overlap between cartridges

Have been catching up on some reading on the 222rem. In a nutshell, it was created because there was a rather large void between the 22Hornet and the 220Swift and very shortly after we have a magnum version and then on and on from there. Getting back to MD’s original question, the facts are that “Nature abhors a vacuum” and we as a species cannot stop tinkering with shit. It maybe a spiral of ever diminishing returns but its in our genes and we’ll probably never be satisfied with the one thing.

I’m good with that.

The 7x57 came before the 8x57.
The Americans and Brits were used to test the 7x57 performance in Cuba and the SA velds pre 1900.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dicko

The 7x57 came before the 8x57.
The Americans and Brits were used to test the 7x57 performance in Cuba and the SA velds pre 1900.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Greetings,
The 8x57 was introduced in 1888 and was not a Mauser cartridge originally. The 7x57 was introduced in 1892 following the 7.65 x 53 in 1889.
Regards Grandpamac.

I stand corrected!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Greetings @Dicko and all,
The development of smokeless powder military rifle cartridges was extremely rapid. The French started it al with their Lebel rifle and its 8mm smokeless cartridge in 1886. Neither the rifle nor the cartridge case was all that special but the smokeless powder and the calibre was revolutionary. A deserter from the French army delivered a rifle and its cartridges to the Germans who had introduced their first repeating rifle in 1884 which was now obsolete. A rapid development of a new army rifle for Germany, at Spandau, resulted in the M88 "Commission Rifle" and the 8mm cartridge. The action had elements of both Mauser and Mannlicher designs. In 1889 Mauser produced their first smokeless cartridge and rifle chambered for the 7.65 x 53 Mauser cartridge in Belgium. Things moved on rapidly from there.
Regards Grandpamac.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MB

Slightly relevant to your point, all other things being equal, it seems that .308 "Lite" rounds will produce less recoil than a .243. Makes the .308 more versatile and the .243 less attractive to my mind.

---

Yes and no. Might do the job but definitely not equal or near the .243. As have been mentioned, modern rifles with fast twist barrels and better powder options breath new life into older calibers.
.308 and .243 for example. I have a "light" load for my 16" .308. 130gr speer doing 2775fps. Bc of a brick. Has more felt recoil than anything I have put through the .243. Real world data. Drops below 1000ft-lbs of energy just after 300 yards and with a 200 yard zero drops about 29" at 400 yards. The .243 with an 18" barrel with a 105gr is dropping only 19" at 400 yards with the same zero. That's a huge difference! Not only that it keeps above 1000ft/lbs until just over 475 yards. Once again, huge difference.
Obviously I could probably squeeze a bit more out of the .308, perhaps could with the .243 too.
The night vision can smack me in the face on the 308 but doesn't on the 243.
Ballistic coefficient is everything when you are shooting in a breeze or out a bit further and unfortunately when you go light for caliber to try and cross over you often get a projectile with a low bc that isn't as fit for purpose.