New Ruger RCM....Why?

[mcwoodduck]

OK, So same, with less coal. and possible with longer, heavier projectiles.
I do not mean to sound like Col Cooper who only liked 5 rounds.
45Acp,
30-06/308 considered them same.
.22 Long rifle,
.375 H&H
and 12ga.
He didn't even like the 10mm he asked for or the .40 that was the off shoot.
Was not happy with the 376 Styer he also designed.
He wanted to do more with the cases we already had such as hot loading the 06 like they do with the 45-70 for stronger actions.

[Coyote Hunter]

OK, So same, with less coal. and possible with longer, heavier projectiles.
I do not mean to sound like Col Cooper who only liked 5 rounds.
45Acp,
30-06/308 considered them same.
.22 Long rifle,
.375 H&H
and 12ga.
He didn't even like the 10mm he asked for or the .40 that was the off shoot.
Was not happy with the 376 Styer he also designed.
He wanted to do more with the cases we already had such as hot loading the 06 like they do with the 45-70 for stronger actions.

All due respect to the Colonel, whom I admired but often disagreed with, but no major manufacturer is going to hot load .30-06 ammo as long as there are 1903’s and other .30-06 rifles of questionable strength out there.  So why not do more with the RIFLES we already have?  In this case, maximize the case capacity without reducing the magazine capacity, with no or only minor modifications required to the rifle itself? 

The RCM case does this for short (.308 Win length) actions just as he .375 Ruger case does it for long (.30-06 length) actions. With the RCM cartridges there are no old rifles that need to be considered as all would be of new manufacture.

[mcwoodduck]

But manufacturers already hot load .45-70 to levels well about the trapdoor and the older lever/ bolt rifles for the modern Marlin rifles.
Also Hornady made the "light Mag" series of ammo and the 06 had the speed of .300 Win.
I understand your talking about the 450 marlin version so people don't accidentally turn their trap door into an auto eject.
I agree if you read my earlier posts but was clarifying my point that I welcome new stuff but don't tell me it's the same with out giving added benefits.
Would you buy a new truck that gets the same gas mileage and runs on a different fuel that not everyone carries on the shelf?  The answer is maybe, but what else does it do? The "what else" was what I was trying to point out.
I sometimes wondered if Col Cooper said some of the things he said to provoke a debate.  I reciently bought a 17 HMR due to one of his last musings in the back of the G&A magizine and wanted to prove him wrong and why we do need the little .17.  Now that it has gotten cold here in CA I can do the ricochet tests into gelitin with out it melting and filling in the wound canals, or being too liquid and exploding.

[Bill T]

We need another short fat wonder about as much as a Rosie O'Donnell twin. I've never seen any advantage to them. A short action is about as "good" as a belt on a case is "bad". I tend to stick with what works. Besides the Weatherby Mark V DeLuxe doesn't come in a short action, thank God!  Bill T.

[wolfen1960]

Why? To fill our WANTS! We are fortunate, in your country and mine, Canada to have our NEEDS met. I'm taking for granted that anyone posting on here is using their own computer, in a comfortable, heated/air conditioned room. I feel that our needs are taken care of, and if not, you are spending your money wrong. So...if the needs are met, we want, we can and will buy, newer, better (in some minds) different, whatever, because we CAN. I bear no ill will to those who choose to be different, and applaude the companys that make the changes in the name of progress or just for the sake of change. If this had ended with the first rifles that could harvest all North American game, we would have very few options, and that would be a sad day for us that like to try new things, and be different.
  With that in mind, I would like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas. May all your needs be met...and some of your wants.
   Mark

[Bill T]

Here is the issue I have with all of the short mags. They accomplish little more, if anymore, then there long action counterparts do, except cook barrels faster. A short fat mag is like a V-6 with a Turbo. It produces the same power as a normally aspirated V-8, but has to beat the hell out of itself to do so. Where is the advantage with either? Another problem is the marketing approach that was taken during their introduction. Way too many, way too fast. They simply over saturated the market with far too many new calibers at once. Many the same. Remington with a whole new line of SAUM's in addition to their long action Ultra Mag lineup, and Winchester with their WSM and WSSM line. All at the same time. Whos going to buy all this crap? This is the worse case of marketing I've ever seen since "New" Coke. It's apparent the market agrees because the Remington SAUM's are all but dead, and many of the WSSM's are chasing them down the road to obscurity. Belted cases pose zero problem for shooters and reloaders. The .300 Winchester Magnum has won more 1,000 yard championships than most any other mass produced cartridge in existance. The Weatherby Magnums have been selling well for over 50 years, and continue to do so. Every rifle Weatherby produces comes with an accuracy guarantee, belted case and all. In the last decade or so I'm seeing more shooters buying into hype than honest results. You can tell by the arguments they give on some of these forums. I realize that many of these guys spend far too much time at the keyboard regurgitating what they read on other forums, and the "Belt Argument"  is a perfect example. While there is nothing "wrong" with the short fat wonders, there is little reason for their purchase except for the shooter who has everything and wants to play. That isn't going to be enough to keep them afloat. The declining sales numbers prove it.  Bill T. 

