Sherman Short Cartridge's

[Meroh]

Seriously speaking ,It is in fact a very good across the course cartridge and was designed as such.
https://www.ssusa.org/content/history-lesson-6-5-creedmoor-cartridge-origin/
Cat

Three guesses who sponsored the article... and the first two don't count:

Hilarious!!!!

 

[Meroh]

Those are substantially longer, and put you into a different size of action and magazine. The Creedmoor clearly offers a substantial difference on this alone. Then you add the fact that its SAAMI spec requires faster twist barrels to allow for factory ammo to use the most efficient bullet designs and we now have two critical differences that justify its existence.

And the real, tangible benefit is???

 

[adamg]

And the real, tangible benefit is???

Off the top of my head...
- sharper shoulder angle grows less each firing
- lighter magazines
- smaller magazines
- stronger action
- lighter action
- shorter rifle overall length
- shorter and faster bolt throw
- less powder burn
- longer barrel life
- freedom to choose from small and large rifle primers
- more energy on target for a given recoil impulse
- less wind drift
- less elevation drop / elevation compensation
- less distance sensitivity on the elevation drop
- more efficient use of powder

 

[ruby76]

How about them Sherman shorts hey.

 

[bcsteve]

That argument might hold weight if gun manufacturers followed SAAMI specs for twist rate, but it only takes like 5 seconds on google to show that you can get all sorts of twist rates for different guns in the same caliber - sometimes even different MODELS of the same rifle.

Not necessarily. That's the reason Winchester came up with the 6.8 Western instead of starting to load high BC bullets in the .270 WSM.

 

[iron cat]

And the real, tangible benefit is???

You obviously didn't read the article , just looked at the pictures.
But you can also believe it was simply a marketing ploy if you want to I suppose, but I am also suspecting you have never been involved in or followed NRA National match highpower shooting either.
BTW I am not a fanboy of the 6.5 Creedmoor and do not feel it has any advantage over several other 6.5 cartridges for most shooting applications, be they hunting or match shooting.
Cat

 

[iron cat]

The velocities Sherman claims seem unrealistic at standard pressures. You can get more velocity than a 338 win mag with 10gr less powder? There's no free lunch in ballistics...

Cool looking cartridges. But call me skeptical.

I am also a bit skeptical, plus the fact that the brass is very expensive.
I wouldn't go out of my way to build one, but there are people that like it
Cat

 

[Meroh]

Off the top of my head...
- sharper shoulder angle grows less each firing
- lighter magazines
- smaller magazines
- stronger action
- lighter action
- shorter rifle overall length
- shorter and faster bolt throw
- less powder burn
- longer barrel life
- freedom to choose from small and large rifle primers
- more energy on target for a given recoil impulse
- less wind drift
- less elevation drop / elevation compensation
- less distance sensitivity on the elevation drop
- more efficient use of powder

- sharper shoulder angle grows less each firing SINCE MOST OF THESE RIFLES ARE "PUSH FEED", SHARP SHOULDERS CONTRIBUTE TO FEEDING ISSUES. NOT AN ISSUE FOR 6.5 X 55, I NO LONGER RESIZE, ONLY NECK SIZE WITH COLLET DIE; AND LOAD HEAVY.
- lighter magazines IMPORTANT SINCE CM OWNERS OFTEN PILE TRENDY ACCESSORIES ON RIFLES.
- smaller magazines DOES SIZE REALLY MATTER?
- stronger action THAN OTHER MODERN RIFLES... NOPE.
- lighter action MAYBE A COUPLE OUNCES.
- shorter rifle overall length MAYBE A 1/2"
- shorter and faster bolt throw THAN OTHER MODERN RIFLES?
- less powder burn WITH LIGHTER BULLETS; NOT ENOUGH POWDER CAPACITY TO HANDLE HEAVY BULLETS EASILY.
- longer barrel life NOT COMPARED TO OTHER CLASSIC 6.5s
- freedom to choose from small and large rifle primers THAT WAS ALWAYS A PITA FOR ME WITH 45 ACP; MIXED BRASS. GOOD THINKING.
- more energy on target for a given recoil impulse CERTAINLY NOT COMPARED TO THE 6.5 X 55 AND 260 Rem.
- less wind drift CERTAINLY NOT COMPARED TO THE 6.5 X 55 AND 260 Rem.
- less elevation drop / elevation compensation CERTAINLY NOT COMPARED TO THE 6.5 X 55 AND 260 Rem.
- less distance sensitivity on the elevation drop CERTAINLY NOT COMPARED TO THE 6.5 X 55 AND 260 Rem.
- more efficient use of powder ALREADY ADDRESSED WITH CASE CAPACITY AND HEAVY BULLETS.

