why did the .30 Remington AR fail?

[adelbridge]

The holy grail of a hunting AR-15 should be near .308 performance out of a compact AR-15 weight rifle. I have tried .300BLK, 6.8SPC and 7.62 X 39 AR-15s and the .300 Remington AR trumps them all by a significant margin for energy and flat shooting. It certainly seems that Remington gave up on the project and they dumped the last remaining rifles on clearance to CDNN last year. I currently hunt with a Remington R25 and would consider it on the very upper end of acceptable weight and size but for older or smaller hunters it would certainly be too much mass. If I go back to an AR-15 platform I will have to go back to the 7.62X39 and try and build a free float accurate rig to shoot brass cased precision ammo. Its a real shame because the .30 Rem AR would be perfect if it had become a commercial success.

 

[brian923]

unfortunately if I dosent come out making millions outta the gate, remington dumps it asap. its a sweet little cartridge that would have done awsome if they gave it a chance. but I guess they wanted to put money in a new 300 whisper.... the blackout is a good cartridge, but I think the 30 AR could have done awsome if they put out more effert in the reloading market. thats what stopped me was the lack of reloadble brass. they gave up on the 6.8 as well. look at that cartridge now. maybe something will happen when the reloading market catches back up........ I hope.....

 

[R.W.Dale]

Because Remington can't figure out how to sell hot coffee to Eskimos.

Introducing a new product YEARS ahead of production is a recipe for failure and is exactly how big green has operated for decades




posted via that mobile app with the sig lines everyone complains about

 

[MCMXI]

I've noticed that AR15s chambered for cartridges that significantly reduce magazine capacity tend to be niche products with a dedicated but small following. I've wanted a .450 Bushmater upper for a couple of years now but they're virtually impossible to find.

 

[Abel]

Because they didn't market it correctly. They should have called it the 30 Remington Deerslayer and put it in a M700 and the Model Seven.

 

[rcmodel]

As I recall, they announced it at the SHOT Show in 2009.
By 2010, there were a few rifles showing up, but no ammo available.

By 2011 the rifle had been discontinued, and there was still very little ammo available.

Now, in 2013?
Midway still lists the ammo at $2.00+ bucks a pop / $41.00 a box of 20.
But it is out of stock with no delivery date in sight.

Who among us can afford to shoot a semi-auto that costs $2.00+ a pop to feed it?
That you never could get ammo for easily.

rc

 

[Walkalong]

I was excited about it when it was first announced, but it never came to fruition.

A .458 SOCOM upper is on my long term wish list. Might be fun.

 

[joeschmoe]

Lack of open SAMMI spec, not open sourced for other manufacturers supporting the platform. Things the 300 BLK has achieved. 300 bLK has the same ballistics as the 7.62 x 39 mm, but in a round that is more friendly to the AR platform, better suppressed and short barreled than other 30 options.

 

[browningguy]

Actually I don't think the .30 AR was anywhere near a .308, unless of course you consider the 30-30 to be near a .308. It's limited to very light for caliber bullets which is not good for ballistics or penetration. Of course I am considering 150-165 gr. bullets to be about standard for a .30 bore, and if I recall all the loads for the 30 AR were in the 123-125 gr. range.

Basically it shoots 20% less bullet at the same speed as a .308. So where's the attraction to the round?

It uses a proprietary bolt- not attractive
Regardless of the marketing hype it's nowhere near a .308 - not attractive
It's in an AR platform - toss up - while I've killed deer and pigs with my .50
Beowulf and 6x45 they are not the rifle I reach for first for a hunting trip,
both are more specialist rigs for specific hunting conditions
I can buy a complete traditional rifle for the price of a bolt and upper so no
cost advantage

I agree with several of the above posters, it's a niche cartridge for people with very specific hunting conditions. My personal opinion remains that the 6.5 Grendel is the best of the bunch if you need to hunt with an AR for all around hunting. I think it's physics getting in the way, once you get above 6-6.5mm it's just darn hard to put a medium weight bullet in an AR magazine and maintain enough velocity to be useful.

 

[backbencher]

I find it interesting that Bell & Carlson discontinued their thumbhole stock about the same time, as Remington was using it for the R-15.

 

[kludge]

Name one cartridge in the last 50 years that Remington has successfully launched and it took off, other then the 7mm RM.

.280? Nope. .260? Nope. 7mm-08? Nope. The 7-08 had hope because it was already a very successful wildcat, and is now growing into it's own. The big green has had virtually nothing to do about it. The .260 is still around and growing because of match shooters mainly, and it will do well. The .280, as perfect as it is as a do-it-all cartridge, can't get out from the shadow of its brethren.

And you can't say the .25-06 either because that was already the most successful wildcat of all time for decades before Remington picked it up.

The .30 RAR was doomed for a few reasons... Rem decided to make the bolt face proprietary instead of keeping the .284 Win/.308 rim diameter - presumably for better feeding, or maybe safety (current bolts with the .308 Win diameter can't handle the pressure of the .30 RAR - for example the .458 SOCOM bolt). Yes, its a decent round, not as good as it could/should be with a 6.5mm projectile, but that's my own opinion - Americans love their .308 bullets. And finally they took the name from a very obscure, obsolete cartridge (the .30 Remington - one that no one has seen since pump hunting rifles were in vogue - which was never) and stuck "AR" on the end hoping that it would bring back fond memories?

 

[68wj]

Lack of open SAMMI spec, not open sourced for other manufacturers supporting the platform. Things the 300 BLK has achieved. 300 bLK has the same ballistics as the 7.62 x 39 mm, but in a round that is more friendly to the AR platform, better suppressed and short barreled than other 30 options.

It was SAAMI'd in 2009. Nobody ran with it, but could have.

 

[Lloyd Smale]

because it doesnt have a cool name. .30 rem sounds like something out of the 30s. With a cool name like blackout or in this stupid day and age if they would have named it the .30 zombie they wouldnt have been able to keep them on the shelf.

 

[conrad427]

Yeah, I always get a kick out of the marketing. "this new round is nearly a ballistic match to the one that burns twice as much powder." Hmmmm...... But you are right, they must be nearly the same because the .308 and the .30 AR are both .30. Like the all new 6.5 Creedmoor. It is in no way a .300 savage necked down to 6.5. or a .250 necked up. you can use savage brass to make your own.

 

[CB900F]

Fella's;

You want a similar history? Look to the 5mm magnum. Big Green's marketing managers come from the Alzheimer's ward I think.

900F

 

[jdh]

Why is it that I can find 5mm rimfire in stock right now and there is no 22 lr to be found?

 

[MachIVshooter]

Name one cartridge in the last 50 years that Remington has successfully launched and it took off, other then the 7mm RM.

.280? Nope. .260? Nope.

I wouldn't call a cartridge unsuccessful just because it's not hugely popular. And, if you take commercially adopted wildcats out of the equation, there aren't very many success stories at all; Almost every popular hunting cartridge extant today was a wildcat well before Remington or Winchester standardized it as a commercial load.

The .30 RAR is, however, pretty much the biggest flop big green has had in a long time (maybe ever?). The company was (before freedom group) always reluctant to drop slow movers from their product line, even when the writing is on the wall. I love the 8mm Mag, but it was never a hit. Despite poor sales, Remington continued to make rifles so chambered for over two decades (offer it from the custom shop even today), and they still sell loaded ammo and brass.

Honestly, I think the single biggest factor in the failure of the .30 RAR was the huge swell in popularity of .308 ARs the last few years. There are variants that are barely any larger/heavier than an AR-15 (as light as 7.5 lbs in carbine form), and you get real .30 cal power with tons of commercial ammo options, instead of a proprietary compromise round.

 

[snakeman]

remington has a problem with making everything proprietary. the same thing is why the 17 fireball was a failure. Sadly I loved the fireball.

 

[CB900F]

Jdh;

Perhaps it's because the 5mm you find today is made in Mexico, not this country. Of course there was that insignificant 30 year-or-so period when it wasn't made at all.
As far as I'm concerned, the Ogres of Ilion are an excellent company to boycott. And I do.

900F

 

[MCMXI]

I wouldn't call a cartridge unsuccessful just because it's not hugely popular. And, if you take commercially adopted wildcats out of the equation, there aren't very many success stories at all; Almost every popular hunting cartridge extant today was a wildcat well before Remington or Winchester standardized it as a commercial load.

Exactly! A cartridge should be judged on the merits of how it performs and whether or not if fills a need, regardless of its popularity. It's easy to design a case, a bullet or a complete cartridge since all you need is a pencil and a piece of paper (or a napkin in some cases). The real challenge is designing something that can be made on production equipment at acceptable production rates with acceptable quality. Unless you work with those machines, you really don't know what the challenges are.

 

[HOOfan_1]

Ummmm.... .223 remington, introduced in 1964. I'd say it is pretty successful.....

 

[sixgunner455]

.223 Remington's success has more to do with the military use of the 5.56 than anything else, especially not the marketing of a particular company.

 

[HOOfan_1]

.223 Remington's success has more to do with the military use of the 5.56 than anything else, especially not the marketing of a particular company.

I answered the question as it was asked....

Name one cartridge in the last 50 years that Remington has successfully launched and it took off, other then the 7mm RM.

I can't think of many cartridges that have been launched in the last 50 years that have been more successful than the .223...whether you want to attribute that to military use or not is moot. You could say the same for .308 and .30-06 and 9mm and .45 ACP.

I can't think of many cartridges launched in the last 50 years that are wildly more successful than the 7mm-08 either...

.300 Win Mag is about it...and the reason for that pretty much is, cartridges to fit all needs were developed not long after smokeless powder was developed. So anything else is just trying to reinvent the wheel

 

[sixgunner455]

I can't think of many cartridges that have been launched in the last 50 years that have been more successful than the .223...whether you want to attribute that to military use or not is moot. You could say the same for .308 and .30-06 and 9mm and .45 ACP.

I can't think of many cartridges launched in the last 50 years that are wildly more successful than the 7mm-08 either...

.300 Win Mag is about it...and the reason for that pretty much is, cartridges to fit all needs were developed not long after smokeless powder was developed. So anything else is just trying to reinvent the wheel

I don't believe that there has been a cartridge introduced in the last 50 years that has been more successful than the .223/5.56, and the fact that it was adopted by the military is not moot. That is the fact that explains its development, endurance and success. It is not incidental that the .45-70, .30-40 US, .308/7.62 NATO, .30-06, 9mm, and .45 ACP have the same type of heritage and success. Military adoption=commercial success in many cases, even if there might be a similar and arguably superior cartridge available. One example very germane to this argument is the .223 Remington vs. the .222 Remington Magnum. Performance edge to the .222 Rem Mag, with a longer neck for advantage for reloaders, yet which one is a commercial success? The one that is nearly identical to the 5.56. It has nothing to do with commercial marketing, I would say.

The name Remington is on both of those cartridges, both introduced within a couple of years of each other.

U.S. military adoption does not, of course, guarantee commercial success, but you get my point: it ups the odds.

I am not one to bag on Remington. I have no dog in that fight. But it is interesting to me that another cartridge Remington introduced that had arguable advantages in performance and case design over another, similar one introduced at the same time resulted in a commercial flop for Remington and a comparatively wild acceptance and success for the other company. I am, of course, referring to the .244 Remington vs. the .243 Winchester.

And that had nothing to do with the military.

 

[HOOfan_1]

, and the fact that it was adopted by the military is not moot.

It is moot when the question is

Name one cartridge in the last 50 years that Remington has successfully launched and it took off, other then the 7mm RM.

Remington developed it...Remington introduced it, Remington marketed it.