nvbroncrider
Handloader
- Aug 20, 2011
- 3,085
- 4
Why do companies keep producing new 7mm Mags? Aren't there enough of them already? And don't all the existing offerings offer the same performance?
Why do companies keep producing new 7mm Magnums?
- Thread starter nvbroncrider
- Start date
DrMike
Ballistician
- Nov 8, 2006
- 37,537
- 6,602
The same reason they keep producing new .30 calibres! Because there are gun nuts willing to spend money, time and effort in securing the latest cartridge and then make it shoot well. Why a 6mm-284? Don't we already have 6mm Remingtons? Or 6mm-06s? Or...
- Thread starter
- #3
nvbroncrider
Handloader
- Aug 20, 2011
- 3,085
- 4
Yes, I see your point to a degree. But why reinvent the wheel when it has been used for 5000 years and no problems? These new magnums offer no difference in performance than what we already have. I can see where some of the "short" mags may offer an increase in what is currently available in a short action gun to some degree. But if that is what you want why not a .284 or .284AI in a good bolt your right on par with a 7RM. I guess the bottom of my question kinda goes back to the old .280-7RM debate. Why in the world would you go buy a 7RM that uses 7-10% more powder for the same performance but kicks like a mule in comparison? The lovely answer I always get is it has more knock down power. But really once the bullet leaves the barrel at the same velocity it doesn't matter what cartridge it's chambered it your ballistics are identical. It has always baffled me why people are so closed minded.
All comes down to money. If you went by need, they would sell about 750 '06s a year, because everybody else already has one. But there is a certain amount of the shooting public that has to try the latest and greatest. That's what keeps the lights on at Brownchestington, WSMs and RUMs and XXX-284s and RCMs. I just wish that some of these companies would support their offspring a little better (*ahem* Remington's .260 and .280 spring to mind, or Ruger's .480).
Desert Fox
Handloader
- Aug 14, 2006
- 1,965
- 3
You haven't been hanging around here that long so you are not infected by RADD yet. You'll find out in due time why manufacturer kept dishing out the same caliber over and over again.nvbroncrider":33c5nj1q said:
My answer does not include military weapons only sporting weapons.
To maintain profits. Why does Chevrolet sell 10 different models of the same car? In order to make money the gun companies have to sell guns, more calibers more sales. We as consumers also help fuel this process. When a "new" cartridge is introduced a writer immediately takes it out shoots something with it and declares it fit for hunting. Then many of us whom already own enough guns to field a platoon or more go out an buy one. Then we go out and kill something with it and talk it up with our friends on the web. A well placed shot down a peice of galvanized pipe will have the same result. We really have had few "new" cartridges in the last 50-60 years. Two "classic" examples are the 270 Winchester and the new "short" magnums. The 30:06 came along in the early 1900's. Twenty years later came the 270. It does nothing that the 06 will not do (in fact not quite as much) but we have been arguing over which is best now for almost 90 years. Hundreds of thousands of 270 rifles have probably been sold.
Depending upon your definition of a "short magnum" the first one was developed in 1963, it failed fairly miserably. Now we are selling them by the 10's of thousands because apparently the action weighs seven ounces less than a standard action.
Aren't you glad you asked??? Have a great day all.
To maintain profits. Why does Chevrolet sell 10 different models of the same car? In order to make money the gun companies have to sell guns, more calibers more sales. We as consumers also help fuel this process. When a "new" cartridge is introduced a writer immediately takes it out shoots something with it and declares it fit for hunting. Then many of us whom already own enough guns to field a platoon or more go out an buy one. Then we go out and kill something with it and talk it up with our friends on the web. A well placed shot down a peice of galvanized pipe will have the same result. We really have had few "new" cartridges in the last 50-60 years. Two "classic" examples are the 270 Winchester and the new "short" magnums. The 30:06 came along in the early 1900's. Twenty years later came the 270. It does nothing that the 06 will not do (in fact not quite as much) but we have been arguing over which is best now for almost 90 years. Hundreds of thousands of 270 rifles have probably been sold.
Depending upon your definition of a "short magnum" the first one was developed in 1963, it failed fairly miserably. Now we are selling them by the 10's of thousands because apparently the action weighs seven ounces less than a standard action.
Aren't you glad you asked??? Have a great day all.
