Cartridge Longevity

[Silvertip1]

I don’t remember why the subject arose, but several weeks ago I was involved in a conversation about cartridges that been on market in the U.S. which have been around for awhile. Subsequently, I decided to do some inquiry (which if I knew what I was getting into I would have not continued) about which handgun and rifle cartridges were produced in the most quantity in the United States over the last 125 years. There were various sources which did not always agree for the top 5, but the majority did name the same cartridges. What surprised me was that many of the “old” cartridges were still in the top 5 ranking of U.S. manufacture/production today. Please remember that this is about production; not performance, not what is currently popular, designation of use, or what is a superior round. The adoption of some of these cartridges by the U.S. Military and/or law enforcement agencies gives/gave them a leg up; however, the cartridges identified herein still appear today in the top 5 production ranking for the U.S. civilian market. Below cartridges are listed with their date of first production/adoption which varied by a year or two among sources, and they are not ranked in order of quantity produced.

Handgun
♦ .38 Special (1898)
♦ 9mm Luger (1901)
♦ .45 ACP (1905)
♦ .380 ACP (1908)
♦ .357 Magnum (1935)

Rifle
♦ .22 Long Rifle (1887)
♦ .30-30 Winchester (1895)
♦ .30-06 Springfield (1906)
♦ .308 Winchester (1952) – 7.62X51mm NATO (1954)*
♦ .223 Remington ((1957) – 5.56X45mm (1964)*
* There are differences but they are closely related & included because I was too bloody lazy to do the research to separate them.

Seventy per-cent of the above listed cartridges are over 100 years old, and are still in the top production rankings in the U.S. As the years progress I am sure things will change; however, IMO these cartridges have staying power because (Writer’s license: With the exception of the 5.56mm NATO round) they fulfill their purpose with proven performance. Yes, there are other cartridges faster, flatter trajectories, more powerful, etc., but these cartridges have performed, survived and prospered. While businesses must stay competitive and innovate, the firearm/ammo manufacturers like to develop new cartridges and throw them against the wall to see if they stick (and grease the skids with a writer for a gun magazine for publicity), and introduce the Wiz-Bang .39 Magnum, but the vast majority of those cartridges will fade after awhile. Comments?

- Respectfully Submitted.

 

[Mokaa]

This is a great write up! And a clear research showing many classic cartridges still lead U.S. production. It is proof that reliability and adoption beat novelty. Thanks for digging

 

[Stryka]

I love how you broke that down, it is amazing that so many century-old cartridges still dominate, some designs just never fade.

 

[Derrick]

Forget the formal stuff, let's get real. So people are saying these ancient ammo cartridges are still great just because they're reliable? If that's true, why bother with all these new short-mag, long-range, super-hyped rounds that will be gone soon? Is it all just a marketing trick?

 

[HD-Ghost]

Yea, it is marketing. A firearm, if taken care of, will last generations. So to get you to buy, they have to come up with something new. Most of my firearms fall within SilverTip's list.

The larger the quantity available (any commodity), the lower the price.

 

[Silvertip1]

Marketing on the part of ammo and firearms manufacturers is a huge part of introduction of new cartridges, but not always. Remember that my post is about PRODUCTION over 125 years, and NOT about cartridge performance, or if there are other cartridges that are faster, flatter trajectory, penetrates/more powerful, etc. The cartridges listed in my post have performed over the years for purposes intended and still do (IMO; the exception is the 5.56mm NATO round, but the Remington .223 still does). Do you realize the huge amount of money involved if your proprietary cartridge is adopted by the military/influential law enforcement departments/large segments of the civilian shooting community (varmint hunters, bench rest shooters, duck hunters, etc.)? The competition among ammo/firearms manufacturers is immense.

Sometimes the military/government law enforcement agency puts out a Request For Proposal (RFP) for ammo/firearms manufacturers to submit their cartridge (for which they lobby) for testing that must meet certain criteria/specifications before it is accepted, and if that cartridge is accepted the orders are quite significant. Other times the ammo/firearms manufacturers develop a new cartridge which they hype as an "improvement" to replace existing cartridges of that type, and hope like mad to gain a market share/acceptance with a specific shooting segment. Unlike the other 2 methods previously mentioned, the “not always” one is that a government develops and adopts its own cartridge, and it infiltrates the civilian market because the ex-military/government people have been trained with/are familiar with that round and it happens to suit their needs so they stick with it. If you haven’t noticed…the majority of the civilian shooting community is a conservative group, and if something works for them they are not usually looking to replace it with the latest new cartridge introduction; therefore, the ammo/firearm manufacturers have to try to convince them to do so (as well as people who are new to the activity), and will advertise/lobby/sponsor demonstrations/get testimonials/slip their product into a movie or TV show, etc., to sell their product; and as long as it is legal and ethical there is nothing wrong with that…it is how businesses survive. I do, however, submit that there is a difference between introducing a cartridge to create market demand and create a cartridge to improve upon a problem (another “not always”)*, and in both cases some will be successful in terms of production longevity but many will fade. NOTE: The whole purpose all of the above is that what the MARKET (military, law enforcement, civilian) wants, because of need or perception decides the production longevity of a cartridge, and, given the time frame, at this time introduction dates of 70% of the cartridges in the top 10 production longevity list are over a century old…albeit improved over time. This does not imply that other cartridges are not popular, or irrelevant.

* Example of problem improvement: After many years the U.S. Military admitted that the 5.56 mm NATO round was not the best round for accomplishing its current mission (performance) AND that it needed one cartridge at the company level that could be used in both a shoulder fired weapon (5.65 mm NATO) and automatic weapon/machine gun (7.62 mm NATO) (logistics), and after elimination of other cartridges has been quite seriously testing the 6.8mmX51 mm SIG for gradual replacement of both cartridges.

 

[HD-Ghost]

Interesting note: During the NATO trials back in the 40-50s, the rifle that won the tests was the FAL, and the cartridge a .280. Being the good old USA, we went with the M14 and the .30 cal. 75 yrs later, the .280 won again!