Failed cartridges
- Thread starter Gunplummer
- Start date
reynolds357
New member
I do not consider any Wildcat a failed cartridge. I only consider cartridges "failed" that were commercially marketed and did not make the cut. I have developed several wildcats that are wildly successful at doing what I want them to do. I have never tried to sell them nor have I ever cut a chamber for anyone but myself. Not "failed," simply purpose built.
FrankenMauser
New member
Velocity.
Lower recoil.
Varmint loads with substantially flatter trajectories.
There are no failed cartridges, there is only failed marketing and failed expectations.
Every one of the "failed" cartridges did/does the job it was made to do. Some do it quite well, some less so, but every one worked.
The only place they failed was continued mass market appeal. Call it success, call it longevity, call it lots of things those that were dropped from production weren't dropped because they failed in the field, they were dropped because they "failed" in the bean counter's ledgers.
They "failed" to sell well enough for the makers to keep them in production.
Every one of the "failed" cartridges did/does the job it was made to do. Some do it quite well, some less so, but every one worked.
The only place they failed was continued mass market appeal. Call it success, call it longevity, call it lots of things those that were dropped from production weren't dropped because they failed in the field, they were dropped because they "failed" in the bean counter's ledgers.
They "failed" to sell well enough for the makers to keep them in production.
alaskabushman
New member
lots of good answers here, I admit I didn't read all the posts, so if I'm just rehashing please forgive me.
.308 Marlin Express, good idea but haven't seen one in years.
.222 Rem Mag, it hung on a lot longer than it should have considering the .223 can pretty much do whatever it can.
.30 T/C, ummmmm....
.25 and .32 NAA, proprietary I know, but seriously, who carries one of these?
RCM, RSAUM, WSM (except the .300 WSM), WSSM , too much of something that the market didn't really want.
But for me it was the Remington ElectronX firing system. Not really a dedicated cartridge per se, but a cartridge ignition system that went absolutely nowhere. What hunter wants to replace the dead batteries in his gun?
.308 Marlin Express, good idea but haven't seen one in years.
.222 Rem Mag, it hung on a lot longer than it should have considering the .223 can pretty much do whatever it can.
.30 T/C, ummmmm....
.25 and .32 NAA, proprietary I know, but seriously, who carries one of these?
RCM, RSAUM, WSM (except the .300 WSM), WSSM , too much of something that the market didn't really want.
But for me it was the Remington ElectronX firing system. Not really a dedicated cartridge per se, but a cartridge ignition system that went absolutely nowhere. What hunter wants to replace the dead batteries in his gun?
FrankenMauser
New member
.220 Swift is really where the EtronX failed.
It wasn't about hunters. It was about paper-punchers and varminters.
At the time, the cartridge was coming back, and Remington thought they could get the competition crowd on board, because .220 Swift was making new rounds in the competition circuit with heavy bullets (which, in my own experience is not where the .220 Swift excels...
).
But, of course, they introduced the 'revolutionary' new concept with ammunition that included a 40 gr varmint bullet.
...
...
...
...
...
Yea...
Um...
Dead.
All subsequent attempts with other cartridges were dead in the water.
To be honest...
If the EtronX rifles had been offered by another company (such as Ruger - I hate Remington), and the ammunition [and primers] were still available, I'd probably own one.
All Remington had to do was corner the correct market for the rifle, in order to let the 'virus' spread to the rest of the shooting world, and they would have had a slow-burner. It would have taken time, but they would have had a successful product.
But, no. They chose a nearly-obsolete cartridge that was coming back in a niche application, aimed the co-dependent rifle at that niche group (competition shooters) while retaining non-conforming mass-market characteristics, and then aimed the ammunition at a completely different niche group (varmint hunters).
Boom!
Awesomeness.
Hype.
Media.
Gun rags.
Dead.
----
As for the .308 ME, it's still alive and well.
It may not be as popular as some other cartridges, but owners love it, and Hornady won't stop making ammo any time soon. If it's not still around in another 10 years, then it may be a failure. But, so far, so good (in lever-actions ... which was the whole point).
.222 Rem Mag...
Though not a huge success, it is still alive and well today, and was commercially chambered as recently as 2014 by Ruger (possibly more recently by others).
It was never meant to be the next best thing. Leading up to the .22-250, it was simply meant to be another rung in the ladder.
Under current conditions, it may not be a high profile cartridge, but it will stick with us for many more years.
If you look at it in no other way...
You can at least look at the .222 Rem Mag as the parent case to .204 Ruger. Huge a few years back... but where is .204 Ruger today?...
(No better than .222 Rem Mag, is the answer.)
It wasn't about hunters. It was about paper-punchers and varminters.
At the time, the cartridge was coming back, and Remington thought they could get the competition crowd on board, because .220 Swift was making new rounds in the competition circuit with heavy bullets (which, in my own experience is not where the .220 Swift excels...
).But, of course, they introduced the 'revolutionary' new concept with ammunition that included a 40 gr varmint bullet.
...
...
...
...
...
Yea...
Um...
Dead.
All subsequent attempts with other cartridges were dead in the water.
To be honest...
If the EtronX rifles had been offered by another company (such as Ruger - I hate Remington), and the ammunition [and primers] were still available, I'd probably own one.
All Remington had to do was corner the correct market for the rifle, in order to let the 'virus' spread to the rest of the shooting world, and they would have had a slow-burner. It would have taken time, but they would have had a successful product.
But, no. They chose a nearly-obsolete cartridge that was coming back in a niche application, aimed the co-dependent rifle at that niche group (competition shooters) while retaining non-conforming mass-market characteristics, and then aimed the ammunition at a completely different niche group (varmint hunters).
Boom!
Awesomeness.
Hype.
Media.
Gun rags.
Dead.
----
As for the .308 ME, it's still alive and well.
It may not be as popular as some other cartridges, but owners love it, and Hornady won't stop making ammo any time soon. If it's not still around in another 10 years, then it may be a failure. But, so far, so good (in lever-actions ... which was the whole point).
.222 Rem Mag...
Though not a huge success, it is still alive and well today, and was commercially chambered as recently as 2014 by Ruger (possibly more recently by others).
It was never meant to be the next best thing. Leading up to the .22-250, it was simply meant to be another rung in the ladder.
Under current conditions, it may not be a high profile cartridge, but it will stick with us for many more years.
If you look at it in no other way...
You can at least look at the .222 Rem Mag as the parent case to .204 Ruger. Huge a few years back... but where is .204 Ruger today?...
(No better than .222 Rem Mag, is the answer.)
Mike Irwin
Staff
"never understood the 243"
I don't understand 99% of the cartridges that are out there, but the .243 I understand.
It was intended, and has done admirable service as, a combination varmint/deer round. Small game all the way to medium game, and it's proven to be very effective at that.
Remington didn't at all understand that's what hunters were looking for when they introduced the .244. The .244 is TRULY a failed cartridge, by the way.
It was suitable for varmint weight bullets only and because of that, it failed. Badly.
It took Remington something like 7-8 years to figure out that they had made a big mistake, and by the time they did, and introduced the 6mm Remington, Winchester pretty much controlled the market.
I don't understand 99% of the cartridges that are out there, but the .243 I understand.
It was intended, and has done admirable service as, a combination varmint/deer round. Small game all the way to medium game, and it's proven to be very effective at that.
Remington didn't at all understand that's what hunters were looking for when they introduced the .244. The .244 is TRULY a failed cartridge, by the way.
It was suitable for varmint weight bullets only and because of that, it failed. Badly.
It took Remington something like 7-8 years to figure out that they had made a big mistake, and by the time they did, and introduced the 6mm Remington, Winchester pretty much controlled the market.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"22 Newton
30 Newton
35 Newton"
.22 Newton, yeah, that was a failed cartridge. It never sold well for him in his rifles.
The .30 and .35, however, are a bit of a different story. Both were decent sellers and ammo was loaded commercially for a number of years. I'd be hard pressed to say that those two were failures.
30 Newton
35 Newton"
.22 Newton, yeah, that was a failed cartridge. It never sold well for him in his rifles.
The .30 and .35, however, are a bit of a different story. Both were decent sellers and ammo was loaded commercially for a number of years. I'd be hard pressed to say that those two were failures.
Satchmoeddie
New member
Savage Model 99 in .303 Sav was the Canadian Home Guard's gun.
I have a 1912 model 99 chambered in .303 Savage, and the .303 Sav ammo comes and goes. A reloader or small mfgr. in Florida used to supply me with it. I still find Winchester white & orange boxes of it at gun shows, and have been paying around $20 a box since the mid 1980s. Canada's version of our National Guard used the Savage model 99 chambered in .303 Savage. For an extra $5 or $10 they could get their name stamped into their rifle, and I probably see more inquiries about 303 Savage come from Canada than anywhere else. My great grandfather had a wicked looking little target pistol chambered in .22 Savage High Power. It kind of looked like a short .223. The gun was a beautiful chrome or a very nice deep nickel plated affair, with an angled grip similar to a Ruger Mk i, ii, iii, iv, etc. It looked cool but it was not well enough made to survive shooting that ammo. Hornady cranks out some .303 Sav every 4 or 5 years, unless there is an ammo shortage, like during the Obama regime. My father could cheerfully sit and type in obscure old ammo, for days, and if someone doubted him, there is probably a sample round in one of the ammo cans in the closet. Alas, dad passed away in 2011. He took my baby pictures of me, just home from the hospital with dead game birds and a Browning Superposed shotgun, on my baby blue blankey, along with the family bird dog. I kind of like .327 Fed Mag too, but it's not a failed cartridge, yet. I like the performance, and the fact you can get 6 in a cylinder that usually holds 5 .357 S&W Magnum rounds, and you can shoot 5 other rounds, .32ACP, .32 S&W, .32 short, .32 Long, and .32 H&R magnum from the same revolver. Mom is still alive and enjoys the low recoil of the .32 ACP in a Taurus M327.
I have a 1912 model 99 chambered in .303 Savage, and the .303 Sav ammo comes and goes. A reloader or small mfgr. in Florida used to supply me with it. I still find Winchester white & orange boxes of it at gun shows, and have been paying around $20 a box since the mid 1980s. Canada's version of our National Guard used the Savage model 99 chambered in .303 Savage. For an extra $5 or $10 they could get their name stamped into their rifle, and I probably see more inquiries about 303 Savage come from Canada than anywhere else. My great grandfather had a wicked looking little target pistol chambered in .22 Savage High Power. It kind of looked like a short .223. The gun was a beautiful chrome or a very nice deep nickel plated affair, with an angled grip similar to a Ruger Mk i, ii, iii, iv, etc. It looked cool but it was not well enough made to survive shooting that ammo. Hornady cranks out some .303 Sav every 4 or 5 years, unless there is an ammo shortage, like during the Obama regime. My father could cheerfully sit and type in obscure old ammo, for days, and if someone doubted him, there is probably a sample round in one of the ammo cans in the closet. Alas, dad passed away in 2011. He took my baby pictures of me, just home from the hospital with dead game birds and a Browning Superposed shotgun, on my baby blue blankey, along with the family bird dog. I kind of like .327 Fed Mag too, but it's not a failed cartridge, yet. I like the performance, and the fact you can get 6 in a cylinder that usually holds 5 .357 S&W Magnum rounds, and you can shoot 5 other rounds, .32ACP, .32 S&W, .32 short, .32 Long, and .32 H&R magnum from the same revolver. Mom is still alive and enjoys the low recoil of the .32 ACP in a Taurus M327.
alaskabushman
New member
It seems to me, that everyone has their own theory as what constitutes a "failed" cartridge.
Some list extremely obsolete cartridges and claim them as failed, even though they may have been used for decades. Since they are no longer used (or used heavily) they get the FAILED stamp. Examples: .25 Remington, .303 Savage and any number of Sharps cartridges.
Others list commercial cartridges that became niche rounds, or dropped out of the common shooters eye almost immediately. They feel if you cant go to the local gun shop and buy a box, then it must be FAILED. Examples: .225 Win, 6mm Rem, .260 Rem .30 Rem AR...all of these have a dedicated following, although many are not commonly found.
Others list primarily wildcat or proprietary cartridges. Maybe not completely understanding how a wildcat works? Again, since they never see empty brass headstamped .357 Herret at the range, then it must be FAILED. Examples: .30 Gibbs, 8mm-06, .458 SOCOM
Others claim that its simply marketing, and whatever was pushed in the market is what became successful, these claim that any and all cartridges are a success as long as they do what they were designed to do. Examples: 6.8 SPC, .308 ME, .358 WIN.
So what is an actual FAILED cartridge? I guess its how you define it personally.
There are those that think, "if its not a 30-06, .223, 9mm, .308, .45 or a .270" then its FAILED! I just find it funny.
I think it really has to do with how deep you dig into the firearms community. If you really love BPCR, then you may be convinced that the .45-90 Sharps, or the 50-100 Win, is not failed at all, because people still shoot it today.
If you collect classic military firearms and enjoy shooting them you might get offended when someone claims the .30-40 Krag is dead.
If you are like me, and enjoy shooting what some consider oddballs, then you might get defensive when the .327 fed mag, .260 rem and .350 rem mag is ridiculed.
If you are a casual shooter without much background, then you may squint with confusion when someone mentions the .460 S&W or the 7mm Mauser.
It IS however, much easier to list SUCCESSFUL cartridges.
Some list extremely obsolete cartridges and claim them as failed, even though they may have been used for decades. Since they are no longer used (or used heavily) they get the FAILED stamp. Examples: .25 Remington, .303 Savage and any number of Sharps cartridges.
Others list commercial cartridges that became niche rounds, or dropped out of the common shooters eye almost immediately. They feel if you cant go to the local gun shop and buy a box, then it must be FAILED. Examples: .225 Win, 6mm Rem, .260 Rem .30 Rem AR...all of these have a dedicated following, although many are not commonly found.
Others list primarily wildcat or proprietary cartridges. Maybe not completely understanding how a wildcat works? Again, since they never see empty brass headstamped .357 Herret at the range, then it must be FAILED. Examples: .30 Gibbs, 8mm-06, .458 SOCOM
Others claim that its simply marketing, and whatever was pushed in the market is what became successful, these claim that any and all cartridges are a success as long as they do what they were designed to do. Examples: 6.8 SPC, .308 ME, .358 WIN.
So what is an actual FAILED cartridge? I guess its how you define it personally.
There are those that think, "if its not a 30-06, .223, 9mm, .308, .45 or a .270" then its FAILED! I just find it funny.
I think it really has to do with how deep you dig into the firearms community. If you really love BPCR, then you may be convinced that the .45-90 Sharps, or the 50-100 Win, is not failed at all, because people still shoot it today.
If you collect classic military firearms and enjoy shooting them you might get offended when someone claims the .30-40 Krag is dead.
If you are like me, and enjoy shooting what some consider oddballs, then you might get defensive when the .327 fed mag, .260 rem and .350 rem mag is ridiculed.
If you are a casual shooter without much background, then you may squint with confusion when someone mentions the .460 S&W or the 7mm Mauser.
It IS however, much easier to list SUCCESSFUL cartridges.
Then the Norma Magnums came out and they died right then and there. Factory available ammo and guns replaced them because they were a custom build only proposition for most of their lives.
The Newton cartrdges fall into this place.
