Winners & Losers

[Jack]

I agree with Larryjk- the niches for new cartridges these days are quite narrow. A lot of companies introduce things to have their own headstamp on them, on the theory that promoting their name will eventually lead to more sales of guns, ammo, or both. Hence you have Hornady introducing a 30 cal cartridge for lever guns that is a ballistic duplicate of the 307 Winchester. Slightly different case, but it doesn't do anything the older cartridge didn't- except say Hornady on it.
I don't mean to pick on Hornady- they all do it. The Remington SAUM line is another example.
On paper ballistics can sell some rifles- like the ultra mags and the STW's. These cartridges have a narrow niche, but I bet a lot of them get sold so someone can have the biggest/fastest/baddest. That's fine- but, after the buyer shoots them a few times, they get rid of them- too noisy, too much recoil, too expensive.
There are always some big bores being introduced, too, for the folks that think bigger is better. Most of those won't last, either. Some of the big monsters would be excellent on an African Safari, but how many people do you know that go on african safaris? I see a whole lot of the really big guns at gun shows, with a partial box of ammo, and no sign the bolt has even been worked much. A few shots at the bench and the buyer discovers his 270 wasn't so bad a rifle after all.
Woods cartridges in bolt actions have a long history in the US of not selling. I expect the 376 Steyr will go the way of the 358 Winchester- we all talked about what a good round the 358 was, but we didn't buy one (me included).
Firearms makers and ammo makers will introduce anything they think will sell, and keep it in their line as long as it is selling. When it doesn't sell, they'll drop it.
An example of a narrow niche for a new cartridge is the 450 Marlin. There may be a demand for that round for people that don't handload for their Marlin lever, but, time will tell if there is enough demand to keep that one afloat. A handloader can get the same performance from the much more common 45-70.
The truth is, there is very little need for any new cartridges.

[Mr. 16 gauge]

My experience has been if there is a small niche, then a small company will fill it.....not one of the big boys. They are usually too busy and will eventually loose money on the deal, then discontinue the product, leaving the user stuck with useless products and scrambling to find something else that will work......this goes for just about everything: cars, medical devices, & guns and ammunition.

It's kind of a revolving door: gun shop owner doesn't want to stock guns/ammo that's not going to sell; buyer doesn't want to buy gun/ammo if it isn't available locally, ect.

Also, as someone else has said, these guns look good on paper, but are usually more gun that most folks can handle, esp. if they only shoot 'em a couple of times a year. Case in point were two fellows I met while mule deer hunting in Montana a few years ago. One had a .300 Remington Ultramag....empty case looked like a small soda bottle! He couldn't hit a 4x8' sheet of plywood at 100 yards with that gun! He finally managed to gut shoot a small buck and they found it the next day. The meat was useless, but he got to go home with a small set of antlers. His buddy was shooting a 7mm Rem. mag....he made a nice neck shot on a buck at about 70 yards. Unfortunately, he admitted that he was shooting at the chest!

Same thing is going on with ammunition nowadays......now you have to pay top dollar for ammo that is loaded with polymer ballistic tip boat tail bullets and 'special' powder, otherwise you can't kill a whitetail.....good thing the deer in my freezer can't read the advertisements, otherwise they wouldn't know that they were kilt with a regular old flat based, soft pointed bullet!

And I don't know why ammo companies are reinventing the wheel. Case in point: the .260 Remington. My 6.5 Swede will do everything that the .260 will, so why not invest your time & efforts in promoting a cartridge that is already available, instead of bringing out a new one that most likely will fall in the obsolete rack in a few years?

Bottom line? Stick with what has been proven......