300 Remingotn SUM & Shooting Times

M

Mike50

New member
I've been gone - couldn't find this topic - if this is repeat, I apologize!

Shooting Times really blew it on their coverage of the 300 Rem SUM. They didn't even address the issue of Remington introducing a near identical cartridge to Winchester's 300 Short Magnum. They compared them, yes, but that is not the issue.

I can't believe that Rem would do this. Think of the confusion and extra inventory required for ammo dealers. Those who handle Rem ammo won't have ammo for the Winchester, and vice versa. Think someone will buy the wrong one sometime?

Good Grief, Remington, have you no pride? You got beat on this one. That is the breaks! To introduce your version anyway is a disservice to the industry and to shooters!
 
mike50, maybe I am confused, but other than caliber, I really don't see how anyone is going to confuse the two. The Remington looks like a cannon shell while the Winchester looks more like a pregnant 308, and is what Winchester should have come out with instead of making people fool around with a silly belt in the first place, i.e., the 300 Win Mag. As much as I like big green's rifles, I think Winchester has the upper hand on this particular comparison. 150-200 fps is not enough for most thinking hunters to take the shot. Lets hope they aren't sold in the same size box!
 
Well, David, I guess you are right that no one SHOULD get the two confused.

I believe that your criticism of the 300 (long) Winchester is a little unfair. Shooters back then wanted the belt. To introduce the round without it would have been unthinkable. To me, that is a little like saying they should have built the model 70 in stainless steel when it was introduced.

Also, Winchester wouldn't have been too interested in a short action magnum because they didn't even make a short action bolt action back then.

I still feel that it was a tacky, unprofessional decision on Remington's part to introduce a round identical to the Winchester. There was more difference between the .244 Rem and the.243 Win than there is between these two. And what did they accomplish with that fiasco?

I would really like to see the short magnum succeed and splitting the market in two won't help anybody.
 
Good point, Mike 50. They SHOULDN'T (but some dummy will) get the two confused. And make no mistake-I think the 300 WM is a fine round, but we all learn as we go along.
The 300 H&H is also a great cartridge, but we have since learned that a short, fat powder column is the way to go for best efficiency.
Nobody seemed to listen to PO Ackley back in the 50's and early 60's when it was all about the almighty belted magnums and enough powder to toast your barrel at a single setting, never mind that a lot of the powder seemed to be for 6 feet beyond the muzzle. A friends 22 inch barrel 264 Winchester fired at night showed me that much.
Most reloaders who have been at it for a long time know we are almost in the golden age, as there are better powders and bullets than at any time before.
Remington may well get nipped as hard on this as they did with the 244, but a lot of that will be up to the gunwriters now as it was then. The same MORONS who thought the 284 was junk were many of the same ones who thought the 7MM-08 was better than sex:D
Me, I'm sticking with old reliable, a 308 in a Remington 700. I have rifles with cooler looking ballistics, but they burn 20% more powder for maybe a 5% gain, and they are no more accurate, nor do the animals fall any faster. If I did make a change, it would be to something older-a 30-06, maybe with an Ackley improved chamber so I could get the heavier stuff moving just a bit faster, but there really isn't anything new out there, despite what the writers would have you think.
 
Oh yes! And let me reinforce my criticism of "Shooting Times". I can't believe they didn't even touch on this issue. I couldn't read the article without thinking about the glaring omission of this discussion.

The writer (Layne Simpson) must be afraid that Remington won't invite him back on a hunting trip if he criticizes!

I used to think the gun writers were truly independent, and that the magazines wouldn't cater to the advertisers. Boy was I naive!

I am truly disappointed with Shooting Times and Layne Simpson!
 
Most of those guys blow more smoke than that whiny Joe Liberman at a Democratic National Convention! (he looks so much like Ray Walston that I keep waiting for the antennas to pop up in the back of his head). I stopped subscribing to the gun rags a long time ago, and will pick one of them up at the checkout counter if there is an article which catches my eye. That is few and far between anymore-most of them still have their head located inside their fourth point of contact.
 
I read that the Remington was developed first, but for some reason held back. I think it was in "Precision Shooting" or the "Accurate Rifle" magazine, but cannot remember. The article opined that the Remington was a better design. I will have to go back and look for it and let people know.

I think that with the immense success of the .300 Winmag, the .300 WSM has the PR and name recognition edge. Time will tell. Wonder how the 7mm Remington Short Ultra Mag will play out the the Remington 7mm Mag recognition.

Sometimes being first wins, sometimes being better wins. That can be the result of all kinds of factors. Look at the old Betamax versus VHS videotape wars, the better technology lost.

BTW, "Precision Shooting" and "Accurate Rifle" magazine are the only two I now suscribe to for all the reasons stated above.
 
From what I have heard and understand Remington started the project a few years back and Winchester probably got wind of it and put theirs out a few weeks before Remington. I have seen the basic drawings for this ctg. (Rem.) that go back a few years and I would be hazarding to guess Remington did all the tough work while someone else reaped the benefits.
 
From what the "Shooting Times" article said, yes the Remington was designed first. Or at least, it was designed a year or so ago and then held back. Of course, Winchester may say they started their design 10 years ago and nobody can dispute them.

Regardless, Remington should have announced the design specification, or announced the round and then not made it available. Fact is, their's is second (or third if you count that "P" company). They lost. It was nobody's fault but their own. When they got beat, they should have let it go. They could have had their short 7mm magnum.

It will be real interesting to see if Winchester still comes out with their 7mm short mag. Of course, they should logically, at least now, make it a .270 rather than a 7mm. That would be the manly thing to do. If they come out with a 7, they have just justified Remington's behavior, and they won't be able to criticize.

I don't believe in making predictions, because when I do, I'm always wrong. I will predict, though, that one or both of these rounds won't make it's 20th anniversary. Mainly, thanks to the market being split into two.
 
A .270 WSM is a natural progeny of the .300 WSM.

Forget 7MM. :(

.270 is a Winchester Caliber! :)

A .270 WSM should have no problem boosting a 130 Grain Bullet to 3200-3300 FPS with equal or less recoil than a 30-06!
 
If Winchester is reading this (or I guess Remington for that matter) how about a Short Magnum or Ultra Short Magnum in .270? That would be the way to go..........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top