RUM's WSSM's etc.

New round craze has slowed seemingly while new cheap black rifle craze is in full swing.

Even in black rifles, we see a trend in "new" cartridge development, generally somewhere around the .276 caliber that John Garand proposed a century ago.
It's the marketeers profession to instill dissatisfaction in what we have, to sell us something new........and Improved. Often the "improvement" has trade offs; nettlesome action feeding, abbreviated barrel life, limited ammo and component availability, tailored to a proprietary powder (not available to handloaders), ect. More often, the real world field performance advantage is mostly in the head of the beholder............er buyer.

It is related that when the ship was in deep but not obvious distress the captain could not persuade the passengers to man the life boats, so he resulted to cultural remedy. To the Germans he said, "It is an order." To the English he said, "It is a game." To the French he said, "It is sinful." To the Italians he said, "It is forbidden." And to the Americans he said, "It is new."
--Jeff Cooper

The RUM has been around 15 years the WSSM family started 12 years ago. A teenager would call them "Old School". Then tell you that the 300 Blackout is "where it's at" despite the fact that the 300 fireball, .221-300 and 300 whisper are pretty much the same thing and all older.

Sales are what takes rounds from "boutique" status and give them longevity, then again I bet more money has been made over the last decades on the creation of new rounds despite weather they are better or not.

I bet if you chambered a handy rifle in 30-30 with a wood stock then put another one beside it with rails and black stock and said it was chambered in 30 velociraptor but happened to also chamber 30-30 rounds the latter would move off the shelves faster.

All of 'em are pretty much the answers to unasked questions. The manufacturers have to keep bringing out "new" stuff or risk losing market share. At least that's what the assorted marketing types think.
"...John Garand proposed..." Pedersen. JC's first rifles were .30-06's.

When you get right down to it the 7X57 that was developed in 1892 (3 years before the 30-30) we haven't really improved much on cartridges. The 30-30 was a step backwards and 30-06 wasn't all that much better.

But at the same time I have no problem with trying new stuff. Not all of it works, but if we hadn't tried new stuff we'd still be hunting with spears and using wind to move battleships.

The development of better powder and bullets is what is changing shooting. Those advancements work just as well in older cases.

New cartridges are fine with me if they add a new capability -- the 300 WSM gave us magnum performance in a short action, the 6.8 SPC provides enough energy to reliably kill deer at 300 yards using a standard AR platform, the 375 Ruger beats the H&H without requiring a magnum length action, and the 5.7x28 allows support troops to carry 50 rounds of armor piercing ammo in a rifle that's under six pounds. Some new calibers (e.g. 30 TC) do seem to be an answer to a question no one asked, but he market is unkind to such cartridges.

It all makes my head spin.

the 300 WSM gave us magnum performance in a short action

Click to expand...

Nope, the .308 Norma Magnum did in 1960. 41 Years before the WSM came out. That's the problem with all these new cartridges. There really isn't anything new under the sun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.308_Norma_Magnum

Except that the Norma round isn't a short action cartridge, I agree with you.

Go Big Red.

Except that the Norma round isn't a short action cartridge, I agree with you.

Click to expand...

Duh, I was thinking shorter than magnum length.

It might have something to do with how little fun it is to shoot them for many (recoil and price combine to create a flinch you can't afford to practice away )

"All of 'em are pretty much the answers to unasked questions."
Hardly, they were highly desirable back in the day. The days before the end of the AWB, when semiautos were not common, magazines over 5 rounds even less so, and the only way to turn that situation into entertainment was long range sillhouette shooting. Everyone, from pistols to rifles, was seeking the most power per shot.

TCB

The .300 Winchester Short Magnum will kill a deer up to 50% deader than the obviously underpowered 30-06.

The .300 Remington Ultra Magnum will kill that same deer over TWICE as dead as the measly '06.

This is known as "progress"...

"The .300 Winchester Short Magnum will kill a deer up to 50% deader than the obviously underpowered 30-06."

