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

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.