[deltecs]

I beg to differ with the statement that the short mags are just a V6 with a turbo having the same hp as a naturally aspirated V8.  If one does his research accurately, he'll find out that the short mags have the same powder capacity as the belted short mags, thus having the same potential energy levels without any loss.  The larger diameter of the short mags also have the additional advantage of more uniform powder ignition upon firing, thus having a more uniform powder burn and LESS aptitude to cook barrels.  I must also point out that the belted short mags were also a marketing technique to get shooters to buy ammo in the mid to later 50's by the manufacturers including Weatherby.  There were already existing cartridges that had the same ballistics as the then new belted short mags.  I refer to the .30 Newton for the .300 Win Mag.  I refer to the .333 Rimless Nitro for the .338 Win Mag.  I refer to the .280 Ross for the 7mm Rem Mag.  It is the person who wanted the mostest, fastest, highest energy out of any bore that bought these rounds.  Yes, they are effective.  Are the new short mags just as effective, yes.  I might also add that the venerable 30-06 has won substantially more 1000 yard matches than the .300 Win Mag.  I think that speaks for itself.  Take the .300 Win Mag and load it to the same pressures as the 30-06 and I think you will be amazed at how little the velocity difference is.  So much for its much better design.

[daddywpb]

The parent case, the 375 Ruger, was just screaming to be necked down into another short action burner. I didn't think it would happen so soon in an already overcrowded .30 caliber market, but the beltless cartridge has it place and a lot of potential. I wouldn't be surprised to see the RCM's be big sellers on the excellent Hawkeye platform, especially if factory ammo prices can be held down. I'd like to have one. I'd also like to have a 375 Ruger!

[Bill T]

The larger diameter of the short mags also have the additional advantage of more uniform powder ignition upon firing, thus having a more uniform powder burn and LESS aptitude to cook barrels.

Only true in some, (a very few), of the short fat calibers. In the smaller bore short fat mags like the .223 WSSM, barrel life is measured in hundreds of rounds fired, not thousands. A direct quote from the new 7th edition of the Hornady Reloading Manual in the section regarding .223 WSSM data. Page 209, "We examined the throat of the rifle with a bore scope after approximately 350 rounds, and the erosion was significant. This cartridge is HARD on barrels! This, along with the inherent difficulty of feeding a lot of these abortions thru magazines because of there shape, is severely cutting into sales. What varmint shooter is going to spend well into 4 digits setting up a rifle, only to be forced to rebarrel it after less than 600 rounds? Most dedicated varmint hunters can run up higher numbers in a afternoon working a heavily populated dog town. A well cared for Chromed AR-15 barrel with proper maintenence can easily top that figure 10 fold.  Bill T.

[deltecs]

Here is the issue I have with all of the short mags. They accomplish little more, if anymore, then there long action counterparts do, except cook barrels faster. A short fat mag is like a V-6 with a Turbo. It produces the same power as a normally aspirated V-8, but has to beat the hell out of itself to do so. Where is the advantage with either? Another problem is the marketing approach that was taken during their introduction. Way too many, way too fast. They simply over saturated the market with far too many new calibers at once. Many the same. Remington with a whole new line of SAUM's in addition to their long action Ultra Mag lineup, and Winchester with their WSM and WSSM line. All at the same time. Whos going to buy all this crap? This is the worse case of marketing I've ever seen since "New" Coke. It's apparent the market agrees because the Remington SAUM's are all but dead, and many of the WSSM's are chasing them down the road to obscurity. Belted cases pose zero problem for shooters and reloaders. The .300 Winchester Magnum has won more 1,000 yard championships than most any other mass produced cartridge in existance. The Weatherby Magnums have been selling well for over 50 years, and continue to do so. Every rifle Weatherby produces comes with an accuracy guarantee, belted case and all. In the last decade or so I'm seeing more shooters buying into hype than honest results. You can tell by the arguments they give on some of these forums. I realize that many of these guys spend far too much time at the keyboard regurgitating what they read on other forums, and the "Belt Argument"  is a perfect example. While there is nothing "wrong" with the short fat wonders, there is little reason for their purchase except for the shooter who has everything and wants to play. That isn't going to be enough to keep them afloat. The declining sales numbers prove it.  Bill T. 

