Most underrated calibre
- Thread starter tusker
- Start date
I. Farticus
Well-Known Member
Ha, I was counting down to something coming back at me along those lines!
Cheers
i.
Double four
Well-Known Member
Brit i thought you had got the rifles back ?
I. Farticus
Well-Known Member
Not really no...
You're saying that the cartridge is 6.5mm/.25" calibre, as is the bore, then you say that the bullet is 6.7mm/.264" diameter
So:
1. When one refers to the calibre of a rifle, it's in fact the bore diameter, not the bullet diameter? Therefore my Sako is of 6.5mm/.25" calibre and fires 6.7mm/.264" bullets. Correct?
2. How can the bullet diameter be wider than the bore diameter, as one won't fit into the other, surely
3. Why were the 6.5x53R and 6.5x54MS called the .256" Mannlicher. As you've already stated that they are both 6.5mm/.25" calibre & bore and 6.7mm/.264" bullet, so nothing to with a measurement of .256"
4. How do Hornady (Hornady Manufacturing Company :: Bullets :: Rifle :: Choose by Caliber :: .264 6.5mm :: 6.5mm .264 140 gr SST®) get away with labelling their bullets 6.5mm .264 140gr SST, or are they just offering up both measurements to confuse the f*ck out of simpletons such as myself!
To anyone else reading this, I'd just stop now
... I'm going for a lie downCheers
i.
Anyone use this?
Been a while since I used one of these;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L6_Wombat
Only used on sheep but I think they would have the same result on deer
Stan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L6_Wombat
Only used on sheep but I think they would have the same result on deer
Stan
murrayb
Well-Known Member
Been a while since I used one of these;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L6_Wombat
Only used on sheep but I think they would have the same result on deer
Stan
And what expanding projectile would you recomend with that?
Sinistral
Well-Known Member
Not really no...
You're saying that the cartridge is 6.5mm/.25" calibre, as is the bore, then you say that the bullet is 6.7mm/.264" diameter
So:
1. When one refers to the calibre of a rifle, it's in fact the bore diameter, not the bullet diameter? Therefore my Sako is of 6.5mm/.25" calibre and fires 6.7mm/.264" bullets. Correct?
2. How can the bullet diameter be wider than the bore diameter, as one won't fit into the other, surely
3. Why were the 6.5x53R and 6.5x54MS called the .256" Mannlicher. As you've already stated that they are both 6.5mm/.25" calibre & bore and 6.7mm/.264" bullet, so nothing to with a measurement of .256"
4. How do Hornady (Hornady Manufacturing Company :: Bullets :: Rifle :: Choose by Caliber :: .264 6.5mm :: 6.5mm .264 140 gr SST®) get away with labelling their bullets 6.5mm .264 140gr SST, or are they just offering up both measurements to confuse the f*ck out of simpletons such as myself!
To anyone else reading this, I'd just stop now
Cheers
i.
There is a 3rd term 'nomenclature' which crops up to confuse the issue, and wanders into every discussion .... such as .222, .223, .22-250, .220 Swift, .260 Rem .... no need to go on?
'Calibre' is more often than not the diameter between the lands so older calibres like .256, .270, .275 Rigby and .303 are referred to by this historical monicker.
More modern cartridges are designated by the actual bullet dimensions which match the groove diameter of the rifling. This is the bore diameter.
It's misleading to use the term .25 calibre (.25/6.5mm) because this applies to .257 (e.g .25-06 Rem) bullets. On the other hand .30 calibre can only apply to .308 bullets so can't be confused.
Metric calibres use the land diameter just like the old imperial cartridges - not the groove diameter,so a 6.5mm calibre is the same as .256 and 7mm calibre is the same as .275.
That's how I understand it.
bewsher500
Well-Known Member
If the nomenclature refers to "land diameter" how does a .277" bullet achieve rifling grooves in a .270Win barrel?
Surely it would rife the lands and gas would escape down the sides rather than taking the shape of the lands and filling the bore?
No?
I always assumed a .270 had a groove diameter of .277 as that is what the bullets are
Surely it would rife the lands and gas would escape down the sides rather than taking the shape of the lands and filling the bore?
No?
I always assumed a .270 had a groove diameter of .277 as that is what the bullets are
Dawnraider
Well-Known Member
30.06 got to be one of the best allrounders but don't think i could call it underrated,taken a shine to the 7mm rem mag though with a 26" barrel to get the juice out of it,probably qualifies as underrated.
And what expanding projectile would you recomend with that?
Murrayb,
The HESH rounds did more bruising than damage. The copper plasma just pencilled through. With field catering I always just went for the liver anyway.
Stan
Brithunter
Well-Known Member
Not really no...
