Failed cartridges

Scorch

New member
Cartridges run in trends, just like cars and planes and clothes. The winners are the ones that are marketed better than the others.

Back in the 1930s, the 22 Donaldson reigned supreme on the range, but no one out in the field ever carried one. It died in the 1950s when the 222 Remington made its appearance because peopel could buy a rifle chambered for a cartridge that was winning on the ranges and performed well in the field.

Seems like just a few years ago (mid-1970s), 22 PPC ruled the benchrest course, so Remington tried introducing the BR cartridges. They made it much too complicated by offering BR brass that was full-sized 308 with a small primer, and making dies available. Most shooters did not want any part of that. They forgot KISS.

Winchester thought they could replace the 220 Swift after it had ruled for 30-ish years, so they introduced the 225 Winchester to go head to head with the new 22-250 Remington. It died without a whimper.

Same can be said about quite a few offerings over the years, biggest, bestest, purtiest, powerfullest and available NOW at your local gun store! Buy one soon! And the crowd yawned and walked away. They never "created a need", never marketed the new creations, and so they got poor results. Poor sales result in dropped products. I say good riddance, but some folks are disappointed by the passing of the 307 Winchester, the 308 MX, the 375 Winchester, the 30 TC, and a slew of other never-rans introduced to much fanfare but without thought as to why.
 

TRX

New member
In the last ten years, periodic brass shortages might have had a lot to do with success.

Back in '08 it took nine months on back-order to get .50 Beowulf brass when I needed some.
 

FrankenMauser

New member
In the last ten years, periodic brass shortages might have had a lot to do with success.

Back in '08 it took nine months on back-order to get .50 Beowulf brass when I needed some.

A drop in the bucket. ;)

Sierra went 5.5 years between production runs of their .312" 90 gr JHC, even though it was in higher demand than ever before in company history.


And there were a few guys that waited over 3 years to get their backordered .458 SOCOMS from Wilson Combat (and then probably regretted it immediately anyway ;)).
 

Gunplummer

New member
I guess Scorch has a point with ammo availability. Years back reloading was not really that big like it is now. If you could not buy the ammo at the local sports shop, that cartridge soon went away. Others simply do not catch on, ammo or not.
 

reynolds357

New member
I think some cartridges that have been mentioned, like the RUM line, have not at all failed. They were brought to market knowing they would only appeal to a tiny niche market. That is exactly what they did, appeal to a tiny niche market.
 

Gunplummer

New member
I dunno about that. The "Tiny niche market" has been tried numerous times and mostly failed due to cost. Better off with a wildcat.
 

gw44

New member
My model 375 marlin will never leave my side, I load for it and love to hunt with it, the 307-356-358 all good hunting rounds, what a shame they did not make it !!!!
 

ShootistPRS

New member
The 358 Winchester is as good out to 250 yards as the 3006 is when both are using 180 grain bullets. The puzzle I don't understand is why it is most often referred to as a short range woods cartridge. It is a great hunting cartridge for large game under most conditions.
 

FrankenMauser

New member
People consider the .358 Win to be a 'short range' and/or 'brush gun' because of the trajectory of the bullets.

In today's world (even going back a few decades), the expectation is that a hunter can use the same hold from 25 yards to 350+ yards, without worrying about bullet drop.

So, most people consider cartridges with bullet trajectories that actually have to be compensated for to be inferior and only good for short range.

Those people would have nightmares if they saw what I, and many other members here, hunt with.
There's a dope card in the case for my .444 Marlin single-shot with drift and drop data to 144 inches (12 feet) of drop ... and the bullet only starts at 1,850 fps.
 

ShootistPRS

New member
If you haven't heard of maximum point blank range I suggest you take a look at the specs. While it is not the "be all, end all" way to compare or evaluate cartridges it is probably one of the fairest ways to compare dissimilar cartridges. The process assumes a 6" diameter target zone that can be hit without adjusting sights or using "Kentucky windage".

The 35 Remington has a MPBR of 186 with a 200 grain bullet.
The 358 Winchester has a MPBR of 239 yards with a 200 grain bullet.
The 3006 has a MPBR of 269 yards with a 180 grain bullet.
The difference between the 35 Rem and the 358 Win is 53 yards and between the 358 Win and the 3006 is 30 yards.

The longest MPBR of the magnum cartridges with a same weight bullet is only 320 yards. I could find no cartridge that can get closer to 350 yards without sight adjustment or hold over. Remember that the MPBR has no more rise or drop from point of aim than 3 inches in order to hit a six inch target.
 

Scorch

New member
That's a good way to compare cartridges, it puts them all on even footing. Except some people want to claim superiority simply on velocity of ft-lbs of energy. I find a 300 RUM a little much when shooting varmints, and my 218 Bee doesn't cut it on elk.
 

ShootistPRS

New member
Scortch,
I found it more useful as a hunter than the measured values of energy or momentum at a given range. I don't shoot at record breaking distances where a clean and quick one shot kill is desired (if shooting at an animal). I am intimately familiar with the fact that a slightly felt wind can change a point of impact more than the ballistic path in a relatively short time and choose to limit my shots to those that I am sure of even if the wind should change in the moment I pull the trigger. Staying within the first 66% of MPBR is, for me, a good rule of thumb.
 
The biggest problem with the .280 Remington is that it tried to compete with the .270 Winchester, which had nearly a 50 year head start.

It offered virtually identical ballistics.

It's hung on, having developed a small following, but it's never going to surplant the .270.


When I think of a failed cartridge, I think of a round that's introduced, is chambered for a few years, and then is unceremoniously dumped because people just didn't want it. Other companies might pick it up occasionally, ammo may be produced for quite some years, but it never was, and never will be, a common gunshop item that gets people interested in a "I really need one of those!" way.

Some good candidates are:

8mm Remington Magnum

.225 Winchester

.256 Winchester (previously mentioned)

.244 Remington (got a new lease on life as the 6mm)

6.5 Remington Magnum

.32 Winchester Self Loading

.35 Winchester Self Loading

.450 Marlin


Those are just a few off the top of my head.

Rounds like the .25-35 don't qualify as failed cartridges because the round was quite popular for several decades.
 

2ndsojourn

New member
How 'bout the .303 Savage? When eyeballing it next to a 30-30 it looks the same. I was able to grab a couple boxes of factory reload ammo at a couple gun shows and I always have my eye out for more.
 
.303 Savage-chambered rifles enjoyed moderate popularity for 40 or so years, and the round was loaded commercially into the 1980s.

In my mind that qualifies it as an obsolete cartridge, but not a failed cartridge.
 

Guv

New member
But could we consider it failed when compared to it's direct competition, the 30-30 Winchester?
The 99 may have really been it's biggest problem concerning it's justification. This because Savage offered the much more powerful 300 Savage latter in the same gun.
 
".303 Savage is still available commercially..."

Not still.

Again.

It was completely out of production for the better part of 15 to 20 years before Graff's brought it back.

The .303 is a perfect example of an obsolete cartridge that springs back to life long after it seemed to go the way of the dodo bird.



"But could we consider it failed when compared to it's direct competition, the 30-30 Winchester?"

No. Savage made probably 100,000 rifles chambered for .303 Savage.

Yes, that pales in comparison to the number of .30-30 Winchesters (Savage also chambered the Winchester round) made, but it still can't be qualified as a failure.

It wasn't as popular as the .30-30, but then again the Savage 99 wasn't as popular as the Model 94, but with nearly 3 million 99s made over a nearly 100 year production run, you can't qualify it was a failure, either.
 
Top