Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Is Ruger killing the 300 & 338 RCM's?

Is Ruger killing the 300 & 338 RCM's?

I was on the Ruger website trying to check out a .338 RCM only to find the 8 lb Guide Gun is it! Are they kidding? I would think the RCM was more popular.

The RCMs were a marketing epic fail.

So what will I convert my 338RCM into when brass is impossible to find, or will Ruger replace the defective design? I feel a class action lawsuit in the making.

I think it was just blind pride and stupidity.

Cartridges in search of a reason to exist... and a day late and dollar short at that.

That's happened quite a bit the past twenty years or so. The focus has been lost. The world has changed. My Leupold rangefinder is made in China. Holding companies exist solely to make a buck, with little concern for pride of ownership. Why couldn't Remington develop a decent budget bolt rifle in thirty years of trying? Why are many new cartridges some kind of magnum? Why aren't the big companies listening to the consumer?

And what of the lady in red?

Considering the fact that you could effectively hunt any game in the world with a 12 gauge shotgun and a battery of rifles in 3 or 4 calibers that have existed since 1956 or before, the last 40 or 50 cartridges that have been introduced seem a bit superfluous to me. There will be lots of nice rifles for which ammunition does not exist that will be taking up space in closets in years to come.

Many of them will be in calibers that haven't even been introduced yet.

I'll still be able to buy ammo for all of mine, because I am old-fashioned.

Has something like that happened before when a cartridge was discontinued?


They are still making ammo and brass for the 8mm Rem, 6.5 Rem Mag and a host of others that have long since been dropped from factory chamberings. As long as brass/cartridges sell, they should continue to make them.

On another note, I'm stocking up brass for my .300 SAUM every chance I get just in case...that should save me the hassle of an (?) lawsuits..,

Can't imagine the RCMs perform any better, or worse, than what's already out there. I was intrigued by the 20" barrel package of the 338 RCM. Make for a great hunting rifle.

Ruger shoulda necked the 375 Ruger case down...they missed the boat...

I actually like the case design of the RCM better than the WSM. I don't own one or a WSM at the moment though. They were just too late to the party.

Ditto for the .30 TC.

I haven't figured out what it will do that the .308 Winchester won't do.

The RCM's raison d'etre was magnum performance from a 20" barreled rifle.
As this experiment shows the market for short barreled magnums is pretty small.

I know I have less than no interest in one.

Yep, WTH were thinking..A 7 and 30 cal on the 375 case would have taken off..There is a pretty big long range crowd shooting the 7LRM, which is off of a 375 ruger.

Lawsuits?

Couldn't let Remington have all the fun.

Huh?

Nice French, but the RCM's have the case capacity of a 30-06 plus 1 grain give or take... hardly a magnum.

He said it, not me

Modern powders + selective data = smoke and mirrors

They're more capacious than the .30-06.

And marketed as magnums.

According to ammoguide 67gr to 71gr.

According to QL 68gr to 75gr.

Both advantage RCM.

They had/have the ADL...apparently it wasn't "budget" enough for the guys on a budget???

I actually think the RCM's are decent cartridges. Sure, they are just a re-vamped '06 as far as capacity and performance are concerned but they do fit and function well in a short action.
I had a 338 RCM briefly and sort of liked it except for some flaws with the rifle itself. I had to add an inch and a quarter to the stock to get a reasonable length of pull and spend two evenings making the forarm less ugly (I went with a schnabel and it looked pretty good). The rifle was very accurate and not too bad to shoot with the lengthened stock. Why on earth they supplied the rifle with such super-high rings is a mystery to me. I guess for the guys who wanted to mount a 50mm scope on their lightweight carbine. Also, the bolt handle was ridiculously thin.
So the rifle was, in some respects, a turkey. The cartridge worked just fine though.
I like the 300 RCM better than the WSM just as I like the SAUM better. With the WSM, it was hate at first sight. I had reamer before I could get brass and had some of the first brass in the country then wondered why I had bought both.
Ultimately, I think the main failing with the RCM's is not with the cartridges but with the rifles. Ruger really needs to take a step back and look at some of their earlier offerings before they produce something too stupid. They have produced a few nice rifles but not too frequently lately. GD

Bill, I like the SAUM's better than the WSM's as well... hence, there was no need for the RCM's except Ruger's intransigence.

