Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Why did the SAUMs fail?

Ammo. A longer mag box would have helped, too.

Actually, Remington (like most companies) has had several MAJOR cartridge successes, mixed with numerous new-cartridge failures and mediocrities. This has been pretty much the way things have gone since the development of the self-contained metallic cartridge over 150 years ago, because of changing technology and demand demand.

Just for fun, let's look at the rifle cartridges Winchester has introduced since World War II, earlier than many of today's younger shooters consider "historical." I've run into a bunch of "millenials" who are extremely ignorant of anything that happened before 2000, or even 2010.

I compiled a list of Remington and Winchester cartridges introduced since WWII from a recent edition of CARTRIDGES OF THE WORLD. It turned out the total number from each company was similar.

I then made notes about which rounds were absolute failures (AF), meaning the company obviously lost money because the cartridges never amortized the costs of development and promotion--and which cartridges became industry standards (IS), meaning companies all over the world chambered them in new rifles for at least a decade. The others have made at least a little money for their companies, some quite a bit.

Here's the Remington list:

.17 Fireball
.17 Remington
.222 Rem. (IS)
.222 Rem. Magnum
.223 Rem. (IS)
.22-250 Rem. (IS)
.244/6mm Rem.
.25-06 Rem. (IS)
.260 Rem.
6.5 Rem. Mag (AF)
7mm-08 Rem.
.280 Rem.
7mm Rem. Magnum (IS)
7mm SAUM
7mm STW
7mm RUM
.300 SAUM
.300 RUM
8mm Rem. Magnum
.338 RUM
.35 Whelen
.350 Rem. Magnum
.416 Rem. Magnum (IS)

.225 Win. (AF)
.223 WSSM (AF)
.243 WSSM (AF)
.243 Win. (IS)
.256 Win. Magnum (AF)
.25 WSSM (AF)
.264 Win. Magnum
.270 WSM
7mm WSM
.307 Win.
.308 Win. (IS)
.300 Win. Magnum (IS)
.300 WSM (IS)
.325 WSM (AF)
.338 Win. Magnum (IS)
.356 Win.
.358 Win.
.375 Win.
.458 Win. Magnum (IS)

Remington has 6 industry standard rifle cartridges, and one absolute failure. Winchester also has 6 industry standard cartridges, but 5 absolute failures.

Now, whether or not Remington "properly" promoted their new rounds is another question. But from these lists, it appears Remington has done pretty well since WWII.

Jordan,

Interesting point!

But I still don't think the longer magazine of the Model 70 was the deciding factor.... :-)

We are very fortunate to have John here with us. I've never seen an analysis of ammo like that which is provided above by him.

Many thanks John, for the interesting and even fascinating info.

Steve

Mesabikid,

Good catch!

I just fixed that, and classified the .325 AF, even though my friend luv2safari will be along soon to tell me how mistaken I am.

After the other WSM's appeared, the market was primed and ready for a .338 WSM, to the point where a bunch of people had reamers made and put 'em together. But for minor ballistic reasons, the Winchester people decided on the .325 instead, even though American 8mm rounds have never sold very well--and there's no downrange ballistic advantage in the .325 over the the .300 WSM.

Come to think of it, I need to add the 8mm Remington Magnum to the Remington list.

Brad,

Thanks for the info--though am assuming 3.005" is an extra-zero typo.

That may be another reason the SAUM's failed. The 700's I've owned and tested have had the industry standard "short" magazine length of somewhere around 2.85".