Nothing new in cartridge development.

He right in many ways. I have in my collection firearms that will kill anything form flies to elephants 3 time over. Anything new is just something to play with, and there is nothing wrong with that
 
Not to do with cartridge development but firearm marketing has always been a head scratcher for me.

Companies come out with a new cartridge, say wsm or rsaum. Clearly there are some upside in these cartridges over what they intend to replace. But when ammo hits the shelves it's double the cost of it's predecessor. Now what are they trying to do here? Clearly the move isn't to try and develop new lines or they would produce the ammo at or below what it was. So are they just trying to make a quick buck on some hype and gouge on the ammo? Seems like a poor strategy for brand building.

And then there's chamberings that are offered in factory rifles. There are some really great chamberings that just never make the shelves. Varmint rifles for example, these guns are primarily used for target rifles from a bench, but guys want them configured as varmint rifles (mid weight and length, semi wide forend on an otherwise standard stock profile) because they do take them to the field. You'd think accuracy and proven cartridge type would dominate this class, the .222 and 6ppc, 22br 6br, but no. What do we get, .223 rem, 22-250, .243 win.
 
cdn shooter said:
Not to do with cartridge development but firearm marketing has always been a head scratcher for me.

Companies come out with a new cartridge, say wsm or rsaum. Clearly there are some upside in these cartridges over what they intend to replace. But when ammo hits the shelves it's double the cost of it's predecessor. Now what are they trying to do here? Clearly the move isn't to try and develop new lines or they would produce the ammo at or below what it was. So are they just trying to make a quick buck on some hype and gouge on the ammo? Seems like a poor strategy for brand building.

And then there's chamberings that are offered in factory rifles. There are some really great chamberings that just never make the shelves. Varmint rifles for example, these guns are primarily used for target rifles from a bench, but guys want them configured as varmint rifles (mid weight and length, semi wide forend on an otherwise standard stock profile) because they do take them to the field. You'd think accuracy and proven cartridge type would dominate this class, the .222 and 6ppc, 22br 6br, but no. What do we get, .223 rem, 22-250, .243 win.
Click to expand...

It's not like razor/razor blade. You can use ammos from any companies in guns from any companies, so there's no way to make a business profitable by giving out guns and charging for ammos, or vice-versa. I haven't seen many people looking for Sako's brand name ammos (they exist) because they have a sako/tikka rifle.

The problem with these cartridges (wsm, rsaum and the likes) now is that they don't sell that well (compared to, say, 308). So if you're a manufacturer, you need to manage your assembly line to make a small volume of them, which is costly, so either you sell them at a high price to make up for low volume or you don't make/sell them at all. Turns out your competitors all have the same problem, so everyone sells basic 300wsm for 3$/piece (4-5$ for premium), while a not so different cartridge, the 308, sometimes goes on sale for 75¢/piece. But for Aguila, remington and the likes, they make more money selling a crate of 500 rounds of 308win for 350$ to the cqb/3guns/plinker crowd than they do from selling an overpriced box of 20 rounds of 300wsm to a hunter who'll shoot a moose per year.

So you're not about to see a similar price per round on a 222 as you have on 223 just because the ammos are similar.
 
Last edited:
New Camper said:
I think this way as well: I'll read about the "new development" simply because I like to know, but there isn't much new under the sun the past eighty years.

Makes me want to have my own hunting store: New Camper's Hunting Emporium...

Customer - "Yes, I need the perfect rifle for hunting the mixed terrain we encounter in SE Ontario. Magnum, branch buster, bang flopper."
Me - "Certainly sir, I have this stack of Remington Seven actions and the gunsmith will chamber one in an ideal round for your needs... you may choose from the following reamers: 250-3000, 7mm-08Rem and 300Sav. If you'd like a multi-purpose big game rifle I have the following reamers available for whatever long action you like best: 257Roberts, 6.5x55, 270win, 7x57, 7x64Bren, 30-06, 8x57, 35Whel and 9.3x62. If you are a purist of sorts, I have combination and drillings in the following chambers: 12, 16 and 20gauge in standard length with rifle chamberings 7x57r, 7x65r, 30 Purdey and 8x57r."
Customer - "non of those are magnums."
Me - "You asked me to sell you the perfect rifle... placing the shot correctly will be entirely possible with this rifle, but the rest is up to you."

Customer - "I'm going on an African safari, I need the perfect rifle for dangerous game"
Me - "Certainly sir, I have bolt and double rifles chambered in 416Rigby and 375H&H respectively."

Customer -"I need a rifle for a Dalls Ram hunt"
Me - "Certainly sir, lightweight and far reaching: I have some stainless, composite rifles in 6.5x55, 270win and 7x64Bren."

:stirthepot2: :p reminded me of this: "No. nononono. You donta know what you want... Luigi know what you want.
Click to expand...

Sounds good to me.
 
The problem is when a customer comes in and says he has budget for only 1 rifle that he'll use for hunting varmint, moose, target shooting and cqb.
 
I thing there’s a manufacturer making disposable plastic cases now isn’t there? Not sure if that’s an advancement but... different.

I expect more environmentaly freindly options in the future. I suspect lead will become as prevalent as black powder is today.
 
kodiakjack said:
I thing there’s a manufacturer making disposable plastic cases now isn’t there? Not sure if that’s an advancement but... different.

I expect more environmentaly freindly options in the future. I suspect lead will become as prevalent as black powder is today.
Click to expand...

