Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
300 RUM vs 300 Dakota
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="aspenbugle" data-source="post: 669828" data-attributes="member: 6481"><p>WildRose - Again, I don't think I or anyone ever made the argument that is was the cheapest or the fastest - in fact, I, myself, pointed out both aren't true. I agree completely. JRSolocam was not asking for the fastest, best or cheapest, he was asking if it was true if it actually did nearly equal the RUM with less powder (the same concept you point out of your RUM vs the 30-378). You then called the 300 Dakota "nothingmore than a marketing gimmick" and that is where I took exception and offered some justification for my position.</p><p></p><p>I don't love the brass/cost, but I give the round, and Don Allen a bit more credit for what he created than that. Look over in "Rifles, Bullets..." where right now they are asking Len Backus about his 3, 7mm Dakotas. Lots of people have Dakota chambered rifles, and like them. To call them nothing more than a marketing gimmick is complete hogwash - but to each his own I guess. </p><p></p><p>I agree the belt is no big deal - look at the 308 Baer accuracy etc. I agree the RUM, 300WM, 30-378, 300 Norma Mag, and several others will all do the same job, and for cheaper, and have factory chamberings for most, some factory ammo for most. I agree. Not the point - you just said the 300 Dakota was a pointless, useless, marketing gimmick, which I disagree with, and which I think JRSolocam's initial post alluded to -- it seems to be very efficient in certain loads and configurations (he wasn't asking about cheapest components).</p><p></p><p>It still bests a 300 WM in the same action. Shooting 100-200 fps faster in the same length action with a good case design--isn't a marketing gimmick. If so, then the RUM is a gimmick compared to the Dakota. In fact, you have to get a bigger action and use a lot more powder in the RUM to best the Dakota. The Dakota doesn't have to do that to best the 300 WM - so it is a slam-dunk performance choice there (fills a niche). The first part of why you justify the RUM over the 30-378, is exactly what makes the Dakota special in it's niche. What the RUM does to the 30-378 efficiency-wise, the Dakota does to the RUM. YES, it is missing the cheap component part - agree, but that isn't what JRSolocam was asking about - he wanted to know about performance only. Performance dictates whether it is a good round or not, cost and other factors help determine if it is a good, wise choice to chamber a gun in - let's don't confuse the two. If Remington came out with it, chambered rifles for it, and made cheap brass for it, it may be a much wiser choice in a cost-effective chambering to use - but that wouldn't change how well it performed. I think it's performance speaks for itself - it's a very good performing round. It's cost, brass quality, etc., likely may not make it a wise choice for many, when cost, brass etc. favors other cartridges so much. I agree 100% there. </p><p></p><p>JRSolocam - Sorry for the rabbit trail. I can't fully answer your question. I've been with 200 gr and less due to barrel twist. I know I've seen this true for bullets near 180 grains that many times I'd get velocities about the same with much less powder, which agree with the software and Barnes Reloading etc. Everything I've seen, read, heard (not personally measured) is at least at 215gr, 230 gr, the RUM can do 100-200 fps faster, but will also be using 15-20 gr more powder. In any case, I wouldn't think it could still be nearly matching the RUM at those bullet weights unless you were only using a 24" barrel or something. Hopefully someone who's actually shot some of the heavier bullets in their Dakota can chime in. BTW, Barnes shows 2908 fps with 75.5 gr of RL22 in a 24" barrel for the Dakota with 220 gr bullets. Their numbers always seemed pretty good compared to what I saw (vs. the Nosler manual (wimpy)), but thats a pretty short barrel too. What barrel length were you plugging in?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="aspenbugle, post: 669828, member: 6481"] WildRose - Again, I don't think I or anyone ever made the argument that is was the cheapest or the fastest - in fact, I, myself, pointed out both aren't true. I agree completely. JRSolocam was not asking for the fastest, best or cheapest, he was asking if it was true if it actually did nearly equal the RUM with less powder (the same concept you point out of your RUM vs the 30-378). You then called the 300 Dakota "nothingmore than a marketing gimmick" and that is where I took exception and offered some justification for my position. I don't love the brass/cost, but I give the round, and Don Allen a bit more credit for what he created than that. Look over in "Rifles, Bullets..." where right now they are asking Len Backus about his 3, 7mm Dakotas. Lots of people have Dakota chambered rifles, and like them. To call them nothing more than a marketing gimmick is complete hogwash - but to each his own I guess. I agree the belt is no big deal - look at the 308 Baer accuracy etc. I agree the RUM, 300WM, 30-378, 300 Norma Mag, and several others will all do the same job, and for cheaper, and have factory chamberings for most, some factory ammo for most. I agree. Not the point - you just said the 300 Dakota was a pointless, useless, marketing gimmick, which I disagree with, and which I think JRSolocam's initial post alluded to -- it seems to be very efficient in certain loads and configurations (he wasn't asking about cheapest components). It still bests a 300 WM in the same action. Shooting 100-200 fps faster in the same length action with a good case design--isn't a marketing gimmick. If so, then the RUM is a gimmick compared to the Dakota. In fact, you have to get a bigger action and use a lot more powder in the RUM to best the Dakota. The Dakota doesn't have to do that to best the 300 WM - so it is a slam-dunk performance choice there (fills a niche). The first part of why you justify the RUM over the 30-378, is exactly what makes the Dakota special in it's niche. What the RUM does to the 30-378 efficiency-wise, the Dakota does to the RUM. YES, it is missing the cheap component part - agree, but that isn't what JRSolocam was asking about - he wanted to know about performance only. Performance dictates whether it is a good round or not, cost and other factors help determine if it is a good, wise choice to chamber a gun in - let's don't confuse the two. If Remington came out with it, chambered rifles for it, and made cheap brass for it, it may be a much wiser choice in a cost-effective chambering to use - but that wouldn't change how well it performed. I think it's performance speaks for itself - it's a very good performing round. It's cost, brass quality, etc., likely may not make it a wise choice for many, when cost, brass etc. favors other cartridges so much. I agree 100% there. JRSolocam - Sorry for the rabbit trail. I can't fully answer your question. I've been with 200 gr and less due to barrel twist. I know I've seen this true for bullets near 180 grains that many times I'd get velocities about the same with much less powder, which agree with the software and Barnes Reloading etc. Everything I've seen, read, heard (not personally measured) is at least at 215gr, 230 gr, the RUM can do 100-200 fps faster, but will also be using 15-20 gr more powder. In any case, I wouldn't think it could still be nearly matching the RUM at those bullet weights unless you were only using a 24" barrel or something. Hopefully someone who's actually shot some of the heavier bullets in their Dakota can chime in. BTW, Barnes shows 2908 fps with 75.5 gr of RL22 in a 24" barrel for the Dakota with 220 gr bullets. Their numbers always seemed pretty good compared to what I saw (vs. the Nosler manual (wimpy)), but thats a pretty short barrel too. What barrel length were you plugging in? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
300 RUM vs 300 Dakota
Top