doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion German & Austrian Sporting Guns @ doublegunshop.com Kalibersorgen / Caliber concerns in 1900

Since I am sitting at the scanner, and since we discussed the need for the standardisation of cartridges:

here is an article (rather an outcry) by Albert Preuss published in "Das Schiesswesen" in the year 1900, stressing the need for standardisation
Enjoy!

Capital Effort.


Serbus,

Raimey
rse

Wunderbar! Wir muessen das ueberlegen. Alles Gute!

JKB von Falkenhorst

ok then, I realize you need a translation
the deepl translator did a good job, some few corrections done by me

Schiesswesen Bd. 3 (1900), Nr. 14, S. 113-115

Caliber concerns
By Albert Preuss

Yes, indeed, the caliber question causes anxious concern for the thoughtful hunter. Some time ago, the well-known Mr. Konrad Eilers raised a topic here: “Outlook for the future of calibers, cartridges, and bullets for our hunting rifles,” and the subject was dealt with in a thoroughly objective and technical manner. However, there is also another perspective, one that is unfortunately less than encouraging, namely the vast array of calibers, cases, and bullets. The battle over caliber has been raging for a long time, fought with a bitterness that would be better suited to a more worthy cause, and with what result? The discussion of the caliber question consumes ink, paper, and entire barrels of printer's ink. But that's not all; it keeps producing new excesses. That is the curse of evil deeds, that they must continually give birth to more evil; a clever manufacturer smiles at the interest in the subject, and before the latest caliber numbers have been digested, a new child grows up overnight and adds to the chaos of cases and bullets. Shooting technology has its science, but caliber science has become a calamity. The mere knowledge of calibers in itself could be considered a doctoral thesis. Enviable is the hunter who does not burden his mind with the uncanny ballast of caliber science. After a superficial compilation of the various case shapes, I count about 50 from memory. And each case has its own different bullets with varying lengths, head shapes, jacket heights (I know of 18 bullet shapes for the 8 mm jacket bullet alone) and grooves; if you add to this the infinite variety of base shapes and rim thicknesses, the changing loading conditions, the whole bombast grows into a science, no, into nonsense that must be put a stop to.

We do not want to deal with the causes of this excess, but rather come to the realization that it is high time for a change. Enough of this cruel game of confusion with cases and projectiles. Why is there more unity in shotgun calibers? Calibers 12 and 16 have an equal share, caliber 14 is very rare, unless a thick-walled caliber 16 was bored out, and calibers 20 and 24 are hardly worth mentioning. In the past, people used to shoot with a thick-walled caliber 16 that had been bored out, and calibers 20 and 24 are hardly worth mentioning. In the past, 28 and 24 gauges were used for rifles, and they worked wonderfully. Hunting ethics were no less important than they are today, perhaps even more so, and game was killed without much hesitation. But what about today? Yes, technological progress. Oh dear God, a hollow slogan in the service of hunting – a contemporary business ploy – nothing more. Are the supposed advantages of today's calibers really so great that they make it absolutely necessary to replace those that were praised to the skies yesterday? No. But every hunter wants the latest, possibly something completely unique, something that no one else has, just like rich dandies who, when they have a pair of trousers made, buy the entire piece of fabric just to make it inaccessible to others. In my “caliber glossary,” I have already pointed out the value, or rather the worthlessness, of minimal caliber differences. Why manufacture 9.3 and 9.25 bullets, 57 mm and 58 mm long cases, and so on ad infinitum? The outcome of the caliber debates to date shows us the futility of further wrangling, and even if we cannot reach a final conclusion and award victory to one side, let us all benefit from it and remove the veil from our eyes that business tactics, combined with personal vanity, have woven so tightly around our eyes.

Universal cases have been a hotly debated topic recently, and if the battle was limited to a small area, it was due to the intervention of the trade press. Universal cases arise from the need for a safe path through the confusion of calibers. I warmly welcome universal cases, but at the same time I would like to see the myriad of bullet shapes for them destroyed. Why so many types of bullets? Surely only to encourage theoretical quackery about flight heights and all the associated ballistic concerns, which degenerate into pointless gimmicks. Millimeter deviations are calculated, and the hunter who calls himself a practitioner misses by a meter. Today's rifle technology is infinitely superior to our shooting technique. But people want to blame their own incompetence on the equipment. Anyone who judges objectively and asks themselves the question will not claim that the quantitative increase in hunters has led to a qualitative improvement. But everyone wants to be the best, every image of God is exalted above all else from the outset, failures are blamed on trivialities; in the case of hunters, on the weapon, possibly on the “deceptive” gunsmith. There are so many things in life that one may think but not say, because one exposes oneself to attack. And with understandable caution, which one might also call business prudence, discerning manufacturers proceed; they first put out their feelers to see what the weather is like. Unfortunately, business is everything today. But when companies unanimously join forces and want to bring about change in rifle calibers, they deserve great credit and the unreserved recognition of all hunters who feel free of inhibitions. If it was not easy to create this chaos of cartridges, it seems even more difficult to clean up this mess. Hunters can bring about change in this regard, by not demanding unusual calibers, and the cartridge manufacturer and gunsmith, by not handing out endless sample charts.

There is no need to emphasize the inconveniences caused by the almost Babylonian confusion in cases and bullets, as it suffices to say that today it is almost impossible to buy a suitable cartridge from a gunsmith without bringing a sample, and even then it is questionable whether you will get what you want. We read the interesting articles on Swiss shooting with satisfaction, but also with envy. O idyll of rifle factories, you free country where the bolt-action rifle is frowned upon, you supplier of cheap ammunition! – And yet the Swiss show us that they can shoot, and that the equipment is good and, above all, affordable. I know from my own experience that ballistic investigations are like a sensory rush; easy to fall prey to if you don't know when to throw away all scientific ballast and stick to practice alone. Advances in technology – excellent equipment – just recently, at the shooting competition held by the Muskau officers club, with Herrn Oberförster Seitz from Weisswasser, using an old original military carbine, a truly old shooting iron with surplus ammunition, each cartridge costing little more than a penny at the junk shop – and once again I saw how simple the whole caliber debate is.

Everyone should shoot with whatever they are comfortable with; you can't work magic with any rifle. It must be a truly awful firearm if its natural dispersion is greater than the shooter's personal aiming errors. On this subject, I am often reminded of a saying by a pigeon shooter and sportsman I knew, Lord Clifford, a hunter who spent most of his time in India and only came to Europe to take part in pigeon shooting. When we discussed the powder issue, he said: “I am satisfied with what I shoot, and if a new powder with much higher values appeared, I wouldn't know why I should use it, because I don't need anything more.” This is a very healthy point of view, which is shared by almost all practical hunters, including Mr. Seitz, the head forester, who has a remarkably high bag of big game. So does the well-proven 9.3 caliber really have shortcomings that make the introduction of 9.25 unavoidably necessary? No.

But mere rhetoric achieves nothing. Of course, those who say that no one has the right to impose a caliber on them, that ultimately the choice of caliber is a matter of individual preference, are also right. This point of view is undoubtedly indisputable. But appreciating this does not deter me from bringing up the views expressed by many hunters close to me who are experienced in this field, as well as my own experiences, and suggesting the elimination of a calamity that affects hunters no less than it does gunsmiths and ammunition manufacturers. I therefore urgently request that all relevant authorities address this issue.

All well and good, but how can this be implemented? Quite simply, much more easily than one might think.

I believe that four cases are perfectly sufficient today, namely: 11.15x60, 9.3x65, Mod. 88, and possibly 6.5. Everything else should be phased out. I would retain the 11.15 caliber as a large caliber, if only because of the quantity of military ammunition still available and cheap to obtain, the 9.3 caliber because it is well established and the cartridge is suitable for the Drilling, and Mod. 88 as a small caliber for bolt action rifles, especially since sooner or later the large military stocks may become available as training ammunition. Regulating the loads within these calibers is ultimately a matter for each individual, as is the bullet shape; these factors are less important, since, with the right case, the load variations can be adapted to each rifle and there is sufficient leeway for personal requirements within the bullets and loads.

Of course, we cannot simply ban the many existing calibers and throw away the rifles in question just because we don't like the large number of them; such an imposition is out of the question. I would therefore like to emphasize that all existing calibers, even new ones, have their admirers, but manufacturers can earn merit for future generations if they focus primarily on a few well-established calibers and, when hunters inquire about or purchase new equipment, use their influence to steer them in this direction and advise against deviations.

The above remarks are intended to encourage this, and nothing else.

