Failed cartridges

F

FrankenMauser

New member
In a sense the M1903's original chambering, the .30-03 was a failed cartridge as it caused erosion of the bore of the service rifles, and it was not a long range performer. It was not much of an improvement at all over the .30-40 Krag. It was dropped for the -06.
Click to expand...
Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia.

Powder charge, bullet profile and weight, and neck length are the only real differences between .30-03 and .30-06.
.30-03 was not run at higher pressure than .30-06. It was run at higher pressure than .30-40 Krag. (I believe this common misinterpretation comes from a statement in Hatcher's Notebook.)

The .30-06 variation of the .30-03 cartridge was primarily adopted because of the low velocity and rainbow trajectory of the 220 gr bullet, combined with the fact that all of our powerful enemies (potential or real) were converting to spitzer bullets in their battle rifle cartridges.
The 220 RN was 'old fashioned' and seen as a handicap.
And since the long neck no longer needed to support a long bullet, it was shortened for .30-06.
 
S

Scorch

New member
IIRC 8MM Remington Magnum was introduced with much fanfare, though Elmer Keith saw no use for it.
Click to expand...
Well, Elmer never shot one, either. The 8mm Rem Mag is an awesome cartridge, flat shooting and powerful, although a bit much for most shooters. It had a reputation as a vicious kicker, which I will agree with, but it was not out of line with some of the rifles currently marketed (338 RUM comes to mind). I like to describe shooting it as being like having your head slammed in a car door. The concussion and recoil would make you woozy after 3 or 4 rounds. Its long case and large powder charge requires a longer barrel than the factory 24" can effectively use. I had a Custom Shop rifle with a 26" barrel, and it would launch the 220 gr Hornadys at 3,100 fps, but the fire ball out the end of the barrel was still fantastic. With better powders like we have now, it could likely hold its own with the other super magnums, but it is as dead as can be.
 
B

bamaranger

New member
more on 5mm Rimfire Magnum

Jimro mentioned the 5mm RFM earlier and I'll join in. The 5mm Mag should have caught on. Faster than a .22 Mag, and delivering a heavier slug than the .17 HRM, it seems the ideal hot rimfire, if you exclude the big rimfires that recently hit the market. ( I expect that one will die too).

The 5mm's problem was that nobody supported it. When the .17 HRM hit the market, it was hailed as the rage, and most all manufacturers jumped in and produced both rifles and handguns for the little cartridge in short order. Not so the poor 5mm Mag. T/C supposedly made some barrels for their switch barrel pistol, and I heard once that Kimber was going to make their high dollar .22 rifle available in the 5mm, but I never saw any examples of either. The only production rifles were the Rem 581 series, which weren't bad rifles, but not much of a base from which to launch a new cartridge. It'd been nice if Mossberg, Savage, Ruger had joined in as they did later with the .17. I don't know how such things are handled, if Rem was attempting to hog the market with their new cartridge and has some type of rights to it, or if the other makers just weren't interested, but with only two rifles chambered for the number, it was destined to fail nearly from the start.

And attempts to resurrect it with the Aquilla/Taurus connection have failed recently it appears as well. Too bad, I see the 5mm as the ideal hot rimfire.
 
G

Gunplummer

New member
If I remember correctly, the 5MM was introduced in a weird rifle(New concept at the time)that had a non-rotating bolt handle. That may have has something to do with it. People back in the 60's did not just jump on the bandwagon when something new came around.
 
J

Jack O'Conner

New member
Winchester's mighty .348 died because the rifle went out of production after a run of approx 20 years. No other rifle was ever chambered for this powerful mid-bore cartridge.

TR
 
F

FrankenMauser

New member
If I remember correctly, the 5MM was introduced in a weird rifle(New concept at the time)that had a non-rotating bolt handle. That may have has something to do with it. People back in the 60's did not just jump on the bandwagon when something new came around.
Click to expand...
I believe it was primarily chambered in the 591 and 592. Both were bolt actions operated in the typical fashion.
(One having a detachable magazine, and the other being tube-fed, I believe.)


When the hints and rumors started coming out about Winchester's new "magnum rimfire" I really hoped it would be .20 caliber. Though not as easy to market, due to lower muzzle velocity, it would have been a much better cartridge than the .17 WSM that we got. And, honestly, I had a little sliver of hope in there for the 5mm RRM guys; that with another .20 caliber rimfire on the market, the original would come back.
.17 caliber was a mistake, in my opinion.

Few people actually want a teeny little .17 caliber bullet at hyper velocity.
Velocity isn't everything ... which, coincidentally, is a continuing theme with quite a few of the cartridges we've discussed here.

To add to the 'velocity killed the cat' list, I'll throw out .375 RUM.
Wasteful. Punishing to most shooters.
Not enough of an improvement to justify the pain.
And ammunition was more expensive than factory Weatherby fodder.
Less than 10 years after its introduction, even Remington stopped chambering the cartridge. And now factory ammo (if you can find it) is more expensive than .338 Lapua.
 
Last edited:
B

bamaranger

New member
591/592

Thanks Frankenmauser, I had the model numbers wrong in my earlier post regards the 5mm.....I stated 581....which I believe was the .22 lr family.