Whatever... in the real world (as opposed to Nerdvana) they're the same.

According to QL they're more capacious than the .300 SAUM you prefer.
74 to 75gr.
And almost exactly split the difference between the -06 and the WSM.

And marketed as magnums with magnum performance from a short barrel. I read their adds too.
So in the real "real world" they're bigger and faster than the -06 despite your strenuous objections to the contrary.

Ever worked with one?

I thought not... one glance at Hogdon's website and pressure data tells your QL is nice guess work.

180 GR. HDY SP Hodgdon H4350 .308" 2.820" 56.4 2648 50,700 PSI 60.0C 2826 62,600 PSI

Ever done math?

Ever heard of the concept that case capacity wins when pressures are equal?

I thought not.

Either way, they were marketed as magnums utilizing a short barrel and the folks who didn't beat a path to their door to embrace this concept tells me that the market for short barreled magnums is pretty thin.

You need to get into the real world...

You win Brad, enjoy.

Here is the Hornady press release


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Hornady Introduces .300 and .338 RCM (Ruger Compact Magnum)

Hornady Press Release



Illustration courtesy of Hornady Manufacturing Co., Inc.
Hornady�s New Ruger Compact Magnums are Extreme Cartridges for Extreme Hunting

Hornady knows that hunting elk, bighorn, brown bear, musk ox and African game can land you in some fairly extreme environments. And until now, hunters have used gear that hasn�t evolved much in the past 100 years.

The paradigm has shifted. Hornady�s new Ruger Compact Magnum cartridges afford hunters a rifle/cartridge combination that will allow them to take their hunting to new levels of performance.

Based on the beltless 375 Ruger case, the 300 and 338 Ruger Compact Magnums match 300 and 338 Win Mag performance. The kicker is the RCMs do it in a well-balanced quick-handling rifle.

Anyone who has spent much time in the woods with a long barreled rifle knows they can be ungainly, heavy, and not too quick inthe hand. But shorten the rifle a few inches and you immediately feel the difference. Plus, a shorter barrel is more rigid, making the gun stronger and more accurate.

To that end, Ruger� has made a number of modifications to the M77� Hawkeye� to create the perfect mate to the new RCM Cartidges. These new rifles are built around Ruger�s rock solid short action and feature 20" barrels, crisp LC6 triggers and updated stock dimensions to improve handling. All in a compact, fast-handling package that tips the scale at just over 6.5 lbs.

� Exceeds 300 & 338 Win Mag performance from a compact 20" barrel
� Optimized propellants and case geometry deliver more velocity with 10-15% less powder
� Longer barrel life
� Less recoil
� Less muzzle blast
� Superior temperature stability from -15�F to 140�F
� Extreme cartridges for extreme hunting!

Magnum performance in a package you don�t need a gun bearer to carry!

Any veteran big game hunter will tell you the 30-06 and 300 Winchester Magnum are the standards by which other cartridges in the class are judged. And the 300 Win Mag is a great cartridge. But to be efficient, it requires a 24" barrel - a 26" barrel is better.

Hornady�s new 300 Ruger Compact Magnum, available in 150, 165 and 180 grain offerings, deliver 300 Win Mag level performance, but do it in a much shorter package. The new 338 RCM, in 200 gr SST and 225 grSST, provides a compact, quick-handling alternative to the 338 Win Mag.

The new Ruger Compact Magnums deliver this performance using 10-15% less propellant than other magnums. This means longer barrel life. The new RCMs also produce less recoil and muzzle blast due to smaller propellant payload, and best of all, the efficient case geometry delivers exceptional velocities from 20" barrels. Hornady�s propellant technology allows for VERY little temperature sensitivity from -15�F to 140�F.

Brad still wins because he's used one.

How many 'experienced' handloaders believe this CROCK? !!!

IMO - If HALF of that manure was true - Ruger would NOT be dropping them..



edited to add:

I have an Oehler 33, I'll GLADLY graph ANYONE'S RCM. I'd REALLY like to see it.

True or not is not why they are dropping them. Nasqam is correct people were not interested in a 20" barrel magnum. Lack of sales is the reason they are being dropped. Handgun loaders aren't even a drop in the bucket of the gun buying public, most handloaders are 59 years old or older.

