Yesterday, I drove a computer to the doctor 75 miles away. I wasted the time waiting for it wondering around my favorite sporting goods store. I had an epiphhany as I picked up a Model 70 300 WSM in stainless. I happened to have the amount on the price tag in my wallet, plus the amount of a Leupold 6X. I already have the same rig in blue, a beauty that shoots quarter size groups out of a cold, clean barrel, but still, a match was made. Excuse used to sell myself: I wonder if I can get this stainless to shoot as well as the blue beast at home? (I have never claimed a scintilla of sanity when it comes to rifles.)

I asked the man doing the selling about the Remington shorts. Haven't sold any yet, he said, and none on the horizon. This from a chain with clout in the purchasing department.

This leads me to believe that Winchester is out of the gate and rounding the first turn while Remington is in the stable saddling the horse. The salesman writing up my order fears Remington will lose the race and perhaps their ass on this deal becasue Winchester if filling the demand.

The Remington rounds were designed to work through their 2.8" M700 magazines. Winchester's "short" action, on the other hand, has a 3"+ magazine, so Winchester made it's little fireplug-shaped cartridges somewhat longer, giving them somewhat more capacity. In fact, by loading them (temporarily) beyond the normal pressure limits for factory loads (and loading down it's older belted magnums), Winchester was able to make the somewhat misleading claim the its WSM's are equal perfomance to the more capacious older belted rounds. The smaller Remington, in spite of being more truly a "short action" round, cannot get close enough to the belted cartridges to make this claim, thus Winchester out-marketed Remington.

But give it about 10 years. When SAUM ammunition and cases have about disappeared, some gun writer will have an Epiphany and discover the "true" short action magnum which actually fits in a short action! Then everybody will have to have both a blue and a stainless SAUM.

I'm afraid you are right Roger. It's too bad, I think the SAUM is a better design for a true short mag. Maybe I should get a little M7 before they are no more. Now if I could just find a reason???

The WSM's are selling and one reason is because they are in the stores. At the local Wal-Mart the calibers on hand are 300 WSM, 270 WSM, 30-06, 7mm RM and 308 Win.

As to the marketing. I was in another gunshop and a customer was gushing to the clerk that his new 300 WSM "kicked like a 22 and shot one inch groups".

I just bought a SAUM, the stainless 700. 75 fps behind the WSM is no biggie for me, I find the true 2.8" length as a fair trade-off. And the 30 degree shoulder looks nicer to me, and the longer neck. Oh, and nobody has one.

I bought a model 7 AWR, in 7 SAUM. I can't find anything to complain about on this rifle. I can shoot a 160 grain Nosler at 2900 and get .75 groups. I'd definately buy another.

Both .30-06 and .308 have been viable in the marketplace for many years. However both are war veterans. If a police department or military adopts the .300 SAUM it's survival will be guaranteed, but all the short mag LE interest seems to be directed toward the WSM, ironically primarily in Rem M700.

I feel the slight velocity advantage of the WSM is insignificant for hunting. I have the .300 WSM because I wanted a Winchester controlled round feed action rifle.

I fired my .300 WSM several times before allowing the gunsmith to work his magic on it and recoil was sharper than a buddy's M70 .300 WinMag. I attribute this to at least .5 lbs less weight.

Both .300 WSM and WinMag have relatively short necks, but I do not believe the .300 WinMag would have made a better showing at 1000 yd competition or in the game fields had the neck been .1 or .2" longer.

I don't believe the M70's longer box has much to do with this. Look around the web at people's reloads, you'll see lots and lots of loads seated to under 2.8", and lots around 2.83". I did find one particualrly hot load seated to 3.0-something, but it was in a Remington action! (must've had an aftermarket magazine.)
I think this is a case of out-marketing. Winchester jumped out strong and fast, and constantly compared themselves to their own belted cartridges. As though this was a family affair, and we didn't need to bother the other guys with it. And at the same time, their was a fair amount of poo-pooing the RUM going on, people saying it was "too much of a good thing" and the like.
Anyway, their both just copies of the Jamison line, but on this freak case.

