Are New Cartridges Killing Old Cartridges or Is New Bullet Design and Technology?

[Varminterror]

Hmm. That pesky 30-30 round and it's lever rifles seem to still be doing rather well. Just sayin'.

Yeah, as evidenced by the fact the two most popular manufacturers of 30-30 leverguns went bankrupt and are now being manufactured by companies which plundered the trademarks.

 

[.45Coltguy]

Yeah, as evidenced by the fact the two most popular manufacturers of 30-30 leverguns went bankrupt and are now being manufactured by companies which plundered the trademarks.

Well, at least someone is still producing them and shooters are buying them. They[30-30] still seem fairly popular. It is too bad Winchester and Marlin went belly up, but that has to do with their poor management and other abilities to stay abreast of the competition; which they didn't do. So, others picked up the slack and people sure seem willing to buy them. That is what I was saying earlier. Nothing more.

 

[.455_Hunter]

Yeah, as evidenced by the fact the two most popular manufacturers of 30-30 leverguns went bankrupt and are now being manufactured by companies which plundered the trademarks.

Why limit to new guns? If you walked into a Walmart sporting goods department in January 2020, chances are you would have seen .30-30 ammo from at least three manufacturers (Fed, Rem, Win) on the shelf, and nearly 10 different loadings. Walmart does not stock product that does not sell. Obviously, things are a bit different now at the present time due to a variety of outside influences, but the fact remains that .30-30 is still highly popular among rank & file sport shooters and folks not waiting with baited-breath for SHOT Show release updates.

 

[Megawatt maker]

Yeah, as evidenced by the fact the two most popular manufacturers of 30-30 leverguns went bankrupt and are now being manufactured by companies which plundered the trademarks.

I don't think they went bankrupt. Marlin got bought by Remington. I think, but admit I don't know for sure, Marlin at least, was doing fine.

Winchester was on the rocks for a while, then got bought by FN...

But either way, even if they did go broke, it wasn't because they were not selling 30/30s

 

[LoonWulf]

I like to get to know a gun, can’t do that if you have so many you can’t decide what to take with you.

I somewhat disagree, IMO it's less about owning a single item as it spending the time to become familiar with your equipment in general.
Having less to be familiar with certainly reduces the input tho

 

[3Crows]

Marlin did not go bankrupt ever. Remington via the Freedom Group purchased Marlin which was still a family owned business. Marlin sales at the time of purchase by Remington/Freedom Group were strong. Though there are various reasons given why the family sold out regardless they did. Remington then went bankrupt taking Marlin (brand) down with it though Marlin sales were strong under Remington (despite issues).

 

[Random 8]

I think some of both. The 6.5 CM has certainly displaced a lot of the .308 based rounds, and probably cut into the .270s appeal quite a bit as far as new rifles. The .25s have never been super popular in my lifetime, and are likely to become less so going forward.

New bullet tech has also given some old ones new life, at least for handloaders. Todays 30-06, 7mm-08 and 260 Rem are not the same as Circa 2000. The old standby magnums...7RM, .300WM and .338WM certainly still have a place, as well as a couple of the shorts and ultras that developed a following. There are quite a few expensive rifles out there killing big game in these calibers. They also benefit from some new bullet tech.

It's the same as it has been since the 1950s. A new whiz bang comes along and gets all the new publicity. A very small number of the new cartridges actually stick. Old standby's hang around and benefit from the new technologies so long as they have enough of a following to merit the logistics of producing ammo and brass. 70 years after the advent of the .308, a cartridge superior in every way and filling a near identical role, you can still buy .300 Savage ammunition, althogh those days may be numbered.

 

[Bazoo]

I somewhat disagree, IMO it's less about owning a single item as it spending the time to become familiar with your equipment in general.
Having less to be familiar with certainly reduces the input tho

True true. I wouldn’t mind handing about 3-4. But to have 20 or something, nah, too much for me to handle.

 

[Varminterror]

I don't think they went bankrupt. Marlin got bought by Remington. I think, but admit I don't know for sure, Marlin at least, was doing fine.

Winchester was on the rocks for a while, then got bought by FN...

But either way, even if they did go broke, it wasn't because they were not selling 30/30s

So Marlin was in such a favorable market position that they were forced to sell to a distressed capital management group, and Winchester were kicking so much ass that they closed their doors and were only able to sell themselves as licensing rights to another company…

ok… yeah, they were really thriving…

 

[LoonWulf]

True true. I wouldn’t mind handing about 3-4. But to have 20 or something, nah, too much for me to handle.

