Forums.NitroExpress.com

Marrakai – Frustrating isn’t it? You remember reading something, somewhere? Or somebody told you something, but who? When? Where?

Then some nitpicker takes you to task for repeating it and demand’s to see documented evidence, and you just can’t remember who/where/when, and if you do down the track, the moment is lost!

Well, this is just the Internet remember, you’re not submitting an article on cutting-edge medical research to ‘Lancet’, or some such, so don’t take things so much to heart. There is room here for some divergence of opinion!

Anyway, just as I thought we had set course for an explanation of the ORIGINAL use of the word ‘Magnum’, you change tack and introduce Burrard’s 1953 definition!

Actually, in earlier editions of his book, Burrard subscribed to older notions of cartridge terminology, but as he notes in the 1953 edition, had to ‘recast’ them to reflect the fact that Black Powder was by then obsolete.

Must correct you on one small point though! Burrard agonised over what ‘Class’ the .303 British should be included in, and hedged his bets by deciding to make an exception to his principle of treating a ‘rifle’ as a ‘magnum’ so long as it could fire one bullet with a M.V. of 2500 f.p.s and over, and decided to include the 150 gr. load in his “Magnum Small Bore” grouping because it falls into his M.V. minimum, and puts the heavier bullet weight versions (174 to 215 gr.) into his non-magnum “Small Bore” class!

This makes a mockery of the notion of making M.V. the sole determinant of what is a ‘Magnum’!

In the modern context, I tend to go along (to some extent) with ‘unspellable’ in his original post. I reckon the term should be applied to ‘bigger’ (read ‘magnumer’ sic.) versions of something that preceded it; an ‘improved’ version if you will.

Whether that applies to case length/powder capacity/powder efficiency/velocity/bullet weight/neck length/body taper/head size or some combination of two or more of these can be left to the imagination of the inventor or his Marketing Department.

That would make cartridges such as your two old ‘blackies’ legitimate magnums, as well as rounds like .303 Magnum, .350 Rigby Magnum, .256 Gibbs Magnum, .375 Flanged Magnum, etc; even .222 Remington Magnum!

I don’t really hold a candle for Winchesters’ .458, but I guess it would please you to know that it doesn’t qualify as a ‘magnum’ on this basis anyway.

Maybe, that title should have been reserved for Jack Lott’s masterpiece?

There I go again! Just realised I’ve upset you again! It’s a effing straight case!

Post Extras