A voice of reason boomed:
“It’s got to where writers and gunmakers have to invent a niche to justify making another chambering … This plague of “Magnums” has got shooters trying shots beyond their ability and flinching while doing it.”
New cartridges are little more than a sales gimmick. There hasn’t been a major Browning/Mauser/Garand-type development for decades now.
Inventing a truly new kind of firearm is hard. Inventing a “new” cartridge is comparatively quite easy. And buying into a different cartridge requires a different firearm to shoot it (or at least another barrel) and the ammunition to go along with it. This forces the purchase of another firearm and ammo/components/reloading dies. Of course, that new acquisition will require sights, accessories, maybe a new gun safe to hold it all… $$$
Gun and ammo companies can (and seem to) crank out a “hot new” cartridge every month. Folks on the publishing side are only too happy to praise this “hot new” for answering a question that nobody ever asked.
The fact that none of this helps make us better shooters, does little to get more people participating, and doesn’t promote shooting to the general public never gets mentioned.
So what wrong with new chamberings, bullets, and loading techniques? Isn’t that all great for shooting?
A wise man noted, “Perhaps a better question is whether or not the droves of average shooters snapping up the new short action big bottles can make full use of the ballistic advantage under field conditions?”
We don’t need new cartridges because most shooters can’t shoot up to the 100 year+ old ones (.30-06, or even .30-30) we already have. These new developments will not help typical gun owners become better marksman. Thus, we “need” new cartridges like the auto industry “needs” a V7 engine.
Some people argue that new calibers are good because it encourages people to buy more stuff, which boosts the financial status of the gun industry. If it’s there, people will buy it.
This can work, but is an inefficient way to boost sales. New cartridges cost money in development and time, raising expenses. They dilute inventory, because a dealer has to stock a larger variety of ammo/components and the firearms that chamber them all. That means mark ups have to be higher. All so we can sell a few extra guns and a little more ammo.
A better answer to boosting the gun economy is to encourage more participation in events where people actually use firearms, ammunition and accessories on a regular, on going basis.
Look at the retail cost difference between premium trap loads (about $5 for 25) and premium sabot slugs (about $10 for 5). The hull, powder and primer are virtually identical, and the cost difference between the different wads is negligible. True, quality shot is cheaper than a swaged slug, but not enough to justify the $1.80 per round retail cost difference.
Quality jacketed bullets for dangerous game, like 500 grain Round Nose, can be had for 40 to 50 cents apiece retail in 50 count boxes. 405-grain cast, sized and lubricated lead bullets for the .45/70 sell for about 10 cents each when bought in bulk. Where does the rest of the cost for making premium sabot slug loads go?
Even if there is some technical reason that makes the premium sabot slugs so expensive to make, where’s the option for practice ammo? Replace that expensive slug with a simple lead cylinder that is the same shape and weight. Such projectiles wouldn’t have to be lubricated or even have a grease groove as the slug travels up the bore encased in a plastic sabot. Packaged and sold similar to trap loads, there is no reason they couldn’t be made available for a similar price.
So what’s the real problem? Trap/skeet/clays/5 Stand/etc shooters actually shoot. During the season, typical trap leagues meet a few times a week and the shooters will run through at least two rounds of 25 birds per round. Bottom-of-the-score-sheet trap shooters who never practice and shoot only the minimum required to stay in the league will probably shoot at least one box (25 rounds) of ammo each week for the several months the league runs.
Sheer volume via regular, organized shooting means the mark up on shot shells is more reasonable. Consider that Trap and Skeet take exactly 25 shots for one round and shot shells are packaged in boxes of 25. This is no coincidence!
Now look at the typical deer hunter, who buys one box all year, shoots 3 off a bench, says “good enough” and hunts with the rest. Many scattergunners shoot more to warm up at each session than most venison fetchers shoot all year!