Yeah, I feel the same way at times and im well short of 20 lol....when i do, i using default to my two favorites.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Every time I turn around there is a video or article that the 30-06 is going obsolete.

LOL, there is a thread over on The Firing Line right now where folks are debating what does or does not constitute being obsolete for ammo which has come down to largely a bunch of folks arguing what obsolete means to them.

I shoot a fairly new cartridge, the 6.5 Grendel. So far, I have seen at least 3 new calibers that were reported to render the Grendel obsolete. None have, per se, unless you cherry pick the features you want to say that are important.

Without having seen the F&S articles, I am going to guess that they are cherry picking certain facets of new calibers not done of the old calibers and that is their basis for the obsolete proclamation, and if so, is interesting given that the older calibers will do some things the newer ones won't.

This is why none of the 35's or 33's have ever been popular. But some guys are convinced the bigger hole is worth something. A 35 caliber hole is less than the thickness of a dime larger than a 30 caliber hole.

Correct, the difference between .30 and .35 is 1.27 mm and a US dime is 1.35 mm thick. With that said, at 35 caliber creates a hole more than 36% larger than a 30 caliber hole (based on zero expansion). 30 cal area is 706.86. 35 cal area is 962.11, the difference being 255.25. The difference is more than 1/3 of the original 30 cal area.

 

[BreechFace]

Planned obsolescence

Get people to keep buying new ideas when the old ones work just fine. Round and round we go.

All those old relics are obsolete, you need the 6.5 Whizbang, next month it’ll be the 30 Sniper Maker and the Whizbang is old news

Meanwhile, people are waiting for primers and standard ammunition to come back to the shelves.

 

[CoalTrain49]

A person can still buy both a 30-06 or a 7mm mag from Ruger. I guess Ruger didn't hear they were dead.

I don't think Hornady heard the news either. They still make ammo for both. Same bullet design as the newer cartridges.

 

[mcb]

A cartridge cannot be obsolete for hunting or any other individual personal activity. Obsolete does not make any sense in the context of one person and their activities. On the other hand 30-06 is obsolete as a military cartridge. The revolver is obsolete as a LEO duty side arm. The carburetor is obsolete as a fuel deliver system for IC engines in passenger cars. The slide rule is obsolete for doing arithmetic with. etc Being obsolete does not mean it is not capable but simply no longer in wide spread common use and replaced buy something newer, often (but not always) more capable.

The heart burn generated on the forum by new cartridges, especially when they get compared to old cartridges and double so if the old cartridge is declared "dead" always amuses me. Ignore the hype! Ignore the doom. Look at the cartridge for what it is and decide if you want to try it. Hype has never induced me to buy a new or old cartridge and and the naysayers have never talked me out of a new or old cartridge I though was interesting.

I hunted deer this year with a .308 diameter 150 gr Core-Lokt bullet. The bullet has been commercially loaded into at least 7 different cartridge I can think of off the top of my head not to mention how many other 30-caliber cartridge that are obscure or wildcats. Guess what the deer I hit had no way of know which of those many cartridge launched that bullet at him...

If you want to talk about obsolete, all those cartridges, new or old, hyped or not, are going to be obsolete when I finally get my hands on a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.

 

[Dave DeLaurant]

My comment was really meant to be more tongue in cheek than anything else, hence why I called the 577/450 a modern cartridge.

An aside: I'm still looking for one of those in the proper price/condition bracket for my tastes.

A co-worker bought a pretty nice ex-Nepalese Martini when the big batch first hit the market -- he was shooting his using a .45 Colt adapter the day this photo was taken:



Some years before this, I got my hands on a Mk II* 303 conversion with a shot-out barrel. I was owed a favor by my gunsmith and he rebarrelled/rechambered it to .44 Magnum, reworking a Star rolling block carbine barrel. I guess you could say I took the easy route to the ammo supply problem via conversion, though with considerable effort. The thing shoots great though.

 

[AJC1]

No gun is obsolete, the marketing just tries to make you believe so. The oldest smokeless cartridge in the US is the 30-30. If you can't kill a deer with a zero technology cast bullet, you need more range time not a higher technology gun. Now not being able to buy or get brass, that's the end of any loading. Shoot what you want, and have the brass that will last the life of the gun. Bullet tech improves all guns universally.

