The next cartridge you would like Hornady to develop

Longstud said:
I think one cherry picked load with a 308 200 gr projectile at 2582fps is an unrealistic example. I have been loading for a long time and have over thirty manuals and the consensus of them is 2450 FPS with a 200 gr out of a 24” barrel. Many don’t even want a barrel of that length. Not that it matters as our your well aware with your experience that where the bullet impacts and what construction and speed of impact is the really important part. I personally think they’re are presently more than enough proven rounds and the more there are creates shortages. Just my opinion
Click to expand...

Fair. That one .308 load is better than the others by at least 100fps and a CFE223 load if published in .338 Fed would presumably have the same benefit over other .338 Fed loads. I still find the margin of difference from the average of heavy .308 velocities to the average of .338 Fed velocities underwhelming.

I’m into lots of niche ballistic thinking just not that one personally, seems like a lot of effort just to be different. I’ll never say it wouldn’t be a great hunting cartridge, it would, I just don’t see the niche it was designed for as a void needing a solution.

On the .308 case adaptions, I’m always looking downslope in bore diameters for marked improvements, rather than up.
 
I like the 308. I’ve killed lots of game with it. But I like the 30-06 even better. Above that 165gr range of bullets the 30-06 starts to pull away enough that I thinks it’s worth it.
 
Ardent said:
Fair. That one .308 load is better than the others by at least 100fps and a CFE223 load if published in .338 Fed would presumably have the same benefit over other .338 Fed loads. I still find the margin of difference from the average of heavy .308 velocities to the average of .338 Fed velocities underwhelming.

I’m into lots of niche ballistic thinking just not that one personally, seems like a lot of effort just to be different. I’ll never say it wouldn’t be a great hunting cartridge, it would, I just don’t see the niche it was designed for as a void needing a solution.

On the .308 case adaptions, I’m always looking downslope in bore diameters for marked improvements, rather than up.
Click to expand...

308 and 7mm-08 are great places to be. Don't think there's much advantage to be had in scaling up, either.
 
Joel said:
308 and 7mm-08 are great places to be. Don't think there's much advantage to be had in scaling up, either.
Click to expand...

I don't know, I built a 338-08 years back, and used my 358 Win BLR for hunting. I thought within a couple hundred yards they killed better. Hard to break that down to numbers and data to play with though. Killed more than a few bears. - dan
 
I think a .40 or .41 cartridge similar to the 401 Winchester or 414 Super Mag would make a great carbine cartridge for busting boars and bears...265 gr bullets @ approx. 2400 fps and 2400 ft lbs of energy would be a fun carbine cartridge in bolt or lever with an 18-20" barrel! (I realize both have been done before, but only in a semi and a handgun)
Would be a great short range thumper for deer, moose and elk too.
 
BlackRam said:
I think a .40 or .41 cartridge similar to the 401 Winchester or 414 Super Mag would make a great carbine cartridge for busting boars and bears...265 gr bullets @ approx. 2400 fps and 2400 ft lbs of energy would be a fun carbine cartridge in bolt or lever with an 18-20" barrel! (I realize both have been done before, but only in a semi and a handgun)
Would be a great short range thumper for deer, moose and elk too.
Click to expand...

Think your describing something like the 454 casull, or even 444 Marlin. Maybe 460 or 500 s&w. A pistol cartridge that's relatively small for a comparison would be the 44 mag. But really your getting into a big case.
 
nowarningshot said:
Think your describing something like the 454 casull, or even 444 Marlin. Maybe 460 or 500 s&w. A pistol cartridge that's relatively small for a comparison would be the 44 mag. But really your getting into a big case.
Click to expand...

Was thinking of keeping the diameter smaller (40 or 41 as suggested). Looking at the similar bullet weights of the 41 Rem Mag and 44 Rem Mag, the higher SD number of the 41 cal 265 over the 44 cal 265 should provide better penetration on larger, tougher game such as elk and bigger bears. Would have the smaller OD and may not give the same frontal area smack of the 454 and other cartridges you mentioned, but still provide plenty of power for good expansion and penetration for large wound channels, resulting in quick, clean kills, in a cartridge with less recoil. The case wouldn't be all that big for a rifle (as compared to a hand cannon).
 
dan belisle said:
I don't know, I built a 338-08 years back, and used my 358 Win BLR for hunting. I thought within a couple hundred yards they killed better. Hard to break that down to numbers and data to play with though. Killed more than a few bears. - dan
Click to expand...

Perhaps they do. If finding out means more hunting, I'm all for it. At least I would be, if I wasn't so anti gun right? ;)

If in your experience the 338 version puts em down harder, I believe ya.
 
Last edited:
dan belisle said:
Right, now go hunt something. It's September already. - dan
Click to expand...

Tell my bosses that, you're making a pretty strong argument. Stuck here until at least Sept. 19 researching big game isntead of hunting them so everyones gonna have to survive me a bit longer.
 
cody182005 said:
honestly think they have mostly covered well and should focus on supply. however I would love to see bonded versions of ELD-X. Im sure if anyone can figure out how to make accurate, bonded, high BC pills its these folks.
Click to expand...

great point, or, if federal figures out how to change the molds on their fusions to give 21st century aero (bc's) aka to give the .30 cal .5 bc to the 165's and .55 bc to the 180's etc.....then no need for hornady to do a bonded eld's

lets see who does it first?, hopefully the race is on ;)

the fusions have almost the perfect formula, bonded, stupid accurate, affordable...they just need to up their bc's about 12-15% and then they cover off all the 21st century asks, they've done well with that line, should have some money in budget to retool the molds to give these bullets a bit more slip through the air
 
Last edited:
The accubond long range has been done. Bonded bullets are expensive. Hornady had the interbond and it wasn’t a big seller due to cost imo
 
175gr Terminal Ascent with .520 BC is a contender :) Although Fusions sure are cheaper. Streamlining em a bit would be great.
 
federal, fusion 2's please, they can do bonded affordable, they certainly know how to do accuracy, so run them bullets through a swage and give fusion 2's lol, or maybe 'fusion long range' lol

if the others can't do bonded affordable no biggie, you don't actually need that until you're driving them well past 2800 or you want a defensive deep penetration round to compete with mono's but general hunting of big game they aren't needed, high sd cup and core is a perfect formula if not over driven
 
We need to see a good supply of brass and bullets for the chamberings we already have instead of another hyped-up-flash-in-the pan offering that will wither on the vine given the lack of loading kit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom