Re: Caliber Choices - Comparison and Applications
When it comes to choosing a caliber, one area that I would also recommend factoring-in are overall procurement costs. Believe it or not, higher costs might actually translate to lower accuracy. I can hear many of you protesting already, but I ask that you follow me on this one.
We’ve all seen the posts of those who are new to SH asking, “What’s the best <blank>?” I apologize for giving the generic business consultant’s answer but, “It depends.” One of the biggest unnamed factors is budget. I think many beginner and intermediate shooters can suffer from “sticker shock” when contemplating the possible initial costs associated with the long gun – reloading press, dies, tools, barreled action, scope, bipod, stock, brass, powder, projectiles, primers, cases, and various “gotta have’s”. Consequently, they may skimp on the two most important elements of shooting – proper training and instruction.
Some of the discussions that I have seen on the Hide centered solely on the cost of ammo. It is easy to understand why we focus on this so readily – go to MWUSA, look-up a price, average the cost, order, receive, load, and shoot. In reality though, many of us might spend more on our platform (rifle, optics, bipod) than we would on ammunition. To elaborate, it’s not just the initial cost of the gear, but also for any after-market products, machining, or modifications that are performed. When factoring all of the costs associated with building a great rifle, the cost of shooting isn’t just about the cost of the projectile or the powder; one must consider the entire cost of acquiring and operating the platform. In other words for a single rifle’s lifetime - it’s not just the cost of the bullet, it’s the cost of squeezing the trigger.
One keen member posted a message in this thread about burnt throats versus flatter trajectories. Several other astute members have pointed-out the inverse relationship between barrel life and velocity. I think we all know at a fundamental level that all of those burnt throats and barrels translate to greater costs (new barreled actions, machining, and shipping), more down-time, less ammo, and (most importantly) less trigger time.
I know all of us are dedicated shooters and willing to bear the financial costs associated with our chosen passion, but I’m sure I speak for the vast majority of the members when I say that we are on limited budgets. Consequently, every dollar spent on, for example, calibrated seating dies is a dollar that can’t be spent on, say, an AI 2.0 chassis. For that matter, budget affects our ability to purchase 338 Lapua Magnum brass (if it’s even available!) at $1.60 as compared to 308 brass at $0.91 (43% less than 338).
Ultimately, I hope to show that taking a “globally optimized” view (looking at all pertinent costs) versus “locally optimized” (only considering the cost of the ammo) might benefit the end-user. I am not advocated 308 outright in this string but as an example, 308 and the Remington 700 have excellent depth and breadth of market and after-market products and services. For this discussion I’m defining breadth as the wider range of products and services that one might find for one particular caliber or model versus another. For example, a machining service that is readily available for 700’s might not be available at all (or at least considerably more expensive) for another caliber and model.
As for depth, I define that as the range of prices, quality, and variations of products and services that one might find in a particular product line. An example might be bottom metal. Finding a range of quality bottom metal suppliers and great gunsmiths at competitive prices for the 700 is very easy. In economic terms, one could call this an “elastic market”; where prices respond quickly to supply and demand. The depth of supply and vendors tends to drive down cost while increasing quality.
On the other side of the supply / demand equation, vendors see the 700 as a ready market, thus their motivation to enter or even expand their current line of goods and services. Ultimately, 308 continues to be so popular because, well, it’s so popular. Conversely, just because there might be several shooters who own a relatively uncommon caliber doesn’t directly translate to a comparable number of vendors to service that caliber.
By going with 308 and a Remington 700 (or any other very common caliber and model) instead of something more exotic and esoteric, it allows the owner the ability to “scale-up” the level of involvement and financial commitment over time versus plunking-down a massive amount of cash for gear at the outset. One can start with an out-of-the-box rifle and ease into the rest of the gear and machining (if desired) over several months or even years. In fact, this is exactly what I have been doing ever since procuring my long gun.
One of my best friends, who is an avid SH participant, has been guiding me through the process of upgrading. My good friend has promised to stop spending net money on his long guns. He has challenged himself to use current rifles and gear to finance future purchases. In short, he must sell a rifle to get a rifle (or other gear). Because of this eye on price (cost), he is driven to consolidate his collection and search-out the best gunsmiths and equipment possible while still retaining the important budget for range time. Consequently, I am able to coat-tail his work. Due to the fact that I use a 700 in 308 (SA), it is very easy for him to make recommendations for products and vendors who offer competitive prices, thus helping me to achieve the hot-sh*t rifle that I am looking for. In the mean time, I can garner more trigger time due to the fact that I haven’t made a massive purchase on the frontend. The good Lord knows I need it.
Few of us want to admit it, but costs matter. It’s not just the cost of the gear; it’s a cost to our ability to send projectiles down range. When we look at the three critical elements that comprise a single shot, they are 1) the platform, 2) the ammo, and 3) the trigger nut actuator. I think we can all agree on the weakest link in that chain – the shooter. High / lower cost translates to less / more practice time. Sure, one can own a rifle that shoots ¼ MOA at 1000 yards with tuned reloads. But, does the shooter have the trigger time and resulting ability to estimate range and read the wind in order to match his “hot sh*t” rifle? Another way to look at it - there is no doubt that the 308 is simply incapable of approaching the near-mythical precision of the 6PPC. Yet what beginner or intermediate shooter would be able to purchase such an amazing platform, reload the ammo, and garner enough range time to equal the capabilities of this caliber?
Additionally, shooting is a highly perishable skill. Anything that impinges our consistent practice (i.e. high costs) is a detriment to accuracy and precision. Put a great rifle in a safe, wait 20 years and it will still be a great rifle. I’m sure we can all agree that putting our training on-hold for 20 years would not result in equally great performance.
As an analogy, when I teach others how to shoot handguns, I **always** start them on the 22 cal. It helps the student to avoid flinch, thus helping me to diagnose what they’re doing incorrectly. Ultimately, this encourages the user to do the one thing that we all need to do – sling a lot of lead correctly. The low cost (about 2 cents / pop) means that my students are very comfortable with shooting 200 – 300 rounds in a single session. That translates to a mere $4 - $6 per session. Compare this to the cost of shooting 45 caliber and that is only 10 – 15 rounds, which translates to about 1/20th the practice. Additionally, due to the low cost of shooting, we will have addressed “9-out-of-10” of the shooting fundamentals. Then, we can work on the final fundamental – dealing with flinch. Using this methodology, I have seen tremendous improvements in accuracy, consistency, and all-around performance from my students. Lowering the cost of operation has actually increased their overall accuracy and shooting skill, especially with the bigger calibers. Increasing the per-shot price would have actually been detrimental to their training. Costs matter.
In the spirit of this thread, as a suggestion, it might be useful to post prices associated with the myriad products and services associated with each caliber, especially some of the lesser known calibers. This might help relatively inexperienced shooters to get a better grasp of how involved it might be to break into the field. Having a better idea of the initial costs will help the shooter make an informed decision before plunking-down good money. My hope is that lowering the costs (and barriers) will actually raise the quality of the shooter, typically the weakest link in the chain.
I realize that this post is more qualitative than quantitative, but I’m hoping that a slightly broader view of costs (versus “price”) might help guide the question of “What caliber?” I don’t think that I’m stating anything in this post that anyone else has not thought about already. But, I do think that I’m bringing to the forefront how this single factor affects the final answer to the perennial questions “What caliber?” and “How accurate?”