My amazing Mauser mod 66 rifle

[Vikram]

If it was designed tomorrow ( or yesterday ) it would look decidedly different however .... and the same applies to the .375 H&H.

That makes me ask, could you please tell us what are the important cartridge design changes that you think have emerged since the beginning of 20th century? What do you think the cartridge would be like if it were to be designed today? Thank you.


Best-
Vikram

[Grumpy]

Modern cartridges are pretty much as per the `Ackley Improved` formula. P.O.Ackley realised - or discovered - that minimising body taper and increasing the shoulder angle allowed better performance with the same amount of propellent because of increased efficiency. Modern cartridge designs utilise minimal taper, high shoulder angles and shorter, large diameter cases.
Go to :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rifle_cartridges
Note the .243 Win and .243 Ackley improved designs side by side. In that particular case the body taper remains the same but the increased shoulder angle is obvious. The obviously modern cartridge design in that line-up is the .223 WSSM.
The WSSM cartridges are obviously modern in design but haven`t gained much popularity - mostly because they`re notorious barrel burners and also because they don`t really offer anything that other cartridges didn`t already provide. They are based on the WSM designs which, in themselves, were developed from 6mm benchrest designs and cartridges developed by John Lazzeroni. The theory is that a short, fat cartridge puts the powder as close as possible to the primer allowing for greater efficiency than a longer, smaller diameter cartridge. The .30 WSM ( for example ) offers .300 Win mag performance from a case that is barely longer than a .308 Win.
I`ve just found a nice picture to illustrate those points :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.300_Winch ... ort_Magnum
I can`t see any future for the WSSM calibres but hope that the WSM calibres receive the popularity they deserve.

[BowMan]

That's very interesting information Grumpy. We also have the short magnums now that are really fat and stubby rounds when compared to these older tall'n'tapered designs.

However I am wondering if there is a compromise involved when it comes to feeding reliability? Will not a slight taper aid in a smoother charging stroke?

Of course this is purely a theoretical argument in present Indian scenario but back in the heydays of big game hunting one would be found walking in thicket with visibility down to only a few meters. Those guys were not shooting really long distances to take advantage of these modern designs even if they would have been available back then!?

[adilmaroof]

The 9,3X64 seems to be legal most areas of Africa for dangerous game. The 9,3x64 can do everything what the 375H&H can do and all 9,3x64 rifles were more accurate than the 375H&Hs!The only problem is ammunition avalibility.

[Grumpy]

Quote : "We also have the short magnums now that are really fat and stubby rounds when compared to these older tall'n'tapered designs."

Er ...... Well yes ...... I think you`ll find I`ve just mentioned those:
`WSM` = Winchester Short Magnum.
`WSSM` = Winchester Super Short Magnum.
There are also the Remington Short Action Ultra Magnums - the SAUM calibres.

In heavy brush the requirement is for a heavy, low velocity bullet that suffers minimal deflection. High velocity calibres with light bullets are just not suited to such environments.
A minimal amount of taper is required for reliable extraction. Increasing the taper to the extent of some of the older calibres offers no advantages in extraction from a bolt-action rifle but could be useful in `sticky`conditions in a double rifle.

[Grumpy]

The 9.3x64 is NOT legal for dangerous, thick-skinned game in South Africa, Botswana, Mozambique, Zimbabwe or Tanzania ....I don`t know about Kenya. In those Southern African countries where the 9.3x64 is legal it`s usually because there is little or no dangerous, thick-skinned game.....
"All 9.3x64 rifles were more accurate than the .375 H&Hs"
Oh yes ? Prove it.
That`s a blanket statement and obviously false. Even if the 9.3x64 was inherently more accurate than the .375 H&H - which it is NOT - a 9.3x64 shot from a clapped-out old rifle couldn`t possibly be more accurate than a .375 H&H shot from a decent rifle.
The 9.3x64 is a good calibre and is often quoted as being the equal of the .375 H&H .... but that`s not quite true as the .375 H&H makes 300 ft lbs more ME. The .375 H&H is also more versatile in that there is a wider range of bullets and bullet weights available for it.
What is interesting is that from a position of relative popularity the 9.3x64 was already well in decline compared to the .375 H&H before the .375 minimum calibre for dangerous, thick-skinned game game was introduced. More people preferred the .375 H&H.
9.3x64 ammunition is not difficult to source. It might not be on the shelves of one`s local gunshop but can be ordered in and will only take a few days to arrive.
I have no axe to grind for or against either calibre and, as it happens, If I needed a rifle for use against dangerous, thick-skinned game I wouldn`t choose either calibre.

[marksman]

Please excuse my barging in. I too have a Mauser model 66 but in a more friendly caliber, 270 Winchester. Indeed it's a super accurate rifle and I love the statistics of this wonderful cartridge. It has an exhibition grade walnut stock as well. In fact my ought six took a back seat once I got this one in 1987. It also has a Leupold 4x scope and quick take off mounts an rings by Rudolph Bock sitting on it.
I'd readily sell my FN Mauser ought six if I could officially get a spare ought six for it.
Cheers!!
Marksman