[don't listen to him; he just has a vendetta against the RUM case. Says it's what happens when big companies are cornered into doing something proprietary, regardless of the need for it.]

If they don't sell they won't be around as the bean counters will be the ones to have them dropped from the Remington line up of cartridges. Remington came out on the "short end" of the "short mags." stick. Lawdog

I don't think the "saum" will actually die, that remains to be seen, accountants and sales will govern that decision.
If Winchester would introduce a .257 WSM, then that could be a "Death Blow".
Also the reverse is always possible too, and a .257 saum could spark a whole lot of interest in saum's!
It's way to early to call.

Then again, they are already wildcatting the hell out of the WSM in 25 cal and Montana rifle is offering the "25-300" WSM chambering.

I think that part of Remingtons problem was they tried to put too many irons in the fire at the same time. They were doing the "ultra mags" and then the saum at almost the same time. And Winchester got the jump on them with their short mags and now their micro mags. Personally, I'll stick to my 257 AI.

We tested a Remington Model 7 in 7mm SAUM for the "Outdoor Life" magazine gear test issue last year. This proved to be one of the most amazingly accurate out-of-the-box rifles I've ever tested anywhere. I fired two fast, back-to-back, five-shot groups at 100 yds. with 160 gr. factory loads that were near-identical tight, round clusters measuring well under an inch. Maybe we were shipped an extra-good specimen for test purposes (which I truly doubt), but there's no question in my mind that this particular cartridge will really shoot if everything else falls into place.

With that said, I'll also state that with a full magazine and scope in place, that rifle was no lighter or handier than most of the 1962-version 7mm Remington Magnums I've owned over the years (most with 24" barrels) and no more accurate than the best of those, either. That half-inch or so shorter bolt throw means just about zilch in my opinion, and I fail to see any practical advantage in the beltless case, and theory be damned.

The test 7mm SAUM I worked with shared the same common drawback as the .300 WSMs I've played with: The short, fat case tends to want to lurch its way out of the magazine, and in my experience, "short & fat" cartridges bring with them more feeding headaches than do belted cases, and, again, for no practical advantage whatsoever that I can see.

All in all, I think I'll stick with the standard, long-established belted magnum cartridges for my own use. If size and weight is such a big issue, I'll just work a little harder at losing an extra couple of pounds off my backside. That's always been the best approach in my experience.....

And to answer the original question, I think Winchester's sort, fat magnums are here to stay and will eclipse Remington's cartridges. In fact, they already have, and I think the gap will get wider and wider as time goes on.

AD

About three weeks ago a local gunstore, Carter's Country, had a table full of ammo marked down to clear out. Some was oddball stuff, like Remington loaded 7X61 at $7/box. Some was mainstream like Federal Premium 270 and 30-06 at $10/box. And there was a LOT of Remington SAUM. 40 to 50 boxes of various loads all marked down from $25 to $35/box, to $10 to $12/box.

For whatever reason, they saw the need to lighten up on the SAUM inventory.

This is purely speculation on my part.
I think the 7mm saum was a bad decision from a "Business" stand point, 7mm rum a better decision, clearly a higher velocity cartridge than the 7mm remington mag. A 7mm remington mag and 7mm saum are running neck&neck, one long, one short! No real difference. Why compete with your own very popular cartridge?
A .257 saum really wouldn't make good "Business" sense either, again why compete with the popular remington 25-06.

What does make good "Business" sense would be to go after the ever growing in popularity, 6.5mm market!
Oh well, these are just some "What-if's" I was tossing around in my feeble mind.

[ 07-17-2003, 21:47: Message edited by: Marsh Mule ]

All these short action calibers seem to be a solution to a non existant problem..much like a double action 1911 Colt.....

C'mon a 1/4 inch max makes no difference...I have never felt hampered by my 300 H&H or 375 and anyone who shortstrokes a magnum action, probably missed something growing up! and/or can't chew and walk at the same time!

But I do not begrudge any of you, your toys...

The Remington SAUM has the same problem as the .264 Win. Mag.; bad timing and a better (marketed?) alternative.

The Remington 7mm Mag. kept the .264 in it's shadow. The WSMs have the SAUMs by the balls.