Ultra-mag lunacy at Remington

W

Wild Romanian

Moderator
The folks at Remington have done it again. To boost lagging sales their lastest brain child is an entire bevy of ultra-mag cartridges both traditional long and non-tradtional short magnums. This is probably the largest new batch of calibers introduced ever at one time. Sales must really be bad down at Reminton for them to introduce so many calibers so fast.

Those of us who know better are rolling in the isles with laughter. Let's face it only the inexperienced or people with money to burn are rushing out and breaking down doors to buy these latest turkey's.

The super-duper magnums are so hard on barrels that 1,000 rounds of barrel life is probably being generous. Muzzles blast is horrendous and does not do the hunters ear much good either. Recoil is more than the average hunter can tolerate and his shooting soon proves it. Barrels in these calibers must be made of a length of 26 inches to enable most of the very large powder charges to be burned efficiently. This makes for a very unhandy rifle in the field. Weight must also be increased to help hold down recoil. Substituting a muzzle break only guarentees more ear damage and more flinching.

The average hunter seldom shoots at anything over 100 yards under field conditions and when he does he often misses. Most hunters are physically out of shape and most never even fire there guns in any other postion except for a few shots off of sandbags when they sight their guns in once a year. It takes an average of a least 2,000 rounds of practice a year to become even a half ways decent offhand shot. And the average hunter has neither the time, money nor inclination to carry any of this out.

NO thanks Remington. The average joe is better off with the old standby the 30-06. It's barrel will last at least 6,000 rounds, it can be had with a 22 inch barrel and still manage to put out some decent velocity and with premium bullets it will shoot clear through an elephant from end to end.

If you want the lastest and greatest toy to play with make the executives at Remington esthetic with your new purchase. If you want something to actually hunt with stick with the 30-06. W.R.
 
W.R., I concur with your assessment. In my younger days, when I could hear and didn't flinch, I lusted for the most bang for the buck. Even tried the .458 mag.
Now I'm content with standard calibers (.223-06) which are far more pleasant to shoot and do the job on targets and game quite admirably.
I understand the guides out West get quite a chuckle out of the ultramag mania as they rightfully see accuracy as more important than misdirected oomph.;)
 
I've had my differences with WR on other posts but have to agree on this one. I've been saying almost the same thing since they came out. What was wrong with the 300 WinMAg or the 7mm RemMag? Also from the ammo stand point, how many loadings are offered? What if the loads don't catch on? Also the cost of reloading compared to the above rounds. There wasn't really a need for these rounds. There was no "space to fill" as usually happens when a new round is introduced. I guess only time will tell.
 
Ain't it a lot like the "niche market" for cars? Look at the numbers of models made by any one brand--Toyota, Chevy...

The big problem for the gunmakers is that guns don't wear out, very often. Heck, just my own stuff that shoots just fine includes a 1914 1911, a couple of Springfield sporters, a pre-'54 Model 70, a 1970 Weatherby...

So, here come the marketing guys. And nobody ever went broke underestimating the gullibility of the American people. Clinton got two terms, didn't he? And a $10 million book deal? Duh?

To be a bit of a Devil's Advocate on a side-issue: I read that one of these .300 Short Magnums will get the same MV as the .300 Win Mag, but with some eight or ten grains less weight of powder. So, there oughta be less throat erosion. There is then the added benefit of a shorter, stiffer receiver.

Regardless of one's opinion, there are far more choices for any personal taste than ever before--and that can't be sure enough bad...After all, Remington built the Titanium jobberdo just for my old tired legs.

:), Art
 
I must be in a fiesty mood this morning, but I am going to disagree again with WR.

When Remington gets down to a 6mm or 25 ultramag I will probably go for it. I am not worried about wearing out a barrel even if it only goes for 500 or 600 shots. I don't shoot my bolts much. Maybe 100 shots in a year and a barrel every 5 years is fine by me.

Every once in a while there is a time when it is fun just to show up on the 200 or 300 yrd range when the wind is blowing and just blast the heck out of a target when everyone else is fighting wind problems. This is what the UltraMag is for.

Now, if you want me to put in it my M1A's, where 500 shots might be a good month. That is a totally different manner. A barrel a month is unacceptable, even one a year is a pain.

Look at the history of cartraiges for the smokeless era. It is all about more velocity or more power. I am sure that if there was a web and we could look at the posts when the 7mm Rem Mag came out, the same comments were said. And if we could go back further to when the 220swift came out, or when the .250-3000 came out, the same thing was said then to.

Heck lets go all the way back to the .30x30 winchester & 1895 (yes I know the 30x30 came out in 1894, but we need time for the market to see a few, just like today). I can picture the posts on the pre-internet. "Now what fool would buy such a high velocity round when we could use a .45x70 instead. We KNOW that big bullets are what you need for deer, elk and bison!", with terrible gnashing of teeth sound please "heck that bullet is smaller then my sharps, no how can that there new 30x30 kill a deer". "well heck, Winchester has to make the barrel out of special nickle steel, says so right on the barrel. I am sure that I am going to have to replace that barrel when I wear it out, I bet winchester is going to charge us a whole green back for the barrel and 4 bits for shipping to boot".

