New Ruger RCM....Why?

[Zachary]

So it appears that Ruger has come out with it's own version of the WSM called "Ruger Compact Magnum" or "RCM."  My primary question is.....why?

From what I can tell, the only 2 "advantages" that I can see (at least on paper), and from what has been touted by Ruger and Hornady (it's partner in this cartridge) is that the RCMs are as follows:

1.  RCMs are not as "fat" as the WSMs, and thus a magazine could hold 1 more RCM round.
2.  RCMs are a bit shorter than the WSMs and thus can fit in existing true short actions.

However, let's deal with each "advantage" separately.

As for #1, I personally have never used more than 2 shots on any deer.  Heck, I can't even remember shooting any more than 1.  As such, in the real world, I don't see the practical use of having 4 or 5 rounds in a rifle.

As for #2, the RCMs are similar to the Remington Short Mags, and the Remington version is all but dead.  Heck, even Remington is now making guns in WSM cartridges.

I understand that Hornady's niche is doing joint ventures with Ruger to come up with somewhat proprietary cartridges, but, in the case of the RCMs, I just don't see it being a success.

What are yall's thoughts?  Are any of you interested in buying one of these RCMs?

Zachary

[30-06man]

Maybe.. Maybe not  Time will tell.

[jbadams66]

I think the biggest advantage is that there wont be the legal fees for Ruger and Horandy (Jamison Lawsuit) that the wichester and remington versions had.  Time will tell if it would be cheaper for other companies to chamber the RCM rounds and only pay royalties to Hornady or just keep on with the wsm and pay royalties to Jamison and Winchester at the same time.  I could see that companies like savage, browning and remington might come out on top by switching over to the RCM.

[Graybeard]

As I understand them there is really nothing new about them other than the lack of the belt. I believe they are just the standard H&H belted case minus the belt. Makes a lot more sense to me than with the belt but I don't really see them having any major impact in the ammo sales market.

If I were in the market for a magnum (something I'm not likely to ever be however) I'd definitely prefer one without a belt to one with it. It will likely be another flash in the pan that fizzles quickly just as the other new ideas do. Still it will help both Hornady and Ruger's bottom lines for a short while.

[PartsMan]

http://www.hornady.com/story.php?s=761
The article is intriguing.
Too bad there own chart even shows it performing just like its competitors.
Looks like they had to search pretty hard for a spokesman to.

[jvs]

Things always look good in the papers until calibers appear, what casing they will use and what components will be available.  After that money will play the biggest part as to what is affordable when compared to  what is already out there, cost and performance wise.  At least that is the way I see it.

I also think that catching the .270 WSM is the big hurdle now, so it might be worth a try.  So far it sounds like they could be in the .20 to .264 range.

One thing is for sure...  No Ruger collection will be complete without the RCM's.

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

All they had to do before we had RUM's---SRUM's---WSM's and whatever they are calling this new one.

Was to take the 7mm Rem mag-----.300 Win mag----and .338 Win mag and remove the belt and offer rifles for it----they're performance was always there---the belt was the problem.


Unless other companies start chambering rifles for these new ones----it will flop too.

[Brithunter]

Hi All,

What are yall's thoughts?  Are any of you interested in buying one of these RCMs?
 

1) had no thoughts about them and until I read this post had never heard of them!

2) NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Reason is that I have not collected all the old classic cartridges I want yet. For instance I really need a .280 Ross. Keep missing the good ones though  but one day I will be in the right place at the right time and get one.  The other thing is I don't swallow nor follow the "Short action" hype  yeah I am working on a shorter Wildcat cartridge but that is because the club range is only 75m (82 yards) so I don't really need the full performance of the 303 at this distance and the barrel is a 7.62x51 take off target one so by cutting off the chamber I can make short cartridge and chamber to this range shooting. Action is a Martini so bolt throw is non existant let alone and issue.

[longwinters]

I dont think it will do much for reloaders.  Like  the Thompson calibers with Hornady I bet they are using a powder that we will not have access to and so will not be able to get like velocities.  Maybe what they are using in the Lite Magnum line.

Long

[30-06man]

The 338 Fedral is using a new power so it is not good for reloading.

[mcwoodduck]

They are trying to repeat history.  With the great .375H&H came the shorting and necking of that case.  You call them .300 Win, .338 Win Mag, and .264 Win Mag.  The .458 was part of that too but was designed to compete for the african market with the eropean guns and cartridges.  I know .458 started the whole original Win Short mag and was to fit in a standard length action.  Then came the additional necking to 7mm by remington and them they went large and just necked up .300 H&H ( or necked down .375) to 8mm.  I know Roy weatherby was playing with his necking of .300 H&H long before as well as cutting them back  to fit standard actions as in his .257.  But the big fad started in the 50's with Winchester.
Ruger came out with their .375 last year and I don't think it's selling as well as they had hoped.  I think these two new rounds are an effort to make the other things on the same case making machinery and recoup costs at the same time of introducing the new rounds they get a plug for the .375 as well in the mention of the parent case.  Look in the big bore forum and no one is asking about .375 Ruger.  Everyone talks about the .375H&H.  don't get me wrong the Ruger Alaskan would be the ultamate in guide guns but I do not see ordering one for elk.
I actually think it was the gun writers who made the suggestions for the necking down of the case and Steve Hornady did it.  Does anybody want one?  Maybe some new hunters looking for a short action magnum .300 or .338.
But the .338 Win Mag is tough to beat on big game, and every store in Elk country has a box or two.
Who knows, if Weatherby could stay on the charts the whole time Winchster and Remington were battleing it out for best hunting cartridges who is to say the Hornady -Ruger colition will not hold enough market share to continue to produce both rifles and ammo.  Iguess Ruger needs to build up a long range rifle and win the 1,000 yard contest with one or the other round and give it a pedigry.

[30-06man]

I am going to get a .338 Federal just because I like the way it looks and It seems like it shoots well in what I seen of it last night on Shooting USA.

[deltecs]

I agree with those seeing no apparent need for a belt on a cartridge case and have not cared for them.  I've used them but again felt the pressure could be lowered while retaining the same ballistics without the belt.  The Ruger RCM cases have the advantage of using existing actions without changing the bolt face or magazines for rebores or rechambers.  There really isn't any increase in ballistics compared to other belted rim rounds except possibly in heavier bullet weights.  The short action doesn't thrill me and the short neck lengths are not the best for us reloaders.  I can understand a man wanting to use a short action rifle with good handling capabilities for some African and Alaskan hunting in the bigger bores, but see no need whatsoever for the .30 bore or less.  There are already popular and effective rounds that do those jobs without that split difference in ballisitics.  My idea of good cartridge design is the bottleneck case without the belt having a base diameter of the belted short mags but only somewhat shorter with a much longer neck to be used in standard length actions.  One can use lighter bullets or heavier and still seat them close to the lands without over seating into the powder chamber. 

[30-06man]

I am still working on getting into reloading and I don't yet but when I do it will be for my 06 and .308

[SuperstitionCoues]

I think it is more about the Jamieson royalties and niche than anything else.  The 20" barrel gimmick is interesting, and it may fill that niche well.  Time will tell, as will the reloading manuals.  I don't think any cartridge will last long unless shooters and gun scribes can tinker with it.  I'm sticking with my 7mm WSM.  Just my humble opinion.

[Coyote Hunter]

The new Ruger Compact Magnums are a welcome addition to what’s available in my book and I think they will both be successful for a number of reasons.

1.  The Jamison/Winchester royalty issue with the WSM’s has already been brought up.   Don’t know just how murky those waters are but the RCM waters are crystal clear.

2.   The RCM cartridges are “manufacturer friendly” meaning that companies like Savage, CZ, Howa, etc. can chamber for the RCM cartridges with very little or no modification to existing designs.  From a manufacturer standpoint this is an ideal situation – very low economic risk with great upside potential.

