The next cartridge you would like Hornady to develop

kamlooky said:
I'd shure like to know whut pressures he wuzz yews'in awn the press'andle seet'in dem bewlittzs..................:onCrack:
Click to expand...

He was either swimming far from shore or everyone one else is so far back they can't even see the water.

Who's going to Bang a Doe this year?
 
Ardent said:
As for shorter actions, that’s the Kurz Mauser, .250 Savage length, .473” bolt face, was done a hundred years ago. Common, it is not unfortunately.

On Hornady products, I’d like the .17 Mach 2 get more attention, and a relaunch, but with a FMJ load available. It’s a sweetheart of a little round, and more actions ready for it than any other cartridge… any .22. I’d like to be able to plink with the kids, accurately, without them handling lead.
Click to expand...

The lead handling, as related to health, is a popular myth. Even ingesting it, is another myth.
The only lead to be concerned about, would be the lead that you breathe...as in vapor, exhaust, gas, etc.

R.
 
I like the HM2 / Mach 2 and the guns it can be adapted to, it lives happily in semis too. I have a thousand rounds or so, and I’d convert my original .22 and even have the blank to do it, if only there was a steadier supply of ammo and FMJ options like the HMR. Had bought my eldest an 1885 .17 HMR, but would prefer a Mach 2 in something lighter but still classy.

The HMR is great, but the Mach 2 just fits so many more guns, and it is cheaper when you can find it.
 
The unleaded Norma 22 is available in Canada.

One is wise to avoid lead, there is a strong correlation between lead exposure, lowering IQ and voting habits, ie NW BC, Regina, Toronto, Montreal.
 
Yea it unfortunately just shoots like #### by nearly all accounts. Heeled bullets are hard to make work without malleable lead. I’ll still try it.

I think the .17 is the way to go, I’ve got a stack of the NTX Hornady .17 Mach 2, ridiculously accurate. Still leaded priming, so the Norma wins overall, but it is far, far cleaner shooting than .22LR. The guns look like a centerfire, only cleaner after a long day of shooting as there’s hardly any powder burnt. Whatever the powder is, burns a lot better and cleaner in the .17 than the .22s too.
 
I believe this is the point of the .21 Sharp, when or if ammo will be around is an open question.
 
Ardent said:
I have a history with lead I got into here before, unfortunately it’s definitely not a myth. And there’s no way I let my kids handle it in volume, it’s why I’ve kept them off the .22s and lead pellets.
Click to expand...

They couldn't handle enough ammunition, in any kind of volume associated to the activity at hand, to be affected, period.
Clearly history differs from person to person.
Lifetimes of handling, melting, casting, and general exposure of large quantities, including ingestion, with nary an issue.
In solid form, at recreational exposure, it proposes very little risk. To say otherwise, propagates the myth.

R.
 
They should just put their effort to produce ammo in quantity instead of trying to develop a new mousetrap.
Ammo is needed not a new round. There is plenty of choice to kill or shoot at anything out there.

Maybe they should look into producing primer ? They sell an extensive line of bullet - brass - making and offering primers should be their next step - not a new cartridge.
 
Ardent said:
Interesting article, in skimming it they tout the lower sectional density of the cartridge’s stubby .338 bullets as resulting in quicker kills.
Click to expand...

good catch, we talk about that a fair bit around here these days lol, there's drt magic when you match this with 2 other criteria for game intended
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom