Great new cutting edge idea from Ruger...

The deers are onto this trend too. My son shot one with a regular 270 last year and right before it went down, it gave us a look like it was totally embarrassed to have been done in by such a "vanilla" round.

Click to expand...

I going to plug one with my Savage 99 in 300 Sav. this year,let him die with a little dignity.

Its just marketing.

"Hey, look at what's new!"

I'm already equipped, so it doesn't interest me.
But somebody will want it.

After all, there is only so much one can say about a 30-06.
For me, when it comes to big game, its all that needs to be said.

I wonder how many generations my Browning will last?



100 YARDS

It's pretty much the same response here as the old-timers had to that "new-fangled" smokeless powder.

Why is it wrong to attempt to capitalize on the advances in powder and materials?

Listen to yourselves. Tell me, what is the advantage in killing power between a .30-06, or a .308, or a .54 Cal. Black powder gun at the average 75 yard shot on a 100-150 pound deer? Why should we use the more modern guns, then? After all, if you actually do your part, one shot is all that's necessary.

The number of people in the United States who actually need anything larger than a .30-30 to bag their deer, year after year, is less than 25% of the total. Those who need something else could be well served with the .30-06. There you have it, we only need two calibers for the 90%+ that hunters use. The rest could use the .375 H&H in America, and the .404 Jeffries in Africa. With only four centerfire cartridges, the poor shop owners would have their load lightened tremendously. The same winnowing could give us no more than 8-10 rifle cartridges, total, and no more than five pistol cartridges. "Interchangability", whatever that was supposed to mean, would be enhanced.

Carry that over a little further. Why aren't automakers using the same engines and transmissions across the board? Let's standardize. Thing how much easier it would make it for shops.

Face it, with the amount of ammunition expended per year by the average hunter, he won't use a box of whatever cartridge he chooses in a year. The guns will last for generations, creating a small, but viable market.

This IS America. You have choices, and you take your pick. Why always carp about the number of choices? Short of 200+ yard shots at their animal, why would anyone actually use anything as powerful as a .270 on a deer, anyway? (kidding)

Who knows, maybe the use of these new powders will spread to the older cartridges, making them more powerful.

After reading this:
http://www.hornady.com/ballistics/internal.php

I'm thinking what we really need is a return to rimmed cases, since it sounds like they don't stretch as much and therefore can presumably be loaded more times, with more safety and less trimming. Oh, I fully understand why the rimless design is needed for autoloaders, but for bolts with 4-shot magazines, and for levers, the rimmed case sounds better.

.300 Weatherby Mag. Tried and true!

It's pretty much the same response here as the old-timers had to that "new-fangled" smokeless powder.

Click to expand...

True, but the smokeless powder brought advantages that would enable it to largely replace black powder going forward. The RCMs don't seem to offer such a leap.

Why is it wrong to attempt to capitalize on the advances in powder and materials?

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with that at all. Nor is there anything wrong with capitalizing in the cartridges we have now, which would in turn capitalize on all the associated firearms, ammunition manufacturing machinery, etc. that exists now.

Listen to yourselves. Tell me, what is the advantage in killing power between a .30-06, or a .308, or a .54 Cal. Black powder gun at the average 75 yard shot on a 100-150 pound deer? Why should we use the more modern guns, then? After all, if you actually do your part, one shot is all that's necessary.

The number of people in the United States who actually need anything larger than a .30-30 to bag their deer, year after year, is less than 25% of the total. Those who need something else could be well served with the .30-06. There you have it, we only need two calibers for the 90%+ that hunters use. The rest could use the .375 H&H in America, and the .404 Jeffries in Africa. With only four centerfire cartridges, the poor shop owners would have their load lightened tremendously. The same winnowing could give us no more than 8-10 rifle cartridges, total, and no more than five pistol cartridges. "Interchangability", whatever that was supposed to mean, would be enhanced.

Click to expand...

Valid point, but it largely supports the position of the other posters, not yours.

Carry that over a little further. Why aren't automakers using the same engines and transmissions across the board? Let's standardize. Thing how much easier it would make it for shops.

Click to expand...

Not quite the same thing. Ammunition is a consumable. In the automakers world, they have standardized on consumables like gas, oil, brake fluid, etc. Neither automakers or firearms manufacturers have standardized on the actual products, though great similarities exist between some products. Performance increases in the automotive world have also far outpaced any performance increases in the firearms world. Who could have imagined thirty years ago that you could buy right off the showroom floor a 550HP Cadillac sedan with computers to enhance stability, a small television screen in the dash that uses satellites to tell you where you are and where to go, that gets 20+ mpg going down the highway with 1/10th the emissions of 70's vintage cars?

Face it, with the amount of ammunition expended per year by the average hunter, he won't use a box of whatever cartridge he chooses in a year. The guns will last for generations, creating a small, but viable market.

Click to expand...

The fewer cartridges used, the less viable the market. Many cartridges have gone away for the simple reason that ammunition manufacturers weren't selling enough of them to bother. You make a good point about the longevity of guns though. I would venture a guess that if firearms were only good for, say, 200 rounds, older cartridges like the 30-06 and 30-30 might have gone away by now. After all, why replace your 30-06 with another 30-06, when you can get the new 30-06 Compact Magnum (or whatever) that gives you X% more velocity with Y% less powder and Z% less recoil?

This IS America. You have choices, and you take your pick. Why always carp about the number of choices?

Click to expand...

I'm with you here. If someone wants to take the risk of developing a new cartridge and bring it to market, I say more power to them. At the same time, I will be the last person in line to buy it because I am more interested in having ammunition and components available in the future than I am in getting another 100fps or having a barrel 4" shorter. But that's just me.

Who knows, maybe the use of these new powders will spread to the older cartridges, making them more powerful.

Click to expand...

Works for me. This is being done by Hornady (and others I would imagine) but applying new technology to older cartridges. Their 30-30 Leverevolution (sp?) ammunition is a great example.

I'm right there with you MT Man - we need a legitimized, standard length, *beltless* magnum family of rounds - *IF* we need anything at all, that would be it.

The whole business has me scratching my head. The market of people who need to shave a few fractions of an angle off their hunting rifle's accuracy is not very large. The cynical side of me wonders if the companies have been pushing these short rounds in order to keep their own old rifles from competing with them. In other words, Ruger, Winchester, Rem, etc. all had to convince people why they should buy a new .30'06 when there was a hundred years of old .30'06 rifles that were just as good or better than the new ones. If you can dramatically alter the receiver and round you can avoid this competition.

But somebody will want it.

Click to expand...

I suppose *somebody* will, but I can't see how it will be worth the enormous costs involved. I have heard that USRAC's demise was caused at least in part by the money they invested in the the new rifles to capitalize on the WSM's.

Thats the problem. If everyone has a rifle that works well you need to come out with something "better" to move sales again. I know its ridiculous that there are a dozen rounds that do the exact same thing but thats what is needed to bump sales. Some people love the newest, hottest, shortest round out there. Some people are happy and will be happy with a standard 30-06. For those that are still happy with a 30-06 nothing has changed. You can still get your brand of rifle in your round. The guys who beg for something new and exciting are getting just that with all these new rounds. They may not have any real advantage and they may be less practical than only chambering a handful or cartridges but if others in the public love the hype let them have their fun and spend there money. Ill stick with the tried and true but if even one of these rounds stays and becomes tried and true then it wasn't totally in vein.

jbech123 said:

Wow a short mag, what a concept.

Click to expand...

Hehe I can really feel your enthusiasm.

True, but the smokeless powder brought advantages that would enable it to largely replace black powder going forward. The RCMs don't seem to offer such a leap.

Click to expand...

How would we know? Smokeless powder wasn't replaced in some loadings, like target grade .22 rim-fires, until the 1930s, nearly 50 years after it's introduction. The first commercial cartridge wasn't available for 10-12 years after it was introduced, as well.

Short-action magnums should be given the same amount of time to prosper.

As for the automotive example. How many 3 liter V-6 engines are standard in today's cars? By how many companies? How many five or six speed automatics by various manufacturers? They, like the rifles chambered in short mags, use proprietary cartridges, made by their manufacturer. This was one of the complaints. As for the Cadillac, we had electronic triggers available that sped up "lock-time", and were adjustable for pull weight, as well. There are laser range-finding scopes out there, as well. Stocks that absorb recoil efficiently are also available, as are premium barrels. It's the PEOPLE who are clinging to 110 year-old technology, not the factories and designers.

