This slipped under my radar until I saw it today...I saw that Ruger has come out with the 300 RCM. Wow a short mag, what a concept. Is this where things are going, each manufacturer duplicating cartridges? Is there really a market for another short mag in 30 cal? Is there really a market for this and I'm just out of the loop?
Great new cutting edge idea from Ruger...
- Thread starter jbech123
- Start date
- Status
JR47
Member
Technically, the ability to replace a longer cartridge with a shorter one, and maintain the velocity, is a definite improvement in manufacturing. Shorter receiver equals, all else being the same, a stiffer receiver, with better accuracy potential. A good example is the .308, which benefited from powder technology advances during WWII. It allowed the same performance with bullets up to 175 grains as the older .30-06. It also allowed it in a cartridge that was 12mm shorter. That's not much, until you consider the savings in materials for millions of rounds.
These fatter, shorter, cases also tend to make better use of the new powders. As to whether they will supplant the existing magnums, who cares? Most of us don't shoot any of our magnums enough to wear them out in out lifetimes. However, new shooters might wish to avail themselves of the latest advances in technology.
A 1955 Chevrolet will still take you wherever you want to go. However, a 2008 Impala will do it with better mileage, and you'll be more comfortable.
These fatter, shorter, cases also tend to make better use of the new powders. As to whether they will supplant the existing magnums, who cares? Most of us don't shoot any of our magnums enough to wear them out in out lifetimes. However, new shooters might wish to avail themselves of the latest advances in technology.
A 1955 Chevrolet will still take you wherever you want to go. However, a 2008 Impala will do it with better mileage, and you'll be more comfortable.
I don't think I articulated my frustration very clearly. I get the part about how the short mag is an improvement over the regular magnum cartridge. What I don't get is that after the 300 WSM, why did Remington come out with a 300 SAUM, and now we have the 300RCM? I get the 300 WSM, but now there are 3 cartridges that are basically the same? I just don't understand the point of the 300 RCM when 2 other 30 cal short actions already exist. I think of the 3, the WSM will be the one that actually sticks.
ftierson
Member.
And everyone will stop making ammo for the others in a short time...
Then again, with what's being charged for ammo for the short mags, what little is produced may go unsold anyway...
Forrest
Then again, with what's being charged for ammo for the short mags, what little is produced may go unsold anyway...
Forrest
Z-Michigan
Member
The point is not to benefit the consumer, the point is for each manufacturer to sell more guns, and ammo for Remington/Winchester (or Hornady for Ruger's guns). Standardization and user-friendliness isn't their focus. Marketing and making money is.
Yet another reason why the common military calibers are so appealing for sporting use.
FWIW I think the .300 Ruger is a decent cartridge, but coming after its competitors, I agree that it's late to the game and offers very little benefit.
Yet another reason why the common military calibers are so appealing for sporting use.
FWIW I think the .300 Ruger is a decent cartridge, but coming after its competitors, I agree that it's late to the game and offers very little benefit.
Ruger first introduced the 375 Ruger. It has some advantages over the 375 H&H magnum in that it will develop the about the same power in a 20"barrel vs the 24" barrels usually needed for most magnums. It has become quite popular with guys who hunt animals that will bite back. Having a short carbine that has the same punch as a 375 mag is not a bad idea.
Ruger decided to neck it down to 30 caliber. It supposedly offers the same advantage of getting it's velocity from a shorter barrel. On paper at least it is probably the best of the 30 magnums. Who knows if it will survive.
Ruger decided to neck it down to 30 caliber. It supposedly offers the same advantage of getting it's velocity from a shorter barrel. On paper at least it is probably the best of the 30 magnums. Who knows if it will survive.
NCsmitty
Member
It's just another marketing ploy. You are so right Z-Michigan. Basically, Norma started the magnum 30 craze with the 308 Norma Mag. One of which I proudly own, on an FN Mauser action. The newest, the 300RCM barely matches it, 50 years later. I guess that's progress.
