OK, so I realize this is Remington we’re talking about, so there’s that. But why did two really good cartridges fail?

Ammo too expensive?

Silly name?

Too much competition at 7mm and 30 cal?

Wrong rifles or twists?

IMHO, the SAUMs have a great blend of performance, balanced case size and configuration, and they both do a very good job of being able to extract a great deal of performance while also coming in at or under recoil-tolerance thresholds much better than their competitors. I like them better in almost every way than the 7mm WSM and 300 WSM and like them better in absolutely every way than the old standby 7mm Rem Mag and 300 Win Mag. In fact, I’d say a hunter equipped with an accurate, 22-24” sporter 7 SAUM (if it was popular) would be well-equipped for just about anything. And the case could have been used to create and commercially introduce many more useful variants from .24 - .35 cal.

I feel the combination of very expensive factory ammo and a stupid name did them in. In a time when newer shooters were far more open to common sense in cartridge design and performance (see: 7mm-08 then 6.5 Creedmoor), Remington decides to name a short cartridge an “Ultra Magnum.” I know I really didn’t give it much of a look because of that name.

What does the ‘Fire think?

No one bought them.

Winchester treed them out of the hole.

try to buy a Remington 700 titanium in 7saum or 300 saum.

Friend had a 300 SAUM....it had extremely heavy bolt lift on factory loads.....Rermington wouldn't fix it as he purchased it used.....I rebarreled it to .300 WSM.....nuff said!

Of all the short-fats the Remington 7mm was the best design, IMO. It had a decent neck for seating bigger/longer bullets, something lacking in the other short/fats.

That said, I love my Kimber Montanas in 300WSM and 325WSM.

Yes, JB, I do like the 325, maybe for no other reason than it's an 8mm.

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

seattlesetters,

They failed because Winchester beat them to the starting gate, with the WSM cartridges that offered a little more powder room and hence velocity. Hunters didn't see any reason to buy rifles chambered for slower short, fat beltless "magnums."

The story I heard through the business was that Remington was offered the concept before Winchester, but turned it down, for whatever reasons, instead designing their own rounds. Winchester introduced the WSM's slightly before the SAUM's, which made it look like Remington was copy-catting, but copy-cat cartridges don't usually sell well if they don't offer velocity gains over the originals. (Witness the Ruger Compact Magnums, introduced several years after the WSM's and SAUM's.)

Of course, now the SAUM case is considered by some to be "better" than the WSM's, especially in short actions, due to offering more room for longer, high-BC bullets. The WSM's and SAUM's appeared over 15 years ago, before the long-range, high-BC trend became really hot. Now the 7mm SAUM necked down to 6.5 is one of the trendy rounds.

Another problem was the .280 Ackley Improved--introduced as a factory round by Nosler--did the same things as the 7mm SAUM in any action suitable for the .30-06--and there are zillions. The .280 AI already had plenty of traction among rifle loonies, so sold better.

Another problem was the 7mm SAUM, as far as factory rounds go, didn't do anything the .270 Winchester didn't. I know this from owning a 7mm SAUM for a number of years, and using it on big game from northern Canada to South Texas.

For the same reasons no one offers 200 different weight ball peen shop hammers.

Jordan,

As I pointed out earlier, the short, fat, beltless magnums appeared before the high-BC, long-range trend really started. They were designed to work in existing, industry-standard short magazines.

"Winchester" (or whatever you want to call the company known as Winchester these days) recognized this not too long ago. The "Portuguese" M70 in .300 WSM I purchased a couple years ago has a 3.05 inch magazine, instead of the industry standard 2.84" short-action magazine used in the first M70's.

WSM’s didn’t either, with the exception of the 270 and 300. The wssm’s were worse than the saum line... the RUM line fizzled perty good as well...

Judman,

One of the interesting things about the WSSM's was that Winchester asked a number of gun writers (and other folks) about the concept before they introduced them, or had even finalized the design. This was when the .300 WSM was the hottest-selling rifle cartridge on the planet, and they wanted to keep the ball rolling.

At least one writer suggested a .22-caliber short-fat might do pretty well, IF they used a fast-twist barrel to stabilize high-BC bullets, because the .22/6mm Remington (aka .224 Texas Trophy Hunter) was reasonably popular at the time. But apparently they couldn't quite bring themselves to do it, instead using a 1-10 twist for the 64-grain softpoints they loaded as "deer bullets."

Of course, the WSSM's also required a totally different, short bolt-action, meaning nobody could rebarrel conventional bolt actions to any of the WSSM rounds. So they also cut off one primary market for such specialized rounds, the real rifle loonies who want to "build" their own rifles.

The .223 WSSM might have had a chance if it had appeared with a 1-9 or 1-8 twist, because it had more powder capacity than any other commercial .22 centerfire. But the .243 and .25 didn't do anything existing 6mm and .25 rounds didn't do.

A lot of cartridges make sense but the ammo manufacturers price it to die.

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/752250877

Exactly. If they were pumping out $30 boxes of ammo and you could fit a 162 in the magbox and not jump, it'd be more popular. Now you feel like you won the lottery when you score a bag of rp virgin brass with the right headstamp.

I have a pretty nice 7saum and did a fair amount of shooting with the 150 etip and 162 amax. Mine is M7 with a McM Edge stock in Classic. I love the balance of it for shooting off a pack. Have killed a fair amount of mountain bucks with it.

My dad bought a stainless 700 in the 7 right when they came out. A guy at an RMEF banquet won it and dad bought it from him for a song. It shoots good and exactly duplicates 280AI speeds with book loads. He’s killed a bunch of bucks with it and one grizzly. Nothing wrong with it but when he runs out of brass I’ll probably spin a 300wsm tube on it so he can buy shells at Academy if he wants to.

Winchester found out by leak that Remington was developing the short mag and went on a secret crash course to beat Remington's introduction with their own version. It was wrapped in secrecy and code named "Swordfish". Winchester beat them to the draw.

Calvin,

As I pointed out to Jordan, the 7mm SAUM appeared in 2002, before all but a very few handloaders were concerned with seating high-BC bullets "out to the lands." It failed in the marketplace within 3 years, long before most hunters had even heard of such a problem--or many of the high-BC hunting bullets of today existed.

This is very true. I happen to have a 7saum in a Remington model 7 and the box length is going to be perfect for the 6.5-243wssm.
Just broke it down to box up and go get one of the last Obermeyer tubes before my smiths stock runs out and they become hens teeth.
Plan is a .289 neck and 8.4 T at 22” with a little sharkgill break so the kiddos can shoot it. Going to add a M16 extractor to jerk the little suckers out.
Should give 260ai velocity. I will see.

Reload, neck down those 300's to 7mm...

DF

I have a Remington Model Seven SS in 7 SAUM and find it to be just about perfect for what I want. It would shoot the 160 grain Partition factory loads at 2980fps very accurately. My reloads are 160 grain Accubonds at 2960fps. I haven't run into any problems with seating depth with the bullets I want to shoot.

It also shoots 140 grain Accubonds and Partitions less than an 1" at 100 yards.

I found the etip to be the best in the 7 action. It just fit and worked well. Mine wears a high tech and it balances close to perfect. I’m hoping the 143eldx in a wssm case will do 2900 and fit like a glove.

Sales not enough and too much other stuff that works fine. Personally, I would not own an "ultra" anything.

300wsm was touted as the 300 win equivalent, at the time speed was its only chance at a market share.. like mule deer said, the SAUM came after the WSM and Offered no speed advantage when speed was all that mattered.. dead on arrival even tho the SAUM is the better design for the available short actions.

Fugly looking bullets that don't do anything 'normal looking" bullets won't do..

I also believe a lot of the rifles they were chambered in were too light for the average guy to be comfortable shooting. I was at Grice's the other day and there was a relatively large percentage of the used rifles chambered in 270WSM & 300WSM. Many of these were Kimbers Montana's.

I planned to get a 7SAUM early on, but Remington completely abandoned their own chamberings in a very short time and the Winchester versions didn't interest me.

I do keep my eye open for a good buy on one of the BDL SS's though.

My Faux Ti in 7 is a joy to shoot and my go to for elk.
I had a 300 also. It gave me no joy.
It left.
Remington screws up a lot of things. (My 5mm comes to mind, as well). Oh well, I got brass.

Teeder,

Good point.

It may seem like ancient history now, but one of the major selling points of the short/fat/beltless magnums was "light, handy" short-action rifles. The other line was the SFB's matched the ballistics of larger rounds, but with less recoil, due to some sort of ballistic magic in the case design.

Maybe it was more the Rifle brand than the cartridge.

I've found that a 7mm-08 or .308 is about as much fun as I care to have in a light-weight rifle and they certainly take care of what I need to do.

I agree on the recoil issue. When the short mags came out, I remember thinking "Most guys who bring magnums here to hunt can't shoot them as is, what makes them think they'll be able to shoot a magnum in a pound lighter rifle?"

Turns out that's exactly what happened. First guy I guided who carried a 300 WSM managed to blow off various deer and antelope body parts (shooting from a steady rest) until the animals finally succumbed after a great deal of misery. Second guy = similar story. One carried a Kimber, the other a Blaser. Over ensuing years seeing other guys carrying similar rifles, my opinion on the matter hasn't changed.

The average guy who doesn't shoot hunting rifles all that often (which, quite honestly, seems to be most of us) would be MUCH better served with a rifle generating less than 20 ft lbs of recoil, and preferably more like 15.

Funny thing is, both of those guys shot sub-moa groups off the bench when sighting in.

MD,

My New Haven 7mm wsm purchased in 2004 had a 3.05" mag. Since it was a year two after the 300 and 270, not sure if they originally had a shorter mag or not.

bludog

What's said about the FIRST answer!


Jerry

bludog,

Interesting.

The first M70 .300 WSM I tested was first-year production, and it had a standard short magazine. But it may well have been prototype rifle, since if I recall correctly, it arrived even before the .300 WSM was officially introduced.

That would seem to suggest “buck fever” then instead of a flinch or fear of recoil.

Gun companies "invent" cartridges , then throw them against the wall to see if they will stick. The SAUMs didn't stick. Lots of Remington's inventions don't stick.


Mike

This, plus a lot of talk about them not feeding well ! WSMs or SAUMs.

I wanted a 300 SAUM in CRF, but that was holy grail, and a 7 SAUM in 24" STS was next on my wish list.
Unfortunately the 7mm WSM came along and muddied the waters further with its shorter neck and even larger longer body

Now that we have discussed this, I'm looking for some donors ...
I need a matched pair of PF 6.5 GAP -SAUMs, and a 7 SAUM as accurate as MDs was !
still like the idea of 300 SAUM CRF ~22"

Short Action Uber Magnum

The SAUMS and most of the WIZZMS died for the same reason: one look at 'em told you they were shoulder busters.

Look, I'm 6'4 and 300 lbs. I used to put whatever you give me up to my shoulder, but after a few 7mm Rem Mags and 300 Win Mags, I got to see a pattern. In these parts, where whitetail and the occasional elk are the only big game, few people will tell you that you need anything bigger than a 30-06. Anything else is just false bravado.

After a while you get a feel (no pun intended) for what's going rock your world. For me, if I pick up a round that feels like its going to hurt, I'm going to hand it back to the guy. I'm no pansy, but I'm not going to shoot something in May and be feeling it in September. I've done that too often.

So here comes all this new-and-improved superduper ultra mag stuff that you can only fit 3 in the mag and I'm sure that just one look in the magazine made most guys pucker their sphincters.

The other thing is cost. Cost and recoil often times seem to be directly correlated. I know there are plenty of exceptions. However, when it starts getting up above a couple of bucks a round, you know what's coming. You don't really have to look at the specs. You know your fillings are going to loosen up on this puppy.

BTW: If your dentist tries to sell you a rifle or shotgun, be highly suspect.

While nerves certainly get to people, I think by and large “buck fever”, or blown shots on game, is in actuality lack of practice away from the bench. Also generally not being able to handle a rifle, whether due to recoil or lack of familiarity. Most of these guys will take a minute per shot off the bench....needing to “get comfortable”. Time to get comfortable is often not an option with really mature big game.

Years ago, Gunbroker was blowing out walnut Ruger Mark IIs in 300RSAUM for $400. I bought one, and then fell for the koolaid for the Vortex 3-9x40 scope from Doug at Cameraland... all together the rifle weighs in at almost 8.5 lb.

I ordered up some Nosler factory ammo - 150 grain Partitions and BTs. The recoil is not bad, but not pleasant. The Ruger recoil pad is harder than a brick and doesn't help. The rifle is only about a 1.5" to 2" shooter at 100 yards off an improvised rest.

The stock is a bit porky, and while it balances well there are better carrying rifles out there. and the 8.5lb all up sort of defeats the purpose in my mind of a light handy rifle with magnum power.

My father owned a couple 300 SAUMs and a 7WSM.

The SAUMs were put into short packages, one on a B&C Alaskan and the other on a slightly heavier laminate stock, both on m7 with 21 or 22'' bbls. They are damn near ideal for mountain hunting for game up to big elk and shots that can stretch to 600 yds. My brother ended up claiming them. The Alaskan fits me so well that I don't mind the recoil (shooting a few at a time), even with 200AB's at 2880.

Brother also talked me out of the WSM. It is heavy in a composite stock and 24" bbl, still seems to kick more than the SAUMs, and shoots incredibly flat and accurately. It's more of a LR rig than a packer in my thinking. 1/2 MOA groups out to 700 are common with both 162 Amax and SST at 3050.

I struggle to find fault with these, other than finding ammo for them. For several years I've thought a 7WSM with a .1-.125" longer neck, in a rifle with magazine length to 3.2", with 25" bbl throated for long bullets would be a nice rig for really long shots at big critters. But, like others have pointed out, there are cartridges out there that'll do that, and I can buy ammo for them at any sporting goods store.

Pretty much. Let's face it, you can do anything that needs to be done with cartridges that were introduced in the first half of the last century give or take a 1/2 inch of action or 100 fps.
But companies need to offer a "latest and greatest improvement" every decade or so to increase sales, and it works every time.

So Yeah, get the Dollaz and MarketingCampaign Angle on a Yearly Basis, ...buts JonnyAverage could Care less, as weirdly enough New ain't Mo'Betta when it comes to Chambers, w/ ThrowBackRetro being always the new NEW.

Seems only exclusive to Cartridges (Tradition hangs like StoopidNutz, ...like nothing else in this Day N Age) and for the most part look like it ain't Changing, .....sans Creed Apps.

ShortyFattyStuff, Lazzeroni, Dakota, TCShat, RugerProprietary, soon to be Nosler, and Betting Roy'sShat right quick.

The More Things Change.....

YUP, This Guy, ...Sorry didn't Read

I bought 3 Rem BDL SS Saum's. 2, 7's and 1 300. Paid $430 for each one.

Care to translate this drivel?

Thanks, MD.

I do see the WSM thingy. I prefer the SAUM case but first across the finish line can never be undone. Typical Remington, perhaps.

Agreed that none of the short, fat 7s do anything a .270 Win can’t do. I’ve always been a fan of the .270 Win and even though I am very open to trying new cartridges (I’m really digging the 6.5 Creedmoor), I believe I’m growing more fond of the .270 Win as the years go by. There’s pretty much not anything that can’t be comfortably done with an accurate .270 Win and a 130 TTSX. My only issue is my own inherent bias dictates that I must run the .270 with at least a 24” barrel. It’s nice to have something a bit more “handy” on occasion.

That's the Rap version and who GAF...

My first blog exposure was "Shortmags" - if anyone else remembered that site. It was unique to me but the Mod got pissy and soon it was gone.

I guess we all define failure differently. Perhaps since the SAUMS that were introduced failed the 6.5 SAUM could be the ultimate epic fail...since it is not even a 'real' cartridge. If any of the experts that have never shot one happen to be at the Winnequah gun club please stop by. Maybe you can 'show me' how poorly the cases feed. Maybe I can let you 'punish' your shoulder with the recoil. In the meantime, here is what failure looks like...in the guise of a 'light' dose of H-1000

No such thing as a failure, if you know how to reload.....

I have a Model 7 300 SAUM and really like it. Great balance and handling.

What is truly a good rifle concept and what the public bites on are two different things. I don’t think the cartridge is magical in any way, but in a Model 7 with a 22” barrel it makes a nice mountain gun for elk, mule deer, and bear.

I am a real big fan of my 300saum. SS bdl. Recoil isn't bad at all. I have had women shoot it with no problem, shooting 168gr TTSX at around 3000fps. Have taken a good amount of game with it and I am stocked up with enough brass to last me more than a lifetime.

Mine isn't going anywhere.

Because the WSM's were better.

Or at least the .300 WSM was. Perhaps most of these will fail as well, but 100 years from now people will still be shooting the .300 WSM.

Geez. Pricey.

I have a Rem AWR in 7mm SAUM. Black nitride on stainless in a Mickey lightweight stock. It might be “that one gun” I could hunt with for the rest of my life. 6# naked, it goes 7# 3oz with a Leupy 3.5-10 VX3 in a set of Tally lightweights. At the time I bought it I also purchased 100 pieces of brass and a factory case of 160 gr Rem Premium Partitions ($20 a box!) on clearance.

That factory stuff is brutally hot in my rifle, 2,950 fps and freezing the bolt on 60 degree days. I was getting about 2” groups with it. I still have most of that first box of that case...with nine more boxes of factory in reserve. My reloads are 140 AB’s at 3,000 with no pressure signs and 1/2” groups. I get 10 reloads out of the brass so I’m not complaining.

Anyway, why SAUM? For me it was about getting a bit more performance in a lighter affordable package. It never really up to the velocity hype, but it did deliver 280AI performance in a small package. Sadly, getting ammo in a shop on the road is a non starter. It’s just not out there. Reloadable brass is expensive to boot.

But as a do everything USA gun it’s just about perfect. And that’s what I wanted.

I think if Remington figured out how to make $5 bills for $1, their marketing people would mess it up.

Also, from the ballistics quoted, it doesn't seem that the 300WSM/300 SAUM or 7 SAUM offer more than a 3% improvement over a 30-06 or a .270, if that. I'd think they could do batter after 112 and 92 years respectively.

Sad that they've had to reduce magazine capacity by 40% to get even that.

New stuff is fun to play with but they're just not going to be able to develop much of a market without offering something better.

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.

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

John, a couple of things came to mind. First, should the .221 Fire Ball be on the Remington list? Second, perhaps some of the perception of Remington "failures" come not so much from their AFs, but from their number of cartridges that were neither AF nor IS, in which they have a substantial lead, with people seeing those as "NS" (not successful) Not saying that this should be a measure of their success/failure, but that it may be seen as such. Always appreciate your thoughts.

Interesting in that if you remove all the varmint-class cartridges from both lists, Remington loses half of its Industry Standards and Winchester loses half of its Absolute Failures. A "big-game" cartridge list would look quite different.

I'd also say that the SAUM is really close to going the way of the WSSM.

Great list. Shows the folly of the WSSM quite well!

Agreed. I've killed a lot of deer with my 7SAUM failure.

I don't mean to nitpick at the master, but didn't the 270 WIN come out after WWI?

Personally, I think it's an AF even if it is an IS, but still. . .

Also I thought the premise of this whole thread was that all the SAUMs were AF's.

How are the 307, 356 and 375 Winchester not considered absolute failures.. sure they have a cult following but those three died a slow death..

You got to be [bleep] me? 1925 the 270 Winchester was introduced in the brand new Winchester model 54.. Good thing folks don’t listen to you saying it’s a failure lol.. hell the 280 Remington can be considered a AF how many times has that cartridge been revived.. The 270 is probably one of the easiest cartridges to load for h4831, Cci 200 and pick a bullet..

Mostly due to the trendiness of the fickle consumer. Once the shooting industry plateaued in the innovation arena, there wasn't really a need, so the shooting industry attempted to make something new. Short magnums, high B.C. bullets and fast twist have all been introduced as a new concept. The real truth of the matter resides in the fact that the 243, 270 and 30-06 still account for the most animal deaths in a year and they have been doing that for over a century.

338 Lapua, 260 Remington, 6.5 Creed are past and current examples of nothing really new in the industry, but look at the people that lined up to buy them.

That's what I mean. Mister Mule Deer specifically said introduced after WWI.

It's the whole gay thing that makes 270 WIN an AF. However, I think it deserves to be on the list. Maybe we can give it a an (GF) rating or just an (*)

One other edit: I'd put the 257 Roberts in there on the Remington side of the ledger.


EDIT: Which is it WWI or WWII that we're using as a cutoff? I see two mentions of WWII and a third where Mule Deer says the list was compiled from cartridges after WWI.

Case capacity:
300 WSM 79.0
300 SAUM 72.7

5sdad,

I knew somebody would bring up the .221 Fireball. It was introduced as a handgun round, not a rifle cartridge. Eventually it became more succesful as rifle round, but the initial marketing was done as a handgun round.

shaman,

The only .270 on the list is the .270 WSM, which appeared in the 21st century.

The one reference to WWI was obviously a typographical error, since the other two mentions are WWII. I just corrected it.

What is your thought on that making it to IS? I know in recent years that its sales have come very close to .300 WSM sales, and it seems to have become firmly entrenched as a legitimate .270 "magnum" that enjoys lots of factory loadings and just about every factory hunting rifles is chambered for it. The .270 Roy (which is a truly great hunting cartridge, BTW) has never achieved anything near that.

SKane,

I've probably killed more big game with the 7mm SAUM than 99% of the people who've owned one. That doesn't mean it wasn't a commercial failure for Remington, the reason it's very difficult to find Remington-brand 7mm SAUM brass: They decided to cut their losses.

It's also why Norma and Nosler started offering 7mm SAUM cases. In fact, whenever the original manufacturer gives up on a cartridge so much that other companies start offering brass, it's sure sign the original company was losing money on it.

Not picking nits, but the .256 Winchester Magnum was listed, so I thought it might balance things out a bit. Best, John

One other edit: I'd put the 257 Roberts in there on the Remington side of the ledger.

Well, if it was THAT obvious, then I should probably go take a nap. I get like this on the weekends now.

seattlesetters,

I'd upgrade the .270 WSM to IS if it ever becomes a common world-wide chambering, like the .243 Winchester, 7mm Remington Magnum, and .300 WSM. So far as I know Tikka is the only European company to chamber the .270 WSM, but Tikka is essentially an American company, since they sell the vast majority of their rifles in the U.S.A.

There is often a gap between real world advantages and theoretical advantages. Sometimes that gap is pretty obvious.

Most of the "new magnums" show little advantage in the game fields over what we have had form between 60 and 110 years, and the cost of a new rifles and insultingly high prices of the ammo has the effect of making 99% of the shooters out here say, "Nahh....... I'll keep what I have".

"New and improved" is usually new in some way but very seldom an improvement anywhere but in the gun-magazine pages.
It's really more of a sales pitch than an advantage.

shaman,

Good try, but the .257 Roberts was introduced by Remington as a commercial cartridge in 1934.

John,

The .256 Winchester Magnum was introduced almost simultaneously in the Ruger Hawkeye single-shot pistol and Marlin 62 Levermatic rifle. The Ruger came out a little before the Marlin, but apparently Marlin was planning to chamber the .256 from the beginning. It was a money-loser in both firearms, the reason I picked a nit and listed it.

I still think of it, along with many of the "orphaned" rounds, as being interesting (hell, I even think that the .22 Jet is interesting) and am glad that they exist. If somewhat strange, unremarkable, and rather ignored in general were reasons to not exist I'd be in real trouble. Thanks for the additional information. Best, John

They served no purpose and were simply Me Too cartridges.
There are no gaps in calibers, cartridges or animals.
John

Remington goes through stages of offering short barreled rifles to hunters. Think of the model 600 in 6.5 Remington magnum, the 788 with 18 1/2 barrel and then the Model 7 .300 SAUM with 20 and 22 inch barrels. Combine a short mag case with short handy barrel and expensive ammo marginally better than a .30-06 and you might be getting close to an answer. Making the SAUM in a larger full size rifle would work but not offer any advantage over existing combinations ......

I should have read to the end prior to posting, John sums it up.

JB-
There's no disputing that.
And, I still blame all the 6.5 SAUM guys for drying up the supply of RP brass.

Yep!

I might just have to put a 6.5 SAUM barrel on one of my actions. That's all I need, another rifle chambered for a yet another 6.5 round....

Pick an IL action though

Any thoughts about the 6.5-280AI ? ( aka Brain FartExpress by DogZapper & Chubb )

That's okay. I wrote that when I thought y'all were talking Post WWI. I repent all I have written so far in this thread today. However, I would question why you didn't classify the SAUM rounds as AF.

I did manage a 15 minute nap before #2 and #3 sons showed up with their cap n' ball revolvers, looking to do some shooting. We've had a thoroughly nice time. I got to try out my new-to-me Ruger P95. After I'd blew through 6 mags worth, I'm back in. They're still out on the front porch blasting away.

It's our first trip back to camp since early December. Ah! It's great to be back.

MD : Me No Savvy this^ , Could you explain at me a bit ? Are/Were Norma/Nosler making money on SAUM brass ?

MD; I believe I would add the 325 WSM to the second list. Both of which are very interesting, by the way!

338rules,

Selling brass makes far less money than selling rifles, and selling more rifles is the entire point of introducing new cartridges.

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.

Ya 8 Mag never did well either. Ol man has a classic 8 Mag, he likes it

Might as well throw the 6mm in there too John, dunno if anyone even chamber the 6 anymore

It's been there, under .244/6mm.

Not a cartridge but an ignition system , what in hell was Remington thinking with that Etronx ????


Mike

We only posted WTB’s - everyone obliged us by selling... grin

Obviously these guys were not recoil shy or they couldn't have done that. Could it have been "buck fever" in the presence of game?

See my previous post.

Someone once said that the 7mm SAUM was the short action equivalent of the 280AI and no matter how you cut it, it's never a bad thing to be compared favorably to the 280AI.

Never the less, I'm much more likely to pick the CLR in 270 when I go afield than a rifle chambered in either 270 WSM or 7mm SAUM. Sort of a private tribute to JOC.

Righteous thinking.

I’m much more likely to pick up a good .270 Winchester than just about anything, also because of the influence and superb writing of the great Jack O’Connor. His thoughts and analysis have shaped my preferences more than anyone or anything.

I’ll always own 6.5s and .270s.

6mm250,

I was told somebody very close to Remington's management that the main reason for the Etronx electronic- ignition rifles and ammo wasn't really to make money off the rifles/ammo, but to promote the Remington brand through cutting-edge technology. They knew the project probably wouldn't make money, but if created a buzz about Remington they'd be happy.

This sort of name-brand promotion isn't unusual in business. It's often why so many companies release "new and improved" versions of various products just about every year: It keeps the brand in the public eye more efficiently than general advertising.

Interesting. Hearing the Etronx story, it makes sense how Remington could get themselves 950 million dollars in debt.

Do you think this technology will have a re-birth?
Given the price collapse in electronics it seems like they could produce a high quality rifle for even less money.

I was getting out of the service in the late 1990s when we had that burst of magnum cartridges. Like the cranks we were, we sat around discussing where equipment technology would go for snipers and hunters. We were about to take delivery of TAC-50s, for LR sniping. The 338 was still a few years away. I mention this because civilian cartridges were getting bigger and more powerful too. We were about to see the new Short Mags and Ultra Mags.

One of the things that we all agreed upon was that most, if not all of these cartridges would not last long. They were too powerful for the user to fire comfortably, the rifles and cartridges would be too expensive, and few game animals required this level of power. My boss went farther, predicting that we would see lightly used magnum rifles at gun shops for cheap in short order. He was right.

Innovation and new products keep businesses profitable, so this flurry of magnums fed the industry for a few years, but quickly disappeared. They had to move on to something else. Some of the cartridges survived, but most (mercifully) have gone. I couldn't see how the WSSMs could survive. You gotta figure that if you have 8 or 10 new magnum cartridges on the market, only one or two might hold on. The companies know this as well. It is all part of their business plan.

Add Lazzeronis, Ruger's Compact Magnums to the list, and we went from a few magnums in the mid 90s to a hockey sock full 10 or 12 years later. Too many for varmint hunting anyway.

The closest to a magnum cartridge that I have ever owned is my 45-70. It's a Ruger No.1, so I can almost sneak up to 458 levels, but I am not that crazy. If I need magnum performance, I load 200 or 220 grain cup and core bullets into my 30-06.

The simple answer is that they were introduced to answer a question no one was asking.

drover

Man, that's about as Canadian as it gets.

Consumers don't ask for a lot of things. Companies research and market new products. If the idea is good, people run after them, dollars in hand. If not enough people buy, they go away.

You are encouraged to contact companies like Remington or Ruger and express your opinion. All the companies distribute surveys, run contests, count page hits, check email, etc. searching for something that will make them money. They gather information from many sources. Future sales result, in part, from this.

Why has the 6.5 Creedmoor been a success? Were consumers demanding it, or was it developed, tested and marketed?

Years ago, I remember a prof telling us that products do not have to be useful or fairly priced. They only have to be cheap and easy to manufacture, combined with an ad campaign that will generate sales. He went on to say that profit is not dependent on sustained (long term) sales. Everything has a life. That's why marketing plans are released annually.

Rifle looneys want things that, for the most part, ain't gonna happen. Looneys fall outside of the profitability bell curve. I guess that's why manufacturers still sell 30-06s, Tasco scopes and cup and core bullets.

Actually, the short/fat magnums like the SAUM's and WSM's were the end result of the wider trend to beltless "magnums" in the 1990's. Similar wildcats had been around since the early 1950's, but in the 90's several people came up with "new" ones, and eventually some became proprietary cartridges, such as the Lazzeroni rounds, which were fairly successful.

Eventually the major factories started thinking the trend might be serious, as they have with numerous cartridges over the years, including the Weatherby Magnums, the reason Remington and Winchester came up with their own belted magnums in the late 1950's and early 60's. At the time these were often called "short magnums," because many were designed fit in a .30-06 length magazine, instead of the longer actions necessary for the .300 and .375 H&H, and the Weatherby Magnums from .300 up. This was partly due to so many war surplus bolt-actions being cheaply available. Garage gunsmiths could turn them into magnums, which was especially easy with the 1903 Springfield, since they could be rechambered to .300 Winchester Magnum (or before the Winchester appeared, the .308 Norma Magnum).

The beltless trend of the 1990's and early 2000's, wasn't as hot as the .30-06-length, belted-magnum trend of the 50's and 60's, but it was the reason the .300 WSM became such an immediate success, and still is. But there was only enough demand to really support one commercial short/fat/beltless .300 magnum.

So yes, the short/fat/beltless magnums were an answer to questions that quite a few shooters asked, the reason the .300 WSM is now an industry standard, and the .270 WSM has been pretty successful. But the short beltless magnums were also competing against the "short belted" magnums that had already become well-entrenched, most notably the 7mm Remington Magnum, and .300 and .338 Winchester Magnums.

Now, the WSSM's were indeed an answer to a question nobody was asking--except Winchester, because they wanted to keep the short/beltless magnum trend going.

Personally I could go for a 300 WSM lengthened to fit a 30-06 length action, that would be a performance increase over the 300 and 338 Win.

it seems to me that the next frontier will be an intermediate action size around 3", capitalizing on cases designed around high BC bullets and 30 degree shoulder angles, oriented on a felt recoil of 15 ft-lbs or less... to attract more shooters who don't want to get beat up with recoil... everything from 17 thru 30 caliber...

Yes, this was an improvement, but we must not forget where and why that improvement happened. The Imperial magnums got rid of the belt in the 1980s. Remington cartridges were a clone of them. In fact, Remington bought a pile of Imperial (Canadian) magnum brass for their own R&D. Belts weren't needed. US companies like Lazzeroni did the same. NASS and Lazzeroni had a few years on Remington and Winchester. Every company watches the competition in order to advance their products. Lazzeroni had it figured out, but I think this was because they weren't a big corporation. They were freer to pursue what made sense.

WSSMs were a waste, but they wouldn't know unless they tried. Reducing the Winchester line by cutting back on std cartridge chamberings and running a lot of WSMs was a decision that Winchester made which I could never figure out. And the RJ trouble played a part, no doubt.

Steve,

Yep, the Imperial Magnums played a part too--but unfortunately most American shooters are unaware of what happens north of the border, and whether for good or bad, the USA is the biggest single market for sporting rifles in the world.

The awareness of beltless magnums in the USA grew in the 1990's, when companies like Lazzeroni appeared, and a few American gun writers (Rick Jamison and Ross Seyfried come immediately to mind) started fooling around with them, and spreading the word. That's when interest increased rapidly among American rifle loonies, to the point where the big companies started sitting up and taking notice. And that's why the WSM and SAUM's appeared in 2001-2002.

Or that they were taking shots way over 100 yards.

I can shoot sub-moa too at 100 yards rifle check, but flub 350 yards shots.

That's why I mentioned them. They got the ball rolling.

The market here was too small for it to expand the way that it needed to go. WRT to Imperial magnums, the development started in earnest here in the 1970s, and began to come together in the 1980s. That was long before Winchester or Remington's R&D departments were working on something similar. The trouble was, Canada's market was small. And it didn't help that we were going through some rough times with gun legislation. We had to get permits in 1979. Money for firearms, cartridges or gun shops was hard to find.

Development of the Imperial Magnum (IM) needed a kick. Something to allow it to expand. That meant a US concern would have to run with it. They didn't go looking for a US partner or investment, but both Remington and Dakota Arms were interested. Seyfried and Jamison no doubt examined the Imp Mags. Interest began to swell. The IMs were an interesting design that had no belt, and delivered a big punch. If you look at Remington's magnum cartridges and hold them beside the IMs, you will see just enough difference not to get sued. As I said in another post, Remington was buying IM cases.

The Imperial Magnums were made in 7mm, .300, .311, .338 and .360. Some people might remember when Speer made 200 gr. 311 diameter GS. They were for the 311 IM. They were far too hard to work properly when fired from the 303 British.

Making bigger, more powerful cartridges was hardly a new idea, but you have to get the formula right. You must also have a unique, well marketed design that hunters or shooters will want. The big magnum market was swelling in the early 1990s with the release of several new cartridges. Lazzeroni got it right by developing their own line, but keeping them proprietary. I remember thinking that proprietary cartridges were a mistake. I guess that's why I am not the president of a cartridge or rifle company.

I was under the impression that the WSSMs were Winchester's attempt to leverage the "short and fat means accurate" trend, trying to produce high volume regular production rifles and cartridges that merged the accuracy of the PPCs, at least in theory, with hunting power of the larger cartridges that Winchester compared them to; 223 WSSM to 22-250, 243 WSSM to 243, and 25 WSSM to 25-06. Do you know which side of "Winchester" drove the WSSM initiative, Winchester/Olin from the ammo and component side or Winchester/USRA from the firearms side?

Despite the WSSMs being, for the most part, unloved orphans, I won't deny how much I like the 25 WSSM.

Both the ammo and rifle companies had to be involved with the WSSM project, because special bolt actions were required to handle the short, fat cartridges. But as I've pointed out before, that's probably one reason they failed: Rifle loonies couldn't rebarrel standard bolt actions to the WSSM rounds. Many loonies prefer to "build" their own rifles for new rounds, and that cut those potential WSSM customers out of the loop.

As with the SAUM's, the .243 and .25 WSSM's didn't provide muzzle velocities any different than already existing 6mm and .25 rounds. While they may have been more inherently accurate, that's hard to quantify in factory rifles.