Well enought kidding around. I think I made my point although I was having some fun there.
 
I think much of the amusement comes from the simultaneous deletion of free features such as un-dimpled magazine tubes on shotguns. I bet that Remington would make rather more $$ if they introduced any rifle that would take M1 carbine magazines (won't have to be .30 round, plenty of others would feed from un-modified mags) or something else combat-worthy...but they are tryng to pursue the little fraction of a sporting market over a wider plinker/defense segment.
 
Most of these calibers will probably fall by the wayside over the years, which is too bad.

The best thing about them though...no belts. No belt = good. If I ever see another belted magnum it'll be one too many.
 
I, too, think Remington is being extreme, but if you look at the science applied to cartridges now, the short, fat stuff with steep shoulders and short necks seem to be generally more efficient. Look at the BR cartridges vs some of the more conventional stuff. Heck, look at the 308 vs 30-06. Not saying the 30's are equal here because they aren't in terms of velocity, but there seems to be a trend here. Why not experiment with something equal to the 300 Win mag in velocity in a more efficient case? This information is not new-the bench-rest crowd has been heading this way for years.
 
Lazzeroni's stuff was getting too popular so Remington had to start copying, makes sense to me. I'd rather have the original as soon as I can afford another custom gun.
 
I have zero interest in the RUM crap, 300WinMag will be good enough for me for a 30cal. long range target or hunting round. I have no trouble hauling around heafty rifles, but I just really don't see much additional use or satisfaction coming from the 300RUM or any of the other RUMs for that matter when you consider the negatives already mentioned.


There is one new fangled round I'm keeping an eye on though, the 300Winchester Short Mag does have me a little excited. The reason is because Armalite as well as others are looking to see if they can't get an AR10 chambered for the round, that would be really sweet to have a truely 1000yard capable tack driver semiauto.



Like somebody already mentioned, can anyone say "Lazzeroni" ?
 
I know this is a bit off topic in the Rifles forum, but the same thing goes for the recent trend in shotguns.

The Super-Mag trend/craze is a good way of selling new guns, but not necessarily the best way to a successful hunt. Super-Mag 3 1/2" shotgun shells ARE, however, a great way to ingrain a flinch in a new shooter. Recoil is horrendous, and the irony is that the longer shells seldom group as well as the shorter ones.

I am willing to concede that I use 3" shells for turkey hunting in order to increase my range. But the 2 3/4" shells actually pattern better in my gun. I've shot one 3 1/2" shell when patterning. The unexpected recoil actually caused my wrist to hit me in the nose. Lesson learned. I've stuck to the shorter shells since then.
 
Personnally, I think it is a good idea myself if you can get close to .300WM performance out of a smaller package why not. As for throat/barrel faster erosion most magnums suffer from it-.300WM, .264WM, .338WM, 7mm Mag amongst others. Anything that over-bore will suffer.
 
I'm keeping my eyes open on the .300 Short mag-------if more loadings come out or if it's necked up or down(specifically a .270 Short mag----on par with a .270 Wby mag.) A Browning A-Bolt and Short mag caliber are in my future.
 
I too am looking for the .270 Winchester Short Magnum.

Until then I will stick with my old fashioned 7MM Remington Magnum.

:)
 
rugerfreak, Zorro: Most any barrel-maker will fix you right up, and RCBS will make you a set of dies.

Bingo! You're in business! Real quick!

$

:), Art
 
Well Guys,
The thing that gets me about the Ultra mag line is a guy named Mr. Weatherby has already been down this road balistcally speaking. Besides the non-belted cartridge issue what if any have these rounds gained us. (excluding the short mags) Now as far as W.R. is concerned I totally agree with him in every aspect except for one and that is in the big world of Sheep hunting. thats about the only place a guy can truly justify needing an ultrta light, "flat" shooting rifle. And of course 90% of the hunters out there don't shoot enough to be able to use it anyway so what the heck. If you need more knock down do it with diameter & weight, velocity really doesn't help you much.
 
Question & comment:

1. What is a "belted" magnum?

2. Guyon, the 3.5" shell for the 12 gauge was meant to allow hunters with this gauge gun have better opportunities on long range shots. Specifically, it allows a 12-ga. gun to approach the ballistics of a 10 ga., which most folks don't have because they are so limited in their application. I personally like having the capability of shooting 3.5" shells and find them much more effective on geese.
 
rock_jock, a "belted magnum" (well, really, ANY belted cartridge case) has a belt just in front of the extractor groove. It serves as the headspace control instead of relying on the shoulder of the cartridge case.

The belt functions as the rim of a rimmed case, except it's located forward of the extractor groove.

Why? I'm guessing: In the early days of the big magnums, this belt would also serve as a bit of extra strength in the previously unsupported portion of the case.

FWIW, Art
 
I like the Ultra's, specifically my .300 UM. I think in the main you all are right, most hunters don't have a need or desire for such rounds. However, the small fraction of shooters who DO have a need or (probably) a desire for them have been mightily impressed.

The beauty of the Ultra's to me lies in their external ballistics. That and the fact that I can buy ammo for less than I would spend for tires on my car.

Anything that can go 1000 meters accurately and have the energy of a .44 mag at the muzzle has my attention, desire, and admiration. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top