I was responding to the comment regarding all of the short mags, and the examples posted were about the Remington SAUM, the Win WSM and especially the .300 Win mag.  My post did not address any of the WSSM or super short mags.  I too see no need for the WSSM in smaller bores whatsoever.  I do find the short mags without the belt having similar case capacity in a shorter case some what intriguing. 

[TNrifleman]

It's called Capitalism, and I'm all for it.

 I'm not bothered in the least that several new cartridges have been introduced in the past few years. I applaud their efforts, even if the latest whatever isn't something I am personally interested in at the time. I think it is a sign that our firearms and ammunition makers are not sitting on their collective derrières, but are working to produce goods that meet consumer approval. Many guns and cartridges have come and gone, but those that have passed the test of time prove the system does work.

[Bill T]

It's called Capitalism, and I'm all for it.

 I'm not bothered in the least that several new cartridges have been introduced in the past few years. I applaud their efforts, even if the latest whatever isn't something I am personally interested in at the time. I think it is a sign that our firearms and ammunition makers are not sitting on their collective derrières, but are working to produce goods that meet consumer approval. Many guns and cartridges have come and gone, but those that have passed the test of time prove the system does work.

I agree to a point. With that said their time could be put to better use by improving quality control. Make sure what you have is the best it can be before moving on to something else. Anytime you try and do two things at once, you wind up doing neither very well.  Bill T.

[Old English]

I am with TNRifleman, maybe coz we live in the same State? Why people get angry at companies introducing new products is beyond me. I don't know if any of these new calibers will interest me in the future, maybe, maybe not but......isn't choice supposed to be a good thing? I have far more calibers than I need already but, who knows what new little toy will scratch a future itch.   

[Brithunter]

Hi All,

     What I find amusing is that the very ones who want these short fat cases are the ones who want a trim rifle with a short action yet with the fat case the capacity of the magazine is reduced and feeding is problematic  seems like a lose-lose situation to me. Now as too belts well they have been misused for sales hype rather than what they were designed for which of course was easy extraction in break action double rifles  . The salesmen then decided that ALL magnums had to have a belt  .

     The only new cartridges which I would be interested in finding out more about and trying out even are the .325WSM and the new Ruger .375 however I don't swallow a lot of the hype especially the daft claims about lessened recoil  physics is pyhsics after all. Meanwhile I will plod along with the old cartridges and carry on using them  after all the beasts don't seem to realise that they have been shot with an obsolete cartridge  .

[wolfen1960]

 In response to Brithunter. I've been shooting the 300wsm in my Savage for 2 years now. Shot about 1000 times and have NEVER had a feed issue. It works these short fat cases as well as any of my other rifles. I have read many times about the short and fat feed issues, and suspect that they come from early production or poorly designed rifles, or from people that just re-iterate what they have read , not actual experience! I also have had no need for more than two shots (backup shots for insurance) so the other 2 shots remaining have been there for nothing. I have never shot a 300 win. magnum so I have nothing that equals the wsm to compare recoil to, but it is no worse than shooting a hot 30.06. You are correct about physics, more powder to move a like weight bullet to the same or greater speed will recoil more, as the Win mag does. It does use more powder, thus will kick back a little more. I'm not sure if it has enough added recoil to make this a factor in choosing one over the other though? I'm 6'2", and 220lbs. so recoil was NOT a reason to choose the Wsm.
 I chose the short fat one to be different, not because of any recoil or other advantages talked about as a valid reason for the shorts. I enjoy reloading for it, shooting it...and in all likely-hood would have enjoyed a win. mag as much.
 To me it's all about options! I don't need two 4 x 4's but have them. I don't need 14 firearms, but I have them. The challenge of reloading and developing new loads for new rifles is what keeps me expanding my collection. I could easily make do with my Shotgun, 22, 30-30 and .308 for all my hunting needs, and could cut the 22 and 30-30 and 300wsm out and still not lack anything.
 The newest addition is a Ruger 260...redundant as it won't do anything the .308 or 300 will not do, but I love working with it. Change is one of the many spices of life.

[Brithunter]

Hi wolfen,

      I should admit that I have never even handled the WSM's or any of the new magnums. I did have a .300 Win mag though a few years back, it was a Ruger No1B and was a very nice rifle, unfortuneatley it had to go in trade to swing a deal. Now I have seen feed problems with short fat cases, this one was a PPC or some such cartridge.

     Apart from the .325WSW which I also mentioned I have no interest in them personally either as I cannot see any need for them as standard cartridges will do just about anything they can do. As for being different, well for some of my rifles I have to make the cases from others as they are not available commercially anymore, so I suppose that could be seen as being different.

[ssghelmick]

I think you have to look at this from the a rifle manufacturers stand point. Who is the largest market out there? It is far and away the deer hunter. There is deer hunting in all of the lower 48 states in the united States and while I have hunted Elk and Moose I do not hunt them every year because they do not exist in my home state and therefore are very expensive to hunt. Deer however are plentiful in my state as I'm sure they are in all the others and I can afford to hunt them annually. So this brings up several other questions like how many rifles does the average deer hunter need? One. How long does a rifle last for the average deer hunter? A lifetime usually. How do the gun company's get the average deer hunter to invest in a second rifle or get them to trade in old Betsy that they sold him 20 years ago? Develop new cartridges and market the crap out of them in magazines and hunting shows.

I, like the majority of posters on this forum, and others like it are the exception to the rule. I own at this time 22 center-fire rifles and many more shotguns, pistols and rim-fires. I am considered crazy to most of my hunting partners for owning all these guns. I also shoot them every chance I can get along with hand loading for them and I am, to the average deer hunter considered certifiable when it comes to owning firearms as I'm sure many on this forum are as well. But the fact remains we are the minority.

Lets face it, new cartridges in my opinion haven't been needed for along time. The game we hunt hasn't changed physically so the cartridges of old that have been taking them for years will still work. But in order for the gun companies to survive they need to come up with new products for the average deer hunter to get excited about and either put old Betsy in the closet or on the used gun market.

[1longshot]

I don't recall what the OAL of the case was but if it would allow, I would like to see this offered in a 6.5 i.e. 26 caliber if it could offer something better than the 260 Rem.  The 6.5 Remington mag doesn't allow one to seat bullets far enough out in a short action to utilize the powder capacity.  Just a thought.

[Prebanpaul]

WOW THIS SEEMS TO BE A HOT TOPIC SO I WILL JUST PUT MY TWO SENSE IN HERE.  THE SHORT MAGNUMS WILL NOT LAST VERY LONG AT ALL.  THIS STATEMENT IS COMING FROM SOME ONE WHO OWNS A GUN STORE AND I SELL ABOUT 3000 GUNS A YEAR.  I VERY VERY RARELY  HAVE ANYONE ASKING FOR ANY OF THESE CALIBERS.  THIS WAS AND IS THE CASE WITH THE WINCHESTERS AS WELL.  EVERY ONE SAYS MAN THERE GREAT TO NECK DOWN.  VERY FEW PEOPLE WILL HAVE THE MONEY AND OR PATIENTS TO HAVE THERE GUNS REBARRELED AND SPEND A DOLLAR PLUS FOR THERE CUSTOM BRASS.  LET ALONE 100-200 DOLLARS FOR THEIR DIES.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THEY PERFORM EXACTLY LIKE THE STANDARD MAGNUM CALIBERS THAT HAVE BEEN PROVED OVER THE PAST 30-100 YEARS AND AND ARE CHAMBERED IN EVERY GUN ON THE MARKET. BECAUSE IT IS CHEAPER TO STAY WITH THE STANDARD MAGNUMS PEOPLE WILL DO SO. 

I KNOW THAT ABOUT 20 OF YOU WILL REPLY  TO THIS AND SAY I WILL RE-BARREL MY NEW GUN AND SPEND THE MONEY ON THE DIES AND LOOK AT ALL THE RESPONSE YOU JUST RECEIVED.  AND I WILL SAY YES 20 RESPONSE OUT OF THE 100,000'S OF THOUSANDS OF SHOOTERS OUT THERE.

THERE HAS ONLY BEEN ONE GREAT ROUND THAT HAS COME OUT IN THE MARKET IN THE LAST 5 YEARS THAT ACTUALLY CHANGED THE MARKET AND THAT WAS THE 17HMR.  IT TRULY CHANGED THE RIM FIRE INDUSTRY.

THE 204 WAS AND IS A GREAT CONCEPT BUT IT DID NOT CHANGE THE MARKET.  PEOPLE ARE STILL BUYING MORE 22-250'S THAN THE 204.  I THINK THAT THE 204 JUST BASICALLY KILLED THE DYING 220 SWIFT.

[Bill T]

Prebanpaul,

Well said, and I couldn't agree more. There simply is little, too little, to be gained in the short fat wonders. Another drawback in the .300 WSM is your choice in bullets stops at 180 grains. Anything over that and you have to seat the bullet too deep to the point it starts interfering with case compacity. The .300 Magnums were made to shoot heavy bullets. 180+ grain bullets are the only way these cartridges can exploit there range potential. I have never understood why anyone would waste time and money shooting 150 Gr. bullets out of a .300 Mag. Look at the long range target shooters, all use bullets in the 190 Gr. plus range. Some now going to 240 Grain bullets. The .300 Winchester and .300 Weatherby Magnums have been around for several decades. Both are the high performance .30 calibers all others are judged by. I doubt they will be going anywhere soon. As a gun shop owner you know better than most. How often do you see a belted, long action, Weatherby Mark V DeLuxe discounted? The short, fat wonders?, they're a dime a dozen. The gun industry is no different than any other. People tend to stick with what works, rather than reinvent the wheel.  Bill T.

[poncaguy]

Well, each to his own. I own 2 of the short fat wonders, 270WSM and 300WSM. Both feed just fine in my Winchester Super Shadows and both shoot 1/2"-3/4" 100 yard groups. I  don't know about the WSSM's as I don't have any............

[gr8ful]

If it gives you a reason to buy another rifle, more power to em.  Face it we haven't NEEDED a new chambering since the 30-06.

[Davemuzz]

I'm jumpin in late on this....but I just looked at the Hornady ballistics that PartsMan posted on the RCM. I think I'd just buy the Winchester 300 Mag and call it a day. The ballistics are not that different to impress me to jump on that hay ride.

MHO

Dave

[poncaguy]

Mainly developed for a 20 inch barrel............

[Cossack2]

Why? Simple: Economics. The WSM is a proprietary cartridge. Ruger would have to pay a royalty fee for every rifle so chambered.That's why the proliferation of "new" chamberings lately by TC, Marlin, Ruger etc

[Honay]

I like new and improved items. However this seems like a bad idea to me. If the 375 ruger is comparable to the 375 h&h why did they not just neck down the case to 7mm, 30 cal and 338. Market these rifles in a lightweight mountain version with 22-24 inch barrels which would be very close to the weatherby preformance with hopefully less cost. And also offer a 26-28 inch barrel for the west where shots can be long to match the 7mm stw and ultramags.

[Coyote Hunter]

I like new and improved items. However this seems like a bad idea to me. If the 375 ruger is comparable to the 375 h&h why did they not just neck down the case to 7mm, 30 cal and 338. Market these rifles in a lightweight mountain version with 22-24 inch barrels which would be very close to the weatherby preformance with hopefully less cost. And also offer a 26-28 inch barrel for the west where shots can be long to match the 7mm stw and ultramags.

The problem is you can't optimize factory ammo for both a 20" barrel and a 24-26" barrel.  Hornady and Ruger went with a 20" barrel for the RCMs.  I''m not holding my breath, but I expect we'll see full-length necked down .375 Ruger cases in the future.

[Zachary]

Why? Simple: Economics. The WSM is a proprietary cartridge. Ruger would have to pay a royalty fee for every rifle so chambered.That's why the proliferation of "new" chamberings lately by TC, Marlin, Ruger etc

Interesting point.  Question: given that Hornady came out with the RCM, does that mean that Ruger is paying a royalty fee to Hornady?  Or did they work out a deal with no royalty fees?

Zachary

[deltecs]

I like new and improved items. However this seems like a bad idea to me. If the 375 ruger is comparable to the 375 h&h why did they not just neck down the case to 7mm, 30 cal and 338. Market these rifles in a lightweight mountain version with 22-24 inch barrels which would be very close to the weatherby preformance with hopefully less cost. And also offer a 26-28 inch barrel for the west where shots can be long to match the 7mm stw and ultramags.

The object was to provide a short light rifle for mountain and bush hunting with similar ballistics as existing rounds, but in shorter handier barrels.  It would defeat the purpose to put longer barrels on these rifles.  In addition, there isn't any need to neck down the .375 Ruger to hold more powder. There is enough powder in the shorter rounds to duplicate trajectories of comparable cartridges in a short throw action and thus reduce more weight and added strength.  I for one find them intriguing.  I really like the idea of the .338 RCM for my Alaskan rifle and plan to purchase one. 

[MSP Ret]

"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."

exactly that, AND the fact that they are light weight, compact, balance and carry great, shoot great, are aesthetically pleasing, and quite inexpensive to boot, is exactly why I now hunt with single shot H&R/NEF Handi rifles. The Weatherbys, Remingtons, Winchesters, Brownings and others now stay in the gun locker....<><....