While the .223 WSSM is the fastest .22 centerfire produced by a major factory, it acquired an early (and not entirely undeserved) reputation as a barrel-burner, partly because of the short neck. It was also promoted as a "combination" round, like the .243 Winchester, for everything from prairie dogs to smaller big game. But using it on prairie dogs exacerbated the barrel-burning problem, and Winchester/Browning/whomever gave it a 1-10 twist, and hunters wanting to use .22 centerfires on big game wanted a tighter twist to shoot heavier bullets.

I am sure the .25 WSSM is a fine cartridge because (including you ) I'm acquainted with 3 people who've owned one, and all liked it. But most hunters who want a .25 of that approximate performance level buy a .25-06.

I think I remember when them and Winchester put out all of those short action hot rods and Winchester even had the super short ones. I believe Winchester got the jump on them and there was just so many of them Remington got left in the dust. The whole no belt short action push was lost on me because of my many years of using standard length Mod. 70 actions and I was just used to them and their cartridge offerings.

But, every so often the factories have to offer some thing new because the majority of American shooters don't wear a gun or barrel out. But the next generation needs some thing new to call there own and the factories win some and loose some, Remington lost. Lets not forget Ruger Compact offerings.

Truth is we have had all the calibers we need to cover all the shooting that is available. We have had them for all of my mediocre 50+ years of shooting/hunting. The 30-06, 257 Bob, .243, .223 Rem. 7mm Rem. Mag., .270, 358, .300 and .338 Winny, 30-30 and 45-70, etc. What can they not do in North America? I fell victim to it recently and bought an AR 6.5 Creed and plan on another one in a bolt gun. The little cartridge got my attention.

The search for the perfect cartridge to fill a certain niche may never end. Almost all of my rifle trigger time is with a .22, 44 mag., 5.56, 45-70. 30-06 and .338 WM. But, I plan on lots of 6.5 Creed trigger time.

I always wondered how a 257 SAUM would've done. Would've made for a neat flat shooting sheep cartridge that didn't kick much - almost a 257 Weatherby in a short action mountain rifle. Remington could've chambered it in a Mountain Guide type rifle, or better yet a KS Mountain Rifle. Not so much now that everyone is obsessed with high bc. But 15 years ago, maybe.

I think it would be a barrel burner.

I wonder if the barrel burning reputation was actually earned, since all of the Browning and Winchester rifles chambered in 223 WSSM and 243 WSSM have chrome lined barrels. There was quite a bit of discussion on the now defunct www.wssmzone.com site about poor QC on the rifles coming out of Winchester/USRAs New Haven, CT, plant, including allegations of barrels being shipped without chrome lining. My 7 Winchester/USRA 70s in 223 WSSM and 243 WSSM have chrome lined barrels, as do the take-off barrel from the actions that I used as donors for 3 25 WSSM and 1 500 S&W "parts" rifles.

The only .224" bullets designed for shooting medium game that I have used more than a little are the 60 grain Partitions and 64 grain Power-Points. Both work fine in the 1-10" ROT RAR-P 223 and 22-250.

I shot one whitetail doe with one 64 grain PP factory load from the 223 WSSM and got a bang-flop outcome. I've shot several hundred pdogs and a few dozen coyotes and whitetails with the 25 WSSM, but as you've noted, the 25 WSSM doesn't offer anything in field performance that several other .257" bore cartridge don't equal or exceed. I like the 25 WSSM so much that I put together a dedicated pdog rifle with a 1-14" ROT barrel for shooting the 75 grain VMax.

I think that the end of Winchester/USRA on 03/31/06 killed any momentum that the WSSMs might have built and since then Winchester/Olin hasn't been a friend to WSSM shooters buy making WSSM ammunition and components hard to find and subject to price gouging seasonal runs.

What strikes me about Remington's list is how many of Rem's successes were successful wildcats before being adopted by Remington. Winchester, by contrast, appears to have had all of its IS's derive from two, in-house, cartridge designs (of course, neither case was truly new, but they were "new" to mass production)--the basic "short magnum" (short in comparison to 300 H&H length) for the .300 Win, .338 Win and 458 Win., and the "short standard" (short compared to 30-06) in the .243 and .308.

I have a 25 SAUM finish reamer that I bought with the intentions of building a rifle on a Remington 7 action, but that is another project that I'll probably never get around to doing.

Billy,

I know several people (including a couple gun writers) who urged Winchester to bring out the .25 WSM, and also knew a guide in Texas who built one as soon as the WSM's appeared. He really liked it, using it for back-up when guiding clients, quite a few of whom brought rifles chambered for larger rounds--and he had to finish off their animals. I kind of expected the .25 to appear, and dunno why it didn't.

Jeff,

As I recall, the bores of WSSM's weren't chrome-plated originally, but were plated not long after introduction to combat stories of short barrel life.

Do know that the stainless/synthetic Model 70 in .223 WSSM I bought maybe 6-7 years ago, used at a local store, had a bore that wasn't too badly eroded. I checked it out with my bore-scope before buying the rifle, but the rifle didn't shoot very well at all, most groups going 2.5-3". Finally sent it to a gunsmith to be rebarreled, who said when he removed the factory barrel it was just barely hanging on to the action, because its threads were considerably smaller than the actions. It shoots great now--and has always fed rounds very slickly from the magazine.

Hornady has picked up the ball on WSSM brass, as they have for so many rounds over the past few years.

John,

I bought several thousands of pieces of Federal 223 WSSM and 243 WSSM many years ago when Graf's was closing it out and have found it to be superior to the thicker/heavier Winchester/Olin brass. Each of my pdog rifles starts with a group of 200 cases and some of the Federal 243 WSSM brass that I reformed as 25 WSSM brass has been reloaded up to 10 times with under 5% lost cases due to splits in the necks and shoulders.

I applaud Hornady for picking up the ball on so many useful, but neglected, cartridges in resent years.

Somebody on this site put a 25 WSM together and claimed to have pressure issue with it. It has been so long ago that I don't remember who it was, maybe Charlie Santori, or what the specific problems were, just that there were problems than seemed insurmountable.

