Short actions vs. Long actions
- Thread starter whammy
- Start date
depending on what rifle you are looking at the action length may be the same anyway...Tikka T3's are all the same length and I "hear" that the Sako 85's in short mags are the same length as a standard belted mag receiver...haven't handled them side by side so I'm not 100% positive on this. I'm sure some Sako owner will let us know.
manbearpig
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Somewhere in the Third World
savage uses a separate action for their short and long actions... but their SA receiver is actually a little longer than other factory rifles.
check out the Ruger Hawkeye M77s, come in both .300 win mag and .338 win mag for $599 at SIR Mailorder, and come with Ruger ringmounts (so you save about $100 there as well).
i like savages but if you are nearing the $550-600 bracket with them the Ruger is a much better rifle.
check out the Ruger Hawkeye M77s, come in both .300 win mag and .338 win mag for $599 at SIR Mailorder, and come with Ruger ringmounts (so you save about $100 there as well).
i like savages but if you are nearing the $550-600 bracket with them the Ruger is a much better rifle.
- Location
- southern saskatchewan
mag cap
Magazine capacity is usually less on the short mags.
Magazine capacity is usually less on the short mags.
Advantages/disadvantages? A long action will hold longer cartridges because it is... well, longer. A short action will make a slightly shorter rifle be cause it is...well, shorter.
I think short actions are great for the 308 family of cartridges. I you want a magnum, get a long action and a real magnum. Regards, Bill.
I think short actions are great for the 308 family of cartridges. I you want a magnum, get a long action and a real magnum. Regards, Bill.
Long actions often require a long scope or a one piece rail. There is a LA Savage under my wrist as I type, I was putting on a Farrel one piece rail to check the fit.
I dislike the belted magnum more than real smiths dislike the wsm.
What is this rifle's intended use?
Cheers
I dislike the belted magnum more than real smiths dislike the wsm.
What is this rifle's intended use?
Cheers
a bit off topic maybe,but....I wonder how many "real smiths" disliked the PPC when it started beating up the 222 on the benchrest curcuit....if there were any, and I'm assuming there were, I wonder what they would think of the PPC's now......
Rembo,
All the real 'smiths who shot BR jumped on that PPC wagon pretty quickly. Only occasionally did some contrarian try the old 222 family. I know L.E. Wilson was shooting a 223 when most others had switched to PPC's. When the BR came out, a significant number of competitors used it as well. If today's Lapua brass had been available back then, the 6BR would have been more popular.
Philosophically speaking, there was a difference between the PPC and today's WSM's. The PPC was not a hunting cartridge. It was developed as an accuracy round and it had some real advantage over the cartridge it supplanted (the 6x47 Remington). The brass was stronger and capacity was just enough greater to allow some slower burning powders to work better. The WSM has no real advantage over the cartridges it is purported to replace.
The other really big difference is that the PPC was developed by a shooter (Lou Palmisano) and a gunsmith (Ferris Pindell)rather than an advertising dept.
As far actions are concerned, I like short ones just fine but if I was looking for a short actioed hunting rifle I would just as soon use a 308. Regards, Bill
All the real 'smiths who shot BR jumped on that PPC wagon pretty quickly. Only occasionally did some contrarian try the old 222 family. I know L.E. Wilson was shooting a 223 when most others had switched to PPC's. When the BR came out, a significant number of competitors used it as well. If today's Lapua brass had been available back then, the 6BR would have been more popular.
Philosophically speaking, there was a difference between the PPC and today's WSM's. The PPC was not a hunting cartridge. It was developed as an accuracy round and it had some real advantage over the cartridge it supplanted (the 6x47 Remington). The brass was stronger and capacity was just enough greater to allow some slower burning powders to work better. The WSM has no real advantage over the cartridges it is purported to replace.
The other really big difference is that the PPC was developed by a shooter (Lou Palmisano) and a gunsmith (Ferris Pindell)rather than an advertising dept.
As far actions are concerned, I like short ones just fine but if I was looking for a short actioed hunting rifle I would just as soon use a 308. Regards, Bill
BC Bigbore
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- BC's Peace Country
I have both and don't see a dime's worth of difference between 'em for ordinary run-of-the-mill hunting rifles. Now if I was building some fancy-ass lightweight sheep rifle or a bench rest target gun, I'd take a SA just to save an oz or two or gain the supposed stiffness for .0002" gains of accuracy. Other than marketing hype, go with whatever you like.
