Synopsis: Gun writers often exaggerate differences in similar chamberings. This leads to confusion and misconceptions. Chamberings can and should be compared in a fair and meaningful way.

In the years following WWII, gun manufacturers recognized a vast new market for gun sales. Blooming prosperity allowed an entire new class of gun aficionados to build gun collections. Manufacturers realized that one way to sell new guns was to invent new chamberings. This strategy became increasingly important, because, unlike the old days, purchases by those already owning similar guns represented a significant and growing market.

An entire industry grew up around this philosophy, "Invent a new chambering, promote it as new and better, and sell more guns!" In the mid-fifties, we saw continual expansion of factory chamberings in the U.S. Some new offerings filled a niche, others represented one manufacturer's response to a competitor's chambering, for example Remington's 280 –virtually duplicating Winchester's long-established 270. As the market became flooded with available chamberings, the possibility of a new cartridge filling some empty niche began to vanish. I should note that most new chamberings in those years duplicated well-established European offerings.

In later years a situation developed, either innocently or by design, where manufacturers introduced new chamberings for no other reason than to sell new guns. A recent –and particularly salient –example is the 7mm-08 Remington, similar in size and performance to the venerable 7x57 Mauser, a 100 year old chambering.

The 7mm-08 is the same length as the older 284 Winchester and operates at about the same pressure. The 7mm-08 has substantially less capacity, though, and generates significantly inferior ballistics. This being the case, then why did Remington standardize the 7mm-08? To sell rifles, of course.

What of the 284 Winchester? Many years ago, engineers at Winchester recognized a market for a short-action chambering providing enough power for long-range hunting of deer and elk and thereafter designed the rebated-rim 284 Winchester.

The 284 Win approximates 270 Win ballistics but in a short-throw lever-action rifle. The 284 was designed for Winchester's Model-88 lever-action and their similar Model-100 semi-auto. For a time, Savage chambered the 284 in their famous Model-99 lever-action.

Factory 284 ballistics: 125-grain bullet at 3180 fps, 150-grain bullet at 2890 fps. Contemporary factory 270 ballistics: 130-grain at 3160 fps, 150-grain at 2850 fps. Obviously, Winchester had realized their goal.

To digress a bit further, the gun press drummed the 284 out of existence, as a factory chambering. The claim was: "With heavier bullets, it will not duplicate 270 ballistics." My experience with this cartridge, using Sierra's 160-grain boattail and N205 (long discontinued) suggests this claim was nonsense. Using a M-88 Winchester, we were able to drive this bullet faster than we could drive Sierra's 150-grain boattail from any 270 Winchester tested.

Since the 150-grain bullet was the heaviest offered in a 270 load, it seems odd anyone would condemn the 284 because of reduced performance when using 175-grain bullets –but that is precisely what one gun writer did! Regardless, press on the 284 continued to deteriorate. Soon –after originally being lauded as a bright new offering –the 284 was routinely hounded as less than worthless.

At the time, bolt-action elitists saw no value in a short-action rifle. Consequently, they saw no value in the 284. So what? Well, look what we have now –the 7mm-08 Remington, a cartridge the same length as the 284, perceived as useful with bullets lighter than 150 grains and chambered, primarily, in lightweight short-action rifles. Rechambering any of these rifles to 284 provides a significant ballistic improvement. The 7mm-08 develops 2860 fps with the 140-grain bullet, while the 284 easily achieves 3000 fps.

Many of the same writers who helped doom the 284 now laud the 7mm-08 as a wonderful cartridge. Go figure.

Countless articles expounding virtues of various chamberings have been written many in response to new cartridge development since about 1950. Often these articles discuss what an author perceives to be "The Best Cartridge" for some purpose. Many of these works suffer from unfair biases. This often shows up in listed statistics and ballistics. One example: Listing handload ballistics for the author's favorite cartridge, then comparing those to factory data for a similar cartridge. Handloads tailored to an individual rifle can perform better than mass-produced ammunition, which must function properly in every rifle so chambered. Moreover, most handloaders routinely push pressure far higher than any factory load.

A more shrouded bias occurs when the author lists "best" handloads for two cartridges. Beware of such comparisons. In some cases, loads listed for one cartridge are indeed very good loads –perhaps among the best possible for that cartridge. Meanwhile, loads listed for the other cartridge fall far short of being the best possible. Note Table One, reproduced verbatim from an article comparing 30-06 and 270 performance, an article written by a so-called expert, wherein he claimed to list best loads for both cartridges.

Notice that the 270 loads encompass bullets from 90 grains through 150 grains, but only one powder is shown across this unusually wide range of bullet weights! It would be very surprising if any one powder actually provided the "best" possible load for such a wide range of bullet weights in any chambering.

