Why the need for some new cartridges? Examples provided.

[WisBorn]

And yet if you look at the competitive precision rifle crowd nearly all the cartridges they are using are less than 50 years old, and in many case less than 20 years old.

https://precisionrifleblog.com/2018/12/14/rifle-caliber/

I agree, It is a difference of hunting and plinking versus competitive shooting. I would use a 30-30 model 94 for a handy woods rifle. Competitive shooting 6.5 cm or 6 mm cm would be a better choice.

 

[daniel craig]

Because people get bored and are easily manipulated by marketing. This creates new sales.

 

[mcb]

Because people get bored and are easily manipulated by marketing. This creates new sales.

That seems like a rather broad brush? Are you saying you can that you can point to a specific time in history where afterwords no new cartridges need to be made cause all possible cartridges for all possible uses exist?

IMHO I would say there are a fair number of new cartridges that bring new functional aspect to the table. Many are very niche cartridges but they are still useful to specific users.

 

[daniel craig]

That seems like a rather broad brush? Are you saying you can that you can point to a specific time in history where afterwords no new cartridges need to be made cause all possible cartridges for all possible uses exist?

IMHO I would say there are a fair number of new cartridges that bring new functional aspect to the table. Many are very niche cartridges but they are still useful to specific users.

I’d say.... probably after 2008. By that time most new cartridges were either reinventing the wheel or were marketed as “solutions” to “problems” that didn’t actually exist for most people.
To me that’s why so many new era invention cartridges/calibers die out in a relatively short time, because they aren’t all that different from what already exists.

There are some, a rare few that look redundant but actually fit a need. The 6.5cm being one. It has advantages over both the .260 rem and the 6.5x55

It’s no secret that manufactures make more on guns than they do on ammo. In order to stay in business they NEED to sell guns. While the tried and true will continue to sell, creating a new cartridge and marketing it well, creates new sales and THAT is where the money comes from. It doesn’t really matter if the cartridge doesn’t live on onto the next half century because they made their sales and have moved on to the next new thing.

If you can get a generation of shooters to believe that what they’re using is inferior many will ditch it for the new thing. That’s how cars, phones, and many other products, including guns, sell. Is what the buyer currently using inferior? Probably not. Can the user use it well enough to take full advantage of the new thing? Also probably not. But if you can CONVINCE them otherwise, neither of those points matter.

The most successful producers in a capitalist society can CREATE a demand where there wasn’t much of one already and then dominate the supply. It’s a brilliant strategy and works time and again.

For the vast majority of shooters, anything that needs to exist already does.



I haven’t a scrap of research other than my own limited experience to back that up.

 

[WisBorn]

@daniel craig and @mcb I think you both are right. Companies develop new equipment and cartridges to generate sales. Shooters and hunters demand new products. It is a constant process, we won't quit so they will continue to develop new and improve the old. Some cartridges die while some grow a following.

 

[mustanger98]

Hegelian dialectic... Problem -> Reaction -> Solution. Invent a "solution", then invent a problem so the consumer will react and buy it.

Any rifle ever produced and sold... there's no magic. All any of 'em shoots is bullets.

 

[MarshallDodge]

I've never really got hung up on the need to justify a caliber. If you don't reload then some of the calibers are going to be out of reach. 9mm and 223 are the most popular, and I like them both a lot, but sometimes it's fun to go play with something a little different.

I own(ed) several wildcats including 17-222, 223AI, and 6X47L. The world of 6mm's has exploded in recent years and now we have the 243, 6mm Rem, 6x47L, 6PPC 6BR, 6CM, 6 GT and 6ARC. All of them are incrementally different than the other, each serve a purpose, but the reality is most people could probably do everything with a 6BR.

 

[mcb]

I’d say.... probably after 2008. By that time most new cartridges were either reinventing the wheel or were marketed as “solutions” to “problems” that didn’t actually exist for most people.
To me that’s why so many new era invention cartridges/calibers die out in a relatively short time, because they aren’t all that different from what already exists.

