Their is nothing new about it from a technology stand point. Nothing is dumber for a consumer than to be stuck with something that only one company has rights too. Look what happened to Beta Max not only was their issues with tape length but Sony was stingy at first with licensing the technology and that is why it lost out! Same thing goes for Sony Mini-Disc. Anyone remember Chrysler doing their own thing with radio dimensions and lugnut being lefty tighty righty loosey just the opposite of the rest of the market in America sure it made people go to the dealership for even common parts but it hurt sales and loyalty in the long run. So much so that they needed a bail-out in the form of zero interest loans and a non-compete contract for the M1 Battle Tank and it's terrible turbine engine design which was no-compete contract as well! So proprietary seldom means anything good in many area's rifle cartridges being one of those area's!
I would love for you to educate us all on what "New Technology" if any of the PRC cartridges. In fact there is so little new in brass cartridges that outside of the powders today designed to fuel large capacity magnums the Americans and Germans could easily of made the 300 PRC or 6.5 PRC in 1903 or sooner. If you went back in time and gave them the aerodynamic info you would need to design a VLD bullet they could manufacture the bullets of modern aerodynamics. Like wise progressive stamping was in use in WWI to make the German Army Helmets so quality brass was not an issue. If you gave the Germans, Americans, French the idea of a partition bullet or the idea to solidly solder or bond the lead alloy to the gilding metal jacket the technology for that was also readily available. Most of the things we take for granted today where not technological advancements in manufacturing it was the idea to do it or that it was needed. Concentricity of jackets and cases could not be as tight as today but man power was so cheap you would just focus on sorting them better.
You save maybe 4 ounces in total weight going to a short action instead of a long action that is it. Shorter actions are not more accurate than longer actions or cannon breeches with interrupted threads instead of distinct lugs would be in use especially for BR competition or Remington Rolling Blocks would be the most accurate actions on Earth given their stiffness. These shorter cartridges do not do anything substantially better than cartridges from 1945-1970 do! The brass is the same old technology and materials, the powders on the market have not radically changed in the last 10 years not enough to amount to much. Primers same old technology. Bullet material technology nothing really new same lead alloys and same choices for gilding(sp) metals used. Actions and Barrel materials and technologies and ignition systems.
So the emperor has no clothes in the following area's:
1)Newer cartridges have new technology baring powders and VLD aerodynamics in materials or designs that could not have been achieved with WWII technology.
2)Short actions are more accurate than longer actions.
3)Steels used today for rifle receivers and barrels offers a meaningful improvement over those in use since WWII.
That does not mean their is not more advanced technology that we could use only that it is not in common use in this market segment. All of the modern design changes made post WWII have been made mostly to make a rifle cheaper. The Remington 700, Winchester Model 70 push feed, Savage 110 where all designed to make a rifle cheaper than a Mauser LR action. There is not a single action mass produced rifle today that is better than what was designed 1898 to about 1903. Now their are elements of many modern push feed round bar stock actions with out one piece forged bolts that make it far easier to achieve incredible accuracy much more consistently than older designs. Sadly the accuracy potential was not the reason for these designs each one of them and more have all come out of cost reduction. Every new rifle design is a step backwards in strength, durability, reliability, ease of maintenance and repair in field! The use of MIM, Sintered Metal and Cast parts does not improve anything that is about cost savings primarily. Making a bolt from many tiny components is not to make it better it is to make it cheaper.
The only thing that has really improved is the ease at which we can consistently build in mass production to tighter clearances and less tolerance stacking if we want too!
The weak point in a rifle is the brass which is why we do not see more advanced steels in use even though we have some incredible steels today. In fact far better steels could be used in barrel making but it would be much harder on tooling which drives up cost. In fact if you look at what Marlin made just a Decade or so ago compared to the more modern Remington made Marlins you see that the fit, finish, clearances and tolerances of the Marlins made a decade ago are much better to what is being made today. That is true of mechanical fit and cosmetic fit and the cosmetic finish and the metal to wood fitment.
I should add that BRNO/CZ/Howa for example these companies offer many different steels for barrels that the importer can select from other than just 416R and 41XX steels.
LW and the former BlackStar barrel company that used LW SS barrels had all kinds of Gunsmiths crying a river because their SS was so much harder to machine than 4140/4150 and 416R. You needed higher speeds, harder tooling and better coolant/lubricant to machine well. Not sure if they still use the same steel or if gunsmiths just got better tooling. This was about 15-20 years ago. So do not make me laugh when talking technology and mass produced rifles.
The former Chech. Republic was using CHF barrels on the M48 Mausers and SKS's they made post WWII. The Norwegian 7.62x51 barrels that everyone loves and call "match grade" or "Competition" barrels were also CHF. I think the only difference is it was not a rotary process as advanced as we see today. I think the difference was that chambers could not be hammered in and a separate profiling step was needed but I am not 100% sure on that. I think the Germans perfected CHF during WWII so even that is old technology.
Nothing really new or hi-tech in the Rifle and Rifle Cartridge world! In just about every way designs far better than what you can buy new today have been in the market place long before today! Keep in mind that Roy Weatherby had a lot of cartridges in the market by 1945. I think he his Mark V action came out between 56 and 68 I think so chew on that and then come talk to me about Technology in rifle actions and cartridges! LOL