Actually, better powders do exist for most of the listed 270 bullets. For example: H-4831 or RL-22, for bullets heavier than 130 grains; H-414, for bullets lighter than 130-grains.

Excepting the 200-grain listing, every bullet weight shown for the 30-06 includes listings for two powders. Perhaps neither listed powder is "best" for any bullet in the 30-06, but in each case, one comes close –much closer than the one powder shown for the various bullet weights in the 270 listings.

I have tested 90- 100- 110- 130- 140- 150- 160- and 170-grain bullets in the 270. In no instance has IMR-4350 proven to be the "best" powder by any criterion - whether that measure be, whether accuracy, power, ballistic uniformity or cost. I do not claim IMR-4350 could not provide a best load in any 270 with any bullet. However, my experience suggests IMR-4350 usually is not the "best" 270 powder. Frankly, suggesting that IMR-4350 provides the best possible 270 loads with bullets ranging from 90 grains through 150 grains is ludicrous. The author of the referenced article should be ashamed of himself.

These kinds of biases can result in the perception that the author's preferred cartridge is much better than a similar cartridge when little, if any, difference actually exists.

By careful consideration, one can identify a second, less obvious, bias in the above table. As in many similar articles, the author fails to list certain ballistically superior bullets available for one of the two cartridges. Sometimes, although not here, the author also uses sub-par bullets in one of the two cartridges –choosing the most pointed bullet for his "pet" cartridge while choosing a blunter bullet for his assigned "inferior" cartridge. I have seen at least two examples where down-range ballistics of a spitzer load (in the "superior" cartridge) is compared to a round nose load (in the "inferior" cartridge)! –such examples indicate that the Editor is either asleep or desperate for something to print.

Consider bullet weights not shown in this table. Both Sierra and Hornady offer 110-grain 0.277-inch bullets having ballistic coefficients that are vastly superior to either the 90 grain Sierra HP or the 100 grain Speer spitzer. The difference is so significant that loads with either of these heavier bullets shoot flatter. My experience suggests that 110-grain bullets can also provide superior accuracy in the average rifle.

Consider the 140-grain 0.277-inch bullet. Designers constructed this bullet to offer a one-bullet solution for those hunting mule deer and elk. It is useful, just as is the 165-grain 0.308-inch bullet, yet it is not listed in this table of "best" loads.

Nosler's 160-grain partition is the logical choice for those who want or need more penetration and bone-busting power in the 270. It is a good choice for those going after moose or grizzly. Nevertheless, in the referenced article, the author ignores this fine bullet and then complains quite vehemently that a major problem with the 270 is that it does not offer any good, heavy-bullet choices!

Why did he ignore these superior 270 bullets? Obviously, because doing so supported his contention that the 270 is vastly inferior to the 30-06.

Another common failing of gun writers is listing data gathered in rifles of uncertain history. The author of the aforementioned article denigrates the 270 as a species, claiming rifles in that chambering show significant ballistic variation. He claims that the 270 produces highly erratic gun-to-gun ballistics, while the 30-06 provides substantially similar gun-to-gun results.

First, the 30-06 should be more consistent than the 270. Barrel makers can hold similar tolerances in 0.277-inch and 0.308-inch barrels –in reality they should be able to hold better tolerances in a bigger bore. Equal tolerance variations result in the smaller bore having a greater percentage variation in cross-sectional area. Further, the 270 has only 81% of the bore area of the 30-06 but has the same case capacity. When otherwise identical cartridges are chambered in different size bores, the larger will have more repeatable results. This we know from physics, practical application and experience.

Another explanation for said author's reported rifle-to-rifle variance does exist, and –I suspect –this is responsible for most of the 270 gun-to-gun variation he reports. The 270 is much harder on its barrel than the 30-06, a consequence of its 23% greater relative case capacity. Much of the ballistic non-uniformity reported probably results from testing rifles with shot-out barrels. Extremely low velocities he ascribes to one rifle must almost certainly reflect this condition. Testing a rifle with thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of rounds through it and ascribing inferior measured ballistics to the chambering is inconsistent. Yes, the 270 is harder on barrels than the 30-06. One should report that fact and go on.

Ballistics comparison articles should limit discussion to areas of legitimate contrast. For example, it would be unfair to claim the 270 was inferior to the 280 because 0.284-inch bullets, of similar sectional density, often have higher ballistic coefficients than 0.277-inch bullets. One cannot ascribe this fact as a basic fault of the 270; this reflects a decision of the bullets makers. It would be reasonable to state, "In some instances, long-range ballistics for the 280 may be superior to those for the 270. This is because available 0.284-inch bullets are sometimes more efficient than similar 0.277-inch bullets."