I believe that Jon Sundra ( JRS here ) wrote up something similar in RifleShooter , before the 6.5 GAP / SAUM became the bomba

30 Nosler ?

or even a 30-375 Ruger with a smidge longer neck

Hockey Socks have a stirrup, and consequently don't actually hold much, but Yes that is a truly Canadian expression.
Kids are known to knot the bottom of 1, and use the calf/knee portion for collecting TrickorTreat loot on Hallowe'en
Stretchy, and always holds a bit more ...

I didn't read the earlier posts:

The SAUM and WSM, to a lessor degree, failed in my mind/selection because they were delivered in a rifle that weighted the same as a LA.

I rebarreled a SA 700 Ti as a WSM and it's awesome although I come away wishing for a 3.1 inch magazine length.

Melvin Forbes got it right; if only Remington had followed his geometry.

Years ago, ( 15+ IIRC) I responded to a solicitation from Remington about just such a topic. My response was centered on two things
Don't give up on the .260 so soon, and ditto for the SAUMs especially when the 6.5 SAUM was begging for development.

And the rest is history

I was at a trade show years ago and was told by one of the company reps that they were gearing up to produce 90% of their rifles with plastic stocks. Apart from the obvious - cheap and faster to make - he told me the aftermarket stock makers were smiling. They knew this was going to generate sales. Everyone makes Tupperware stocks now, and look at the growth of the aftermarket stock trade.

I think the next phase is what will happen to OEM stocks because of Savage's Accufit idea. Fitted stocks aren't a new thing, but up till now, adjustable stocks have been mostly aftermarket. Savage has combined the aluminum bedding with the fitted stock.I haven't tried one yet, and I am not suggesting that they are the bee's knees. All I am saying is they will force Remington, Ruger, etc. to develop similar, inexpensive stocks. It won't be perfect, but it's a start. And yes, it might be ugly, but it moves things forward.



It's along the line of Savage's Accu-trigger. It made other companies produce better OEM triggers.

And yes, I know, Timney, Jewel, RB, etc all make aftermarket triggers, but Savage's contribution is driving industry forward. We're talking about off the rack rifles. You know, the ones with all the pot metal and plastic. The ones that seem to be outshooting your daddy's rifles. Progress, it ain't always pretty, but it's always there.

I'll take a cheap tupperware stock over a cheap wood stock.

While there are a number of things not to like about tupperware stocks, I've yet to have a rifle so stocked from the factory have accuracy problems related to the stock.

Just curious, any idea on how many rifles the majors have to sell before they break even on the development costs of a new cartridge?

458 Lott,

No, because it would vary considerably, due to many factors, particularly the price of the rifles.

Speaking of WSSMs, I received an email from MidwayUSA announcing that they have 284 and 243 WSSM brass from Winchester/Olin in stock and ready to ship.

I'm not sure if any of you saw this add in the classifieds?

WSM

Read that over carefully and let me know if you notice the irony.

Are you referring to his handle, Scopebite65, and there being a slight ding in the bell?

I think it's the handle Scopebite65, along with the extremely rearward scope position.

All Production M70 WSM's, starting with the first I got in 2002, have had 3.005" magazines.

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".

John,

Seems like you now agree with my comment from page 1...

Should the .284 Winchester be on that list?

And if so, would it be (AF)? Probably was ahead of its time.

Funny how the 7-08 is so popular now but the .284 Win failed when it was developed almost 20 years earlier.

Jordan,

Interesting point!

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

You're probably right.

The SAUM's commercial demise was likely caused by a sum of factors, some large and some small. Mag length was probably a smaller factor, and ammo was a big one.

SD300,

The .284 wasn't introduced in a bolt-action rifle.

Instead, it appeared in 1963 to approximate .270 ballistics in the Winchester Model 100 autoloader and Model 88 lever-action, neither known for accuracy. In fact Winchester only chambered one later, rare version of the post-'64 Model 70 in .284, because the 70 already came in .270.

Browning, Ruger and Sako chambered the .284 in a few bolt rifles, but Melvin Forbes has probably chambered more .284's than anybody in his NULA Model 20.

Complete agreement here, also

You're not mistaken, John, and yes, that was pretty difficult for me to admit.

As you could well imagine, I have an affinity for things 8mm that hearkens back to my youth, when surplus Mausers were cheap and ammo cheaper. I bought three experienced 98s from Kline's, shipped, for less than the shipping on one these days. WWII ball ammo was as cheap as a penny/round, all of it Berdan primed and some a bit spooky. I've had more than a few combo guns in 8mm "J" and "S" bores and some sporting rifles in both bores.

So, I gravitated to the short-fat 8mm Winchester offering early on in the craze in a Kimber Montana. It shoots tight groups with any 195-200gr bullets I've tried so far, and "pushing" them a bit doesn't spread them to patterns.

I've had five short-fat Kimbers so far, two in 270WSM, two in 325WSM, and a 300WSM. My 6th Kimber is a 257 Roberts, and I still have my original 325 and a more recently acquired 300 WSM. I have to call out BULLCHIT on "Kimber Roulette". All six rifles shot acceptably well, and my 325 and 257 shoot better than that. I'm thoroughly convinced that the bad accuracy rap is due to poor shooting by scared trigger-jerkers who can't control light rifles.

I have to admit that the 325 ain't a 338, but it dun't devoid my sinuses of snot, either. 300 yards is about as far as I have ever cared to shoot a big game animal, and a tough 200gr 8mm bullet rolling along at a good clip out to that range is just right for my purposes. There's little or no hand-grenade effect and a lot less hamburger on the ground.

It is

I never found the 700's fed short mags well, whereas the M70 feeds them quite well. Ditto the Kimber 8400 (once the feedramp was re-designed from the originals).

Without doubt, single stack mags like the Sako work very well too.

But it did also spawn the 6.5/284 and it was the original short, fat, beltless mag no?? Don't confuse me with the facts, I've already made up my mind!

Dumb name ...and win had the wsm...
Only dumber idea was super short mag...

The SAUM calibers didn't fail.

Anyone who wanted one bought one.