There are some, a rare few that look redundant but actually fit a need. The 6.5cm being one. It has advantages over both the .260 rem and the 6.5x55

It’s no secret that manufactures make more on guns than they do on ammo. In order to stay in business they NEED to sell guns. While the tried and true will continue to sell, creating a new cartridge and marketing it well, creates new sales and THAT is where the money comes from. It doesn’t really matter if the cartridge doesn’t live on onto the next half century because they made their sales and have moved on to the next new thing.

If you can get a generation of shooters to believe that what they’re using is inferior many will ditch it for the new thing. That’s how cars, phones, and many other products, including guns, sell. Is what the buyer currently using inferior? Probably not. Can the user use it well enough to take full advantage of the new thing? Also probably not. But if you can CONVINCE them otherwise, neither of those points matter.

The most successful producers in a capitalist society can CREATE a demand where there wasn’t much of one already and then dominate the supply. It’s a brilliant strategy and works time and again.

For the vast majority of shooters, anything that needs to exist already does.



I haven’t a scrap of research other than my own limited experience to back that up.

A 2008 cut off date would eliminate two of the four cartridges I have used for the past three or so years for nearly all my hunting. And you missed the other two only by a year.

6mm Creedmoor (2007).
450 Bushmaster (2007)
30 Remington AR (2008)
300 Blackout (2011)

I think there is still some room for improvement. What will be interesting will be how much of the current military focus on the Next Generation Squad Weapons and the unique ammunition technology each of the three down-selected bidders is using is going to filter out to the commercial market and how that will change things.

 

[Ed Ames]

Just about every ballistic profile has been covered at this point, from .17 caliber to .50+, and power levels ranging from not enough for squirrels to more than enough for elephants. But there are things that legitimately change. The types of actions people want to use, the interests people have, and laws, to name a few things. Even nature changes as environmental factors (including hunting pressures) causes animals to evolve and adapt.

So, if we have changing needs, we should expect to see changes in our tools too.

How do you think that should be approached? Should everyone be forced to use the same technology until some central authority decides that there is sufficient change to dictate a new cartridge be released? Or should there be a steady stream of minor and often competing variations produced which the market can choose to adopt - or not - depending on how fit they are for conditions?

Either approach has pitfalls. Personally, I prefer the evolutionary/free market approach of new cartridges being released every few years and given a chance to thrive or perish depending on whether they actually serve a need. But, just as with natural evolution, it does leave a lot variations that can’t compete and end up dying. I know a lot of people favor a more authoritarian command approach where someone decides what is best for everyone. In that model, you don’t have to worry about sorting through flash-in-the-pan new cartridge every year...you use what your daddy used, and will keep on using it until the authority decides you will use something different.

 

[Archie]

Okay, I have to somewhat reverse my earlier opinion. It is rather specific. Both Winchester (ammunition and rifles) and Ruger have released some 'upgrades' to previous cartridges. The Winchester line of 'short' magnums are designed to do what is already done in a handier, more compact case. Then the super short magnums being the same song, second verse. But the goal was to give the same performance in a shorter action. The 'regular' and therefore less expensive action.

Ruger and Hornady have released the .375 Ruger (magnum) and the .416 Ruger (magnum) does all a .375 H&H or .416 Rigby will do (and a little more) but does not require a magnum length action. To me, that's progress, not busy work.

I for one don't like belted cases. It's a rim with a extractor cut in it. The belted case was developed to secure head space (I'm suspicious not all chambers were cut right) and cordite powder was a bit restless in African temperatures. Which could over expand and stick cases if the chamber fit too tight. Contrary to common opinion a belted case is no stronger than a non-belted case of the same outer diameter. Getting past cordite powder (or sticks) was the death knell for belted cartridges. But they were cool.

So that is the exception to my prior statement. In reality, I don't have one of the belted cases (except a 1903 rebarreled to .458 Winchester Magnum; I got it in a three way trade.)