Gm weatherby man
Handloader
- Dec 19, 2010
- 287
- 5
This is my answer, it fuels our need to be different, better, or more well off than the guy next door.to be able to fit in or be able to beat our chest and proudly exclaim if you are not shooting a equal then your not my equal. For alot of people having or building the newest and " best" cartridge makes them part of a larger group, security of others. Myself I shoot what the " in crowd " call a lesser gun, but I always am the one to bring home the trophy.I like a gun that could kill them a hundred years ago, because with todays bullets it just makes them even better. eg: 30-30,30-06,303 Brit., 45-70 all great guns.
Desert Fox":hq98yumj said:
I am with DF. I will say this though, I enjoy the reloading aspects of the new Short Mags. Tough cases, that are designed properly for high pressure applications that do the same work as their longer cousins. I like the old and new a bunch. It is pretty nice to have a variety to pick from. Scotty
highcotton
Beginner
- Sep 28, 2010
- 82
- 4
Gm weatherby man":eufqnsck said:
I'm with you on the selection of one considered by some to be a lesser gun, Gm. My dad had me a rifle built a couple years ago by Kirby Allen (APS). My caliber of choice- .270 WIN. I've gotten some pretty strange looks when folks realize the "cannon" they're looking at is a little ole .270 :lol: Yet to have a SC whitetail file a formal complaint :wink:
wildgene
Handloader
- Jul 4, 2011
- 1,597
- 2
nvbroncrider":dgmzcz51 said:
...hmm, good question, (but looking @ it that way, there was absolutely no reason for any other cartridge development after the .30-30 went into commercial production)...
...because some shooters are willing to accept the diminishing returns & increased recoil for what other shooters might consider a nominal return in velocity, or convenience, a .280AI, .280, or .284 will match, well kinda, a 7mmRM, but none of them are as easy to find, & the parent cases weren't designed for the increased pressures. The "new short mags" (the 7mm, .300, .338 were originally considered "short mags" because they fit in a standard action, as opposed to the H&H & other British "magnums") were designed to take advantages in new technology (i.e. powders, case design) to compete w/ standard magnums in a shorter, lighter, handier rifle...
nvbroncrider":3mllvjke said:
Supply and demand man... cuz people keep buying 'em!
Or, to be a tad more cynical about it, we live in a disposable society where many people see their next purchase as their "salvation". The cartridge developers keep coming up with redundant crap to give those of us who place our hopes of satisfaction upon our next rifle purchase something to look at as "the next greatest thing"!
7mm RSAUM anyone??
beretzs":3uu62j9y said:
Oh don't get me wrong, I thought it was cool too... which is weird, cuz I've always been kinda anti-7 RM (for personal reasons, not because it is a "bad cartridge")... those comments just related to my theories on how consumerism drive new cartridge development.
- Nov 4, 2004
- 25,575
- 9,689
Sales and Marketing 101.
JD338
JD338
The .280 Remington is not even close to the 7mm Rem Mag. Just a few clicks away in Nosler's load data shows a 206 fps velocity advantage with 160 gr bullets. That my friend is a ballistics butt-kickin'.nvbroncrider":hkbf0fgz said:
There is no substitute for powder capacity and no free lunch.
The reason it kicks more is because it's kicking the .280's tail.
Gm weatherby man
Handloader
- Dec 19, 2010
- 287
- 5
A but kicking to me is a 223 rem. Over a 22 Lr thats a real difference, 125 grn rn compared to a 180 bt over 500 yrds , that's a but kicking, 200 fps with the same bullet, sorry , but yawn. :wink:
- Thread starter
- #19
nvbroncrider
Handloader
- Aug 20, 2011
- 3,085
- 4
Well if your looking in a maunal for your ballistic data that's exactly what your going to see. The .280 was offer in the 740 and 760 Remingtons which are weak actions so for companies like Nosler to publish data they must assume that people are idiots and must put into account that these weak actions are going to be loaded. I shoot a 150 NP with 55.5 grains of 4350 @ 3150 and could safely bump it up to 56.5 grains in my rifle. Same goes with a 7 X 57. The best example of this in my opinion is the 257 Roberts. They came out with the +P for good strong actions but also if you do not have it in a Long action say a factory M-77 which is a long action versus a R-700 which is short you can't see all of the cartidges true potential especially when your shooting heavy bullets out of it.
- Thread starter
- #20
nvbroncrider
Handloader
- Aug 20, 2011
- 3,085
- 4
JD338":1h2kzbru said:
Yes I agree with you whole heartly there.