 

[Beck]

Are New Cartridges Killing Old Cartridges or Is New Bullet Design and Technology?

Please share your thoughts....

I don't see it happening either way. As others have stated it's more about marketing for marketing's sake... to give gun rags something to print... to justify their existence. I've bought new firearms over the years, but I haven't bought anything in a caliber I didn't already have in over 30 years.

 

[3Crows]

The Kenna family sold the Marlin company for reasons of their own. The company was solvent and profitable at the time of the sale. And Marlin played no part in the demise of Remington and the Freedom Group.

 

[Skeptic13]

There will always be cartridges that are chambered in .308 caliber. And those cartridges that shoot the .308 benefit just as much from new bullet technology as any other caliber bullet. By the way the 6.5 x 55 Swede was invented in 1891 so the 6.5 caliber bullet isn't new at all.

 

[Mosin77]

When a new cartridge comes out, it’ll be heavily embraced by a small group of customers to whom it’s a real answer they’ve been hoping for, for a specific need or problem. It will also be embraced by another group, who will adopt it because it’s the new hotness of the week, those who must hop on the newest bandwagon or have the latest and greatest. It’ll gather further market share by default from customers new to firearms for whom the new cartridge is the promoted answer to whatever question they’re asking. (“I want to shoot deer at 100 yards” will far more likely end up with a .300Blk or something else new than a .30-30 or .44-40) I submit that a cartridge has to do a pretty thorough job of making converts in all these categories before the average already-committed firearms enthusiast begins to ponder if he needs one in his battery.

What this means in practice is that a new cartridge has the deck stacked against it in the first place, in the quest to become universally popular, and that older cartridges will take a very long time to decline or become obsolescent because their user base, once established, is likely to remain loyal to them for a long time -after all, a gun doesn’t wear out quickly.

So in this light, no, I don’t think new cartridges necessarily “kill” older ones. Some new and old cartridges have a real reason to exist and others don’t, but even the ones that are objectively outmoded will still have followers for a long time. I do think that there are some fine old cartridges that slowly wither (to the detriment of everyone) simply because they aren’t new and exciting. (30-30 is probably losing market share right now, being the primary cartridge of relatively few users now compared to its heyday. On the other hand most of the millions of guns are still around so even if new ones aren’t selling like hotcakes it’ll be a relatively popular cartridge for decades or even centuries. And gun writers have been declaring it obsolete since the ‘20s!) I also think, for a variety of legal, practical, and safety reasons, it’s often easier to create a completely new cartridge than to attempt to breathe new life into an old one. Example: 6.5x55 Swedish. It’s been killing game and performing well at the target range since first adopted in the year 1894. But in the US it’ll never be loaded to its potential in deference to the Norwegian Krags and small-ring military Mausers (many legally antique) which make up the vast majority of weapons chambered for it. It’s much easier to create a cartridge which mimics the performance but with a fresh set of 21st century specs, and no suspect metallurgy, and call it something exciting like …6.5 Creedmoor, or something like that.

 

[AJC1]

When a new cartridge comes out, it’ll be heavily embraced by a small group of customers to whom it’s a real answer they’ve been hoping for, for a specific need or problem. It will also be embraced by another group, who will adopt it because it’s the new hotness of the week, those who must hop on the newest bandwagon or have the latest and greatest. It’ll gather further market share by default from customers new to firearms for whom the new cartridge is the promoted answer to whatever question they’re asking. (“I want to shoot deer at 100 yards” will far more likely end up with a .300Blk or something else new than a .30-30 or .44-40) I submit that a cartridge has to do a pretty thorough job of making converts in all these categories before the average already-committed firearms enthusiast begins to ponder if he needs one in his battery.

What this means in practice is that a new cartridge has the deck stacked against it in the first place, in the quest to become universally popular, and that older cartridges will take a very long time to decline or become obsolescent because their user base, once established, is likely to remain loyal to them for a long time -after all, a gun doesn’t wear out quickly.

