Failed cartridges

N

natman

New member
After 120+ years I would NOT consider a cartridge [25-35 win] "dead" or "dying" or "failed".

Although old with low sales now, it has had a long career. Think I'd call it a success...
Click to expand...

Being a dead cartridge is not the same thing as a failed cartridge. Marilyn Monroe was wildly successful, but she's definitely dead.

I wouldn't call the 25-35 Winchester "failed" because as you point out it had a long run as a popular cartridge. However, nobody has chambered a regular production rifle in it since what? WWII? so it's definitely obsolescent.

Winchester has 25-35 ammo on limited production, which is not a good sign. Hornady, God bless 'em, has just introduced a new load for it, so it's not obsolete. At least not yet.
 
R

RaySendero

New member
MarkCO wrote:

Really Mike? You are the one who went off topic talking about popular cartridges in a failed cartridge thread.
Click to expand...


No Mark it wasn't Mike it was me.
Mike was responding to my post.

And it not really off topic - My thinking is that most of the newer cartridges today will also be future failures. That's been a past pattern for most all cartridges introduced since the 1970s.

It has been hard for these latter cartridges to get traction or some staying power unless there is a military use (Russia 5.45x39 in 1974) or like the FBI use of that 40 S&W - I had not thought of that one.
 
R

RaySendero

New member
Yeah, I caught that one, too. natman got in a good one. I'll remember it.

Maybe its just me being pessimistic, But I really don't see any rifle cartridges introduced much pass the 223 Rem in 1964 being hailed as wildly successful and popular in abundance 80 years from now!

I can see 22LR, 223, 270, 308, 30-06, 7.62x39, 9.3x62 and 375HH still around at that time. But my crystal ball is just drawing a blank with all the newer cartridges we have around today.
 
Last edited:
M

Mike Irwin

Staff
"Really Mike? You are the one who went off topic talking about popular cartridges in a failed cartridge thread."

I was answering a question/observation from another member.

I still say... So?

The simple fact that the .40 gained such widespread acceptance and use in such a short time frame means that it will never be categorized as a failed cartridge. The fact that it's currently, and I should say allegedly, declining in popularity still has no bearing on either its initial acceptance or the fact that it can never be called a failed cartridge.

Some day it may become an obsolete cartridge, but failed? No.

The .45 GAP is a failed cartridge.

The .25 and .32 NAA rounds are failed cartridges.
 
M

Mike Irwin

Staff
"Maybe its just me being pessimistic, But I really don't see any rifle cartridges introduced much pass the 223 Rem in 1964 being hailed as wildly successful and popular in abundance 80 years from now!"

Well, if the American shooting public holds true to form, that slot will be filled by the next US standard issue military cartridge.

It's held true for every one since the introduction of the self-contained cartridge in US service.

Hell, even the .45-70, adopted closer to 150 years ago than not, is still with us, viable and popular, today.

Even the .30-40 Krag still sees the occasional rifle chambered for it.

The only has-been on the list is the .50-70, and it stuck around for less than a decade but was still quite popular in its day.
 
R

RaySendero

New member
Mike you maybe right - But what could be the next US military rifle cartridge?

I don't think they are anywhere close to replacing the 223/5.56x45.

I mean the 6.8x43 was specially designed to replace the 5.56x45 but it didn't.
 
S

SHR970

New member
7.62 x 45 for the Vz 52.

307 and 356 Win.

219 Zipper

22 Carbine / 5.7 Johnson

22 Win. Auto & 22 Rem. Auto

22 Daisy* Just a little ATF problem with that one
 
S

Scorch

New member
7.62 x 45 for the Vz 52.

307 and 356 Win.

219 Zipper

22 Carbine / 5.7 Johnson

22 Win. Auto & 22 Rem. Auto
Click to expand...
OK, I will take these.

7.62X45 was a service cartridge for a non-aligned ComBloc nation that was invaded by the USSR and their service rifles replaced by force. I don't think that one qualifies as failed.

307 and 356, yes, wholeheartedly agree. Failed from the get-go. Dedicated to keeping a dying rifle competitive.

219 Zipper was chambered in the Winchester Model 64 for about 30 years, and although it never achieved the success of other offering, it was a pretty hot number and not uncommon in custom varmint rifles of the 1920s, 30s and 40s. The 220 Swift and 22-250 pretty much killed it. But really, I don't think that one was a failure.

