The fate of RCM cartridges?

[FergusonTO35]

So, what do you guys think the future holds for the Ruger Compact Magnum cartridges? I see that the cartridges are still only available in the Compact Magnum rifles. I would think that if they were more successful Ruger would chamber more rifles in them and other makers would have picked them up.

It seems that of all the short magnums which have been introduced the only ones that will stay are the .270 and .300 WSM and maybe the .325 WSM. Remington finally capitulated and dropped the RSAUM lineup a couple of years ago and I see a similar fate for the RCM's. I can see enough big game hunters and guides keeping the mid-length .375 and .416 Rugers going as they do fill a niche that nothing else really does.

 

[gunman42782]

Don't think they will be around much longer, IMHO. I work at a very well stocked gun shop, and we carry none of the RCM rounds, and have never had anyone even ask me for them!

 

[gewehrfreund]

Destined for the trash heap of failed firearms marketing I'd say.

 

[winchester37]

i would doubt they would be chambered in any other Ruger model, name says it all Ruger Compact Magnum, except a #3 . can feel my shoulder already.

 

[picketpin]

You will never see them cross over into other brands of rifles and that is almost always the kiss death. Very few WSM and WSSM rounds have made it to sticking around long term, and then sales will never be high. We all know what happened to Remingtons try.

The 243 WSSM and the 270 WSM, 300 WSM and the 325 WSM seem to be the only onesthat stuck and to my way of thinking, remotely make a bit of sense.

Most of the smiths I know haven't even bought reamers for anything else, if that. I had thought about making a 25 WSSM but my smith said that I either had to rent the reamer or buy one. I was going to use a Shilen tube so I called Doug and asked if he could chamber it. I hadn't seen the 25WSM on his list, nor many others for that matter. Basically his response was that nobody was asking for them in anything else other than the few I listed.

Hhe did admit to haveing a 25WSM reamer, but took it off the list after sending out 5 barrels and having 4 of the 5 call him back in the end complaining that his barrels didn't shoot because they had been unable to get their new rifles to shoot well. I don't think it was an issue with the Shilen barrels.

In talking the guys at Sierra, they were reluctant to endorse and get on the band wagon because they had been unable to duplicate all the hype from Winchester and Remington about the short mags advantages other than a short action length. They had asked for THEIR test data and had been refused.

As we all know this whole thing wasn't a new idea. Whether you give Rick Jamison credit or read further back and give Ackley and other wildcatters the credit the idea wasn't new. The advent of some of the newer powders may have even made the ballistic claims true . But a 30 caliber mag is a 30 caliber mag and the formula for reoil is still the same, riifle weight, bullet weight and bullet speed are the critical data. So even if you use a short action, is the average shooter going to really cycle it that much faster? Is the action just that much stiffer that you can demonstate an increse in accuracy? Last but not least how light do you really want your 30 caliber magnum rifle? Even though they were built on a short action most of the 300WSMs I have seen have a mid weight barrel to get the weight up to where it doesn't kill you to shoot it.

Sadly I see Rugers efforts to build their own cartridge lineup as a marketing issue more than anything else and I don't think it's going to be a success in a bad economy and declining numbers of shooters and hunters demographically. That doesn't even address if they have a ballistic advatage as claimed.

Nope, I look for nearly all of them to fail and those that do survive will only be chambered by Ruger.

 

[Con]

Hornady cannot supply regular stocks of ammunition or brass into Australia, that's usually a sign that they're not serious about a cartridge after the initial hype and fanfare.

The 416Ruger may not be too far behind, again on account of marketing hype exceeding the ability to supply ammunition and components. Many in Australia latched onto 375Ruger brass and are necking it up ... me ... I'm considering a 416Taylor for a Savage action rather than the 416Ruger even though I own a 416Ruger reamer!

The 338RCM has carved a very small niche market here amongst deer hunters that appreciate the rifles attributes, but I don't think owners are happy at the long term prospects for their firearms. They'd be better off re-chambering to 338WSM.
Cheers...
Con

 

[Quattroclick]

Purpose served. A bunch of rifles created that don't really impact on the used market. The best thing for Ruger or any other manufacturer, is a gun that gets put in the safe as a collector piece, or is thrown in a closet because ammo is not available. The ammo manufacturers may or may not make out so well depending on the development costs. They can sell WSM or RCM or SAUM or whatever for a LOT more than 270 or 30/06 ammo.

Honestly, none of these make much sense. I can appreciate the efficiency of the short/fat arrangement, but I don't see any benefit in a real rifle over any number of older more common cartridges.

 

[DMCI]

Picking the media for a new rifle gets down to bullets. The Berger 7mm 180 grain VLD is an impossibly good target bullet in my view.

Driving it consistently and efficiently is something that the 7mm WSM does really well. With velocities in the 2800+ range, well below max the thing does a sterling job with reduced wind effects and good residual velocity out to 1000 plus, with much lower recoils than the typical heavy .300s.

But the thing died an early death in the Gun rags because of the just another 7mm shots it got. But reports coming from the target boys hint of spectaculary performance as I do my own work on the project.

Before you ask, yes I got over conifdent and pulled the far left shot on the lower right target.

 

[FergusonTO35]

Yep, these are all my thoughts exactly. Its pretty hard to invent a cartridge that actually survives more than a few years, much less sets the industry on fire like the .17 HMR. We already have an abundance of proven cartridges that offer just about anything one can desire. I can see a tiny, realistic niche for Ruger's mid-length magnums, the .375 and .416, because they offer (or are supposed to offer) real dangerous game rifle power in a more compact package that costs quite a bit less than an M77 Safari.

Personally I wish Ruger had put the money they spent creating the RCM's into offering a remodeled GP100 with Six series styling!! 8)

 

[DMCI]

Personally I wish Ruger had put the money they spent creating the RCM's into offering a remodeled GP100 with Six series styling!! 8)

Seems to me that is what letters to the company are for.

 

[Ale-8(1)]

JMHO

All the shorties (not just the Ruger ones) were marketing "inventions" to sell rifles.

Some of them perform reasonably well, but not enough better than existing chamberings to make it worth buying another rifle. That said, I understand that some folks LIKE any excuse to buy another rifle, and that's perfectly OK . . . but it won't sustain a market for very long.

Rick Jamison did a nice piece of individual effort and research in "creating" the shorty concept, but all his ranting about "efficiency" didn't really make a case for the concept on a large scale. The wildcatters probably love these for their uniqueness if nothing else, but again that doesn't really make a case for "mass production".

I don't see any of them attaining the overall popularity of the .30-06 or the .270 or the .223 or other old standbys, because dome of the new powders that help the shorties each their potential can help the older ones update their performance.

Full disclosure: I am not a rifle person, but I'm interested just the same.

JMHO

 

[chet15]

Rick Jamison did a nice piece of individual effort and research in "creating" the shorty concept

OOOH. Now there's a can of worms
Chet15

 

[FergusonTO35]

Seems to me that is what letters to the company are for.

I did send Ruger a letter to this effect.

 

[Ale-8(1)]

Indeed it is, Chet15, indeed it is.

 

[boaman88]

Nice concept, not very well promoted or supported, and a bit late to the game. Not exactly a recipe for success. Granted they were not alone in this one. Hornady definitely played a big role.

The only real difference it has over the others is that it was designed to work with a short barrel. It truly is more compact when compared to the other short magnums. The others almost always have to still be fired in full length rifles to equal the old standard magnums. Sometimes timing is everything.

 

[FergusonTO35]

One huge turn-off about the RCM's to me would be that the increased performance is due mostly to Hornady's use of powder which is not available to reloaders. From what I have read the cartridges gain little if anything over their non-magnum counterparts when handloaded.

 

[DMCI]

One huge turn-off about the RCM's to me would be that the increased performance is due mostly to Hornady's use of powder which is not available to reloaders. From what I have read the cartridges gain little if anything over their non-magnum counterparts when handloaded.

Now me personally, I would agree except that some of those short fat carts are so darned elegant.

Here are some of my current and past reloads.

Note the 7 WSMs. While my current favorite is the big Berger, I don't have to tell you what that 100 grain varmint bullet does to PDs!

 

[FergusonTO35]

Nice lineup!!

 

[picketpin]

Gee, short fat case in 7mm with a rebated rim. I think it is/was called the 284 Winchester. ;-)

Part of the hype was that the short/fat would have a much lower standard deviation and a much lower exstreme spread. That was based on assuming the idea of the PPCs and BRs would translate to a larger case.

I had serious questions about that. I had built a 25-284 but with the cse blown out to nearly zero taper. It had almost exactly the same case capacity as the 25-06. Running both at the same velocity and with the same bullet I couldn't ascertain any difference in SD or ES across on Oehler. My conclusion was that the idea didn't pan up as you increased the case capacity much beyond that of the PPC and BR case. It takes longer to burn 50 grains of powder and it is subject to fluctuations regardless if in a long skinny colum or a short fat one. At least that's been my experience.

I admit that many of the new ball powders weren't available at the time.
Skip forward to the introduction of the short fats be it Jameson, Remington or Winchester and the claim to more uniform SD and lower ES. I called the guys at Sierra. They said that they had been unable to duplicate the results published by the maker. They had asked for their tests and test DATAa to try and duplicate them and come to the same conclusion. They were refused the test data and sort of cooled on the Short/Fats. The basically simply confirmed what I had found over the years.

It may be us old farts but if you read Ackleys books none of them see all that new. The only thing new was powders and yes thats significant but being ballistically the same and with nearly identical Sd and ES why bother?? Geez look at Ackleys books guys were turning the rims off 348 brass and shortening it and blowing the case out straight with a sharp shoulder prior to 1963. At6 the time the claims for the Wade Suoer & was exactly the same claimed for the short/fats. By the way, the 263 Express is in there, the 308 necked down to 6.5.

By his second book in 1967 the .284 was out. It had already been necked down and up and shortened and................that including the 6.5-284 and another short/ fat the 7mm Express.

Yes, if you want to buy a new rifle or you NEED/DESIRE a rifle on a specific configuration then you can rationalize the purches of a new rifle.

It's as good a reason as any to buy a new gun.

I think I'll pull my 22PPC #1 apart and turn the barrel back so I cut a new chamber in 22 Waldog. That 2 grains less capacity and therefore higher load density will make all the difference in the world.

To be honest I can't see the difference between the 22PPC and the 22BR in the field in identical varmint rifles.. Both are great. Heck maybe in a REALLY serious BR rifle the 2 grains less in the Waldog would show up. Certainly not in a standard industry sporting rifle. I 'm not even sure that I could tell a difference in the one serious BR/Varmint rifle I own Bought it from a BR guy when he upgraded. It's a 6mmPPC

22-250AI, 220 Swift, 22WSSM. all are a bit overbore and all will burn out a tube if run full throttle. (after the introduction of the shorties)

6-284, 240 WBY, 243 WSSM all shoot heavy bullets well. All will drive a light bullet fast enough to scrub the bore out pretty darned quick.
(after the introduction of the shorties)

The Ruger version is chambered by RUGER. That is pretty much the emd of them and their over all effect will be minimal. Ruger may chamber a few for years but they are whipping a dead pony.

RWT

 

[FergusonTO35]

Yup. I wonder what trend rifle cartridges will follow next? Well, we have the trend of chambering AR15's in other than .223/5.56 but I don't think thats in any danger of going mainstream to the extent that the WSM did. I shot some really tight groups with my ancient Marlin .30 WCF the other day, now thats a trend I can live with!! 8)