THAT'S my point. WE are the ones who don't believe in progress. That, the old cartridges, scopes, and rifles were good enough for our father, and great-grand-father, and that they're good enough for us, too. WE don't view any attempt to improve any part of this trifecta, unless incrementally, as appropriate.

Originially posted by JR47
THAT'S my point. WE are the ones who don't believe in progress. That, the old cartridges, scopes, and rifles were good enough for our father, and great-grand-father, and that they're good enough for us, too. WE don't view any attempt to improve any part of this trifecta, unless incrementally, as appropriate.

Click to expand...

I think that you misunderstand what many of us have said...

It's not that we don't believe in progress, it's just that this ain't it...



Forrest

How would we know?

Click to expand...

We know because the manufacturer has already stated what the RCMs will do, and others have also tested them. In a nutshell, they do the same thing as a number of other cartridges, but in slightly shorter barrels, in a shorter actions, with ammo available from only one manufacturer (so far) and in rifles available from only one manufacturer (so far).

THAT'S my point. WE are the ones who don't believe in progress. That, the old cartridges, scopes, and rifles were good enough for our father, and great-grand-father, and that they're good enough for us, too. WE don't view any attempt to improve any part of this trifecta, unless incrementally, as appropriate.

Click to expand...

I can't agree with you here. Hunters and shooters try out and adopt new stuff every day. Stop and think about all the things we have now that our fathers and grandfathers didn't have. Composite stocks are everywhere now, as are stainless steel firearms. Laser rangefinders are commonplace. Variable power scopes have been around a while, but I am pretty sure your great-grandfather didn't have one. All of the above items represent progress in one form or another. Hunters and shooters have adopted new cartridges in the same way, when they offered something truly unique or progressive. The 17HMR comes to mind.

I have to admit. Up until 5 years ago I was complaining the rifle market was EXTREMELY resistant to change. The designs of the 30's were considered the best available. There has always been a healthier than average amount of "that's what Grandpa used" in the gun world. In fact cars are a good comparison. Look at 75 year old car compared to todays cars. Now look at a 1936 Winchester Model 70. Little has changed other than the fit and finish on todays gun will pale in comparison to the old Pre 64.


Things have certainly changed recently though with all the new cartridges and even more importantly new rifles themselves. Last year we had TC ICON, Marlin, Smith & Wesson, Browning X BOLT, Ruger Hawkeye, and I'm sure I forgot a few.

We know because the manufacturer has already stated what the RCMs will do, and others have also tested them. In a nutshell, they do the same thing as a number of other cartridges, but in slightly shorter barrels, in a shorter actions, with ammo available from only one manufacturer (so far) and in rifles available from only one manufacturer (so far).

Click to expand...

Misunderstanding here. I was talking about the actual amount of time that it takes something to be accepted. The manufacturer's in France published, after the secret was out, the specs on their new powder, their new bullets, and their new rifles. It still took years to be accepted. That a proprietary cartridge, or family, is available is not something that's rare. Look at Weatherby, or Dakota, or Lazzeroni.

I can't agree with you here. Hunters and shooters try out and adopt new stuff every day. Stop and think about all the things we have now that our fathers and grandfathers didn't have. Composite stocks are everywhere now, as are stainless steel firearms. Laser rangefinders are commonplace. Variable power scopes have been around a while, but I am pretty sure your great-grandfather didn't have one. All of the above items represent progress in one form or another. Hunters and shooters have adopted new cartridges in the same way, when they offered something truly unique or progressive. The 17HMR comes to mind.

Click to expand...

Composite, and laminated stocks have been available for over 60 years, as the Germans used them, and the Russians, in WWII. Yet, it wasn't until the 1990's that they made it mainstream. Stainless steel firearms are another of those incremental steps I spoke of. They made absolutely no difference in the design of the existing weapon. Laser rangefinders are commonplace, yes, but not those combined in the scope, which is what I spoke of. Yes, my great-grand-father had variable power scopes, before WWII. That's a while ago. Yet, they really caught on only in the 1970's, and then only in 3-9 power.