So, to recapitulate my proposal, it is as follows: we should strive for uniformity in cases and cartridge chambers, insofar as we only choose between: 11.15x60 (Mod. 71) for soft lead or alloy bullets, 9.3x65 for alloy or 5/6 jacketed bullets, 8 mm Mod. 88 for 11/12 jacketed bullets, and possibly 6.5 conical cases. What a sweet dream it would be to only have to deal with these cases and calibers! And couldn't we get by with just these? I think so. Above all, however, the different base shapes would also have to be eliminated, as these further increase the confusion surrounding the cases. A jacket bullet could be designed for 9.3, thereby satisfying the wishes of many hunters, but the different jacket lengths should not be adopted under any circumstances, as they have no greater value than to make the sample charts rather extensive. For drillings, the 9.3 caliber could be used universally, as is already predominantly the case.

These are the points that I have in mind as a means of alleviating caliber concerns. No expert on the relevant circumstances will dispute that there is scope for action here in the public interest. I therefore call on the competent authorities to take up this painful issue, as they will thereby benefit themselves and the hunting community. However, I am primarily addressing my request for remedial action to the major arms manufacturers.

Good hunting!

Indeed, four cartridges were the first to undergo "normalization" ;-) (namely 8,15x46R, 10,75x68, 9,3x72R, 8x57). But several others seem to have followed suit. I have seen listings in the IAA forum.

Again, a 2nd Capital Effort. I was going to pull down the PDFs and attempt something similar.....



>>After a superficial compilation of the various case shapes, I count about 50 from memory. And each case has its own different bullets with varying lengths, head shapes, jacket heights (I know of 18 bullet shapes for the 8 mm jacket bullet alone) and grooves; if you add to this the infinite variety of base shapes and rim thicknesses, the changing loading conditions, the whole bombast grows into a science, no, into nonsense that must be put a stop to.<<

That's exactly how I feel w/ the 6,5X70R......


Hochachtungsvoll,

Raimey
rse

>>However, there is also another perspective, one that is unfortunately less than encouraging, namely the vast array of calibers, cases, and bullets. The battle over caliber has been raging for a long time, fought with a bitterness that would be better suited to a more worthy cause, and with what result? The discussion of the caliber question consumes ink, paper, and entire barrels of printer's ink. But that's not all; it keeps producing new excesses. That is the curse of evil deeds, that they must continually give birth to more evil; a clever manufacturer smiles at the interest in the subject, and before the latest caliber numbers have been digested, a new child grows up overnight and adds to the chaos of cases and bullets.<<

And this is the exact conundrum where we find ourselves today in trying revive & feed these relics from a bygone era being the halcyon days of hunting....

Hochachtungsvoll,

Raimey
rse

».....But everyone wants to be the best, every image of God is exalted above all else from the outset, failures are blamed on trivialities; in the case of hunters, on the weapon, possibly on the “deceptive” gunsmith. There are so many things in life that one may think but not say, because one exposes oneself to attack. And with understandable caution, which one might also call business prudence, discerning manufacturers proceed; they first put out their feelers to see what the weather is like. Unfortunately, business is everything today. But when companies unanimously join forces and want to bring about change in rifle calibers, they deserve great credit and the unreserved recognition of all hunters who feel free of inhibitions. If it was not easy to create this chaos of cartridges, it seems even more difficult to clean up this mess....«

Seems to most accurately describe Franz Sodia's business modell....


Hochachtungsvoll,

Raimey
rse

Different people are different. He seems to be a devout hunter only and the gun is the tool that allows hunting. To the devout gun man, the hunt is the reason to acquire another rifle. It is fun for some and not for others. I had a friend that between himself and his wife (who also hunted) had 5 different 30-06s (only) and couldn't tell you what bullet weight any of them were sighted for and thought the collimating the stores did was "sighting in". He was happy, I couldn't have been. We had different points of view but who am I to say he was wrong? And who was he to say I was wrong?
Mike

I wouldn't choose sides, nor really comment whether »Right or Wrong, My Country«. But what we are talking about is a valuable snapshot in time, one hundred & twenty five years ago. The issues then are still prevalent today because we are trying to press into service the same smokepoles they were using then. The didn't have Walmart then and Walmart is not at all a factor today. So, let's examine the specifics, possibly in a region by region effort?

Hochachtungsvoll,

Raimey
rse