The Bottom Line, 'Magnum = Marketing'

cshold · Post by **cshold** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 7:54 am

“The word magnum sells rifles and ammunition. (And the popular gun magazines are too dependent on advertising from the major arms and ammo manufacturers to bite the hand that feeds them.) It's a matter of marketing, not performance.”

http://www.chuckhawks.com/evolution_mag ... ridges.htm

cas · Post by **cas** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 9:05 am

Do yourself a favor and dont ever quote Chuck Hawks.

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 9:06 am

cas wrote:Do yourself a favor and dont ever quote Chuck Hawks.

This thread now has potential.

cshold · Post by **cshold** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 9:14 am

cas wrote:Do yourself a favor and dont ever quote Chuck Hawks.

Okay

Is it okay to quote this guy

“Different opinions are fine. Who said anything different? It's the manner in which they are expressed.” Paul - in Pereira

soon 2 retire · Post by **soon 2 retire** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 9:42 am

casastahle wrote:
cas wrote:Do yourself a favor and dont ever quote Chuck Hawks.

Okay

Is it okay to quote this guy

“Different opinions are fine. Who said anything different? It's the manner in which they are expressed.” Paul - in Pereira

Game, set, match.

Bob in Friday Harbor, WA

TedH · Post by **TedH** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 9:52 am

Personally I could care less what name is attached to a cartridge. If I like the performance and the firearm it's fired in, then I'd buy it. There is definately a place for "Magnums", but I agree to a certain extent that the name has been way, way over used, and all the "Short Action" this and "Ultra" that are meaningless to me. Look at the bullet and what it does, who cares what tag is on it.

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:00 am

Inflammatory marketing phrases have been around since someone tried to sell Noah flotation devices. Making a big deal out of how a someone markets a cartridge or firearm shows the author is out of anything important to say.

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:05 am

I just realized it probably won't be long before I hear someone in the ammo aisle proclaiming how a WSSM isn't a "true magnum".

cas · Post by **cas** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:14 am

"Never let the fact that you dont know about something keep you from writing about it." I think that may have been Chuck Hawks.

Theres opinions and then there's wrong.

Streetstar · Post by **Streetstar** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 12:06 pm

MAgnum-itis --- i was in a gunsmiths shop when someone came in with his new custom 300 H&H and was complaining about it ---- He said it shoots like a "laser beam" but when he chrono'ed it it was only 2850 - and something must be wrong! ---

The new rifle was outfitted with a heavy ER Shaw 20" barrel and a neat Hogue target stock with a wide beavertail style "tactical" forend

The gunsmith started laughing like it was a real knee slapper , and at that point i had no idea what was funny either, --- then he said

"Sh-- man! You just built a $2000 30/06"

Then he explained that to realize full "Magnum " performance, - the gent was going to have to step up to a 24 or even a 26" barrel --- Kind of an odd choice for a tactical style rifle anyway - but the guy just liked the idea of the H&H cartridge as he had some 375's at home too

Seemed like a neat target or light benchrest style rifle anyway , but i'm sure the bloom was off the rose for that guy from then on out

mikld · Post by **mikld** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 12:13 pm

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". In other words, no big deal...

Streetstar · Post by **Streetstar** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 12:17 pm

mikld wrote:"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". In other words, no big deal...

No joke --- the guy i referenced in my story was so disappointed he wasnt getting that extra 250-300 fps , --- but, if the rifle is accurate and will do what you intended for it to do anyway , not much of a loss --

i'd like to see someone shoot a 20" barreled 300 H&H at night though - the fireball is likely pretty cool

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 12:36 pm

You could fit a LOT of slow burning powder in a 300 H&H case, but, as stated, it would take 26" of barrel to burn it up.

Of course whenever I hear people talking about something being too long and heavy to carry around, I'm reminded of the men who carried around a 70" long 10 lb rifle all day every day.

Of course by the late 1870's the Army had short barreled carbine versions of 42".

And Lewis and Clark would have needed an SBR stamp for their 33" rifles.