22 Johnson, absolutely a failure. Failed cartridge in a failed gun.

22 Winchester Auto and 22 Remington Auto were special purpose cartridges, dedicated to specific semi-automatic rifles in the era when 22 rimfire ammo was almost exclusively loaded with black powder. They were developed and sold in order to keep people from fouling the actions on those early semi-auto rifles. 22 Winchester Auto was loaded until the 1960s, so about 60+/- years. Not exactly a failure, although not as popular as the 22 S/L/LR.

And yeah, the Daisy thing.
 
E

ed308

New member
The 6.8 SPCII would be a nice improvement over the 5.56 Nato. 7x46mm UIAC wouldn't be a bad choice either. I think Mathis has voice his desire for a change in our service rifle caliber.
 
R

RaySendero

New member
Yes ed, I too, think the 6.8 SPC (6.8x43)
would be a very much needed improvement.
Not dead! Special Ops and some military use outside US.

But so far it too is a "failure" to replace the 5.56x45
which it was specifically designed to do.
 
M

Mike Irwin

Staff
"Mike you maybe right - But what could be the next US military rifle cartridge?"

We'll know what it is when we know what it is.

At one time it was very likely inconceivable to anyone/everyone that the .30-06 or the .45 ACP would be replaced as the standard military cartridges.

After all, they served for 50+ and 70+ years, respectively.
 
D

dahermit

New member
"Has anyone mentioned the .256 that Ruger chambered in the single-shot "Hawkeye", I think it was called? While I am at it, the .22 Jet."

Yes. The .256 Winchester Magnum.

Hung on for a number of years, was chambered in several rifles, as well, including a Marlin lever action.

More successful than the .22 Jet, but not great.
Click to expand...
As I remember, S&W introduced a double-action revolver chambered for the .22 Remington Jet. It began to get bad press soon after it's introduction. Seems if the chambers were not kept scrupulously clean, the fired casings set back and tie up the gun. As I remember, the guns came with chamber inserts that made it possible to shoot .22 Long Rifle cartridges also.
 
S

SHR970

New member
7.62X45 was a service cartridge for a non-aligned ComBloc nation that was invaded by the USSR and their service rifles replaced by force. I don't think that one qualifies as failed.
Click to expand...

Actually quite a few were converted to 7.62 x 39 and / or built as such Vz. 52/57. Many were exported to sattelite nations. Production was discontinued in 1959. It was replaced by the Vz.58. Failure is failure even if it is imposed on them. Sad part is that it was superior to the X39.


219 Zipper was chambered in the Winchester Model 64 for about 30 years, and although it never achieved the success of other offering, it was a pretty hot number and not uncommon in custom varmint rifles of the 1920s, 30s and 40s. The 220 Swift and 22-250 pretty much killed it. But really, I don't think that one was a failure.
Click to expand...

Production started in 1938. Not exactly known for accuracy in the Model 64 lever rifle. Factory ammo used Round Nose bullets.

Winchester 22 Auto was for the Win. 1903 that was made for 29 years. In that time they produced about 126,000 guns. Not a total failure but not exactly a success at about 4400 units per year average. The Remimgton version was an even bigger flop in its Model 16 made from 1914 - 1928.
 
M

Mike Irwin

Staff
6mm Lee Navy is an interesting one.

It did fail as a military cartridge, in large part to the propellants of the day just not being suitable for a small bore, high velocity cartridge, plus the fact that it also had very low wounding potential because the bullet tended to plow straight through the target, leaving hardly any wound channel.

That said, the case lives on, as it was the basis for the .220 Swift.
 
F

FrankenMauser

New member
I still wonder why Winchester chose to use the 6mm Lee Navy case, rather than something more common.
They took an oddball, reformed it, made it even more odd (changing rim diameter, but leaving it semi-rimmed), and then shoveled it onto the market.

At times, I have wondered if they had tooling lying around that they wanted to capitalize upon; so they went for the cheap development path, rather than needing to have new drawing dies made.
 
M

Mike Irwin

Staff
Probably the same reason they chose the .30-03 Springfield case as the basis for the .270 Winchester instead of the far more common .30-06.

Because they could.
 
9

9ballbilly

New member
dahermit, the revolver you're referring to is the S&W model 53. It was indeed chambered in .22jet and came with chamber inserts to shoot .22lr.

I've handled, but never shot one, so I can't speak to the cartridge issue you mention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top