Again, what you discuss has been no more than incremental steps upon existing designs. We had range-finders, while not lasers, in the 1930's. As for the .17 HMR, necking an existing case down to hold a smaller diameter bullet is a trick from the early 1900's. As for new, it's simply a rim-fire version of the existing .17 Remington, not exactly a new round, at all.

Hunters didn't flock to the 5mm Remington Rim-fire, even though it was clearly far superior to the .22 cal. rim-fires, both long-rifle and Magnum. There have been literally hundreds of calibers brought to market, not because they were different, but because they were the company's OWN. The difference between the .270, and the .280, for example. Yet, thousands of rifles were sold, and people argue today, over a difference that exists mostly in the mind of an advertising company.

All I'm saying is that these cartridges, and the companies that make them, deserve less nay-saying, and knee-jerk reaction. It's their money, not ours, that's spent to bring new calibers, and rifles to market.

From an economic stand point:

It seems like some are complaining about the market being ruined by the intro of short action magnum rifles and ammo. Please show me one instance where someone could not buy ammo or a rifle in a standard cartridge because the store had replaced it with a short action. I know of a gun shop that refused to stock WSM rifles due to the high number of returns once hunters realized that ammo is $40+ per box. Small gunshops aren't getting screwed, they make economic decisions just like gun makers and consumers do.

It also sounds like the argument is that the gun manufacturers are stupid for coming up with new cartridges. You could counter point that the criticism is not for all new cartridges, only duplicate cartridges, but the point remains the same. Should we scold ammo and rifle companies for having new ideas or trying to sell more ammo and rifles? Are the higher-ups at Ruger idiots for trying to sell us new short action rifles and cartridges, or are we idiots for buying them? Counter point being that "I personally didn't buy one" but that doesn't speak for the rest of the market. Remember that this is a free market; Ruger could come out with a cartridge that is .001" longer and sell it as a proprietary cartridge with a price tag of $12,000 if they want to, the only check/balance on this is who buys it.

You could argue that any other short mag cartridge besides the WSM line is unnecessary due to replication, and also that the WSM line is unnecessary due to failure to sufficiently outperform other cartridges in the same category, but once again, it's a free market. If you don't like it, don't buy it and eventually it will go away, assuming it is as useless as some claim it is.



Remember, no one can tell the manufacturers what they can and can't design and sell.

The confusion arises from those who feel movement in any direction is "progress."

We've already moved forward and made as much progress from the short magnum concept as we are going to make. The WSMs are already proven and accepted technology. The benefits are acknowledged as real and that particular family of cartridges is probably going to be with us a while.

Once a place in a market has been established and a winner declared, further pursuance is no longer progress. It's redundant, and its movement can be described as circular, or merely lateral at best.

Therefore, a third and fourth entry to the short magnum scene is not progress. It might be movement, but it is not movement forward.

The whole thing strikes me as a race. Winchester got off the blocks first. It might have been tight for a while, and for the time, progress was being made as the advantages of efficient case design became mainstream. However, Winchester won. They crossed the finish line. No more forward movement is being made now. This race is over. All Ruger is doing is running a circular course after the race has been finished.

NOTE TO RUGER: The winner is on the sideline drinking Gatorade and nobody is really even paying attention to that track anymore, give it up. Take a breather, stretch, save some energy for a race that hasn't already been ran...

I'm right there with you MT Man - we need a legitimized, standard length, *beltless* magnum family of rounds - *IF* we need anything at all, that would be it.

Click to expand...

"If thee shalt wildcat it, they shalt cometh."

I agree with the majority of the posts here. Sure, it's a new technology... but... at the same time, you can't compare it to the smokeless powder, Spitzer bullets, or non- corrosive primers. All of those offered something that was a giant leap in technology... something that eliminated a problem for vast amounts of marksmen. The first and third innovations made cleaning easier. The first offered an advantage in battle by eliminating the giveaway cloud of powder that was produced by firing your rifle. The second opened up a new era in ballistics and dramatically increased the performance of rifles.

The RCMs (and for the most part, magnum cartridges) don't provide this kind of leap. They offer a few hundred FPS (if that) in speed with less barrel and a shorter action. These might be good gains, but when you look at the proprietary nature of the cartridges and their expense, the practicality of the cartridges just go down the toilet for the majority of shooters. Sure, there are some riflemen that will benefit from such things (like the gentleman from Colorado), but as for the about 95% of the rest of the market, it's more of a marketing gimmick. I think Ruger wasted some serious capital in developing that cartridge, especially when they could have spent that kind of money improving their product lines (I still want a simplified .22 pistol and a more modern, less expensive Mini-14), which could be a big boon for them.