Then there's the men who hump a 249 or 240 while wearing 30lbs of armor + ammo and a 45lb rucksack.

Post by **Old Savage** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 2:20 pm

Magnums pretty much operate at high pressure levels, not to say that some others don't also.

cshold · Post by **cshold** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 3:46 pm

.222 (triple duce) Rem. Mag. or .223 Rem. or 5.56
What sounds cooler for marketing

Do you think it would have made a difference if the .348 win. would have
been dubbed the .348 Winchester Magnum back in the day?

tman · Post by **tman** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:10 pm

casastahle wrote:.222 (triple duce) Rem. Mag. or .223 Rem. or 5.56
What sounds cooler for marketing

Do you think it would have made a difference if the .348 win. would have
been dubbed the .348 Winchester Magnum back in the day?

Yes! The gun writers would have promoted it more and with the magical/mystical tag of "MAGNUM", it would still be very popular today.

cas · Post by **cas** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 6:09 pm

casastahle wrote:.222 (triple duce) Rem. Mag. or .223 Rem. or 5.56
What sounds cooler for marketing

Well since the .222 Remington Magnum only lasted a few years...

I know where the original "magnum" came from, but if you look back over the history of modern cartridges, it's probably been attached to fewer successes than it has to failures and things that good or bad, just never caught on or stuck around. That is to say the Magnums with longevity are much much fewer than the "also rans".

harry · Post by **harry** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 6:35 pm

Man I've never been around so many anti gun people in my life. If you don't have a need or see any use in new cartridges guess they should just stop making them?
I mean they had a 22 hornet so why the need for a 22-250, or they had the 30-30 why build a 30-06 and on and on. Some people, myself included, like new stuff.

cshold · Post by **cshold** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 6:20 am

"Man I've never been around so many anti gun people in my life."

Harry, seriously bro. (as o'l Pitchy would say)

Two things that are far from lacking in this forum:
From my cold dead hand's pro-gun attitude...
And plenty of testosterone to backup the above...

Post by **Old Savage** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 7:06 am

Magnum has a meaning. A survey of the rifle cartridges will indicate that they all operate at about 65,000 psi. As I mentioned, some others do also like the 22-250, 6mm Rem and 270 but if it says Magnum it will be at a certain pressure level which in turn will produce, depending on bullet weight, a trajectory in a certain category. Might not mean anything in the eastern woods but then again it might in the west. The 222 Rem Mag is, I believe, an exception to that in the SAAMI specs.

Far as the popular gun mags go, almost all I see in Guns & Ammo now are tactical rifles and pistols.

cshold · Post by **cshold** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 7:59 am

Old Savage wrote:Magnum has a meaning. A survey of the rifle cartridges will indicate that they all operate at about 65,000 psi. As I mentioned, some others do also like the 22-250, 6mm Rem and 270 but if it says Magnum it will be at a certain pressure level which in turn will produce, depending on bullet weight, a trajectory in a certain category. Might not mean anything in the eastern woods but then again it might in the west. The 222 Rem Mag is, I believe, an exception to that in the SAAMI specs.

Far as the popular gun mags go, almost all I see in Guns & Ammo now are tactical rifles and pistols.

Agree, what do you think the reason is Fred?
Do we all deep down inside know what's coming,
and it has nothing to do with deer in the woods.

Post by **Old Savage** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 8:59 am

Not sure. Last thing I bought was a 25-20. And, last thing I shot in that category was an M16 almost 40 years ago. No, wait, I helped a young friend sight in his Arizona AR.

cshold · Post by **cshold** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 9:47 am

I have noticed a maybe good, maybe bad thing.
It has to do with the recently hired 20 something guys at work.
They own and seem somewhat knowledgeable about the AR & pistol world.
But do very little or no hunting, and have little to no knowledge of traditional firearms and ammo.
An example would be if you asked them if they knew anything about the above mentioned 22-250 or 270.

SteveR · Post by **SteveR** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 9:59 am

But didn't S&W call Keith's 357, the 357 Magnum because one of the people was looking at a bottle of champagne and though Magnum would be a good marketing name?
I don't remember the story that well.