You're saying that the cartridge is 6.5mm/.25" calibre, as is the bore, then you say that the bullet is 6.7mm/.264" diameter
So:
1. When one refers to the calibre of a rifle, it's in fact the bore diameter, not the bullet diameter? Therefore my Sako is of 6.5mm/.25" calibre and fires 6.7mm/.264" bullets. Correct?
2. How can the bullet diameter be wider than the bore diameter, as one won't fit into the other, surely
3. Why were the 6.5x53R and 6.5x54MS called the .256" Mannlicher. As you've already stated that they are both 6.5mm/.25" calibre & bore and 6.7mm/.264" bullet, so nothing to with a measurement of .256"
4. How do Hornady (Hornady Manufacturing Company :: Bullets :: Rifle :: Choose by Caliber :: .264 6.5mm :: 6.5mm .264 140 gr SST®) get away with labelling their bullets 6.5mm .264 140gr SST, or are they just offering up both measurements to confuse the f*ck out of simpletons such as myself!
To anyone else reading this, I'd just stop now
Cheers
i.
Actually tis very simple. First they cut the bore, ream and hone it then and only then do they cut the grooves. I suggest you look up definition of bore in the dictionary.
The idea of rifling is and always was to grip the bullet and spin it hence it has to be larger than the bore. In muzzle loading they used patches most commonly to take up the rifling because a groove size ball was too difficult to ram down a fouled bore which could result in it not seating properly and the risk of a bulged barrel. With large charges the patch could trips the rifling so bullets like Whitworths hexagonal and the Winged bullet which mechanically fitted into the grooves were developed.
As for Hornady mis using the term calibre ......................................................... well tis hardly surprising when most of their customer base cannot even grasp that term head relates to the base of the cartridge case where the primer pocket is located and not to the bullet. It's such sloppy use of terminolgy that causes misunderstanding.
IMHO it only shows that those who use such terms are really only playing at it and have no real interest in the art of shooting. In the past it would have quickly pointed out to others this and they would have know that this "shooter" was not serious and to be pitied for not being able to learnand remember such basic terms.
Such slackness would be frowned upon in golf or sailing that's to be sure.
Ass to this:-
My god your really don't know much about the subject do you?
.0.256" is the bore size of 6.5mm. Add the depth of the rifling either side and you get 0.264". Rifling is assumed by the Americans at least to be 0.004" deep. However if you measure the depths of the grooves on Swedish mausers you will find it's more like 0.008" deep. Mannlicher also used 0.008" as the depth of it's grooves as did Husqvarna. I will need to look at the Muaser specs for depths. The 0.004" depth came about in America as it was the shallowest that could be relied upon to grip and spin the jacketed bullet.
Remington actually only used a depth of 0.0015" for it's grooves on rifles built for paper patched bullets for target shooting. They claimed it was so it did not slice the patches up but in reality it was for cheap production. It simply cost less to cut a barrel with shallow grooves as it took less passes of the rifling head down the bore. That was another reason for having only Four grooves instead of Five or six whaich was more common. It was simply to make them cheaper to produce. This was the reason why Savage got permission to make two groove barrels for the .303 during the height of WW2. It simply cut production time down. As soon as the war was over they were not longer accepted and it was back to Five or Six grooves.
I made up a little bore gauge to check muzzle wear on the various 6.5mm rifles I own. It starts at 0.255" and goes up in 0.001 steps. All three rifles have a bore size of 0.256" but being of older production they also have groove diameter of 0.268". yes even the brand new Stery production barrel that was fitted tot eh 1903 Schoenauer has groove diameter of 0.268".
I know on one chap who had a Greek Mannlicher (ex Milsurp one) built into a fine custom stalking rifle and the London proof house rejected it as the groove sizes were incorrect. I will have to go and try and find the thread on express rifles to refresh if it was a modern barrel with 0.264" grooves or an traditional one with the proper 0.268" groove. It made no difference as despite him being British he lives in Spain and the work was done in the US. I am surprised they even noticed as in my dealings with the proof house they never had the gun in their hands long enough to measure anything.
I. Farticus
Well-Known Member
Actually tis very simple. First they cut the bore, ream and hone it then and only then do they cut the grooves. I suggest you look up definition of bore in the dictionary.
The idea of rifling is and always was to grip the bullet and spin it hence it has to be larger than the bore. In muzzle loading they used patches most commonly to take up the rifling because a groove size ball was too difficult to ram down a fouled bore which could result in it not seating properly and the risk of a bulged barrel. With large charges the patch could trips the rifling so bullets like Whitworths hexagonal and the Winged bullet which mechanically fitted into the grooves were developed.