3.  The cases are the same diameter as the rim on a belted H&H case.  This design maximizes powder space without causing a reduction in magazine capacity.  Graybeard has stated this isn’t important to him as he’s never used more than 2 cartridges per animal.  For myself, however, I shoot elk until they are down and stay that way.  A few years back I had an opportunity to fill both a bull and cow tag at the same time.  Two shots for the cow, both well-placed broadsides at 100 yards, then two for the bull.  The first wrecked both shoulder joints but that didn’t stop his struggling to get up and the second ended his suffering .  Was glad I had 3 in the magazine.  This year I had the opportunity to fill two cow tags at the same time.  Although I chose not to do so, it was comforting to have 3 rounds left after the first shot.   The point is having an undiminished magazine capacity is not a bad thing, just not always necessary.  Some folks will appreciate the RCMs for this reason, others will not.

4. The RCM’s offer magnum performance in a shorter, lighter rifle.  Craig Boddington’s report in G&A stated he was chronoing the .338RCM a tad faster than a standard .338 Win Mag load – but with a barrel 4” shorter.  Even if handloaders don’t get quite the same performance, it really isn’t necessary for the cartridge to succeed.  If you doubt that, just look at the continued popularity of the .30-06 and compare it to the .300 Win Mag.  Or compare the .308 Win to the .30-06.  All are doing just fine.

5.  The RCM’s are beltless.  The belts are an anachronistic throwback to a century ago when the H&N cartridges were long skinny things with a poorly defined shoulder and filled with stick cordite.  Since its introduction I’ve been contending the .375 Ruger case would be “the” case for cartridge development in the coming years.  The RCMs are only the first two.

Time to take my wife shopping – more later…

[deltecs]

The new Ruger Compact Magnums are a welcome addition to what’s available in my book and I think they will both be successful for a number of reasons.

That is my point exactly.  I just wish the RCM had longer necks for wildcats in smaller bores.

[Coyote Hunter]

That is my point exactly.  I just wish the RCM had longer necks for wildcats in smaller bores.

According to Wayne van Zwoll at G&A (January 2008) the necks on both the .300 and .338 RCM are "about .300" long".  That compares to a .308 Win of .304".  We'll have to wait to see exactly how close "about" is.

[Coyote Hunter]

A couple more thoughts about the .300 and .338 RCM cartridges…

6.   The powders for the  RCM cartridges is being optimized for short barrels, and yes, Hornady is using special powders in their factory cartridges.  While handloaders may grumble, they are a small minority of shooters and Hornady is in the business of selling components and ammunition.  Non-reloaders care about accuracy and velocity far more than they care about what powder is used.   The average velocity of the .300 RCM with a  180g SST measured 2846fps from a 20” barrel.  Compare that to standard .30-06 ammunition and you’ll see the RCM has an advantage of  100-150fps or more but with the shorter 20” barrel.

7.   Some will grumble about blast and recoil.  Case capacities for the .300 and .338 RCM cartridges, as measured at the mouth, are 68g and 72g of water, although the G&A article by van Zwoll leaves some question as to which is which.   In either case, this is significantly less powder than the .300 WSM (79g water).  Using faster powders and less of it reduces both blast and recoil even with a shorter barrel.

8.  In the end, non-reloaders will likely make their buying decision on the entire package – rifle and ammo – rather than the cartridge alone.  If, as I expect, other manufacturers chamber for the RCM cartridges, buyers will have a variety of light, handy rifles to chose from.  While I won’t be selling off my .300 Win Mag, a shorter, lighter rifle with better than .30-06 ballistics would have been welcome on many an elk hunt.

[skb2706]

The R and D money spent on the 'new' chambering could have been better spent promoting new and young shooter/hunters. Which is something they will all wish they would have done a few years from now.

[Coyote Hunter]

The R and D money spent on the 'new' chambering could have been better spent promoting new and young shooter/hunters. Which is something they will all wish they would have done a few years from now.

People made the same claim about the .308 Marlin and other Hornady cartridges – including the LeverEvolution ammunition and, I suspect, the .204 Ruger and various .17 rimfires.  The argument is easily and logically extended to other manufacturers as well.

Would Hornady have been better off if they had forgone the R&D for the 17 rimfires, the LeverEvolution ammunition, the InterBond bullets or cartridges like the .204 Ruger?  Would the industry be better off to cease all R&D and spend the money on promoting shooting sports instead?  By your argument, yes, but I think not.

[30-06man]

They already promote shooting sports by doing what they do. Its up to the parents to take a child hunting mostly and some get into it on there own. Yes I believe more emphases should be put onto the future of this sport but a lot of that falls into the parents hands.

[skb2706]

The R and D money spent on the 'new' chambering could have been better spent promoting new and young shooter/hunters. Which is something they will all wish they would have done a few years from now.

People made the same claim about the .308 Marlin and other Hornady cartridges – including the LeverEvolution ammunition and, I suspect, the .204 Ruger and various .17 rimfires.  The argument is easily and logically extended to other manufacturers as well.

Would Hornady have been better off if they had forgone the R&D for the 17 rimfires, the LeverEvolution ammunition, the InterBond bullets or cartridges like the .204 Ruger?  Would the industry be better off to cease all R&D and spend the money on promoting shooting sports instead?  By your argument, yes, but I think not.

When there are no shooters around (our numbers are declining every year) to take advantage of the soft pointed plastic tipped bullets, the high speed rimfires and the fifty or so different rounds in .30 cal I guess it won't matter. My argument speaks for itself. The industry is so short sighted they do not spend nearly enough on young and new shooters.

[Coyote Hunter]

When there are no shooters around (our numbers are declining every year) to take advantage of the soft pointed plastic tipped bullets, the high speed rimfires and the fifty or so different rounds in .30 cal I guess it won't matter. My argument speaks for itself. The industry is so short sighted they do not spend nearly enough on young and new shooters.

Your argument does in fact speak for itself.  It presupposes a number of things that are not necessarily true.

1. First, it assumes that long term survival is a given.  It is not.  Long term survival means nothing to a company or its employees if the company fails in the short term.  Ask any of the ex-employees at the company I worked for over the last 8 years.  They fired everyone by email the Friday after Thanksgiving and filed for bankruptcy on the following Monday.

2. Second, it assumes that increasing current market share with new products is less important to the company’s health, short or long term, than spending specific R&D funds to increase the future size of the market.    In fact, smart companies continually work to increase their current market share and to maintain that share.  While the market size may be decreasing as a whole, there is nothing preventing individual companies from increasing their share of the market.  But it is unlikely they will do so with mature, me-too products.

3.  Third, it suggests you know more about Hornady’s business than the people at Hornady.  Somehow I doubt this is the case. 


Since you are the expert, just how much should Hornady be spending each year to promote the shooting sports to young and new shooters, and how do you arrive at that number?

In fact, what I think it comes down to is you don’t have any interest in the cartridges, which is OK, and think everyone would be better off without them.  That is a decision I think people are better qualified to make for themselves.

[skb2706]

Only time will tell.

1. Has nothing to do with anything...........drivel. The company you worked for has nothing to do with this.

2. Smart companies look to the future and continue to build a foundation of new customers.

3. Don't have to know more than the people at Hornady...its not required to have an opinion.

Never said i didn't have any interest in new cartridges. I own many of the newest but in my opinion there are better courses of action that could be taken to preserve our sport/passion.

[Zachary]

Let me put on my moderator hat for a sec.  I enjoy spirited debate, as long as it doesn't get personal.  So far, things haven't crossed the line, but it appears to have some potential to.  Let's just be mindful that we are blessed to live in a free country where we can exercise our freedom of speech.  But let us also be mindful that means that not everyone thinks the same.  I may not AGREE with some people's opinions, but I still respect their right to exercise their opinion.  Let's just be a little more respectful in how we post.

Zachary

[joshua 35 whelen]

What is the big problem with a belt on a cartridge?  Many of the 7mm Remington mags I have seen and owned shot very well.  I have one that shoots .75 at 200 and and 2" at 300yds.  Hunters and shooters always run and spend alot of money on new cartridges that perform the same just to have the latest gun they saw in a magazine.  I do like it when this happens though.  The reason is the guy had his 7mm rem mag, 300 win mag, etc dialed in with or without custom work puts it up for sale and usually cheap.  A rifle can tell you alot about a man I believe.  A long cartridge wearing a belt or a short fat cartridge with little man syndrome.  Pick your poison!!!

[deltecs]

The problem with the belt is that it is absolutely not necessary and takes up room in the magazine, makes for a longer COL, is harder to full length size for reloading, and most of them have a neck length too short for heavier bullets that seat in the powder column.  A case that has the belt removed with the same base diameter can have the same powder capacity, same number of rounds in the magazine, feed smoother in every type action, and with a long neck can seat bullets from light to mid weight to heavy without sticking down into the powder column, shorter COL, and is more efficient in powder burn for the same velocities from shorter and handier barrels.  The only reason for the belt is marketing by the makers for those who wanted the biggest baddest boy on the block in a particular bore.  Are they effective, yes.  Are the cases without a belt just as effective, yes and in shorter barrels.

[mcwoodduck]

Wait.
You just said that a new no belt case was better out of a short barrel.  It's the powder that does that.  I know about the interior case design and that is the reason why you can use the same powder and bullet and get more speed out of the 165 grain 308 than the 30-06.  But if Win, Rem, Fed, S&B, or the home brew guys wanted to make a 7mm Rem mag run at 3100 FPS with a 140 grain bullet out of a 20" barrel they would develop the load using X grains of Y powder.  Right now the focus on the popular rounds is to make a lower recoil round so new hunters can get 85-90% performance out of a cartridge while feeling less kick.  Making a new rifle not necessary for a kid to join dad in the field or wife to join the husband. 
I'm not against the new cartridges I just think they are marketing them wrong as the same out of a shorter barrel and action.   I think they should market it as shorter action, shorter barrel, less weight and recoil all the power and performance of the standard rounds.  You know big ad "Tiered of your hunting rifle?"Go back further, hunt longer.... And produce a mountain rifle that takes advantage of the features of the cartridge.
They also 1 upped the 375 H&H.  I'm surprised they just met the standard mags. 

[deltecs]

Wait.
You just said that a new no belt case was better out of a short barrel.  It's the powder that does that.  I know about the interior case design and that is the reason why you can use the same powder and bullet and get more speed out of the 165 grain 308 than the 30-06.  But if Win, Rem, Fed, S&B, or the home brew guys wanted to make a 7mm Rem mag run at 3100 FPS with a 140 grain bullet out of a 20" barrel they would develop the load using X grains of Y powder.  Right now the focus on the popular rounds is to make a lower recoil round so new hunters can get 85-90% performance out of a cartridge while feeling less kick.  Making a new rifle not necessary for a kid to join dad in the field or wife to join the husband. 
I'm not against the new cartridges I just think they are marketing them wrong as the same out of a shorter barrel and action.   I think they should market it as shorter action, shorter barrel, less weight and recoil all the power and performance of the standard rounds.  You know big ad "Tiered of your hunting rifle?"Go back further, hunt longer.... And produce a mountain rifle that takes advantage of the features of the cartridge.
They also 1 upped the 375 H&H.  I'm surprised they just met the standard mags. 

What I said was the case can have the same powder capacity and accomplish everything the belted case can do more efficiently.  A design with a longer neck would also have the benefit of not decreasing powder capacity when seating heavy bullets in standard length actions.  Since the primer ignites more circular mil area of powder upon ignition the powder burn is more efficient thus reducing muzzle blast and getting the same ballistics in a shorter barrel as the belted short mags.  I think this clarifies my previous post.