Steve

jdad · Post by **jdad** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 10:09 am

How about this.....

Winchester had their 22 WRF (Winchester Magnum Rimfire) that later evolved into the 22 WMRF, but.....

Stevens did not want to advertise for Winchester, so they stamped their barrels "22-4 1/2" referring to the ammo of black powder the cartridge had.

cshold · Post by **cshold** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:29 am

SteveR wrote:But didn't S&W call Keith's 357, the 357 Magnum because one of the people was looking at a bottle of champagne and though Magnum would be a good marketing name?
I don't remember the story that well.

Steve

Interesting, never heard that.
If you track the story down please post it.

GonnePhishin · Post by **GonnePhishin** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:43 pm

Yes, the word magnum is certainly used in the advertising world. Would you rather have 440 magnum engine or just a 440?
Same with firearms. Dirty Harry used a 44 Magnum; therefore a lot of people wanted them. would it have had the same effect if he had only called it a 44?

Buck Elliott · Post by **Buck Elliott** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:50 pm

jdad wrote: Winchester had their 22 WRF (Winchester Magnum Rimfire) that later evolved into the 22 WMRF, .

WRF = Winchester Rim Fire..

WMR = Winchester Magnum Rimfire

cas · Post by **cas** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 1:33 pm

SteveR wrote:But didn't S&W call Keith's 357, the 357 Magnum because one of the people was looking at a bottle of champagne and though Magnum would be a good marketing name?
I don't remember the story that well.

Steve

I recall it being because of the large champagne bottle, but don't recall it being attributed to Keith.

5mm Remington Magnum, .222 Remington Magnum, 6.5 Remington Magnum, 350 Remington Magnum, 8mm Remington magnum, all fine cartridges but they didn't exactly set the world on fire. Maybe it's the Remington part that's the kiss of death for Magnums

Seen a 308 or 358 Norma Magnum on the shelf lately?

More's the pity.
And then there was this week's 31 flavors (or 131 flavors) of Ultra Mag, Short Mag, Super short mag... good grief.

cshold · Post by **cshold** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 1:34 pm

UncleBuck wrote:Yes, the word magnum is certainly used in the advertising world. Would you rather have 440 magnum engine or just a 440?
Same with firearms. Dirty Harry used a 44 Magnum; therefore a lot of people wanted them. would it have had the same effect if he had only called it a 44?

44 Special has a nice little hook as well

jdad · Post by **jdad** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 5:29 pm

Buck Elliott wrote:
jdad wrote: Winchester had their 22 WRF (Winchester Magnum Rimfire) that later evolved into the 22 WMRF, .
WRF = Winchester Rim Fire..

WMR = Winchester Magnum Rimfire

Thanks, I'm glad you know what I meant, but Winchester did use the "WMRF" rollstamp when it was introduced on the Model 61.

SteveR · Post by **SteveR** » Mon Feb 23, 2015 11:29 am

I can't pin down the story, but a lot of places talk about it though.

http://www.vincelewis.net/357.html
"The term "Magnum" was actually coined by Major Douglas Wesson of Smith & Wesson, he was a well know connoisseur of expensive champagne and a double size bottle is called a "Magnum" of which he regularly ordered. This name sounded appropriate to him to express the larger and almost twice as powerful cartridge."

I think it was someplace I was reading about Elmer Keith's work on the 357, maybe somebody will find a direct quote. I do know that S&W patented the term "magnum" for their revolvers.

I think TERRY M has direct knowledge of the subject.

Steve

vancelw · Post by **vancelw** » Mon Feb 23, 2015 11:39 am

tman wrote:
casastahle wrote:.222 (triple duce) Rem. Mag. or .223 Rem. or 5.56
What sounds cooler for marketing

Do you think it would have made a difference if the .348 win. would have
been dubbed the .348 Winchester Magnum back in the day?
Yes! The gun writers would have promoted it more and with the magical/mystical tag of "MAGNUM", it would still be very popular today.