-you forgot that the cm makes one feel less self conscious regarding wearing a man-bun in public.

 

[bdb.hunting]

Hey All,

So this post was about the Sherman Shorts not other cartridges and it has become more about other listings. While I appreciate the enthusiasm and information if we could get back on topic that would be great.

B

 

[Meroh]

Hey All,

So this post was about the Sherman Shorts not other cartridges and it has become more about other listings. While I appreciate the enthusiasm and information if we could get back on topic that would be great.

B

The point was the analogy between Sherman Shorts and the Creedmores. Sherman Shorts really offer no advantages over existing cartridges. Cool exercise to see how much boost you can put to a small engine without having something fail; fun to play with but not something you would drive to work with each and every day.

 

[HunztheMighty]

I understand the skeptisim. It does seem that more modern case designs are more efficient. Thus producing higher velocities with less powder. The key is the fact that the powder volume is more useable, ie the seated bullet doesnt sit in the powder column as deeply because they have longer necks. I think there best application is with heavy for calibre bullets in short actions. the 7mm saum is a wonderful cartridge as is the 7mm wsm but if your using the 180-190 gr bullets they are quite long. This forces you to seat them quite deeply into the case. The Shermans dont have the same problem. The cartridge comes very highly recomended by the people I bought my rifle from. They chamber excellent barrels and I highly regard there expertise (they havent steered me wrong yet).

If you were shooting the 160-168 class of bullets I would bet the 7mm saum would out perfom them but with the bigger longer bullets the Shermans shine.

I like the young fella from Impact shooting in South African and he shoots several Sherman Mags and is a fan boy!

I am talking from data sheets as I dont have one (yet) and I am hoping to order one in the future.
(my Curtis Valor Action is costing me a fortune in barrels)

 

[HunztheMighty]

I was also thinking about this from the perspective of a car. Traditional thinking is a big displacement V8 is going to be faster than a smaller displacement flat six. Unless the flat six is a turbo porsche engine. That is able to produce less HP than some big V8s but the torque it produces is greater than the V8.

 

[Denver Steve]

There does become a point where you have to pack in alot more powder to get hardly any extra velocity. And with a more efficient burning case design, and powders that have a progressive burn rate, that are the right speed for the cartridge/bullet combo, it is possible to have less powder capacity give more velocity.

My 300wsm sends a 120 grain Barnes tac-tx nearly as fast as my 300 RUM does, and it uses 33 grains less powder to do so.

Just don't be accidentally sending any one of those at your good 1/2" thick AR500 steel...it zips right through. And with a point blank range of 400 yards. It's actually quite hard to beat for aim and shoot.

As for the Creedmoor arguments. Who cares what carteidge anyone else shoots. Just shoot it well, and make the best ammo you can for it. Shooting any cartridge puts a smile on my face. I have been a proud owner of multiple creeds since 2012. It is a inherently accurate cartridge that is easy to tune loads for.

 

[jethunter]

I don't know if the Sherman Short is running higher pressures or not but I have read about +p chambers that supposedly allow increased powder charges (and velocity) without increased pressure.

Sounds like voodoo magic but maybe possibly might work??

Lol. Got any links for the +p chamber info? That would sure be an interesting read.

 

[jethunter]

I was also thinking about this from the perspective of a car. Traditional thinking is a big displacement V8 is going to be faster than a smaller displacement flat six. Unless the flat six is a turbo porsche engine. That is able to produce less HP than some big V8s but the torque it produces is greater than the V8.

Don't confuse yourself comparing apples with grapes.

Compare engines of similar design, but one being larger displacement.