Paradigm Shift?

[Hunter-Habib]

I think you mean John Buhmiller, who killed 127 elephants, primarily with cartridges of his own design, such as the one he created from the .378 Weatherby, which he necked up to .458 and Weatherby later adopted as the .460 Weatherby. I used a Weatherby case shortened to 2.500" and necked up to .505 caliber in a Buhmiller barrel to kill three elephants, five Cape buffalo and a rhino. I considered John my friend and mentor and it was he who invited me to a meeting of Game Coin International in San Antonio where I booked by first African hunt in 1971.

Oh, yeah. Thanks, Xausa. I always mix up his name.

 

[Inline6]

In the video it discussed that it is the mass of the bullet that is being used to generate force. This allows the use of a shorter barrel since efficient burning of powder to gain velocity is not the key component. The video mentions that this is basically going back to the old muzzle loaders of the early 1800’s. Does the AR have the versatility to become the dominant hunting rifle in North America or will it just do it by being “Cool”?

The lethal force coming from this round, revolves around the twist rate 1-3, the slow mo film clips I have seen are pretty impressive.

I could be wrong, just don't see the AR as being the dominant hunting rifle. 1. Politics do not want that to happen. 2. This round is not going to be a driving force. It does not shoot flat at all which is what a lot of hunters want. Same goes for the AR platform, it's not light weight and the ones the can handle high pressures cost money.

 

[WAB]

Agreed. I’ve got a few AR’s for specific applications, but they do not have the hunting capability of a bolt gun in anything like an ‘06 class of cartridge. If you step up to an AR-10 platform to get a more capable cartridge you need a wheelbarrow to cart the thing around.

 

[Inline6]

Agreed. I’ve got a few AR’s for specific applications, but they do not have the hunting capability of a bolt gun in anything like an ‘06 class of cartridge. If you step up to an AR-10 platform to get a more capable cartridge you need a wheelbarrow to cart the thing around.

Yes sir my 8 year old at the time killed a Bison with one in 6.5CM. He brained it, was on a tripod, and took us almost 3 hours to get the perfect shot. Only reason I choose it, was the trigger in it. For that hunt I was the wheelbarrow, lol.

 

[WAB]

Yes sir my 8 year old at the time killed a Bison with one in 6.5CM. He brained it, was on a tripod, and took us almost 3 hours to get the perfect shot. Only reason I choose it, was the trigger in it. For that hunt I was the wheelbarrow, lol.

Yep, I just sold the only one I had. It just had no practical use. My AR-15 in 6.5 Grendel will handle any application I’m using an AR for with a lot less weight. Not to mention that the 15 is much less finicky than the 10.

 

[Inline6]

Yep, I just sold the only one I had. It just had no practical use. My AR-15 in 6.5 Grendel will handle any application I’m using an AR for with a lot less weight. Not to mention that the 15 is much less finicky than the 10.

Have made hits out to 1200 yards with it. Like you said it's application specific.

 

[Nevada Mike]

Paradigm change? This this another way to say, "Yet another new trend"? The measure of paradigm change must be that it changes societal behavior. The automobile was a paradigm change. Cell phones were a paradigm change. A new idea for a stubby cartridge? Not so much.

 

[sgt_zim]

Was watching another gun channel on YT, backfire, he was interviewing a guy from Hornady. Take what he said with a grain of salt, but according to him, a lot of these new cartridges, especially the ones that are PRC, will provide the sort of factory ammo that was previously only made by hand loaders.

One example he cited was 300 WM. I've never owned nor shot one, so I wouldn't know, but according to him, it was originally designed for light- to medium-weight bullets. Where standard twist in 300 WM is 10, 300 PRC has an 8, which is more appropriate for 210 gr or heavier bullets. That's the market they're trying to take advantage of.

And if you stop and think about it, how much ammo do pure hunters buy in a given year? Two or three boxes, maybe? How many bullets does a BR or competition shooter buy in a year? 5000? More? That they are chasing the money isn't a bad thing, it's just a thing.

I am, other than my 280 AI, a conservative traditionalist. The 3 rifles I hunt with most use ammo that has been in existence for better than a century, with the newest of those 3 being my 9.3x62. That's my jam.

I'm lights out with my 308 out to about 600 yards, and a fair hand out to 1000. Just no interest here in a new 30 cal cartridge that'll flatten the 1000 yard curve by 10 or 12 feet. That'll be a big deal to a competition shooter, just not to me.

I am a 2A absolutist, and for me, anything that expands the hunting and shooting communities is a good thing.

 

[Inline6]

Was watching another gun channel on YT, backfire, he was interviewing a guy from Hornady. Take what he said with a grain of salt, but according to him, a lot of these new cartridges, especially the ones that are PRC, will provide the sort of factory ammo that was previously only made by hand loaders.

One example he cited was 300 WM. I've never owned nor shot one, so I wouldn't know, but according to him, it was originally designed for light- to medium-weight bullets. Where standard twist in 300 WM is 10, 300 PRC has an 8, which is more appropriate for 210 gr or heavier bullets. That's the market they're trying to take advantage of.

And if you stop and think about it, how much ammo do pure hunters buy in a given year? Two or three boxes, maybe? How many bullets does a BR or competition shooter buy in a year? 5000? More? That they are chasing the money isn't a bad thing, it's just a thing.

I am, other than my 280 AI, a conservative traditionalist. The 3 rifles I hunt with most use ammo that has been in existence for better than a century, with the newest of those 3 being my 9.3x62. That's my jam.

I'm lights out with my 308 out to about 600 yards, and a fair hand out to 1000. Just no interest here in a new 30 cal cartridge that'll flatten the 1000 yard curve by 10 or 12 feet. That'll be a big deal to a competition shooter, just not to me.

I am a 2A absolutist, and for me, anything that expands the hunting and shooting communities is a good thing.

Have shot Hornaday ammo for a while now. Most of the factory loads I have put down range have been 6.5CM and 308. In all my rifles I have tired Hornaday ammo in, they shot extremely well. Good enough that I could take off the shelf 6.5CM ammo and hit small targets at a good distance, like 1" at 350 yards multiple times. If you rifle doesn't perform with it, you really might have a problem.

They are pushing the envelope on new designs too. Not only with cartridges, bullets too. I have not tried their Atips yet. Berger has worked well for me and I can't see the additional expenses for them.

They are coming out with a 7PRC, I'm hoping Blazer picks it up. Would love to have that over the 6.5PRC.

 

[WAB]

Have made hits out to 1200 yards with it. Like you said it's application specific.

Mine was very accurate as well, 4”, 5 shot groups at 600, I just had no practical use for it. Other than varmints, the only hunting I do that calls for long range shots is Coues deer, and I can’t think of a worse rig for that application. They are fun though!

 

[mark-hunter]

Remind me who the people were who opposed the transition from muzzle loader to bolt action. I seem to have missed out on that phase in history.

Not a bolt action, but Henry repeating rifle was offered to Army, and not accepted. Under presumption repeaters will waste too much ammo. This theory kept for years, and from muzzle loader US Army switched to single shot rifles Springfield model 1873. (with them, Caster lost the battle at little big horn) In the same time civilians were using henry repeaters, winchester 66 etc..

Armies were always slow to accept new things. rifled long gun is another example
In time of American revolution, army kept smooth bore, muzzle loader musket. Civilians, individuals and revolutionaries were using rifled muzzle loaders = Pennsylvania rifles.

Snipers:
Scopes in history were used in times of need, used already in American civil war but never officially accepted and were abandoned after the war. After civil war, snipers were not part of army program, same as after the ww1, ww2, korea.
Thus, until Vietnam war, Army did not have training program for snipers, specialized sniper rifle, etc. Army entered the vietnam war without snipers, and during the war developed training programs, and specialized sniper rifles (win m70, rem 700) which later became standard. TIll then, standard issue rifle equipped with scope was used for this purpose, because in past they never developped specialised rifle.
Russians were more advanced, and they had their sniper training before ww2, test designs in semi auto versions, and first specialised military sniper rifle (in the world) in 1963, SVD dragunov, although by western standard, this would be designated marksmen rifle.

 

[uplander01]

All I have to say regarding this new caliber, the AR platform for hunting, or the next redundant "new thing" these companies are trying to come out with is,...... YUCK.

 

[sgt_zim]

All I have to say regarding this new caliber, the AR platform for hunting, or the next redundant "new thing" these companies are trying to come out with is,...... YUCK.

Not really my cuppa, either. But as long as we keep bringing in new hunters who respect their quarry, follow good hunting ethics, are cognizant of property issues, and other things of that nature, I'm for it.