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

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