The cost of lead bullets also bears this out. For those of you old enough to remember, compare the cost and quality of lead pistol bullets from the ’70’s to today. Back then, they were soft, swaged things and sold by the hundred. Now, they’re sold by the thousand, the quality is much higher, and they’re less expensive. When you factor in inflation, the value is even better!
Why? The ’70’s saw the rise and promotion of action pistol shooting. More shooters shooting much more ammo spurned more producers. The mark ups were kept in check by sheer volume. Many sellers offer only three calibers (9mm, .40 and .45) in a one or two weights making inventory easier and cheaper.
More shooters shooting more means more sales for more manufacturers. This raises consumption and increases competition in the market place, keeping costs in line, and encouraging shooters to shoot even more…
Why hasn’t some independent manufacturer stepped in to fill the demand for the shotgun-slug deer hunters? Because the demand isn’t there to fill, at least not yet. The major ammo companies offering premium target shotshells also offer a cheaper variant for practice. These same companies make components available for reloaders, and smaller independent companies step in to offer even lower cost variants. Why? The demand is there for clay shooters, but not for slug deer hunters.
We don’t need no stinking new calibers. We need more shooters, true Firearm Users, and we need to encourage them to shoot more often.
Remington, a gun company, has sponsored a NASCAR team. So does the NRA. The MBA-types in the gun industry realize that spending advertising dollars on car events is more cost effective (a better CPM) than spending those dollars on shooting events.
That’s how pathetic we’ve become.
Doug
Nov 12, 2008 @ 23:36:54
I’m a new shooter, starting with a .270 JC Higgins as old as I am and getting ready to do my first deer hunt this month.
I bought the gun last year, took the hunter ed class, joined a local range, bought some ammo with the intent of getting good at shooting.
Then I started paying attention to my ammo. The cheapest I can find is about $0.90/round. The very thought of popping of 1000 rounds to become proficient pretty much evaporated.
Back to the gun store and came home with a nice new Marlin .22. This I can afford for practice.
This seems to be, for me anyway, a chicken/egg thing. I’d shoot more with the .270 ammo if it was cheaper (like down around a quarter/shell). The price won’t come down until more people shoot more.
So far the .22 learning gun seems to be working. The basic skills transfer pretty well to the .270; everything except the kick and bang. Guess I’ll find out how well it all works if I see a deer.
LikeLike
John Buol
Nov 14, 2008 @ 07:17:24
>> The very thought of popping off 1000 rounds to become proficient pretty much evaporated.
Shooting skill is developed by instilling proper reflexes and habits, not by raw round count.
>> The price won’t come down until more people shoot more.
True. Simple economies of scale.
>> So far the .22 learning gun seems to be working. The basic skills transfer pretty well to the .270
Airguns work as well. Good marksmanship habits developed anywhere will always transfer!
LikeLike
tom
Dec 13, 2008 @ 20:12:21
I have guns ranging up to .577NE, but the ones that get the most workout are .177 air rifles, .22LR pistols and rifles,.45ACP, and the 12 gauges.
I reload, but even reloading, running 100-200 rounds a day through some of my oddballs is cost prohibitive, though if I’m going on a hunt with one of them, I’ll practice rather a bit before the hunt. .458 Lott isn’t a recreational shooter round, but I go through a number of boxes in practice before I hunt something that warrants using it. Same with anything I intend to hunt with.
LikeLike
SSG C
Jan 27, 2009 @ 18:08:15
I agree with this if you are talking about hunting and target practice/civilian shooting.
But the 5.56 does not cut it in the conflicts that we are currently in, esp. not from an M4.
There is a reason that the SCAR is also made in a heavy (7.62) version and that they M14 is being reissued and used in both theaters – it is certainly not just for it’s “old school cool” appeal.
Should it be 6.8, 6.5, 7.62 or something else?
That is for brighter minds than I, but PLEASE something larger than the 5.56.
(And don’t even try to argue that it is prohibitive from a cost or logistics standpoint. You can run the numbers as long as you want and those arguements do not hold water.)
Regards,
SSG C
LikeLike