I believe I've read a few mentions of how it's preferrable to make the neck long enough so as to not have the bullet seated into the powder.
If your limiting factor is COL, then seems to me that having a longer neck really means having less powder space, for all weights of bullets, whereas is if you bring the shoulder up, the lighter bullets have more powder room, and the heavier bullets take up room that wouldn't have been there anyway.
This regarding the 300WM and 338WM, for example.
Let me know if my question is unclear, I'll find COTW, where he mentions this very thing.
-I've seen it elsewhere as well.

Taylor

Your point seems reasonable to me!! Providing you have a practical limitation on how long you can make the cartridge.

[ 04-24-2003, 18:15: Message edited by: eldeguello ]

I've always thought that the case neck should be determined by the bullet weight range & chamber throating that you want to use. The case neck should be long enough to seat each bullet design up against the lands with at least a caliber worth of engagment between the bullet and the case neck. So a short varmint bullet would seat at the end of the neck, and a slowly tapering design (Swift A-frame) would be pushed to the bottom of the neck. How much of the bullet sticks past the neck into the case or how much of the neck is used for powder doesn't really matter to me. I know some people think that there is something to be gained in powder burning efficiency by having the bullet end at the exact bottom of the neck, but I don't think it matters. The primer going off is going to start pushing the bullet out of the case, so the bullet won't be even with the case neck when most of the powder is actually burning anyway.
Only exception would be for cast bullets only, where the neck should be long enough to cover all of the lube grooves in the longest bullet you plan on using.

Given the same Overall Length, bringing the shoulder up will give you more powder space and brass area with either bullet. With heavier/longer bullets it is very likely and common that the bullet base will extend past the neck and into the case. As for seating depth there are some rules of thumb that others have mentioned, but those are not gospel. To an extent this is witches brew and you just have to experiment.

Deke.

Not always so...for instance the 300 Win, the 284 and some of the new short magnums are even worse and a few other rounds have very short necks. these work fine with bullets up to a certain weight then the longer heavier bullets and the long monolithics will have to be seated so deep to work in the available magazines that they intrude greatly into the powder space of the cartridge...Not a fault of the cartridge but the actions they are used in...

If one used an o6 length action for the 284 and cut a long throat to match the magazine then the problem would no longer exist, but if your going to do that then why not chamber that long action to a 280 or a 7 mag...

Same with a 300 Win, if you use a Magnum action and seated the 200 and 220 gr bullets to the base of the shoulder, it would be a barn burner, but then you just as well chamber it for a 300 H&H or 300 Wby...

But all this defeats the whole reason for short necked compact cartridges as they are ment for lever actions (re: 284) or shorter actions (re: 300 win.) so as to have more compact rifles I suppose...they all have a place but you must choose your options...

The 284 was a fine round, one of the best, but some hi power gun scribes ruined it before it got off its feet with BS about chambering it in long actions to get the full benifit of its capacity and they did the shooting public a grave injustice with their ignorance...It was and is the ultimate lever action rifle caliber and it made a neat carbine/Manlicher bolt gun...What a shame we lost such a fine caliber.

Ray, I think the 300 Win Mag is the perfect example. [...] O.k. Here's Frank Barnes from CotW, 9th ed.
"The newer 300 Winchester Magnum has a slightly longer body (by about 0.12 inch) and a shorter neck than its predecessors. This neck is considered a poor feature, as it means the heavy bullets have to project into the powder space quite a bit. [...]"
So, I ask, is there some benefit to setting this shoulder back, just so the powder has no chance of getting in the way of where a bullet might be?
Nah, Seems to me, if you have your COL, then make the neck long enough to hold the bullet, and no longer.
How long is that? Don't know. The 300 WM has .264" or so, and that seems a bit short to me, but not at all because of "powder space."
Besides, "witch's brew." Maybe 5/6 caliber IS long enough. Hopefully we're not abusing the things on their way into the magazine anyway, and with proper feeding, there shouldn't really be any torque to speak of on the sides of the bullet.

Whole reason I ask is regarding maximum "improvement" from a parent case.
Most calibers shoot a range of weights, and the case should be set up around the "most likely" bullet weight, but hopefully leave plent of options. If you can get another 75 ft/sec out of a lighter bullet w/o affecting the heavier bullets, why not?

Bwana B,

A .308 caliber should have a .308 neck and so fourth in my opinnion, longer rather than shorter if you intend on shooting heavy bullets or two demensional bullets....

However, for practical purposes I doubt if it is all that critical...The 300 Win. has faired well anyway you cut it and it certainly has too short a neck, theroretically.