It's a magnum in name only.

No handloader can duplicate the factory ammo velocities that use a proprietary powder... just like no handloader can duplicate those same proprietary "High Energy" loads available for the 30-06, 308, et al.

If anyone thinks two grains more H4350 than a 30-06 to push a 180 at 2,825 from the 300 RCM is a Magnum, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for them.

A 30-06 will get to 2,800+ loaded to the same pressure as the RCM with 58.0 H4350.

Two grains and less than 25 fps between them... good grief, IT'S A MAGNUM!

YEAH buddy. THAT IS my point!!


jwp - My offer of graphing is NOT limited to handloads!!

The wages of hype is an early death.

And they dropped an eminently useful .338 Federal to flog their .338 RCM too.

1B

And that's what appealed to me about the RCM. '06 performance on a SA. I never bought one though.

jwall, I understood... I wasn't responding to you, just using the quick reply feature.

And my point was the 300 SAUM was already available... Ruger just didn't want to pay into the Jamison collection agency.

I not only have a chromo but I also have an Ohler personal ballistics lab

Do you guys realize that I am not commenting on the performance of the cartridges one way or the other, only on how they were marketed to the public.

It certainly appears that the public was not impressed with "magnum performance" in a 20" barrel and if they got the speeds claimed in a 20" or reasonably close then they were/are rather amazing. But I am like the majority of the buy public not interested in a 20" barreled rifle shooting that high of pressure as the noise would be too much because of the high exit pressure

Agreed.

Again, those "Magnum Velocities" were only available with factory proprietary powder HE-type loadings that can't be duplicated by the handloader...

They have never died, as they were stillborn from announcement.

If anything did steal their fleeting breath, it was the great sucking sound of the 300WSM train already headed down the tracks full-steam ahead.


If Ruger wants a winner, all they have to do is offer a 7-375.

Only a small percentage of american hunters reload today, not like 30 years ago times have changed

When the RCM's were announced, Kimber listed them as available chamberings in the magazine ads. The ads listing the chamberings only lasted a month or so. The next issue of said magazines dropped them from the list. I wonder why that project was pulled? To my knowledge, none were produced.

I may try to dig up one of the ads tonight.

And HE loads are available in the 30-06, 308, etc... and the factory SAUM was already established doing a bit more than the 300 RCM.

Ruger got its back up over Jamison and launched their hair-brained RCM's.

But at least they had the sense to offer a 33...

To answer the original question:

No - the market is killing the 300 & 338 RCM's

yup....I was amazed when they walked away from a case they already had and bought out the RCMs

I suppose the short bolt throw was more important to them......did they ask any of us?

Wasn't there some official buzz a couple years back about Ruger doing a 300 on the 375 case?

I for one do not like short barrel on high intensity cartridges. On the other hand I do like a 20" barrel on a 7X57 since it is not normally loaded to 60,000PSI, factory loads are in the 40's making it a fun cartridge to shoot in a short barrel.

I have a 26" barrel on my 30-06 and I get 3020FPS with 59 grains of H-4350 and a 165 grain bullet. The M-70 holds 5 rounds in the factory magazine, try that with a short fat cartridge

Yes Brad, I too understood.

I AM agreeing w/you + qualifying the graphing offer to ANYONE.

PEACE bro.

You have probably written the epitaph of the new Guide Gun right there. A 20" stainless rifle with open sights, yeah, I can see it. That rifle chambered for the .300 Win Mag, .338 Win. Mag., the RCM's - can't really see that.

Perception is reality - certain chamberings may or may not live up to public perception, but perception is why folks spend their money. Not to disrupt this thread, but if Ruger chambers that Guide Gun for what folks "perceive" as good thumpers then it will sell, ugly brake and weird stock or not. .350 Rem. Mag (maybe), .308, maybe even a .325 WSM, those are things folks see (at least I see) as good matches in a shorter, handier type rifle. That, or they need to do some serious marketing to change public perception to sell these.

You hit the nail on the head "public perception"

30/30 the original 30 caliber Magnum 119 years ago and still going strong!!!!

By the way, when I had the 338 RCM, I had no loading data for it so I compared capacity to some Winchester 30/06 brass I had handy. It was exactly the same. Not in the same ballpark, not similar, it was the same. So I used 338/06 data and it worked out fine. Like all of the short magnums, these were a cartridge with no real purpose. Only Winchester was able to market successfully; possibly because they were first but mostly because they were better at slinging the bull.
I still want to see somebody resurrect the 30 Newton! GD

To my mind that's the real shame of it. I'd have bought a 20 inch barreled 338 Fed in a heartbeat.

You obviously aren't an engineer with a pocket protector and undying faith in QL...

Nothing like actually doing a real-world comparison.

And or a blue flame special with a marketing MBA looking to keep employed via a company pushing a bunch of marketing coinage to keep some wet dream round afloat...

Course once the marketing coin stops then the sales mix of the round will drop to a point where it's no longer needed on the menu. Some of my old restaurant background coming here eh Mac...

Dober

We all come up with excuses for additional firearms. Often we create elaborate justifications for new guns. My excuse for a rifle to fill a perceived gap was to build another short barreled 338-06 when I came across this 338RCM to be used as a "large game rifle". I had sold my previous 338-06 and I wanted another but decided to give the RCM a try. For shooting any big game rifle outside of the top five chamberings, unless you have deep pockets, I'm of the opinion one should reload, so having odd chambered guns like a 338-06 or a 338RCM doesn't bother me much. So I picked up enough ammo and reloading supplies to keep the RCM fed for many years to come. I liked my compact 338-06 a lot, but I love the short barrel RCM. Kinda like a marriage between a 338-06 and a 350RM. Right down my alley.





All of the below links are for loads chrono�d with a 20� barrel 338RCM. There is measured data within as such:

200grainers: handloads maxed out in the 2800 to 2850 range

225grainers: handloads maxed out in the 2650 to 2700fps range

250grainers: handloads maxed out in the 2500 to 2575fps range

http://www.realguns.com/archives/170.htm

http://www.gunsandammo.com/content/338-rcm?page=1

http://www.rifleshootermag.com/ammunition/RS_0108_01/index1.html

http://www.gunsandammo.com/content/hot-couple?page=3

http://www.loaddata.com/members/search_d...eloading%20Data


I personally was unable to reach the same performance level with my beloved short barrel 338-06 as can be reached with the short barrel 338RCM. You guys are undercutting the performance potential of the RCM, especially when talking about a 20-inch barrel. The RCM is very efficient from a short barrel. But, short barrel guns are not everyone's cup of tea.

Best

The RCM's were turkeys from the beginning. Good riddance.

Browse "Cartridges of The World" for a plethora of failures over the years.

Our era isn't unique at all.

In my eyes, the RCMs never appeared in a configuration that would have interested me much. Those 20" guns are ridiculously heavy, sorry but a wooden stocked M70 FWT in 358Win I have weighs considerably less and its a sporter with 22" barrel. I know in comparison to a friend's (he bought 2 of them), even he was stunned at how heavy his rifle was.

A 338RCM in a Ruger UltraLight configuration I'd have probably bought, better yet a 338Federal though. In a Mannlicher ... hold me back!!

Ruger seems to have 'killed' off a few things the last few years ... the No1 rifles have been decimated, no more Ultralight, or RSMs or my absolute favourite the Mannlicher RSIs. Seems to me this is very much the age of the 'black rifle' and if that's where the market is, so be it ...
Cheers...
Con

Think I just here my dog cover somthing.

BS boy's but that is guist me! Kawi

Out of the box, the wood stocked 338RCM weighed a measured 6 lbs 14 oz. They are not ridiculously heavy.

My 300H&H made in '55 seems to work just fine. Never could see the need for a short fat sort of magnum.

They needed to be closer to an even 6 lbs to be what they should be, a light, short, fast carbine bolt action.

That would be impossible. There are neither factory wood stocked compact Rugers nor featherweight compact Winchesters that can be built with a 20 inch barrel and fixed sights to weigh 6 lbs even. The Winchesters weigh a 1/2 pound more with a 20" barrel w/out sights and the Ruger gets close but it has a 16.5" barrel.

They were a dream come true for a left hander in a different cartridge. I bought a 338 RCM and love it, one of the easier cartridges to load for first loads were under 1". Neat 20" carbine with sights, light quick handling and pleasant to shoot.

I'm with Gary on this one. It's a small niche for sure, but in a carbine size rifle, I think the RCMs are useful. Trying to say they are equal to or better ballistically than their full size magnum counterparts is the same stupid marketing ploy used when the WSMs and SAUMs came out. But, poor and or dishonest marketing doesn't make any of the WSMs, SAUMs, or RCMs bad or useless cartridges. They just fill a small niche that may or may not support their survival. Before they're gone, I'd like to pick up a LH 77 in 300 RCM with a 20 inch barrel-just because.
Speaking of small niches, there's even people out there that ardently believe that the 7mm Rem Mag is just too small, the 7mm STW too big, the 7mm RUM way too big, and have a marvelous wildcat called, I think, the 7mm Mashburn. I believe there is even a "Super" (long throat?) version. Now, seeing that I've owned a few wildcats and currently have a 35 Brown Whelen (lot's of fun fireforming brass with no headspace), I'm not questioning the need and usefulness of said cartridge. More power to ya.
Seriously, there is really only a few downsides to the RCMs. If you hate Hornady brass, don't buy one. If you hate Hornady bullets and don't handload, don't buy one. If you are a person who handloads because you like to be able to beat the underloaded factory stuff for velocity, don't buy one. Otherwise, they're just another cartridge choice to take or leave.
Just my 2 cents,
Steve

Yep, and THAT is the reason these failed.

I have a Mdl 70 Classic FW in 325 WSM that weighs 6 1/2 pounds, and I see no reason why they couldn't weigh less in an RCM, maybe not the magic 6, but closer.

I also have a great Small ring 98 Mauser 8MM in a beautiful walnut stock that shoots clover leafs and weighs 5 lbs 14 oz. It has sights, too, and a 22" barrel.

I bought one (338 RCM) yesterday, literally. I went with a slightly different model - 22" barrel, no iron sights, so we'll see what happens.

The plan is to top it with a Zeiss Duralyt 1.2-5x36, install a 1" Pachmayr Decel. (in Red, of course), and use 210-gr Swift Scirocco II's and 231-gr. Lapua Naturalis.

I think your bullets will simply bounce off any animals you attempt to slay.
Steve

I've long thought one of those compact mag rifles in a good, lightish synthetic stock would make one heck of a hunting rig. Could be chambered in just about anything...

Wow! If Ruger had gotten as much response to their RCMs as this thread did, they'd still be making them!

Never understood why Ruger keeps introducing new cartridges as a strategy to sell more rifles. I understand the concept of catering to gun nuts for profits but an easier strategy is to make a run of some of the oldies like they did with the 9.3x62. It would be interesting to see the sales data on the 9.3x62 vs the 338 RCM. There are so many good old ones out there to release. Seems like a better strategy.

More people want new-better than old-dependable. It's the American way.

Maybe .358 Win ?

I liked the little 20" Stainless Laminated .338 RCM I handled, but didn't jump at it.

Maybe a Belch Fire and Thunder Special if a .338 RCM bbl was re-chambered into a .338-375 and screwed onto an Alaskan!

............Kinda agree there. They shortened the 375 Ruger casing instead.

But as far as the 338 RCM is concerned, Ruger in conjunction with Hornady, wanted to "try as best a possible" (but fell short) duplicating 24" barreled 338 Win Mag ballistics from a new 20" barreled more compact Hawkeye.

I personally feel that had they taken the 375 Ruger casing as is and then necked it down to a 338 and also to a 300 calling them the 338 Ruger and 300 Ruger respectively, they might have enjoyed more success vs the RCMs.

Using the original and non-shortened 375 Ruger casing, the case capacity would have been more and duplicating or exceeding 24" tubed 338 Win Mag ballistics from a 20" barrel would have been much more likely.

They should have maintained the same home run "out of the park" 375 Ruger vs 375 H&H theme for the 338 and 300 calibers as well.

Huge +1 on both, though I'd add 338 to the bottom line.

I believe manufacturers warranty a safe rifle, not ammunition availability. Remember 45 years ago when Browning chambered the 22-250; no commercial ammunition was available - it was a handloading proposition

And this is still the reason.

The powers that be at Ruger aren't stupid despite folks' displeasure with them in not catering to their own personal whim. They're willing to take a risk and when you take a risk sometimes you fail.