I don't know man. Lots of people still complaining about steel birdshots and would prefer lead. Other than uranium, not much material has the density of lead. The bismuth shots and stuff like that are quite expensive compared to lead shots. There was a thread lately about monometal rifle bullets, and they definitely don't make consensus.

Lead has a very high mass/volume ratio, it's really cheap and can be melted at low temperature. It's really though to beat in a manufacturing process, and some calibers (the heavy and slow pistol bullets) could hardly be made with anything else without the price getting out of hand. It's also very soft compared to the steel backstop of a typical indoor range.

I'm all for ditching lead if something else suitable can be found, but I doubt it'll happen in my lifetime. I think we'll see mercury-free primers regulations before we get rid of lead.
 
VinnyQC said:
I don't know man. Lots of people still complaining about steel birdshots and would prefer lead. Other than uranium, not much material has the density of lead. The bismuth shots and stuff like that are quite expensive compared to lead shots. There was a thread lately about monometal rifle bullets, and they definitely don't make consensus.

Lead has a very high mass/volume ratio, it's really cheap and can be melted at low temperature. It's really though to beat in a manufacturing process, and some calibers (the heavy and slow pistol bullets) could hardly be made with anything else without the price getting out of hand. It's also very soft compared to the steel backstop of a typical indoor range.

I'm all for ditching lead if something else suitable can be found, but I doubt it'll happen in my lifetime. I think we'll see mercury-free primers regulations before we get rid of lead.
Click to expand...


Ya I hear ya. And agree for the most part.

I hope you’re right.

You talk about the benefits of lead, as viewed by the users of lead. But when the day comes, it’s not the users that will initiate the change. The change will be mandated by people in high heels and ties, who’ve never stepped foot in the outdoors before. If it were up to hunters, lead would be around until the second coming. Unfortunately, the decision lays in the hands of politicians.
 
time4t said:
The gun industry is also notorious for using the new and improved strategy to repackage what is essentially old time proven rounds. If one traces back the lineage of many calibers- the era of around 1880-1925 or so pretty much defined and established the foundation of what we see today. Sure there has been an improvement in powders, primers, bullets and metallurgy, but we as consumers are sucked into the mentailty of newer, faster more powerful and better. Wonder why the 7x57 is not as good as the 7mm-08 or 280? And how is it that the 30-06 or 300 h and h is not as good as the 300wsm? And the 375 is a popgun next to the 378? Hmm, game has not changed in the past 100 years, , but the mentality towards killing it has.
Click to expand...

This was the major point for my thinking that ammunition / firearm companies would spare time and money to develop the 'latest and greatest' new cartridge.

Thanks for the viewpoints...interesting stuff...
 
ATOM said:
I remember reading a golfing magazine in which they were interviewing an executive with a major golf gear manufacturer. He said that a big problem for them, once they had sold somebody a set of clubs, was that those clubs would last for the rest of his life and all they were going to be able to sell him thereafter were golf balls. They therefore had to convince the customer that their new clubs were much, much better than his old ones and that getting new clubs would improve his game. (In reality, of course, if Buddy spent the same money on golf lessons, his game would improve even more, but there are no profits there.) So, each year, they come out with new clubs with 'better' shanks, more 'innovative' head shapes and so forth. And golfers being the gear whores they are, it works.

It is, I think, the same with small arms. I honestly think we have gone about as far as we can using the present technology and that any improvements are either cosmetic (or at best incremental) or they are of a nature the average shooter cannot take advantage of.

Look at some of the newer-better-flashier rounds introduced over the past 20 years. Most of them died out fairly quickly. Some survive, but still don't do anything much better. Take the popular 7mm-08. Good round by all reports, but in terms of ballistics, it's essentially identical to the 7mm Mauser introduced 125 years ago. The 112-year-old .30-06 still is hard to beat. The 6.5 Creedmore has already been discussed. Even the hoary .30/30 still sells - Bambi just isn't smart enough to know that the 'thutty-thutty' is obsolete and insists on dying when hit by one. Lotsa guys bringing home moose and venison with the 130-year-old .303 British in 100-year-old SMLEs.

Some real advances have been made, to be sure. The short magnums have proved able to produce the same velocity out to, say, 600 yards that older rounds can only achieve at half that. That's real. But here's the kicker - that improvement (which costs in terms of barrel life, recoil and flat-out expense) is one which most of us (me included) simply cannot use. I have no confidence in my ability to get proper shot placement at 600 yards, so why would I burden myself with a costly system with all that extra range?

I think the gun makers are in the same boat as that golfing exec. If you buy one good rifle when you're 25, you can probably make it last for the rest of your life and put meat on the table every year. But that means that RemSavChester will only be able to sell you the odd box of ammo, so they keep introducing 'new-and-improved' rounds in an effort to keep sales going.


Don't get me wrong. If you want a new rifle in a new calibre, go for it. And playing around with wildcats and such is fun, to be sure. But the original question is whether or not we can expect to see any major solid improvements and, to that, I must sadly say, 'not likely'.
Click to expand...


Got to love the caliber collectors, drinking the kool aid that every different situation requires a different calibre. A myth propagated by firearms manufactures looking to sell more firearms, but that's capitalism
 
todbartell said:
What needs aren't covered by the 222 Rem (1950), 6.5x55 (1894), 30-06 (1906), 375 Ruger (2007)
Click to expand...

Wilhelm Brenneke beat Ruger by eighty years with his 9.3x64 Brenneke. Technically the revised list would be more than adequate for game across the planet except that some African nations arbitrarily declare .375" the minimum caliber (9.3mm=0.366"). Until that changed, then the final entry in the list might best be the 416 Rigby from 1911.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom