@T4tomo, I think it's fair to say we've 'stablished that:
The UN-300 is made in the same way as most inexpensive cartridge BBs, with a central alloy section containing the bearings (one each side) held in place by two end pieces which screw into the shell. One of the endpieces is permanently bonded (glued) to the central body.
The UN-55 differs because the central section and the drive side end (threaded) is one alloy piece. But bearings both ends have to be pressed in the same way. I think, in the scheme of things, it would be fair to describe this as a "significantly different construction".
Both models have metal end-pieces*. All the bearings have been pressed into place 'the same way'. Not sure we can say whether the seal design/quality differs. I can't see why Shimano would change that, going from 55 to 300, but I don't know. So ingress of water+ is just as easy (difficult) for both models, with subsequent corrosion or not.
The UN-55 had/s a strong reputation and it's fair to say that's because of its sustained performance over millions of km. Estimate of its longevity is high, with low uncertainty, based on a mass of anecdata.
Estimates of the UN-300's longevity are subject to considerable uncertainty because there's as yet insufficient data.
As for
@rogerzilla 's relating the suggestion that UN-300 failure may be due to over tightening, I really can't see any basis for that. All cartridge bearings are screwed in both sides nice and tight (49-69Nm). What would be the mechanism for over-tightening causing damage to the
bearings?
*Unlike the UN-26 and its peers which have a plastic end piece on the left hand side, which over time (years) is weakened and can be a pain to get out as its splines fracture unless you're are super careful.