As for Hornady mis using the term calibre ......................................................... well tis hardly surprising when most of their customer base cannot even grasp that term head relates to the base of the cartridge case where the primer pocket is located and not to the bullet. It's such sloppy use of terminolgy that causes misunderstanding.
IMHO it only shows that those who use such terms are really only playing at it and have no real interest in the art of shooting. In the past it would have quickly pointed out to others this and they would have know that this "shooter" was not serious and to be pitied for not being able to learnand remember such basic terms.
Such slackness would be frowned upon in golf or sailing that's to be sure.
Ass to this:-
My god your really don't know much about the subject do you?
0.256" is the bore size of 6.5mm. Add the depth of the rifling either side and you get 0.264". Rifling is assumed by the Americans at least to be 0.004" deep. However if you measure the depths of the grooves on Swedish mausers you will find it's more like 0.008" deep. Mannlicher also used 0.008" as the depth of it's grooves as did Husqvarna. I will need to look at the Muaser specs for depths. The 0.004" depth came about in America as it was the shallowest that could be relied upon to grip and spin the jacketed bullet.
Remington actually only used a depth of 0.0015" for it's grooves on rifles built for paper patched bullets for target shooting. They claimed it was so it did not slice the patches up but in reality it was for cheap production. It simply cost less to cut a barrel with shallow grooves as it took less passes of the rifling head down the bore. That was another reason for having only Four grooves instead of Five or six whaich was more common. It was simply to make them cheaper to produce. This was the reason why Savage got permission to make two groove barrels for the .303 during the height of WW2. It simply cut production time down. As soon as the war was over they were not longer accepted and it was back to Five or Six grooves.
I made up a little bore gauge to check muzzle wear on the various 6.5mm rifles I own. It starts at 0.255" and goes up in 0.001 steps. All three rifles have a bore size of 0.256" but being of older production they also have groove diameter of 0.268". yes even the brand new Stery production barrel that was fitted tot eh 1903 Schoenauer has groove diameter of 0.268".
I know on one chap who had a Greek Mannlicher (ex Milsurp one) built into a fine custom stalking rifle and the London proof house rejected it as the groove sizes were incorrect. I will have to go and try and find the thread on express rifles to refresh if it was a modern barrel with 0.264" grooves or an traditional one with the proper 0.268" groove. It made no difference as despite him being British he lives in Spain and the work was done in the US. I am surprised they even noticed as in my dealings with the proof house they never had the gun in their hands long enough to measure anything.
Thanks, that's helped
Cheers
i.
NorthDorset
Well-Known Member
Echoing a couple already said
25.06 which has never really caught on in the UK. If I could only keep on gun it would be this. It's capable of rediculous range vermin kills and has been faultless on Deer through to Fallow for me with 100gr Nosler BT's.
.303 British. How did this ever fall out of fashion in the UK? I did a service rifle comp a couple of weeks ago and even at 300 yards with iron sights in an 80 year old rifle they were just slotting in. I would just redesign the case to be rimless to be the perfect cartridge.
Don't really understand how the .17 HMR has become so maligned on here. It's such an easy calibre to head shoot rabbits at 100+ metres with. Madly flat shooting out to 120m.
25.06 which has never really caught on in the UK. If I could only keep on gun it would be this. It's capable of rediculous range vermin kills and has been faultless on Deer through to Fallow for me with 100gr Nosler BT's.
.303 British. How did this ever fall out of fashion in the UK? I did a service rifle comp a couple of weeks ago and even at 300 yards with iron sights in an 80 year old rifle they were just slotting in. I would just redesign the case to be rimless to be the perfect cartridge.
Don't really understand how the .17 HMR has become so maligned on here. It's such an easy calibre to head shoot rabbits at 100+ metres with. Madly flat shooting out to 120m.
jamross65
Well-Known Member
Because it will applied to a task it was not designed for I would guess, then instead of blaming themselves the person using it blames the tools.
Yes it is badly effected by wind, so don't use it in wind beyond 50m. yes it will kill a fox, but only if in exactly the the right spot so don't use it for that unless very close and all other aspects dictate the shot to be on. You could make up a list. For me it will do what a .22RF will do out to .22RF ranges, but when conditions and circumstances allow it will be capable of more. As I said, like always the problem is in the user, not the calibre/chambering.
NorthDorset
Well-Known Member
Well bad workmen are apt to blame their tools Jamross.
Cracking bunny gun. Have previously said it is unsuitable for fox and stick by that. Most people need more margin for error than I would be comfortable with. Centrefire on fox allows for that.
Cracking bunny gun. Have previously said it is unsuitable for fox and stick by that. Most people need more margin for error than I would be comfortable with. Centrefire on fox allows for that.
Similar threads