NCsmitty
NCsmitty
24kshooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2005
- Messages
- 141
Choice - that is why we have more than 31 flavors of ice cream. Short mags are "efficent" - however if you already have a regular mag why rush out and buy one ? The ULtra mags are the really interesting calibers - mucho powder for relatively minor gains for average hunting in NA.
skinewmexico
Member
It's just silly.
SimpleIsGood229
Member
It seems to me that the WSM's, WSSM's, RCM's, RUM's, Rem. SAUM's, et al, are designed to sell guns. Not that that's a bad thing, mind you. I just don't buy into how they're supposedly better than than the .300 Win Mag, for example (in the case of the .300 WSM).
Another thing is that short mags won't handle heavy-for-caliber bullets (200 gr. .308", 175 gr. .284") as well as the standard magnums. But hey, I'm glad we have the freedom to make our choices from all these options.
Another thing is that short mags won't handle heavy-for-caliber bullets (200 gr. .308", 175 gr. .284") as well as the standard magnums. But hey, I'm glad we have the freedom to make our choices from all these options.
Wes Janson
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2006
- Messages
- 1,962
If I want more power, I'll use a larger magazine in my .308
For Freedom
Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2008
- Messages
- 187
Good one Wes Janson.
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
Wait a sec....are you telling me..... a .30 caliber....... in a SHORT MAGNUM case.... wow, that is truly fantastic and innovative, I agree! I mean, creating the original short mags that were utterly unnecessary as Winchester did is one thing; but DUPLICATING the entirely unnecessary rounds is a higher level of complexity of useless innovation, lemme tell ya!
Ok. I agree that the shorter fatter case is superior.
BUT COME ON! really, who buys this stuff? It's more important to have something that is established and standardized.
Now, on the other hand, why can't people get behind a short fat shotgun shell? The new rage in shotguns seems to always be the longest shell you can dream up. People are nuts.
I'll stick to my 2-3/4" shotgun shells. If they had shorter ones than that, in 10ga, I'd be all over it.
As for rifles, If I need something more powerful than a 308, I'll simply go grab my 8mm mauser.
BUT COME ON! really, who buys this stuff? It's more important to have something that is established and standardized.
Now, on the other hand, why can't people get behind a short fat shotgun shell? The new rage in shotguns seems to always be the longest shell you can dream up. People are nuts.
I'll stick to my 2-3/4" shotgun shells. If they had shorter ones than that, in 10ga, I'd be all over it.
As for rifles, If I need something more powerful than a 308, I'll simply go grab my 8mm mauser.
michael_aos
Member
Here in Colorado, it's legal to hunt with a suppressor.
A 30-caliber suppressor may add 8" to the overall length of the rifle.
Suddenly a round that gets the performance a 26" barrel in just 20" sounds very appealing.
Mike
A 30-caliber suppressor may add 8" to the overall length of the rifle.
Suddenly a round that gets the performance a 26" barrel in just 20" sounds very appealing.
Mike
rangerruck
Member
dont forget the 338 federal.... all short fat carts, will take over the world!!!!
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
You mean, like a .300 Winchester Magnum does, legitimized 45 years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.300_Winchester_Magnum
or, if you think the short case is doing something, then, like the .300 WSM does, introduced 7 years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.300_WSM
So I'm dyin to know, what does the Ruger do differently?
Z-Michigan
Member
If you want to get really excited, look up .30 TC. That makes the compact magnums look practical in comparison.
hoghunting
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,604
Ruger came out with their own cartridge that does not require them to pay royalties to Rick Jamison. Ruger refused to pay him anything, so they dropped the WSM line.
ftierson
Member.
Making sure the Jamison doesn't get anything for screwing the whole industry is not a bad idea...
Of course, Ruger could have accomplished the same thing by just continuing to sell .300 Win. Mag. rifles...
Forrest
MTMilitiaman
Member
Frustration? O, I am right there with you, buddy.