Short or long (actions, that is!)
Since the opinions seem to confirm little preference in action length, that sure shoots the reason for getting a 308, instead of a 30-06!
A 30-06 is much better for reloading, including a great variety in bullet weights. Also, a much better variety of powder that can be used efficiently in the 30-06. Shortly after the 308 came out, many of the multitude of professional gun writers around at that time, stated it was quite difficult for the handloader to equal factory loaded velocity in the 308. They said powders had to be developed especially for the 308, in order to achieve the factory velocities. With the pressure limits lower for the 30-06 than it is for the 308, or 270, it is easier for an experienced reloader with a modern bolt action rifle, to attain considerable more power, especially with heavier bullets, than is possible with the 308.
Lighter recoil with the 308, you say? Then load the 30-06 a bit lighter. It is very adaptable for lighter, accurate loads.
Since the opinions seem to confirm little preference in action length, that sure shoots the reason for getting a 308, instead of a 30-06!
A 30-06 is much better for reloading, including a great variety in bullet weights. Also, a much better variety of powder that can be used efficiently in the 30-06. Shortly after the 308 came out, many of the multitude of professional gun writers around at that time, stated it was quite difficult for the handloader to equal factory loaded velocity in the 308. They said powders had to be developed especially for the 308, in order to achieve the factory velocities. With the pressure limits lower for the 30-06 than it is for the 308, or 270, it is easier for an experienced reloader with a modern bolt action rifle, to attain considerable more power, especially with heavier bullets, than is possible with the 308.
Lighter recoil with the 308, you say? Then load the 30-06 a bit lighter. It is very adaptable for lighter, accurate loads.
The game will get just as dead no matter what you shoot it with. Others will have different opinions than yourself but that doesn't mean whatever you choose is inferior in any form, get whatever you feel like shooting. I can't answer for you because I'm not in your shoes but for kicks I might get the Model 14 325wsm.
Enjoy your new rifle,
Cheers,
Rob
Enjoy your new rifle,
Cheers,
Rob
Rembo,
That's a great description of short mag performance; They weren't bad at all. What a level of accomplishment to which one can aspire, not bad at all. That something is not a dismal failure does not make it a success. If the only reason for the short mag is to enable the use of a short action, that's a p-poor reason.
Now, if a company produced a rifle with an action which would not accomodate a long cartridge, it might make sense to develope a cartridge which would work in the present action rather than produce a longer action. Ruger's 375 is an example of a cartridge which is made to fit the action while giving performance equal to the cartridge which is too long to fit. Similar cartridge developments include the 284 and the 6.5 and 350 Rem mags. They were produced to fit in existing short actions. They also achieved the same lofty goal as today's short mags. They weren't that bad.
Back to the question at hand; If one wants a short compact rifle, he may want to use a short action just for appearance's sake if nothing else. If he does elect to go with a short action he may or may not decide to go with a short mag. Regards, Bill.
That's a great description of short mag performance; They weren't bad at all. What a level of accomplishment to which one can aspire, not bad at all. That something is not a dismal failure does not make it a success. If the only reason for the short mag is to enable the use of a short action, that's a p-poor reason.
Now, if a company produced a rifle with an action which would not accomodate a long cartridge, it might make sense to develope a cartridge which would work in the present action rather than produce a longer action. Ruger's 375 is an example of a cartridge which is made to fit the action while giving performance equal to the cartridge which is too long to fit. Similar cartridge developments include the 284 and the 6.5 and 350 Rem mags. They were produced to fit in existing short actions. They also achieved the same lofty goal as today's short mags. They weren't that bad.
Back to the question at hand; If one wants a short compact rifle, he may want to use a short action just for appearance's sake if nothing else. If he does elect to go with a short action he may or may not decide to go with a short mag. Regards, Bill.
- Location
- North Thompson, B.C.
In my limited experience - I had a 6mm Rem. in a short action. I did the work to get the OAL with 100g Hornady BTSP a bit short of the lands....but it was too long for the magazine. I felt cheated. It worked ok with deeper seating, but I haven't bought another short action either. I think the cartridges based on the 7X57 can be borderline in some short actions. I grew up using long action rifles, and I just sort of like the way they look. Just personal preference though.
