The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: General

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old November 20, 2007, 02:25 AM   #1
MTMilitiaman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 2004
Location: NW Montana
Posts: 1,875
Ruger drops the ball...

Some people are stupid. Like the cumulative idiots at Ruger/Hornady research and development, who took a good thing with lots of potential, and turned it into utter crap, barely worth an "eh" and a shoulder shrug.

For years many have been waiting for a standard length beltless magnum cartridge without a funky headsize and without the expense of proprietary brass and rifles like Dakota Arms or Lazzeroni.

I feel like Remington's Ultra Mag line would ultimately have been more successful if it had filled this niche for the American consumer, and certainly their RSAUM line would have been more successful if they had thought to go standard length, instead of following in Winchester's footsteps.

When Ruger introduced the .375 Ruger, my brother and I both perked up. Not because we felt the need for a .375 caliber magnum, which is excessive for our purposes, but because we recognized the awesome potential for the case to finally give us a line of standard length beltless magnums. We immediately began thinking ".300 Ruger" and ".338 Ruger" on the same case. I don't think we were alone...

Instead, in a market already chalk full of short magnum and super short magnums, and overflowing, Ruger and Hornady, in a screw-up so colossal it apparently necessitates a joint effort, have chosen to introduce yet another family of short magnums. If you have not yet heard of the .300 and .338 Ruger Compact Magnums, don't worry, you're not missing much. Even a yawn takes too much effort compared to how utterly and completely unenthusiastic I am, and something tells me, that even though "Guns & Ammo" felt it was front page news, much of the shooting industry will forget these cartridges exist as fast as they learn about them.

So if Ruger and Hornady are listening, way to drop the ball, losers. All that potential, and this is what you do with it? Such a waste...

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/ammuni...107/index.html
__________________
"...nothing says 'I WILL shoot every last one of you before you have time to reconsider your poor choices in life' like an AK."
~Dave R.
MTMilitiaman is offline  
Old November 20, 2007, 03:13 AM   #2
jbadams66
Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2005
Posts: 91
I cant remember how many times I read how winchester and remington should bring out a 338 short mag. Now Ruger has stepped up and done what alot of people ask for and all I read is people complain that it isnt exactly what they wanted.

Ruger just came out with the 375 case last year. Give it time, I am sure there will be a 338 ruger based on the full length case. People complained that ruger should have started thier line with a 338 or 416 on the new case. If they had done that people would say ruger "dropped the ball" and should have started the line out with a 375.

Be patient or just make a 338 ruger. It would be cheap to ream out a 338 win mag and there are several die makers that have dies already available. You would have just what you want with brass that should be readily available.

I just dont understand why people bite the hand that feeds them when they dont get exactly what they want. How much do you want to bet that when ruger brings out a full length 300 and 338 case people will say that the market is already flooded and the new rounds dont really do anything that the old standards dont already do. I think the 338 RCM will find its place in the market if the velocity claims are true and ruger and hornady have brought out a cartridge that can use a 20" barrel to match standard 338 winchester rounds from a 24" barrel.
jbadams66 is offline  
Old November 20, 2007, 03:41 AM   #3
joshua
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2004
Location: norCal
Posts: 2,161
I agree with MTMilitiaman 90%, I just won't go as far as calling the Ruger and Hornady venture a loser. I was expecting Ruger to use the case they started with the 338 and 416. I did mention in one of my posts that they have something on the 338 RCM in factory loads, but for folks who handloads what's the use if the standard powders won't reach the factory ballistics. Hornady should have known that since they are in the reloading business, it's just not supportive of their other business in which I think is their bread and butter. Now the 338 RCM is still a contender for short action lovers, it is more powerful than the 338 Federal and it is a good thing when hunting black bears, moose and elk. Ruger can still recoup and easily bring out a standard length 338 and 416 Ruger mag. I think Hornady has something with their 300 RCM if they can sell it to the military. Military doesn't handload and they will have a short cartridge easily adaptable to the short action sniper rifles and it will immensely boost range performance compared to the 175 grain 7.62x51 NATO round. josh
joshua is offline  
Old November 20, 2007, 04:06 AM   #4
MTMilitiaman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 2004
Location: NW Montana
Posts: 1,875
Quote:
I just dont understand why people bite the hand that feeds them when they dont get exactly what they want. How much do you want to bet that when ruger brings out a full length 300 and 338 case people will say that the market is already flooded and the new rounds dont really do anything that the old standards dont already do.
What we have here is a situation similar to what Remington found in 1962. The 7mm Rem Mag didn't do anything that the 7mm Weatherby or 7x61 Sharpe and Hart didn't do, and still doesn't. The difference is that Remington was smart enough to see a market, and offered similar performance in a cheaper and more mainstream package. People no longer had to buy expensive brass and reload, or pay for expensive custom rifles to get true magnum performance from that bore diameter, and the market responded by rewarding Remington's insight. The 7mm Rem Mag is a remarkable success by just about anyone's standards.

Today we have a Dakota magnums, and maybe a few other various standard length beltless magnums on the brink of obscurity, but the rifles, ammunition, and brass and uniformly expensive. The market is there for whoever is smart enough to seize it and capitalize. How Ruger could possibly think there is more of a market for another short action family, when it has already been saturated by them is beyond me. Winchester got there first, at least on the mainstream market. Remington followed, but apparently, there was only room for one, because their short action line isn't doing so well. Winchester, for whatever reason, thought there was a market for a Super Short Mag line, which may have been too much of a good thing. Various other makers offer short mags as well, including now Dakota and Lazzeroni. If you want a short mag, there are options out there. And again, apparently just one is enough, because even the second place in this race is experiencing waning popularity. How could Ruger possibly imagine they are going to do any better coming in late at third place?

At any rate, trying to create space in an already crowded market certainly isn't intelligent compared to jumping into an open market. Let's see, be third or fourth into a narrow market by a large margin with a line of cartridges that does nothing well established cartridges don't do already, or be first in a market absolutely devoid of competition? Hmmm...

Talk about screwing the pooch
__________________
"...nothing says 'I WILL shoot every last one of you before you have time to reconsider your poor choices in life' like an AK."
~Dave R.
MTMilitiaman is offline  
Old November 20, 2007, 09:08 AM   #5
FirstFreedom
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 31, 2004
Location: The Toll Road State, U.S.A.
Posts: 12,451
OK, I agree, they dropped the ball on the useless short mags - but doesn't the .375 still have the potential you mention for necking down for making beltless magnums with cheap brass?
FirstFreedom is offline  
Old November 20, 2007, 10:28 AM   #6
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,074
All I can say is thank God Ruger didn't feel the need to go back to a belted cartridge to differentiate themselves from the Winchester short magnum line.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old November 20, 2007, 02:24 PM   #7
MTMilitiaman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 2004
Location: NW Montana
Posts: 1,875
Quote:
but doesn't the .375 still have the potential you mention for necking down for making beltless magnums with cheap brass?
Yes, but the point is to have a readily available commercial option that doesn't require a custom rifle, or fire-forming brass and such.
__________________
"...nothing says 'I WILL shoot every last one of you before you have time to reconsider your poor choices in life' like an AK."
~Dave R.
MTMilitiaman is offline  
Old November 20, 2007, 02:45 PM   #8
razorbuc
Member
 
Join Date: March 9, 2005
Location: florida
Posts: 32
What the crap do you guys shoot,that you need such a big round?..if it's a just because I want it...that's good enough for me,but unless you are shooting charging grizzlies..those are some shoulder wreckers you guys are shooting out there..not hatin....just participatin'
razorbuc is offline  
Old November 20, 2007, 02:48 PM   #9
jbadams66
Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2005
Posts: 91
I guess it wont be that great of a cartridge then if it isnt worth putting about 400 dollars (at most) into an existing rifle.

Here is what I think will happen. When ruger does produce a full length 338 magnum (and I believe they will in a short amount of time) they will use their powders that are not available to the public. So the first thing you are going to hear is "what is the point of having a cartridge that I cant duplicate factory velocities by handloading". People are already saying this about the RCMs and they arent even out yet.

Ruger has plenty of time to introduce different calibers based on the full length case before their patent runs out. I agree with you that the 300 short (compact) magnum field is flooded already but the 338 RCM only has two factory cartridges to compete with which are the 338 federal and the 338 Winchester.
jbadams66 is offline  
Old November 20, 2007, 04:07 PM   #10
MTMilitiaman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 2004
Location: NW Montana
Posts: 1,875
Assuming you already have the action and stock, a new rifle barrel can cost significantly more than $400, esp if it is to be chambered for a wildcat cartridge and professionally installed. Many gunsmiths make you pay for the custom chamber reamer. And that isn't including the cost of custom resizing dies.

If Ruger does introduce a family of standard length magnums based on the .375 Ruger case, but Hornady opts to load it with powders handloaders can't get their hands on, that would be fine by me. At least you have a factory production rifle and a good source of brass. And based just on case capacity, handloaders should be able to get more performance than the .338 Winchester from existing powders.

