Why Undertake the Introduction of a New Caliber?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why?

Because we, the gun-buying public, believe that there IS a difference between cartridge "A" and cartridge "B" and that we are skilled, smart, and erudite enough to fully realize that difference in some significant way.

We believe that there is SOMETHING that a .270 will do for us that a .30-'06 won't. Something that a WSSM gives us that a RUM or a plain ol' Magnum won't. Something that a 7-'08 will give us that a 7x57 won't. Something that a Bee will give us that a Hornet won't. 37 more ft.lbs. 106 more fps. These things matter!

We believe in the magic of numbers. 4,000 fps. 1,000 yds. Not just arbitrary quantities directly related to no fundamental function of marksmanship or accuracy -- these numbers speak to us and convince us that what we have isn't as good as what we could have. We must have MORE.

Or less. Who doesn't need a reduced-recoil tactical load for their Super-Short-Ultra-Magnum? Just makes sense, right?

Or we must strive for the MAXIMUM, absolutely superlative, most EXXXTREME level of perfect compromise. The best round is the one that pushes the highest velocity but fits in the shortest rifle. Or, that pushes the heaviest possible bullet out of the lightest, most compact autoloader. Or hits that magic middle ground between the quietest round you can put through a suppressor, and the round that tastes the best when holding the cartridge between your teeth.

While every game animal on our continent has been taken with any of a half-dozen or a dozen common cartridges, we know that there's something BETTER about the next "step up." If I've got a thirty caliber something, wouldn't I be better off with a .338? Or a .35? .375? Won't I be able to take game more ethically, farther, faster, deader -- if the number on my gun is bigger?

Or smaller! I could shoot little animals with a .223, but a .22-250 shoots farther. If a .220 Swift or .22-250 is just fine, and more than fine, then doesn't it makes sense to use something else? How about a .204? Or a .17" something? Why? Well, we can come up with reasons to explain every choice.

We don't want to use the same old cartridge that everyone else uses. We can have something special -- BETTER! Something that sets us apart from the crowd and says, "here's a guy who's not content with the status quo, but really knows a thing or two!" And, by the way, we also need commonality with others, and/or the "powers that be." So, we'd better have two -- our "Super-Short-Magnum-Lengthened-Improved," and our .308/.223 so we can always find ammo at any gas station, grocery store, or pet shop -- or take it off of the dead whomevers when they're piling up around our compound walls after the fall!

Mostly because we have no understanding of or ability to accept the idea of sufficiency or of diminishing returns. We have a dozen factors that might go into making a shot, and we can control maybe eight of them. Of those eight, probably six are factors of knowledge and skill developed through instruction, practice, and experience. The last two are "what gun" and "what cartridge." They contend for the bottom 2% of relevance, and drift ever farther into insignificance the more we nitpick between identical options.

So that's what we dedicate all our time and effort to. And the manufacturers see dollar signs every time they convince us that we'll be a rock star if we just had one more letter in the acronym of our cartridge name.

^^^---Bravo to this. Think how much cheaper ammo would be if they narrowed it all down to just a few calibers. I'm not advocating this (nor am I implying that Sam1911 is), as everyone has a love affair with their own favorite round. But if in the early cartridge develop stage manufacturers had developed one .30 cal, one big bore .44-.50 cal, one rimfire .22, and a light and a magnum pistol cartridge ammo would be a lot less expensive because there would be less call for retooling.

Of course that's just me, and variety is the spice of life. Everyone has different wants and needs. I call it freedom.
 
Very good question. Upon casual observation, it seems that no "new" calibers have taken hold and one could assume that the millions of $ spend on R&D, advertising, making guns for the caliber, etc. were all losing ventures.

.40 S&W was a success

But the failures are:

.327 mag
WSM and WSSM calibers
.300 wisper
6.5 and 6.8

And on and on...
 
I guess my question becomes, are these companies losing money by re-tooling to make these new guns and ammo and having the caliber fail? Are the profits from introducing a successful caliber so huge that its worth the risk?

If we take .40S&W for example; did S&W really make all that much money off it? Were S&Ws the only guns chambered in .40S&W for a time, and they were just flying off the shelves? Perhaps introducing new calibers doesn't necessarily benefit the introducing company so much as it does the industry as a whole (as we know almost every pistol maker has .40S&W as an option).
 
It's like my dear ole' Pappy once told me about the new golf clubs I was considering. "Boy", he said, "listen here & remember this. A bad golfer buys new clubs while a good golfer...practices". Y'all would've enjoyed my Pop. I surely did. Now, go PRACTICE! ;)
+1

also these days government contracts can't be won by merits alone, there are too many other factors involved
 
But the failures are:

.327 mag
WSM and WSSM calibers
.300 wisper
6.5 and 6.8

And on and on...

You should probably rethink some of those. Especially the last three. They're still making guns in .327, and ammo is still produced. Pretty sure you ought not to count that one out for a few years yet, either.
 
Sometimes it is to adapt better ballistic preformance to a very popular existing platform like an AR15 or a Glock.

The 6.5 and 6.8 are not the BEST rifle rounds by far, but they are about the best that you can fit into the limited size of a standard AR magazine well. Ditto for the .40 S&W as it is the biggest round that can be adapted to a 9MM sized pistol frame.

BTW, the 6.8 is not a failure. It has a steady fan base of hunters. It is just a nitch cartridge for a special use and is not likely to be sold at WallMart as it offers no advantage over common sporting rounds EXCEPT in an AR where it shines.
 
Without all those nifty calibers we wouldn't have those 'x Vs Y' threads, or better yet the "What's the best...?" questions.

Why blame the manufacturers when it's the wildcatters' fault... ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top