The .348 Winchester Super Magnum would only have succeeded if Hornady had been around to invent the magical FTX bullets, making it a 1000 yard rifle.

t.r. · Post by **t.r.** » Mon Feb 23, 2015 4:51 pm

I like what Chuck Hawks has to say about the 30-30 as a deer hunting cartridge.

TR

cshold · Post by **cshold** » Mon Feb 23, 2015 6:29 pm

Nice buck TR

Where did you hit him?

vancelw · Post by **vancelw** » Mon Feb 23, 2015 7:13 pm

casastahle wrote:Nice buck TR
Where did you hit him?

In the deer woods!

cshold · Post by **cshold** » Tue Feb 24, 2015 7:30 am

vancelw wrote:
casastahle wrote:Nice buck TR
Where did you hit him?
In the deer woods!

I guess I've gotten used to what's called a pass-through over the past few years.
Big o'l hole going in and a big o'l hole on the way out.

tman · Post by **tman** » Tue Feb 24, 2015 2:58 pm

vancelw wrote:
tman wrote:
casastahle wrote:.222 (triple duce) Rem. Mag. or .223 Rem. or 5.56
What sounds cooler for marketing

Do you think it would have made a difference if the .348 win. would have
been dubbed the .348 Winchester Magnum back in the day?
Yes! The gun writers would have promoted it more and with the magical/mystical tag of "MAGNUM", it would still be very popular today.

The .348 Winchester Super Magnum would only have succeeded if Hornady had been around to invent the magical FTX bullets, making it a 1000 yard rifle.

The .348 replaced the .33 Winchester. It's increased range and power over the .33 indeed made it a magnum. If Hornady would load it with superformance powder and a gummy tip, We would then have your .348 super mag.

cshold · Post by **cshold** » Tue Feb 24, 2015 5:49 pm

tman wrote:
vancelw wrote:
tman wrote:
casastahle wrote:.222 (triple duce) Rem. Mag. or .223 Rem. or 5.56
What sounds cooler for marketing

Do you think it would have made a difference if the .348 win. would have
been dubbed the .348 Winchester Magnum back in the day?
Yes! The gun writers would have promoted it more and with the magical/mystical tag of "MAGNUM", it would still be very popular today.

The .348 Winchester Super Magnum would only have succeeded if Hornady had been around to invent the magical FTX bullets, making it a 1000 yard rifle.
The .348 replaced the .33 Winchester. It's increased range and power over the .33 indeed made it a magnum. If Hornady would load it with superformance powder and a gummy tip, We would then have your .348 super mag.

Never say never

Canuck Bob · Post by **Canuck Bob** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 6:44 pm

The magnum craze has dominated the gun world for decades. However blaming the marketers lets shooters off the hook too much. Desire drives the market as much as anything. We have guns with iron sights, red dot sights, scopes, headlights, lasers, and whatnot on the same rifle at the same time. Absolutely ridiculous to me who thinks anything not elegant in form, steel, and walnut is an abomination. Companies go broke catering to dinosaurs like me!! A well designed AR platform is a wondrous rifle in many crazy calibers with silly names.

Recently the new econo bolt rifles are storming the market. I consider them the modern equivalent of the Win 94. Working class guns. The use of injected molded plastic and such keeps me from buying but they fly off the shelf. Modern production seems to include a level of performance and machining that is surprising in a cheap rifle.

The story about the 300 H&H saddens me. Sometimes I dream of tackling long range shooting and a 300 H&H would be my choice. The gunsmith could have helped the guy a bit more. I suspect with some careful loading advice that a higher fps could be found.

Regarding Chuck Hawks I find his site one of the few that actually talks some sense. I just dropped by and read an article praising the 30-06, 7X57, 30-30 and 270. Try and find that in print these days. He does write nonsense as well and blatantly promotes products. He's got bills to pay too. I've read him pushing fixed scopes and calling out the 1 moa bench crowd for hunting rifles. His site discusses receiver and tang sights and has lots of talk about levers and offhand shooting instructions and tips. I find much I agree with between him and Wakeman but then I'm not an expert and like iron sighted levers in 444 so what can I know that is important.