As for what I hunt that requires such a big round, nothing, really. My brother wants a hybrid hunting/long range target rifle, like a heavy sporter. He wants to drive a 210 gr VLD @ ~3000 fps for target shooting. I am more of a fan of the .338 caliber, but the long action magnums like the Weatherby and RUM strike me as excessive. Neither is efficient enough to make very good use of a 24 inch tube. My dad put a 30 inch Lilja on his .338 RUM. I mostly just want the option because it would be the first fresh concept on the market in years.
__________________
"...nothing says 'I WILL shoot every last one of you before you have time to reconsider your poor choices in life' like an AK."
~Dave R.
MTMilitiaman is offline  
Old November 20, 2007, 05:51 PM   #11
taylorce1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2005
Location: On the Santa Fe Trail
Posts: 5,515
I'll have to agree it will probably be $500+ dollars to have a barrel installed on a pre-existing action and stock. I've been thinking about the .375 Ruger myself, I have an M70 in 7mm Rem Mag that I've been thinking about converting. I don't need a .375 but I don't need any rifles other than my .270 for most of the game I hunt.

MTMilitiaman, finding a chamber reamer to rent isn't going to be too much of a problem for a .30-375 or .338-375 Ruger. Just go over to Accurate Reloading and check out the Wildcat Forum. A few guys have already had reamers built or are in the process of purchasing reamers. Just rent a reamer from one of them, send it to Pac-Nor with your action and for around $500 you will have your belt-less .308 or .338 caliber magnum.

Make a chamber cast and send it off to RCBS or Redding and have some custom dies made. I wouldn't be supprised if they haven't made a few already. I don't think you will have to fireform the brass as all you are doing is necking it down, unless you decide to move the shoulder. Be the first kid on your block to own your idea of a perfect magnum caliber.
taylorce1 is offline  
Old November 22, 2007, 09:01 PM   #12
joshua
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2004
Location: norCal
Posts: 2,161
Quote:
I have an M70 in 7mm Rem Mag that I've been thinking about converting.
Since you have that 7mm Rem mag barrel, it's should be very easy to convert to 7mm-375 Ruger. I wonder if the world can use another 7mm magnum. I'm on the same boat as you, I have a 270 Win rifle that I would like to convert to 338 Ruger, but I'm not about to convert it to 338 RCM. I would rather use the 325 WSM case to make a 338 fat and short wildcat than the 338 RCM. Reason for Olin not bringing the 338 WSM into a factory loads is it won't reach 338 Win mag performance. They too have the capability of more modern powders to increase velocity, but it will fall short when it is reloaded by mere mortals. Could've just lied to the shooting world and post the ballistics that will sell, but omit the fact that more modern powders were used. Hmmmm.... At least the manufacturers in our sport are honest enough to tell us the almost truth. josh
joshua is offline  
Old November 22, 2007, 09:30 PM   #13
taylorce1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2005
Location: On the Santa Fe Trail
Posts: 5,515
Quote:
Since you have that 7mm Rem mag barrel, it's should be very easy to convert to 7mm-375 Ruger.
I wouldn't waste my time with anoter 7mm Mag rifle, that caliber just doesn't float my boat. I'll probably wind up doing a .375 Ruger because of the comercial brass and dies will be cheaper than building a .375-338. I don't have any calibers larger than .358 so I see a hole to fill, even though I don't have anything to hunt that will need a caliber that large here in CO.

Besides all I have left of that rifle is the action and stock. I've already had the barrel removed and sold it. In calibers smaller than .308 I'm lacking a 6.5 and 7 mm caliber. I want a 6.5X55 but the 7mm is my problem, I can't find one that I like to shoot better than my .270 so I've been thinking of a 7-30 Waters in a single shot.
taylorce1 is offline  
Old November 22, 2007, 09:42 PM   #14
Jseime
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 31, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,775
wow more short magnums ... thats what we need :barf:.

Do these people not realize that my .270 which is an 82 year old round will kill deer just the same as all these retarded ultra super short hyper velocity "magnums" that offer a few more feet per second for more powder less magazine capacity and you have to buy a new gun to get them.