They're not going to stop making rifles in chamberings that sell, they are going to stop making rifles in chamberings that don't sell.

"Folks" all said, "give is a 9.3X62, it's so cool, I'd buy one." So Ruger did, and folks didn't buy one. At least not in enough numbers to justify its continued existence. Remington had the same experience with the .35 Whelen- "oh, give us a .35 Whelen, we'd buy lots". But they didn't buy lots of them.

I don't think someone at Ruger just up and thought of making the .300 and .338 RCM's. Their market research must have shown them the public wanted a handy carbine that still gave good velocity. But, sometimes market research is wrong. They're in good company, so to speak; the .284 Winchester and 6.5 Remington Magnum come to mind, not to mention all of the SAUMs.

In the case of the .300 and .338 RCM, they gambled and lost. I am reminded of Jack Nicholson's line in "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" - "at least I tried, dammit, at least I tried...".

Never been a fan of short barreled rifles. A true magnum has a 24" barrel. If offered in a 24" barrel I would own a 338 RCM

Hate to say, "I told you so" but you should never buy any rifle chambered for a cartridge that has not been in production for at least 10 years, unless you understand from the get-go that you may end up hand loading only, fire forming, etc.

I'd say most on the fire hand load

How embarrassing, 338rcm. All this time I just assumed that with your screen name, you were a big fan of the 338 Ruger Compact Magnum . Seriously, I thought they did make the 338RCM with a 23" barrel. If you consider the fact that the RCM is a half inch shorter that the 338Win, that makes the 23" barrel the same as a 23.5" barrel on a 338Win. Not much difference, really.
Steve

Steve, I was going to build a lightweight 338 RCM years ago. I never got around to doing it. I would still buy a factory gun with a 24" barrel

The word magnum in the name had nothing to do with me getting a 338RCM. I bought it because the economic failure meant the gun was being offered at a rerasonable price, and my even lower offer was accepted - that is called the market.

Now despite theory and prejudice what I have on my hands is a great elk rifle, it is light and powerful, and shoots flat.

How flat? Well some cross canyon rock busting during deer season alongside a pair of well used 7 Weatherby Mags with 26 inch barrels resulted in my friends judging the 338 to be a good shooting rifle. We were hitting out to 500 plus yards.

I know it isnt as flat shooting as my 300 Weatherby, but the rifle is easier to carry in the woods. It does have a performance edge over my 358 Winchester.

The same people who wish they could find a Remington 660 in 350 Remington Magnum for elk hunting are going to try and buy this gun from my grandson one day.

Some times the market over looks the sum of all the pieces.

The Hawkeye in 338 RCM is a hunters dream rifle.

A 300RCM with a 20" barrel would be my choice. Not really magnum performance, but surely a 308Win on steroids.
BTW, what's the pup in your avatar?
Steve

Shes a Vizsula, but shes not a pup anymore. Just my best(spoiled) friend

siskiyou,
Since you made a well thought out purchase of a 338RCM and have carried and shot it in the field, I'm not sure you are qualified to be commenting in this discussion .
Actually, I agree with you on all points. Just curious what model you have and if you are handloading or using the Hornady factory stuff? Good post.
Steve

Nice size breed and beautiful dogs. The ones I've been around have been pretty high energy-actually really high energy dogs. Be nice to have one that was sorta de-tuned but I suppose it's the nature of the breed.
Pets and grandkids- just wouldn't be fun if you couldn't spoil 'em.
Steve

Steve, Its just a user name and no matter how you measure a barrel 24"s is 24"s

If you can get the performance from a 20 inch tube why go 24?

How much better would it be in 24"s

Simple.

Even more performance!

Steve I have only used factory 225 SST's so far. I do have dies, but not enough empty brassto make it worth setting up a loading session. Knowing how I am I would say check back in about 2014 on the reloading.

I have the wood stock 20 inch barreled model, I am being to lazy to look into the safe right now. Or too sore, it was a long day.

I sort of feel like my decades of experience spoke to me when this gun was chosen. I guess I could machine a nice bloop tube to get 24" - LMAO (I do install a bloop on my long barrel AR for walk around varmiting, saves the ears some.)

And thank you for the nice review of my post.