Now there is a different argument: If Ruger wasn't wasting time on a duplicate cartridge they could do something useful like fix the rifles already on the market or neck something up or down. I don't know how much of their total available resources are alloted to the RCM or whatever project, but that would be the deciding factor on weather or not they are wasting a considerable amount of time and money that could be used on something American consumers would really appreciate. Still, they are their own company and can screw themselves all they want. They can make bad decisions and go out of business if they really want to, that part isn't up to us.

In closing:

Consider Ackley, did everyone berate him for wasting time making cartridges that were marginally better than the parent case? Maybe the Ruger team thinks they can do it better, or as said before, maybe they don't want to pay the royalties.
Consider the 300 WSM, average velocities were claimed to be 30-40 faster than similar loads for a 300 win mag. They turned out to be slightly slower, but at the same time they use something like 3-8% less powder, which saves the American Reloader money in the end.
Lastly, consider that the modern computer has been implemented and the internet brought to consumers in every corner of the planet. Does that mean that marginal gains in memory capacity and processor speed really make a difference in the grand scheme of things? We already crossed the big hills and have computers that are faster than we could possibly need (most of us) so why continue the development?

I don't know if I'd call the increases in memory and processor speeds marginal... as a child who grew up with computers, it blows my mind what they've made them out to be.

There's also a difference between P.O. Ackley, who was a custom gunsmith, and Ruger, who is a firearms company making products for a wide market. Ackley had people who came to him with certain needs, and he researched cartridges that would meet these needs. One could also say (with a fair amount of certainty) that his innovations were for the betterment of cartridge engineering, not just "Hey, the guys in accounting said we're coming up short, throw something together that is easy to advertise", like Ruger probably did here.

Am I saying that is Ruger's only motivation in the introduction of all of their cartridges? No. The .204 has established itself in the varmint community, and the .375 Ruger has practical applications as stated by other posters in this thread.

I won't mention the .480 Ruger, because for the most part, the point of designing magnum revolver cartridges is simply to point out that your johnson is bigger than Smith and Wesson's, at least until S&W outdoes you.

Yes, my great-grand-father had variable power scopes, before WWII. That's a while ago. Yet, they really caught on only in the 1970's, and then only in 3-9 power.

Click to expand...

Only the 3-9 caught on? How did you come to that conclusion? A glance through the Leupold catalog would seem to indicate otherwise.

As for the .17 HMR, necking an existing case down to hold a smaller diameter bullet is a trick from the early 1900's. As for new, it's simply a rim-fire version of the existing .17 Remington, not exactly a new round, at all.

Click to expand...

The 17HMR is a rimfire that runs about 2,550fps. The .17 Remington is a centerfire that runs 4,100fps and above. Not quite sure how you see those two as being the same cartridge.

Hunters didn't flock to the 5mm Remington Rim-fire, even though it was clearly far superior to the .22 cal. rim-fires, both long-rifle and Magnum.

Click to expand...

Does seem odd that the 5mm would fizzle, while the 17HMR would prove a success some years later. Timing? Problems with the 5mm (accuracy maybe?)?

If Ruger wasn't wasting time on a duplicate cartridge they could do something useful like fix the rifles already on the market or neck something up or down.

Click to expand...

Interesting point. I imagine if Savage had spent their limited development dollars on a new .308 cartridge we wouldn't have the Accutrigger. Or if Smith and Wesson had spent their development dollars on a new .357 cartridge we wouldn't have the integral locks.

Oh, wait.

Maybe that isn't such a good example.

Lastly, consider that the modern computer has been implemented and the internet brought to consumers in every corner of the planet. Does that mean that marginal gains in memory capacity and processor speed really make a difference in the grand scheme of things? We already crossed the big hills and have computers that are faster than we could possibly need (most of us) so why continue the development?

Click to expand...

Maybe not the best analogy. Deer aren't getting any bigger or tougher, but Microsoft is building bigger operating systems that won't run on hardware more than a few years old, so if you want support or want to run the latest applications, its off to the computer store you go.