How bout you spend less time developing more cartridges to do the same tricks as the rest of the cartridges that we already have and dump all that wasted R&D money into developing more advanced rifles to shoot the cartridges we already have. Then you would be on to something.
__________________
I love the smell of fresh shotgun in the morning.
Jseime is offline  
Old November 22, 2007, 09:43 PM   #15
joshua
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2004
Location: norCal
Posts: 2,161
Quote:
I can't find one that I like to shoot better than my .270 so I've been thinking of a 7-30 Waters in a single shot.
LOL! I have a 7-30 Waters barrel for my TC Contender already. I have shot deer and feral hogs with my 270 Win was more than enough. In my experience the 270 Win will be adequate out to 400 yards and most of the time the game is not seen until it's under 200 yards. I haven't taken any game with the 7-30 Waters yet, but most folks that I talked to said the 120 grain bullet is plenty for deer and 150 lb and under hogs at 200 yards or under. I have my 45-70 barrel if big hogs are what I'm looking for. The reaso I was eyeballing the 375 Ruger case is for a 338 that's a bit faster than the 338 Win mag, but not really as brutal as the 338 RUM and no belt of course. Rim diameter is small enough to adapt a standard bolt face such as a model 70 CRF, Mauser or even a Remington 700 with a magnum bolt face. I think Ruger abandoned a good thing, but they can still bring them out. josh
joshua is offline  
Old November 22, 2007, 09:48 PM   #16
CraigC
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2001
Location: West Tennessee
Posts: 4,300
You are not required to buy one.
CraigC is offline  
Old November 22, 2007, 10:05 PM   #17
joshua
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2004
Location: norCal
Posts: 2,161
Quote:
You are not required to buy one.
We all know that. The reason for this thread is to express our opinion on what the Ruger/Hornady venture came up with. It's still too early for a verdict, but with the current opinions I'm thinking it's hard to even reach WSM status. Remington tested the short and fat trend with a 300 and 7mm, I don't hear much about them anymore. The WSM are holding a bit, but some will say they are fading into oblivion. Who knows?

josh
joshua is offline  
Old November 23, 2007, 01:33 AM   #18
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,074
"Do these people not realize that my .270 which is an 82 year old round will kill deer just the same as all these retarded ultra super short hyper velocity "magnums" that offer a few more feet per second for more powder less magazine capacity and you have to buy a new gun to get them."

Of course they do. But that has never stopped any firearms manufacturer at any point in the development of cartridges.

There has always been a huge amount of overlap in cartridges.

That never stops a company from trying to come up with the next big popular item.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old November 23, 2007, 10:58 AM   #19
Art Eatman
Staff Lead
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX, USA
Posts: 22,540
From the initial startup of the .300 WSM, and particularly with all the other shorties, I came to the opinion that if one is a handloader and does not already have a rifle in some particular caliber, these short magnums make sense.

I don't see where they really do anything all that much better than, say, an '06 or a .270, but if you lack a 30- or a 27-caliber, the shorties are not a bad way to go.

I mention handloading because you can load any magnum down for plinking or to max for hunting.

Since I don't need anything "more" than what I'm already happy with, I'm not in the market. But, some folks are, and IMO that's all seems important.

Art
__________________
You're from BATFE? Come right in! I use all your fine products!
Art Eatman is offline  
Old November 23, 2007, 01:12 PM   #20
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
I'm seeing a trend away from the new, high intensity magnums...heck we just took orders for a 7x57AI and the 9.3x62 in custom rifles....

Wildneedimention6.5x47and6.x55Alaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old November 23, 2007, 05:21 PM   #21
jhgreasemonkey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 7, 2006
Location: 46.199ºN 122.188ºW by way of
Posts: 2,237
The .300 rcm has pretty much identical performance to the .300 wsm so I dont really see the point in creating something new and great that already exists but...
The .338 rcm outperforms a .338 win mag by a small margin and does it using a 20" barrel as opposed to the 24" win mag barrel. It also produces less recoil and muzzle blast. So your rifle is going to be better/quicker handling and quite a bit shorter because of barrel and action length. Giving you a compact quick handling 6.5lb hunting rifle that outperforms the .338 win mag. How is this not a great advancement?
It might not be what YOU wanted but I am willing to bet that I'm not the only one that finds it appealing.
jhgreasemonkey is offline  
Old November 23, 2007, 06:09 PM   #22
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 11,185
Look at the case dimensions.
If Ruger/Hornady had just necked down the .375 Ruger at full length, they would have been reinventing the .30 and .33 Newton. And nothing made in 1912 is any good anymore, is it?
Jim Watson is offline  
Old November 23, 2007, 10:12 PM   #23
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,074
.33 Newton?

Newton never developed a .33 as far as I know.

Elmer Keith and a couple of his buddies did .33s...

Newton did a .35...
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old November 23, 2007, 10:57 PM   #24
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
33 OKH...

WildaroundofmyyouthAlaska TM
Wildalaska is offline  
Old November 23, 2007, 11:31 PM   #25
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 11,185
Quote:
Newton never developed a .33 as far as I know.
Such authors as Phil Sharpe, Henry Stebbins, George Nonte, and John Donnelly were aware of the .33 Newton. It it not make it to commercial manufacture, but as Stebbins says, "barrels were made and shot." Sharpe says groove diameter was .337".
Jim Watson is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12973 seconds with 7 queries