 

[CraigC]

Think about it like this, a firearm is unlike 99.99% of consumer goods. Your pappy could buy you a rifle when you are born and you could use that rifle for your entire life. Then you could pass it on to your children and them theirs. most consumer goods are not like that. Think about cell phones and other electronics. Most folks are not keeping them more than a few years, many only a year or two. They cost as much as a nice gun but are completely disposable after a few years. I keep my cell phones and PC's for years. I 'just' retired my last Windows XP machine from work but it's still in use out in my shop. The one I use on my bench to watch movies while doing leather work is 15yrs old. I am in the extreme minority in that. Most people are constantly upgrading. This is why Apple and Microsoft are making BILLIONS and gun manufacturers struggle to keep the lights on. New vehicles, how many cars from the `80's and `90's do you see on the road? Plain few. So the shooting industry has to be constantly working on new things to keep people interested and buying new stuff. It's how they stay in business. Why would anyone begrudge them that? I never understood why so many people whine and complain about new offerings from the shooting industry.

 

[Ed Ames]

Think about it like this, a firearm is unlike 99.99% of consumer goods.

... for the most part that’s only because - unlike most consumer goods - firearms generally don’t get used. The comments you made could be applied just as easily to “fine” china of the sort so traditional as wedding gifts. There are millions of sets in cupboards across the country, that haven’t been used in decades. No wear, no attrition, not much replacement, so manufacturers need to invent reasons for people to buy it at all.

If guns were used as much as cars (hard to relate, but say 4 rifle rounds fired for every gallon of gasoline burned...call it an average of 2000 rounds per year) rifle barrels would last a few years and rifles would wear out (in the same sense cars wear out - fixable but not worth fixing) in a decade or so, with a few exceptions lasting decades and a bit of attrition due to accidents.

 

[CraigC]

Very few are accumulating hundreds of cars or cell phones either. That said, I have guns I've used a hell of a lot more than my cell phone but it's still obsolete in five years. But why they last as long as they do doesn't really matter.

 

[peacebutready]

A humane harvest of WHAT? With the right loads and placement out of a carbine there are a few things I would use it on out to 150 yds........

Deer. Can a person go out to 150 yards using a .357 carbine? I did notice some Buffalo Bore brand .357 loads nip on the heels of the .30-30 in terms of power.

 

[Ed Ames]

That said, I have guns I've used a hell of a lot more than my cell phone but it's still obsolete in five years. But why they last as long as they do doesn't really matter.

Agreed that why doesn’t always matter.

As far as obsolescence, you’d probably need to go back to the 1830s to find the same point in firearms development that cell phones are in now. The thing that amazes me about new cartridges being introduced isn’t that manufacturers are still putting out new designs at this point, but that so many of the new designs are actually really good improvements on what existed.

If I look at the meager set of firearms I’ve owned over the years, many of of my favorite cartridges are from the 2000s and beyond. Others are from the 1980s. Yeah, there are also cartridges from the late 1800s through 1960s, but, considering that physics doesn’t change, and chemistry hasn’t changed much in decades, it’s fascinating that cartridges have managed to actually improve in my lifetime. And of course someone can argue that what I see as an improvement doesn’t matter to them, but that’s for market forces and evolutionary pressures to sort out.

Side note: The thing with cellphone obsolescence is that - even though cellphones are legitimately going obsolete from a tech standpoint in 1-2 years - the trigger for replacement generally is not obsolescence.

The average cell phone nowadays is in use for 6+ hours per day, and 15 hours is not even an outlier - it’s normal for a lot of people. After somewhere around 5000 hours of finger poking screen time the phones don’t work so well, batteries capped out, chips in the screen, touch sensors getting wonky... faced with the choice of $$$ to fix or $$$ to replace, people opt to replace and get something new. It just happens that new is also better because cellphones are a very immature technology. Yes, a handful of people want the newest because it’s new, but that’s probably 2% of the market.