Keeping in mind our design context, when we apply our criteria of rifle functions to cartridges selection the selection becomes much more simple. Just as we design a rifle with an eye towards aesthetics, shootability, ergonomics, historical context, longevity, reparability, reliability, and balance, so we should select a cartridge.

How can aesthetics, ergonomics and reparability have implications on cartridge selection? Take aesthetics as an example. Designs that appear to be imbalanced and awkward probably are. The current trend towards short, fat cases with minimal body taper and sharp shoulders are, while good on the target range, inherently imbalanced. Neglected are such ergonomic considerations as ease of loading into a staggered magazine column; reliability issues such as ease and consistency in feeding; the effects the necessary alterations have on the rifles action and function; and wide-spread and future availability of ammunition. Not to be forgotten is the fact that the enhanced ballistics are unnecessary within the design context we set. In short, the current, market-driven cartridge designs answer a question we don’t ask.

This opens to door to consider a wonderful host of quality, proven cartridges rich in sporting lore and tradition. The availability of premium bullets only improves on what are mild, well-balanced designs, extremely effective and well suited for our design context. Ample power, sufficient trajectories, proven records and dispositions that encourage quality practice define this group of cartridges. Compared to their magnum counterparts they are easy and inexpensive to shoot, with ammunition available both around the world and well into the future.