RCBS .284 Win FL dies or RCBS .284 SB FL dies

[BrassMagnet]

Anyone out there interested in RCBS .284 Win FL dies or RCBS .284 Win SB FL dies?

[Sweetpea]

I wish I did...

I had a line on a Wichester model 100 in 284 Win a while back...

Turns out the guy had no clue... Springfield in plain 'ol '06...:groner:

[HighHook]

I just picked up a rem 722 in 284 win. I am interested! Any 284 brass?

[BrassMagnet]

I was under the impression the .284 Win was a hot little target round. I thought there would be more interest in this caliber. Anybody interested?

[labradigger1]

I have a neighbor that has a winchester model 100 in 284, he always talks about how much he loves that gun and he can no longer find ammo for it. He now uses a 280 remington in its place. He says he still misses the 284.
Lab

[1Shirt]

Like a lot of other cartridges, the 284 is excellent, BUT--------it did not have a great appeal to the shooting masses obviously! Accordingly, it like a lot of other excellent cartridges have fallen by the wayside. And yet, the rifle makers and ammo makers keep introducing new wizbang cartridges every year, destined to go the way of the buggy whip. Some of it is due to lousy marketing on the part of the mfg, and a classic example of that is/was the 358 Win, quite possibly the best of all of the 35 rifle ctgs. There are exceptions of course like the 22-250 which was a wildcat for so many years, until Remington standardized it, and now it has made for the most part the 220Swift dead in the water.

Lets face it, we (the shooting public) don't need any new wizbang cartridges, as the time tested and consumer approved cartridges prove. Why else do we have 30-30, the hornet, 30-06, 270, 243, 223, 375H&H, and of course the 45-70? Of course, a percentage of these started out as military ctgs, and they were pass down rifles from grandfather, to son, to grand son, etc. And of course there was(probably still is) the influence of writers like Jack O'Connor promoting the 270. If we had only the cartridges I have listed in this paragraph, we would not suffer and would probably kill as much paper and game as we do now.

But, I suspect that Rem, Win, Ruger, Marlin, etc. will next year and the year after produce a new wizbang cartridge. They will be marketed as the best thing since sliced white bread and dry toilet paper. The gun writers will do their bit to produce opinionated articles telling how good they are, and what outstading results they get from the 17-308, or the reinvented new 25-350 Remington, or some such. And the beat goes on, and the beat goes on.

1Shirt!

[BrassMagnet]

Like a lot of other cartridges, the 284 is excellent, BUT--------it did not have a great appeal to the shooting masses obviously! Accordingly, it like a lot of other excellent cartridges have fallen by the wayside. And yet, the rifle makers and ammo makers keep introducing new wizbang cartridges every year, destined to go the way of the buggy whip. Some of it is due to lousy marketing on the part of the mfg, and a classic example of that is/was the 358 Win, quite possibly the best of all of the 35 rifle ctgs. There are exceptions of course like the 22-250 which was a wildcat for so many years, until Remington standardized it, and now it has made for the most part the 220Swift dead in the water.

Lets face it, we (the shooting public) don't need any new wizbang cartridges, as the time tested and consumer approved cartridges prove. Why else do we have 30-30, the hornet, 30-06, 270, 243, 223, 375H&H, and of course the 45-70? Of course, a percentage of these started out as military ctgs, and they were pass down rifles from grandfather, to son, to grand son, etc. And of course there was(probably still is) the influence of writers like Jack O'Connor promoting the 270. If we had only the cartridges I have listed in this paragraph, we would not suffer and would probably kill as much paper and game as we do now.

But, I suspect that Rem, Win, Ruger, Marlin, etc. will next year and the year after produce a new wizbang cartridge. They will be marketed as the best thing since sliced white bread and dry toilet paper. The gun writers will do their bit to produce opinionated articles telling how good they are, and what outstading results they get from the 17-308, or the reinvented new 25-350 Remington, or some such. And the beat goes on, and the beat goes on.

1Shirt!

Gun Magazines are in the business of selling products. It is almost impossible to get a negative review out of them.
I got so tired of Guns & Ammo having a new super-duper hunting rifle every three months which I just had to buy. The articles always seemed to start off "a slicked up 03A3," or "a slicked up K98," or similar! Those articles had me fed up. Then I read an article and I knew I had seen it before. One of the photos was wrong, backwards or something. I was able to dig through my back issues and find the same article with the same screwed up photo and a couple of months later I saw the same letter to the editor about the photo and the same apology. Can you say same BS over and over sold as new articles? And yes, I still have the proof. It may take me a while to find it, but I still have it.
I have not found recycled articles in Rifle or Handloader. I still subscribe to them.