The only weird thing I can think of regards the 591/2 was that it used multiple locking lugs towards the rear of the bolt, but I think it was the same lock up as used on .22 lr version 581/2. But.....I am not sure of that. The extractor on the 591/2 rifles was a bit cheap, I broke one on my rifle, and after replacement back in the day, stored the rifle with the bolt open from that point forward. The trigger on my sample is terrible, must be 8-9 lbs plus...I never noticed it as a kid, and still shot a bunch of groundhogs with it.
 
F

FrankenMauser

New member
Any time.
I couldn't remember which model numbers they were, but did remember that the 5mm RRM rifles were a "popular" conversion platform for guys turning to .22 CCM (based on converted Hornet cases, rather than the crumbly Fiocchi garbage mentioned previously in this thread).
So... I googled it. Shameful, but it got me where I needed to be. ;)

And I really don't understand the hatred for 'rear-locking' bolts on rimfires. Lots of rifles use the arrangement, but only those that are unpopular (or total failures) for other reasons get picked on for it.
Heck, even the now-discontinued centerfire Ruger 77/-- series used rear locking lugs, in addition to the rimfires.

I understand the theory of extra parts creating extra play being less than desirable for precision rifles. But the reality is that most of them are just as tight and repeatable as the typical forward-lug arrangement; and none of them were designed with 'match grade' performance in mind.

For that matter... I'd say that the most popular bolt-action rimfire rifle designs in history have been rear-locking, typically on just the bolt handle!
 
S

Scorch

New member
Yep, people knock the rear-locking rifles, then in the same breath start telling you about the 788 they wish they had.:rolleyes:
 
D

doofus47

New member
On a technical level, the 2XX WSSM seem like good ideas, but their benefits and calibers are overshadowed by a lot of historically entrenched cartridges.

Similarly, 30 OSSM is probably going to slip under the waves.
 
S

salt and battery

Moderator
amazing how stupid Remington was and is to put so much into the 8MM rem mag a round one in ten thousand hunters would use and let the 6MM 280 and 30 AR die a slow death
 
R

reynolds357

New member
If I remember correctly, Elmer got royalty monies from the .30-378 wby. Wonder why he did not like a competing round in rifles that were half the price?(8mm Remington)
 
S

samsmix

New member
I predicted a LOT of failures, and fail they did...

The WSSM family: these were an uphill battle against some well loved cartridges. The .25 was an obvious insta-flop (Americans as a whole have no love for the quarter bore), but the .223 and 243 WSSMs didn't fare any better.

The RSAUM family: it was going to be RSAUM or WSM, and frankly WSM was marketed better and rolled off the tongue easier.

The WSM family: the .300 and .270 were all that stood a chance...maybe the 7mm IF it hadn't been released late. Weight shaving elk hunters are a niche market. I see more of them packing a long mag, coping with the weight, and reaping the performance.

The RUM family. It was going to be .300 or nothing here....and it is. Fastest way to toss a 180-220gr .30 cal without going to proprietary Weatherby cases...but the loaded ammo still costs as much. The others? Nope.

The RCM family: there is "fashionably late" and then there is "Dude, the party was yesterday!". Not really sure what Ruger was thinking here. The stopping rifle category is small and full. The "long-range 20" brush gun" category...does that niche even exist?

.338 Federal: this is faring better than I had thought it would, and I must say I'm shocked. Introduced into nearly nonexistent gap between the .308 and .358, but lacking the powder capacity to drive heavy bullets fast & flat, I admittedly called this one wrong.

The Marlin Express family: nostalgia wasn't going to make western hunters trade their '06 or .270 for a proprietary round that offered less performance, in a gun that offers less inherent accuracy, and just ONE bullet choice. Eastern brush hunters didn't need the thing. I liked the idea of the .308 MX, but knew what would happen. The .338 MX was wishful thinking on Marlin's part.

The .450 Marlin: a niche round with a lot of potential, un-seating the .45-70 was always going to be a tough row to hoe. My understanding is that it is being kept alive in Alaska. A bit light for Africa's heaviest game, Alaska was always its one true home.

And from history:

I'll trot out my favorite, the .257 Roberts: a 57mm case factory loaded to match the length of a .308's 51mm case, the deep seated bullet eats up powder capacity, and makes a long action wasteful for all but hand loaders. It comes factory loaded at 2 levels: a "standard" light load that equals the .250 Savage, and a "+P" that is only a +P because some old, weak, military guns (Mauser 88s & Japanese "last ditch" rifles) got themselves rechambered to it. Factory ammo is often loaded with 117gr RN bullets intended for the 25-35.
What is to be gleaned from the .257Bob's tale? Simple: like the 7mm-06/.280/7mmER/.280, and the .244/6mm, if you want to kill off a cartridge, just confuse the shooting public.
 
G

Guv

New member
I don't think the .244 was confusing, I think a too slow of a twist and competing with the M70 sealed it's fate early on. The .243 caught on, sorta.;)
All those short and not so short non-belted magnums were/are mind boggling! :confused:
 
S

ShootistPRS

New member
I own a couple of calibers that are considered "low popularity" cartridges but I would not call them failed cartridges. I have a Remington 700 in358 Winchester that is as good as any 308 in its ability to take game at range and I own a couple of Brownings in 257 Roberts that will easily keep up with any 243 in taking game or varmints at range. They are not popular rounds but they are effective and what I wanted. The only thing wrong with these cartridges is that they were marketed wrong (the 358) or under loaded and brought to the market at the wrong time (the 257 Roberts). With modern pressures and the right gun they are spectacular performers on a par with most hunting rounds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top