and I mean ZERO reason for a box of hunting ammo to have 1000 yard ballistics on it. Maybe car manufacturers should start marketing cars highlighting that you can and should try to hit 170mph while on a suburban side street.

That makes about the same amount of sense and places the driver/hunter attempting it in about the same public perception bracket.

 

[bruce moulds]

chris,
i agree with all you say except about the cartridges.
with regards killing anuimals we have a moral resposibility to minimize suffering, and self education is an important aspect of this.
putting 1000yd ballistics on an ammo packet is absolutely irresponsible.
i still stand by my statement re observed killing power of calibres..
at the risk of offending bob, i feel that 6.5/06 is a better killer than 25/06, 270 better than 6.5, and 280 rem better than 270 win.
when culling sometimes this comes down to tally vs rounds fired, but it also comes down to bangflops.
this is not theorizing, but rather in the field experience.
i cannot say it is energy related or bullet diameter related, or other.
using the wrong bullet in the 7mm is far less critical than doing it in 25 cal.
also the bigger calibres mentioned here have the benefit of the same bullet working better for a greater span of distances.
of course the 30/06 is better than them all in some ways, but when compared to the trajectory of the 25/06 at the other extreme starts to suffer trajectory issues if you hunt in certain conditions.
with all these rounds mentioned, i am talking purely shots at point blank rage and no more.
bruce.

 

[NJC]

they’ll manufacture this cartridge by the billions and it’ll be the only cartridge available on the barren shelves in gun stores.

It’s like you had a crystal ball!!! I was at Scheel’s over the weekend and the 6.8 western was the only cartridge on shelf in any volume.

 

[Tra3]

It’s like you had a crystal ball!!! I was at Scheel’s over the weekend and the 6.8 western was the only cartridge on shelf in any volume.

Well, did you buy a few boxes and the give yourself a reason for a new rifle? If you don’t own a 7 mag, it looks like the same thing.

 

[MS 9x56]

Another perfect answer to a question no one is asking.

 

[Tra3]

I wonder if it should be named the “7 minus .2”

 

[crs]

Boring!

 

[Nevada Mike]

I am starting to think about muzzleloaders... no cartridges... just calibers. What a concept!

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

I like it! But, I have lots of .338 brass and I'm sure .378 brass is as rare to find now as Bob having .243 brass laying around his house.

@ CoElkHunter

Bob

 

[BeeMaa]

@ CoElkHunter

Bob

What's wrong Bob?
The mention of your name and 243WIN in the same sentence making the keyboard go blurry on you?

 

[bruce moulds]

no bee maa, that is bundy making the keyboard look blurry.
bruce.