So far I have stuck to the OP's call of RIFLE Cartridges unlike many others who thread drifted. I can go on listing "FAILED" rifle rounds based on any number of criteria. Some are American.. some are other country based. How about the 8 x 50mm Siamese Mauser?
alaskabushman has posited a very good set of things to consider. What I have posted has been an exercise in thinking about it. I can make a case about the failure of any of those rounds. I haven't even got into the truely wildcat rounds yet.
FrankenMauser
New member
For a good time, watch Remington propaganda from the '60s, including a plug for the 5mm RRM in the last minute and thirty seconds:
https://youtu.be/ZNvGgOx67lU
---
As for the .458 SOCOM references above...
That's a complicated subject.
Due to the particulars of the development, legal claims, and popularity of the cartridge, it has found itself in a wasteland: caught between legal claims, multiple variations (due to legal claims), SAAMI's unwillingness to deal with a cartridge caught up in legal issues, and reliability issues (due to multiple variations).
.458 SOCOM is, in my view, more popular than .308 ME, .338 ME, and possibly even .450 Bushmaster, combined. There are even more commercial ammunition options available for .458 SOCOM than all of the aforementioned cartridges, combined.
But, without SAAMI standardization, it remains a wildcat.
If PTG hadn't reverse-engineered the chamber dimensions, tweaked them to get around proprietary dimensions (or done so upon customer request?), and released the version that Wilson Combat adopted, .458 SOCOM would be a SAAMI cartridge. But, because of PTG and WC, it remains a "wildcat" with potentially dangerous chamber variations on the market, and no hope for improvement in the near future.
.458 SOCOM is a wildcat; but should be (and would be) a SAAMI cartridge.
Not a failure, in my opinion. ...Just lurking in the shadows, still.
https://youtu.be/ZNvGgOx67lU
---
As for the .458 SOCOM references above...
That's a complicated subject.
Due to the particulars of the development, legal claims, and popularity of the cartridge, it has found itself in a wasteland: caught between legal claims, multiple variations (due to legal claims), SAAMI's unwillingness to deal with a cartridge caught up in legal issues, and reliability issues (due to multiple variations).
.458 SOCOM is, in my view, more popular than .308 ME, .338 ME, and possibly even .450 Bushmaster, combined. There are even more commercial ammunition options available for .458 SOCOM than all of the aforementioned cartridges, combined.
But, without SAAMI standardization, it remains a wildcat.
If PTG hadn't reverse-engineered the chamber dimensions, tweaked them to get around proprietary dimensions (or done so upon customer request?), and released the version that Wilson Combat adopted, .458 SOCOM would be a SAAMI cartridge. But, because of PTG and WC, it remains a "wildcat" with potentially dangerous chamber variations on the market, and no hope for improvement in the near future.
.458 SOCOM is a wildcat; but should be (and would be) a SAAMI cartridge.
Not a failure, in my opinion. ...Just lurking in the shadows, still.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Then the Norma Magnums came out and they died right then and there."
The Norma Magnums weren't responsible for the death of the Newton cartridges.
Newton's various companies manufacturing rifles all failed. I think there were three attempts.
Newton's companies made probably between 10,000-15,000 rifles, apparently most of them were in .30 Newton, with lesser numbers in other chamberings.
Ammunition in the various cartridges was manufactured by Western, Winchester, and possibly Remington, and not every company offered all of the rounds.
What truly killed the Newton cartridges, all of them, was the combination of drastic drops in sales through the depression and then World War II.
In the run up to wartime production, and starting around 1939, there was a huge culling of cartridges.
Niche rounds, old black powder rounds, rounds for which sales had been dwindling for years, etc., were dropped from production "for the duration of the war."
After the war, they simply weren't picked back up. Some of the rounds cut at this time included the .30-03 Winchester, the .236 Lee Navy, and many of the most popular of the blackpowder Sharps and Winchester cartridges.
The same thing had happened as US companies started to gear up for production for World War I
The Norma Magnums weren't responsible for the death of the Newton cartridges.
Newton's various companies manufacturing rifles all failed. I think there were three attempts.
