Every "specific need" has long since been filled. Long since. Firearms manufacturers have a long, proud history of introducing proprietary cartridges and trying to convince us they fill a "specific need" as of yet unfilled. It's all marketing b.s., for the most part.

That said, even once in a blue moon, they actually do just that. The latest example of a new, unique cartridge that fills a heretofore unfilled "need" is the new .350 Legend. It's important to point out, however, that this one does not fill a ballistic need, but a rather contrived legal need.

Many midwestern states do not allow centerfire rifles for deer hunting. In years past, these were "shotgun only" states. Some allowed handguns as well, so long as they fired straight cased ammunition originally intended for handguns. No .30-30 Contenders, in other words.

Well, eventually this evolved into allowing rifles that fire straight cased "handgun" rounds. Why not? The effective range, and downrange danger, is about the same. Eventually this kept even more towards rifles, allowing straight cased rifle rounds, like the .45-70, .444 Marlin, .375 Winchester, etc.

So, eventually, someone saw a "gap" to be filled. None of those straight cased rounds function in an AR platform. Hence, the .350 Legend. It's no more than the .223 straightened out to accept .35 caliber bullets. Kind of a "rules beater". Interestingly, Winchester chose to go with .355" bullets (same diameter as the 9mm), rather than the .357" used in all previous .35 caliber rifles (and the .357 mag / .38 Special).

Other than that, however, I don't think I've seen a real "need" filled in my lifetime. Oh, maybe one or two more to fit AR platforms, but that's about it.

Thanks Jeff. Your knowledge astounds me.

Does it feel like innovation in firearm design has really slowed in the last couple of decades?

Makes sense if so, as guns are very mature technology.

In military small arms, the efforts to develop caseless and/or multi-projectile ammunition (flechettes etc) fizzled out long ago. The new US XM5 military rifle / XM250 light machine gun have a new ammunition that is kind of interesting, but the biggest technological advancement seems like the Fire Control system (aiming computer).

In semi-auto pistols, almost everything is a John Browning-derived tilting barrel mashup of 1911 and Glock. Most of the cool alternative mechanisms have died out. Not entirely - the Laugo Alien is breaking the mold with a super-interesting gas operated, fixed barrel design which places the gas and recoil systems above the barrel - but try and get your hands on an Alien.

One of my favorite stories stems from Remington's introduction, in the late 1970's / early 1980's of their new 8mm Remington Magnum. It was a "full length" magnum cartridge, as opposed to the "standard length" magnums that had by then become popular. "Full length" magnums are things like the .375 and .300 H&H, too long to fit standard length Mauser, Springfield, and similar actions. The "standard length" magnums like the .300 Winchester, 7mm Remington, etc. will fit those Mauser and Springfield actions. A big advantage, commercially, but somewhat compromised ballistically.

One of the most popular (and best) "standard length" magnums for Western elk, brown bear, and moose hunting has been, since the 1950's, the .338 Winchester Magnum. It was the standardization of the old .333 and .334 OKH wildcats, or "O'Neil, Keith, Haskins". Their .333 OKH was just a necked up .30-'06 case (to fit "standard length" actions), the .334 a necked up .300 H&H case (to fit "magnum length" actions). Both used .333 diameter bullets used in a few British cartridges, and provided a useful increase in bullet weight (they liked 300 grain bullets, sometimes 275 grain) over the .30 calibers. Winchester, for whatever reason, chose .338 diameter instead, and introduced the standard length .338 Win Mag.

Well, Remington felt left out. They chambered their Model 700 in that cartridge, but wanted their own. Being that the Model 700 is a full magnum length action, and they had resounding success with their 7mm Remington Magnum, they felt that capitalizing on the metric name similarity, and utilizing the full length of a magnum case, they had a winner and a worthy competitor to the rival .338 in their 8mm Remington Magnum. This one uses .323 diameter bullets of about 225 grains, at a bit more velocity than the .338's standard 250 grain load. Not one hell of a lot of difference, really.

So they built rifles, loaded ammo, and got ready for their big splash in the market. They invited all of the biggest, most noteworthy gun writers of the day to a multi day elk hunt and unveiling. First day started with the "press conference", wherein a Remington engineer presented overheads, gave a nice presentation, and opened the floor up for questions. And there were many, with a very polite and interesting exchange. There was one gun writer, however, sitting all the way in the back, who didn't ask any questions, never said a word. His name was Elmer Keith...

So, in deference to and out of respect for the "Dean of American Gun Writers", the poor Remington engineer made the mistake of asking Mr. Keith if he had any questions or comments. Old Elmer didn't hesitate to respond.

"What the hell good is it?"

That one, single, now infamous question essentially let the air out of Remington's whole program. Try finding 8mm Remington Magnum ammo today. A hunting buddy bought one in about 1984. He could not find factory ammo by the late 1980's. Stillborn. All of the plans, investment, marketing - the full might of what was then the largest rifle manufacturer in the United States - dashed by one simple question from some old, irascible Idaho cowboy who knew his way around guns. That question still occurs to me to this very day every time I see something "new" in the firearms industry.