Re: Hornady says NO to the .300WSM
ok I have to ask what is the marketing theory of these redundant cartridges like the the 375 ruger or 300 wsm ? Admittedly I think the wsm is silly and redundant, I did not own either a wsm or a 300wm and needed one. the difference is minimal and I would not claim either had any significant advantage when shooting 180 grain bullets. Obviously I went with the wsm primarily because the elk season was upon me and I didn't want to scope my L1a1 at that time, I decided I wanted a tikka and ran off to find one and the wsm popped up first. I LOVE MINE DON'T GET ME WRONG but I never understood what winchester gained by reproducing there own mag with a little tweak.............. Did the introduction of the wsm spur sales of 300 mags from people who would not have bought a long action 300 and the ammunition to shoot it?.......... royalties , didn't they get royalties on the long 300?........ gun rags advertising magnum performance when they didn't already, don't think I have seen one that didn't ramble about an old magnum in one of there advertisers new rifles as much as a new mag from one of there advertisers in whoevers rifle................... short action/ rimless vs long action /rimmed ........so what? anyone have a theory from a marketing perspective?