To be fair to the short/super-short magnums; the intent was to create a shorter, more accurate action. The benefits were supposedly a stiffer receiver(accuracy) and stubbier powder column in the case (efficiency/accuracy). The rounds did deliver in these regards, but some issues with feeding occurred along with the limitations imposed by bolt thrust (i.e. no free lunch in engineering) which cooled the appeal quite a bit. That and the WSSM's especially just aren't very attractive cartridges.

And then, like I said, 2004 arrived and ushered in a decade(s?) long era of Black Rifle Mania, and the market largely diverged from benchrest/hunting type pursuits.

TCB

I look at it the opposite way. Being a 270 WSM devotee, I can't understand why so many new shooters choose the 270 Win, when what it offers is slower speed, less energy, and all that in a longer heavier rifle, that cycles slower, and kicks just as much.

Swampman said:

The .300 Winchester Short Magnum will kill a deer up to 50% deader than the obviously underpowered 30-06.

The .300 Remington Ultra Magnum will kill that same deer over TWICE as dead as the measly '06.

This is known as "progress"...

Click to expand...

In terms of energy, the difference between the 300 WSM and 30-06 is about the same as the difference between the 30-06 and 30-30. A 30-06 and 300 WSM both kill deer just fine, but the 300 WSM will get there faster, with less drop and drift, and will hit harder when it arrives. All while fitting in a rifle that is half an inch shorter and a quarter pound less. I don't think those numbers would cause me to sell my 30-06 for a 300 WSM, but if I were buying new I might choose the 300 WSM.

I have an AR in .358 WSSM. My deer rifle (fits Indiana regs)

If I had a bunch of extra money I'd consider an AR in the WSSM necked to 6.5. That would be a most excellent long range round. Be plenty for deer/elk/etc.

Good Morning All,

One thing to remember. All the commercially failed or failing cartridges work very well. While I agree the performance gains are over-hyped note that they don't have performance deficits. The commercial problems combined with good performance gives people, particularly handloaders, an opportunity to pick up high quality stuff at a good price.

I've got a rifle in 30TC. I got a really good deal on it. With my accuracy tested and chronographed handloads I get performance identical to the published specs for 308 Win. That a nice neighborhood to live in when you can buy in cheap. (I've got enough brass to last my lifetime at the current rate of consumption.)

One man's trash is another man's treasure!

Dan

Interesting discussion on a topic that has always fascinated me. The problem in my mind with getting new rounds to stick is, as pointed out by the last two posters, the perfromance gained by the new cartridge does not make a deer any more dead. My dad has a 300 RUM because he wants to push the limits of the .30 cal and does so pretty well. My cousins we hunt with all have .270 and at the end if the day we are all cleaning dead deer. The vast majority of gun buyers are like my cousins who wouldn't give a new gun a second thought just because someone found a way to get the same bullet to the deer 200fps faster.

The .300 Winchester Short Magnum will kill a deer up to 50% deader than the obviously underpowered 30-06.

The .300 Remington Ultra Magnum will kill that same deer over TWICE as dead as the measly '06.

This is known as "progress"...

Click to expand...

+1
And it ignores the number of rounds a person needs to put downrange (not from the bench) to be able to connect at these ranges responsibly.
As someone who has worked dozens of "hunter sight in" days at ranges, I can tell you that most "hunters" have no business shooting at big game at those ranges.

Originally posted by: barnbwt
To be fair to the short/super-short magnums; the intent was to create a shorter, more accurate action.

Click to expand...

That may be the STATED intent, the ACTUAL intent was to sell them and make money.
You don't see many nonprofit and charity organizations involved in the retail arms trade.

There's nothing wrong with making money, it's called capitalism and it's been the driving force behind many of the innovations that have made our modern world possible.

The problem lies in the way these new calibers are marketed. They generally claim to increase both range and killing power. Unfortunately these are things that no cartridge can deliver in and of itself.

Being able to shoot well at long range generally comes from shooting a lot at long range and learning to estimate range and dope wind under field conditions.