So in this light, no, I don’t think new cartridges necessarily “kill” older ones. Some new and old cartridges have a real reason to exist and others don’t, but even the ones that are objectively outmoded will still have followers for a long time. I do think that there are some fine old cartridges that slowly wither (to the detriment of everyone) simply because they aren’t new and exciting. (30-30 is probably losing market share right now, being the primary cartridge of relatively few users now compared to its heyday. On the other hand most of the millions of guns are still around so even if new ones aren’t selling like hotcakes it’ll be a relatively popular cartridge for decades or even centuries. And gun writers have been declaring it obsolete since the ‘20s!) I also think, for a variety of legal, practical, and safety reasons, it’s often easier to create a completely new cartridge than to attempt to breathe new life into an old one. Example: 6.5x55 Swedish. It’s been killing game and performing well at the target range since first adopted in the year 1894. But in the US it’ll never be loaded to its potential in deference to the Norwegian Krags and small-ring military Mausers (many legally antique) which make up the vast majority of weapons chambered for it. It’s much easier to create a cartridge which mimics the performance but with a fresh set of 21st century specs, and no suspect metallurgy, and call it something exciting like …6.5 Creedmoor, or something like that.

The Europeans have been competing with 6.5x55 since forever and modern guns have separate loadings just like 45-70. I love my old sweed and there is zero chance I'm hot rodding it. I'm still trying to see why 280ai gets a higher pressure limit than 280, because case capacity wasn't enough....

 

[AJC1]

Yeah, as evidenced by the fact the two most popular manufacturers of 30-30 leverguns went bankrupt and are now being manufactured by companies which plundered the trademarks.

On the contrary Hornaday seems perfectly happy marketing bullets and loaded ammunition in quite a few lever loadings including 30-30. I've seen enough shooters to know that average is not a PRS or Fclass match by a far cry.

 

[Megawatt maker]

So Marlin was in such a favorable market position that they were forced to sell to a distressed capital management group, and Winchester were kicking so much ass that they closed their doors and were only able to sell themselves as licensing rights to another company…

ok… yeah, they were really thriving…

Another poster addressed this. Marlin was doing fine. It was family owned. I don't know why they sold themselves to Remington...I'll research it when I get time. I suspect, like a lot of deals done in the Captialist west...they were probably made a deal they couldn't refuse (as in lots of $$$$$$).

Winchester is another story. Lousy management was to blame there, not outdated or poor quality products (although the production methods of those products was outdated).

 

[lemaymiami]

I must question the entire premise of this thread... although it's entertaining... In short the actual real world marketplace is brutally efficient over time... If there's a buying public for a particular product - and it's brought to market in an acceptable and reliable form - it will prosper until something more popular (or desirable) takes its place. Bring all the "new cartridges, calibers, etc" to market and if they sell they'll remain.. If not, only handloaders or folks willing to seek out specialty outfits will be buyers and users. That old G.I. 45 auto still sells well - since it fills a need and does it in fine fashion - no matter how old it is (or how many "new and improved" other 45 cartridges come along...). The tipping point from my perspective is whether or not there's a sufficient demand for manufacturers to make a particular item - guaranteeing you'll be able to find it in your local store (or be able to purchase it on line...). All of this is complicated by our current world since I believe, as Stuart Varney says, that we really are in a "retail ice age" where just surviving as a retail business is a very tough deal (and survival of the fittest is indeed the way things actually work over time whether you're making light bulbs or firearms - or cartridges for those firearms...

Here's something I'd like to learn about... Across the wide spectrum of the shooting sports market - what actual percentage of shooters (for any purpose) are handloaders, as opposed to folks like me that only use manufactured ammo?

Now if our current government would only allow the marketplace to operate without interference - maybe, just maybe we'd have things like electric cars that actually came about because they were better than what was on the market -instead of what we're doing currently..

 

[mcb]

The Kenna family sold the Marlin company for reasons of their own. The company was solvent and profitable at the time of the sale. And Marlin played no part in the demise of Remington and the Freedom Group.

Marlins very much played a role in the demise of Remington. At the time of Marlin's demise there was no meaningful distinction between Remington as a company and Marlin as a company. They where the same company. The guns where made by Remington workers in Ilion NY and Huntsville AL. The Marlin engineers where the same engineers that worked on Remington, Bushmaster, DPMS, etc in Huntsville. The same marketing and sales team marketed all the brands. Other than a hand full of CNC machines in Ilion that where dedicated to lever gun receiver and bolt production, even the machines worked across the product lines. A barrel machine might make barrel blanks for Rem 783 barrels one week, Marlin rimfire the next and follow that with barrels for Bushmaster and DPMS the next.

Marlin Dark was selling good at the end but the rest of the Marlin product line was flagging. And in sheer volume it was relative small compared to Bushmaster and DPMS.