Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Remington and Winchester

Why do you think that neither Winchester or Remington do not chamber any of the new cartridges.. Like the 6.5 creedmoor or 26 nosler? I noticed that a lot of the other makers are making there rifles in 6.5 creedmoor and some are starting to make the 26 nosler..

Not invented there. Muddy

I think the question should be "why do the other makers keep chambering their guns for redundant rounds such as the 6.5 Creedmore and 260 Nosler?"

It is likely that Remington and Winchester prefer to chamber their rifles for cartridges that sell in high volume.

The 6.5 Creedmoor and 26 Nosler aren't high volume/high interest cartridges. I'm making an effort to help the 6.5 Creedmoor x5.

Remington and Winchester both seem to be paring back their ammo lines to what sells the most. This makes sense during periods of high demand, for both financial and manufacturing reasons, and is probably also why they're not complicating things by producing ammo in every new cartridge that comes along--unless, of course, it becomes popular.

Speaking of the 26 Nos, Norma is now offering brass at around half the Nosler price. It looks exactly the same, down to the chamfered flash hole. Wouldn't be surprised to learn Norma made that Nosler brass.

DF

Trying to produce ammuntion or chamber rifles for each new cartridge that comes along would be a lot like trying to make synthetic replicas of each snowflake that falls.

Another consideration is that new cartridges often follow fad and fashion product life cycles rather than a traditional product life cycle. For example the 26 Nosler maybe just a fad and will be dropped or unsupported once the 5%s have all bought one. Ammunition and rifle manufactures have been banking a lot on new fads fully understanding that they have short life cycles and that they will be dumped anyways. The fads obviously produce a spike in sales because so many people want to believe they are getting the cutting edge answer to largely already answered questions. Broader still are fashion life cycles. It is fashionable right now to like 6.5s for example.

AND I'm going out on a limb here.

IMO I don't think the 6.5 Creedmore 'will ever' be as popular as the 243 Win or 260 Rem so that envelopes the ammo & rifles.


Jerry

Because they are all "boutique" calibers that don't approach established calibers in sales by a country mile? This I believe is fairly accurate:

* 223 Remington
* 308 Winchester
* 30-06 Springfield
* 7.62x39mm Russian
* 270 Winchester
* 300 Winchester Magnum

Jorge, old friend, you forgot the .280 Ackley Improved 40º



Merry Christmas to you and yours,

Steve

Same to you, Steve, but we'll agree to part on the aforementioned caliber, or any caliber with the suffix AI...

And the .243 Winchester, .25-06 Remington and 7mm Remington Magnum--all of which become much better rounds when AI'd!

I'll stick my neck out with another opinion. I'm not a gun writer but I am a business adviser with a degree in accounting and a second major in economics.

Remington and Winchester are not young, lean, cutting edge businesses. They are dinosaurs. They have too many bean counters, too few visionary thinkers and a long, convoluted decision making process.

Additional profits (marginal profits) come from additional sales (marginal sales) until you have fully utilized your productive capacity such that your next unit of production would require additional capital investment.

They may have reached the limits of production of ammo in the last couple of years. If so, there is nothing gained by adding another ammunition product and maybe a little bit to lose in doing so. So, for ammo I would give them the benefit of the doubt.

But I seriously doubt that they are at the limits of production on Model 70s and 700s. If not, then I think they are shortsighted at not chambering a few in the new cartridges. However limited the market for 6.5 Creedmoor or .260 Nosler rifles may be, a piece of those sales would be additional sales and profits for R and W.

But, with a ponderous corporate/decision-making structure, you would have to argue the point endlessly before you could make the decision to produce these. You would hear all the same old tired arguments: these won't move, they won't sell, dealers won't stock them. The fact that there is >some< truth in those arguments is what makes the decision-making so difficult.

On the other hand, some number of them would sell, some dealers would put one on the rack and they would add to your bottom line. In fact, if they announced a very limited run they would be snatched up quickly.

A smaller, younger business would make this decision primarily on the instincts of their young, aggressive, entrepreneurial founder/manager. A big old dinosaur business needs studies, charts, and reports out the ying/yang to convince upper management to make the decision. And that upper management is more likely to not be gun guys with instincts for the business so their decision-making is laborious.

One last question that would add to the difficulty of making the decision is this: Is the buyer that is looking for a 70 or 700 in 6.5 Creedmoor (for example) more hooked on the cartridge or the rifle? It is a legitimate question. Will he settle for a different 6.5mm cartridge or mid-range cartridge so long as he gets the 70 or 700 he desires or is it the other way around. If the buyer is brand loyal, chambering the new cartridge just complicates the manufacture of the same number of rifles. If he is stuck on the cartridge you just lost a sale.

Which is it? Probably both! So the new chambering will, in part, cannibalize the sale of the same rifle in an existing chambering but will, in the other part, produce some added sales.

What is the cost of adding a chambering? At first glance is seems like just another chambering reamer or another hammer forging mandrel with a different chamber section. But the manufacturer will also need to have its engineering department review the cartridge to be sure it is appropriate to their platform and they will have to study it to see what magazine components will need to be varied, what extractor to use, etc.

The legal department will have to review it to be sure Rick Jamison never made a similar cartridge. The cartridge itself will have to be lab tested to be certain it doesn't have some odd propensity to occasional dangerous pressure spikes. And their marketing and R & D departments will have to check off on it to be sure it won't steal the thunder from something new they have in the pipeline.

A smaller company does this more instinctively with fewer people involved in the process, a larger one will go about it strictly in the corporate way. And the corporate way takes so long that once a decision seems obvious you have to review it to be sure nothing has changed - and nothing happens!

People also don't realize that it costs money to make another SKU. To add the expense to only sell a relatively small amount doesn't make sense. Winchester is owned by FN and Remington is owned by some huge company, they may be old but I don't think I would call them dinosours. THey're probably run by people who know how to make a profit and making small runs of limited interest calibers is probably not a sound investment for a large company.

I just watched a youtube video where the Ruger Precision Rifles was evaluated. They claimed to use Winchester 6.5 Creedmore ammo. Very accurate too.

GunReader,

Thanks for the educational explanation. And all too true, I am sure.

Yes they make 6.5 Creedmore ammo but remember that Winchester ammo and Winchester firearms are not the same company.

I think Remington and Winchester are still licking their wounds from the SAUM and the WSM, WSSM days.

At this time, Winchester/Olin is offering a single 6.5 Creedmoor factory ammo option, a 140 grain target load.

At this time, only Hornady is offering a full line of factory ammo with both hunting and target bullets, eight options in all.