The vast majority of "killing power" comes from WHERE an animal is hit, NOT what it was hit WITH!

Most hunters are not handloaders and the ammunition prices on many of these newer cartridges are high enough to discourage folks from getting a reasonable amount of practice and familiarization shooting. The lack of practice, combined with increased recoil and muzzle blast, PLUS unrealistic expectations by the hunter, can combine to actually make these new "super" rounds less effective than their older, tamer forbears.

I'm not claiming that the newer rounds don't have advantages for people that will actually take the time, effort and expense to use them properly. My beef is that these newer rounds are sold as being a way to simply buy an increase in maximum range for the average hunter.

It ain't that simple.

The WSSM rounds fit in an AR15. That's an advantage. I get .25-06 power in an AR.

All these rounds run into the huge gap in utility for high power small bore cartridges. The fact of the matter is that once you get to about 7mm-08 or .308, you've got the ability to take all North American game up through elk and moose at longer ranges than it's ethical to shoot. There is NOTHING you can do to a small bore bullet in terms of driving it faster to change that. No amount of case capacity will let you hunt any bigger animals, or reach out any further.

Now eventually you get into medium and large bore calibers that are suitable for bison, the great bears, and things on other continents. But very few gun owners in the US market go on hunts for those animals and very few own suitable guns. Instead it's just more variations on the .30 magnums that offer nothing new.

Contrary to what many manufacturers and gun writers say, bullet performance IS a function of physics. A given amount of a certain powder behind a specific bullet will give pretty much the same performance every time.

You can twist, reshape, or rename the case itself into something different, but physics gets you every time

An increase of 25% in powder capacity gives about a 10% increase in velocity. The extra energy goes into heat that burns your barrel faster and more muzzle blast.

Marketing hype said that WSSM's get extra velocity due to a more efficient shape. Horsepuckey. WSSM's operate at higher pressure, which gives the velocity. Darn 'ole physics again.

Marketing hype said that WSSM's get extra velocity due to a more efficient shape. Horsepuckey.

Click to expand...

Not horsepuckey, fact. And the principle has been around for years. For one thing no one ever claimed the WSM's or WSSM's got more speed than conventional magnums, just that they came close, with less recoil and better accuracy.

The 308 was developed to use a shorter case, burning much less powder, with reduced recoil, yet at the time it was developed it delivered exactly the same speed as conventional 30-06 loads. The best modern 30-06 loads will always beat the best 308 loads. But if you compare the best loads of each, 308 burns about 20% less powder, gives about 97% of 30-06 speeds with about 20% less recoil and slightly better accuracy. This is due to a more efficient powder burn.

The 300 WSM compared to 300 WM does exactly the same. You get 98% of 300 mag speed, with about 20% less powder and 15-20% less recoil. It has also proven to be more accurate.

This gives hunters a couple of big advantages. You can carry an equal weight 308 or 300 WSM and have reduced recoil compared to 30-06 or 300 WM. Or you can choose to use a rifle about 1/2-3/4 lb lighter, with about the same recoil as a conventional weight rifle in the long actions.

On game no one will ever notice the 2-3% reduction in bullet speed, but too many people have used 308 to dispute the recoil reduction and improved accuracy. The 300 WSM is new enough that not as many have actually tried it side by side with 30-06 and 300 WM. I have, the round works as advertised.

I've been a 40+ year 30-06 guy, but switched to 308 several years ago for all of the above reasons. I was a serious doubter in 300 WSM, but ran across one cheap enough that I could flip at a profit. But after shooting it for a while won't ever go back to 30-06.

My 300WSM is the same size and weight as my 308, but beats 30-06 speeds by about 300 fps. Recoil is exactly 1/2 way between 30-06 and 300 WM. Realistically about the same as hotter 30-06 loads from lighter rifles.

The real question is, is it needed? I'll be the 1st to admit, my 308 will probably do anything I ever need to do. But just as the 308 family of cartridges are more efficient, so are the WSM family of cartridges.