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

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!