See for a long time now, I have been waiting for a line of beltless standard action magnums--something to duplicate the concept of the Dakota and Lazzeroni magnums without the cost associated with proprietary brass and ammunition or custom rifles. Remington should have learned of the benefits of being first on the commercial market to meet these niches with the success of their 7mm Rem Mag. I am waiting for them to catch a clue and realize that being second, as they were with their short magnums, isn't nearly as rewarding as being first and simply introduce a standard length magnum family based on their Ultra Mag case. So far, no go.
So then Ruger introduces their .375 Ruger and I am thinking, here we go! The next logical move would have been to simply neck this case down to 7mm or .30 caliber, with the other to follow along with a .338 caliber 6 months or a year later. But nooooo...that would be too simple, would make too much sense! What do they do? Another short action magnum family? Did the booming success of Remington Short Action Ultra Mag line indicate to them that there was more of a market as a distant third entry into a crowded short magnum arena than being the first with a commercially available standard action magnum family based on a beltless case? They could be privy to market research and other data sources that indicate there is, but I doubt it. Maybe I am just the one missing something. That's happened before. But I am still waiting to say "I told you so," to the first genius that figures it out.
It's a lesson already taught by history. Being the first pays...
This is wrong.
The .375 Ruger, at least from the sources I have read, is a standard length magnum cartridge--in essence, just a standard Holland case with the now standard Holland .534" head size, but beltless with the case going straight up at the width of the belt, with a 35 degree shoulder. It's actually astoundingly simple in concept--something that someone should have thought about a long time ago. But it is, by my understanding, a standard (.30-06) length cartridge. Necking it down to .30 caliber would have made a lot of sense. It would have made Ruger the first commercially available standard length beltless magnum family. Instead, they shortened the case to fit in a short (.308 Win) action and introduced a 3rd (4th, 5th, is anyone keeping an official count?) short action magnum line, which, if there is a God and He is just, will fade silently into obsolesce.
See for a long time now, I have been waiting for a line of beltless standard action magnums--something to duplicate the concept of the Dakota and Lazzeroni magnums without the cost associated with proprietary brass and ammunition or custom rifles. Remington should have learned of the benefits of being first on the commercial market to meet these niches with the success of their 7mm Rem Mag. I am waiting for them to catch a clue and realize that being second, as they were with their short magnums, isn't nearly as rewarding as being first and simply introduce a standard length magnum family based on their Ultra Mag case. So far, no go.
So then Ruger introduces their .375 Ruger and I am thinking, here we go! The next logical move would have been to simply neck this case down to 7mm or .30 caliber, with the other to follow along with a .338 caliber 6 months or a year later. But nooooo...that would be too simple, would make too much sense! What do they do? Another short action magnum family? Did the booming success of Remington Short Action Ultra Mag line indicate to them that there was more of a market as a distant third entry into a crowded short magnum arena than being the first with a commercially available standard action magnum family based on a beltless case? They could be privy to market research and other data sources that indicate there is, but I doubt it. Maybe I am just the one missing something. That's happened before. But I am still waiting to say "I told you so," to the first genius that figures it out.
It's a lesson already taught by history. Being the first pays...
This is wrong.
The .375 Ruger, at least from the sources I have read, is a standard length magnum cartridge--in essence, just a standard Holland case with the now standard Holland .534" head size, but beltless with the case going straight up at the width of the belt, with a 35 degree shoulder. It's actually astoundingly simple in concept--something that someone should have thought about a long time ago. But it is, by my understanding, a standard (.30-06) length cartridge. Necking it down to .30 caliber would have made a lot of sense. It would have made Ruger the first commercially available standard length beltless magnum family. Instead, they shortened the case to fit in a short (.308 Win) action and introduced a 3rd (4th, 5th, is anyone keeping an official count?) short action magnum line, which, if there is a God and He is just, will fade silently into obsolesce.
rc109a
Member
What really kills me about this cartridge is the powder used. Hornady is not going to release it so reloaders will not be able to match the same specs. By what I have read if your not buying factory ammo, then you are not going to get the same performance and then what do you have left?
- Status