Another pertinent area is the discussion of handloading potential, which encompasses many problems. Often it is suggested that one cartridge is vastly superior to another because more bullet weights are available for the former. The issue of bullet selection is valid but is somewhat meaningless, since 99% of all shooters will settle on one to three bullets for all uses. A hunter who has settled on the 165-grain bullet for big game and the 125-grain bullet for varminting could not care less that he can load bullets from 100 grains to 250 grains in his 30-06.

A more subtle consideration –and a complicated one –is peak loading pressure. Many authors have used SAAMI pressure limits as a basis to claim superiority for one of two similar cartridges. Consider the 6mm Rem, 243 Win pair. These have similar capacities and, excepting a significant difference in SAAMI pressure recommendations, very little separates these two ballistically.

Some authors have claimed the 6mm is superior, because higher SAAMI pressure allows better ballistics. Others have claimed the 243 is superior because lower chamber pressure gives longer barrel life! Now wait just a cotton pickin' minute here! Can both be superior?

The problem with this situation is worse than it might sound. Improved barrel life would hardy matter to the factory ammunition shooter, who would consume perhaps $2,500 worth of ammunition before burning out his $100 factory barrel.

Moreover, the average handloader could never know the actual pressure difference between 243 handloads and 6mm handloads. Abiding by current wisdom, "Never exceed the maximum listed load," is no guarantee of anything. At close to $0.25 each for handloads, the several thousand rounds he would shoot before seeing a difference in useful barrel life would cost him more than the rifle. He could then decide whether any difference in barrel life mattered more than the difference in performance. Finally, he could, and likely would, load either cartridge to whatever pressure he felt comfortable using, whatever the SAAMI specifications were.

Related to this, I have to note that the 243 Winchester is well recognized as being particularly hard on the barrel so that the above discussion is meaningless. According to most experienced ballisticians, the 6mm Remington, despite its superior performance, offers significantly greater barrel life.

This fact did not stop one obviously ignorant writer from claiming that the 243 was obviously superior because, with a lower SAAMI pressure limit, it would offer greater barrel life. The fact that this drivel reached the printed page is another indication that not all editors are always awake.

Another example of meaningless pressure related bias is the 220 Swift versus 22-250 comparison. The former is often denigrated as a barrel burner. It may be, but so is the 22-250. When loaded to similar pressures, difference in useful barrel life is quite modest. Moreover, those handloading for the Swift could load to 22-250 ballistics and thereby somewhat extend barrel life to essentially match that for the 22-250.

Ballistics comparison articles should refrain from drawing conclusions based on factors that cannot be measured by handloaders. Actual load pressure is hard –nay impossible –for the average handloader to judge. Another comparative point sometimes suggested as meaningful is accuracy potential. Accuracy is certainly important. Largely, the only interesting gun is an accurate gun, but even the most skilled hunter will never miss his shot on a big-game animal because he chose to use his 1.5-MOA 30-06 rather than his 1.25-MOA 308. On the other hand, he could misjudge distance and then the slight trajectory difference could make all the difference in the world. It would be fair to note that the 308 offers superior accuracy potential, the 30-06 offers superior ballistics. Take your pick.

Often, comparison articles tout one cartridge as vastly superior to another by focusing on one area of ballistic performance. For example, few would claim that the 270 is as good as the 30-06 for use against heavy North American game. On the other hand, few would argue that the 30-06 is as good for long-range varmint work as the 270. Choosing one limited area of possible use and extrapolating to a tacit claim that one chambering has overall superiority is ridiculous. That is a value judgement, subject to each hunter's needs. Compare the list and leave the reader to make his own judgement, based on anticipated uses.

Often an author allows personal biases to enter his discussion, as if those biases were law. One noted author has a personal aversion to loads using compressed powder charges. No ballistician has ever found any reason for such a bias. Moreover, most handloaders have found no reason to exclude compressed loads from consideration. In certain combinations, only compressed-charge loads can provide optimum performance. When an author arbitrarily excludes these, he compromises his results.

Another bias, perhaps the one most often seen in cartridge comparison articles, is neglecting to mention the drawbacks of one cartridge. An article published several years ago expounded the virtues of the 264 Winchester Magnum. Said author gave external ballistics data for 264 Win Mag, 270 Win and 7mm Rem Mag. His 264 data was for loads that were obviously at the extreme end of the maximum pressure range. He also used the best possible powders and the best possible bullets. Then he tested those loads in a rifle with a 26-inch barrel. He compared several features of these data sets, with emphasis on long-range energy and trajectory.

If one believes his data, the 264 is far-and-away the best of these cartridges. According to his results, it shoots substantially flatter and retains more energy than either the 270 or the 7mm Mag.

T