Newton's companies made probably between 10,000-15,000 rifles, apparently most of them were in .30 Newton, with lesser numbers in other chamberings.
Ammunition in the various cartridges was manufactured by Western, Winchester, and possibly Remington, and not every company offered all of the rounds.
What truly killed the Newton cartridges, all of them, was the combination of drastic drops in sales through the depression and then World War II.
In the run up to wartime production, and starting around 1939, there was a huge culling of cartridges.
Niche rounds, old black powder rounds, rounds for which sales had been dwindling for years, etc., were dropped from production "for the duration of the war."
After the war, they simply weren't picked back up. Some of the rounds cut at this time included the .30-03 Winchester, the .236 Lee Navy, and many of the most popular of the blackpowder Sharps and Winchester cartridges.
The same thing had happened as US companies started to gear up for production for World War I
The Newtons hung on as custom rifle propositions for quite a while. Once the Norma Mag.s came out with factory ammo followed by factory rifles they died.
The Newtons were not like the 25-20 single shot which died once WWI happened. They held on during the 50's wildcat renaissance....barely. They are like the modern ICL cartridge family. The 375 ICL got replaced by the 375 RUM.
reynolds357
New member
458 socom is not a failure. Hornady and Bushmaster simply dealt it a setback by bringing out 450 Bushmaster uppers and ammo at half socom prices.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"The Newtons hung on as custom rifle propositions for quite a while."
After World War II, one company produced a limited run of Newton brass, Speer, I believe. No loaded ammunition at all. The call for such was non-existent, because other than a few people who were playing with the cases, the Newtons were effectively dead.
The first of the Norma magnum cartridges, the .358, wasn't introduced until 1958/1959, and the .308 followed shortly after. The Newtons were long dead by that time.
There's always someone out there who is playing with an old, forgotten, or obsolete case, and the occasional crank who just has to have a rifle chambered for something unique.
But that's an anomaly, not a business.
After World War II, one company produced a limited run of Newton brass, Speer, I believe. No loaded ammunition at all. The call for such was non-existent, because other than a few people who were playing with the cases, the Newtons were effectively dead.
The first of the Norma magnum cartridges, the .358, wasn't introduced until 1958/1959, and the .308 followed shortly after. The Newtons were long dead by that time.
There's always someone out there who is playing with an old, forgotten, or obsolete case, and the occasional crank who just has to have a rifle chambered for something unique.
But that's an anomaly, not a business.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"I think the Winchester M70 vs the Remington 722 had a big hand in the 243 success and the 244 lack of success. A 90gr 244 bullet vs a 100gr 243 bullet can hardly be called a great advantage."
The difference was the choice of rifling pitch.
The .244's rifling wouldn't stabilize heavier bullets adequately, especially longer, heavier bullets that had a boattailed base, whereas Winchester's choice of rifling would stabilize bullets from 70 grains all the way to 105.
The Remington 721/722/725 model rifles were actually quite successful. They weren't as refined as the Winchester Model 70, but they were very good rifles, and served as the hopping off point for the Remington 700 in the early 1960s.
Granted, sales figures were doubtless bulked up quite a bit by the fact that after the depression and WW II the American public was buying EVERYTHING, but they were solid, well designed rifles.
I've got a 722 in .300 Savage. Quite accurate.
The difference was the choice of rifling pitch.
The .244's rifling wouldn't stabilize heavier bullets adequately, especially longer, heavier bullets that had a boattailed base, whereas Winchester's choice of rifling would stabilize bullets from 70 grains all the way to 105.
The Remington 721/722/725 model rifles were actually quite successful. They weren't as refined as the Winchester Model 70, but they were very good rifles, and served as the hopping off point for the Remington 700 in the early 1960s.
Granted, sales figures were doubtless bulked up quite a bit by the fact that after the depression and WW II the American public was buying EVERYTHING, but they were solid, well designed rifles.
I've got a 722 in .300 Savage. Quite accurate.