grobin said:
...
I've never fire formed 338-06 ackley. When I was young and foolish I did fire form cases. You need to inspect the case carefully, make sure it is good. Be aware you will need to trim the case to length and then turn it as the mouth will thicken. With the advent of modern cartridges I don't see the need for wild cat cartridges.
Fire-forming cases is not at all dangerous if you pay attention to the basics. I fire-form 6.5-06AI using full power 6.5-06 load data from Hodgdon and .25-06 cases. No need to turn the case mouths as the brass thins, not thickens when going from 25 caliber to 6.5mm. Trimming is something I do to all my cases anyway. Pressures are mild and there is a 5% velocity loss compared to the published 6.5-06 data.
There hasn't been much "need" for new cartridges for decades. The latest rage, the 6.5 Creedmoor, is really nothing new - the 6.5x55 was introduced in 1891, 127 years ago. The .30-06 was introduced 112 years ago, but was a direct descendant of the .30-03. In the '50's and '60's we got the .308 (a descendent of the .300 Savage from 1920), the 5.56 (a child of the .223 Remington, the parent of which was the .222 Remington), and the 7mm RM and .300WM (both descendents of the .375 H&H. If you can't get the job done in NA with one of those, you are incompetent.
That said, wildcats are the poor man's way of inventing new cartridges to fill a specific need. My 6.5-06AI is a perfect example. Starting with a naked action, I wanted a rifle that would shoot to 1200 yards while remaining supersonic, with minimal recoil, using bullets in the 130g to 140g weight range. A standard 6.5-06 might have done that but properly head-stamped brass was $2 per case. Going to the AI version and necking up .25-06 brass solved a variety of problems. First, the fire-formed brass would no longer fit in a standard .25-06 chamber, eliminating the possibility that someone (daughter, grandchild, son-in-law?) might mistakenly try to use it in a .25-06 at some future date. Second, it met the 1200 yard supersonic range goal with lower pressures than would be possible with a standard 6.5-06 case (if such a case would even get there). Finally, using a non-magnum case meant no changes to the action's bolt face or the magazine feed lips or follower. Simple.
These days one might ask why not go with the new 6.5 PRC, which would be a great option for some, but fails to match the bolt face of the naked action I started with. In any case, the 6.5-06AI is faster than the 6.5 PRC, which is nothing more than a commercial version of yet another wildcat - the 6.5-300 RCM. In fact, many or even most of the cartridges popular today were originally developed as wildcats or commercially developed using existing cartridge cases.
When I look in my safe I see a lot of firearms chambered for cartridges developed from other cartridges:
.223 Rem (.222 Rem)
5.56 Nato (.223 Rem)
.22-250 (250-3000 Savage)
.243 Win (.308 Win)
.257 Roberts (7x57)
6.5-06AI (.30-06 via .30-03)
.280 Rem (.30-06 via .30-03)
7mm RM (375 H&H)
.300 Blackout (.300 Whisper via .221 Fireball via .222 Rem)
.308 Win (.300 Savage)
.30-06 (.30-03)
.300 WM (.375 H&H)
.338 WM (.375 H&H)
.375 Win (.30-30 WCF)
In fact, the only centerfire rifles I have which might have used original case designs are a .30-30 and .45-70.
While I will grant that the need for wildcats has been greatly diminished over the last 100 years, there are still reasons to keep developing new cartridges for the future. Few will survive to become popular but those that do will do so because they fill a need. Unless new, original cases are developed, all new developments are essentially wildcats, whether privately or commercially developed.