Short Magnums. What are they bringing to the field?

Gatehouse said:
Like the 22 WMR?:p
Click to expand...

22_Long,_22_LR,_22_Winchester_Magnum.JPG


Yep, that is a magnum! :D
 
Show me another production 7Mag with a 24" barrel that weighs 6lbs 2oz or less from the factory (that's what my Kimber Montana weighs with Cerakote, bedding, and paint, all of which add a bit of weight) ;)

THAT is what the WSM's do better than other magnums...
 
Jordan Smith said:
Show me another production 7Mag with a 24" barrel that weighs 6lbs 2oz or less from the factory (that's what my Kimber Montana weighs with Cerakote, bedding, and paint, all of which add a bit of weight) ;)

THAT is what the WSM's do better than other magnums...
Click to expand...

x 2 on that, hey Jordan, your not sleeping with that rifle yet are ya?
 
Jordan Smith said:
Show me another production 7Mag with a 24" barrel that weighs 6lbs 2oz or less from the factory (that's what my Kimber Montana weighs with Cerakote, bedding, and paint, all of which add a bit of weight) ;)

THAT is what the WSM's do better than other magnums...
Click to expand...

That would be relevant to the converstaion if somebody actually wanted a 6lb - 300 mag. I've been there and I wouldn't recommend it for most folks. My 300 winmag weighs 8.5 lbs with scope and i can carry it all day. I don't want a 300 mag that weighs less than that.

For a real walk-in mountain hunt I'm going with an ultralight 7-08 and a 22" barrel, thereby saving several more ounces on ammo, not to mention the reduced bbl length. If 4 oz is relevant in a rifle then it is in the ammo, too.
 
Last edited:
jethunter said:
That would be relevant if somebody actually wanted a 6lb - 300 mag. Not me. If I'm going ultralight I'm going 7-08 and saving the extra weight on carryoing ammo, too. If 4 oz is relevant on your rifle then it is in your ammo, too.

My 300 winmag weighs 8.5 lbs with scope and i can carry it all day. I guess i'm super-human because i really don't see any real advantage to the ultralight rifles unless it's mountain hunting and then i'm using a .270 or 7-08.
Click to expand...

Now you've done it. The sheep hunters will be here any second to tell us how a few ounces make all the world of difference when you spend a day climbing mountains.:stirthepot2:

I bet you didn't know that the mountains that sheep inhabit are uphill, both ways......;)
 
Nope, that is it.

Everybody is getting caught up with numbers and percentages and ballistics when in the real actual hunting world it don't mean squat.

Know your rifle, know where it shoots, get confident in it and put a hole in something.

Does 200 ft/sec really matter, or 4.23671% reduction in recoil make a difference, or 2.5 grains powder more capacity?

It is 100% personal preference.

What is more effective,a guy that hits his target with a .257 Roberts or a guy that misses with a .300WSM??

Is that better?

RememberTheSomme said:
Thanks for sharing that point we all were missing Timoffee. They all make holes in things.

Can you throw a little more meat on the discussion plate there, or just going with your string beans?
Click to expand...
 
joe-nwt said:
Now you've done it. The sheep hunters will be here any second to tell us how a few ounces make all the world of difference when you spend a day climbing mountains.:stirthepot2:

I bet you didn't know that the mountains that sheep inhabit are uphill, both ways......;)
Click to expand...


of course, and i tell my kids that i walked 10 miles to school in the winter, barefoot and uphill both ways. :D

Actually i agree with the sheephunters - a light short action in .243, .260, or 7-08 with a 22" barrel and light ammo is what i want when i'm hunting above the treeline and carrying camp with me. Not a 6 lb "magnum". ;)
 
Last edited:
Kelly Timoffee said:
Nope, that is it.

Everybody is getting caught up with numbers and percentages and ballistics when in the real actual hunting world it don't mean squat.

Know you rifle, know where it shoots, get confident in it and put a hole in something.

Does 200 ft/sec really matter, or 4.23671% reduction in recoil make a difference, or 2.5 grains powder more capacity?

It is 100% comes down to personal preference.

What is more effective,a guy that hits his target with a .257 Roberts or a guy that misses with a .300WSM??

Is that better?
Click to expand...

Oh sure, bring common sense into it. ;)

Look at it from the newbs point of view: which is more effective, the guy who hits with a 300 mag or misses with a .257 robbie?:p Because all newbs know that magnums shoot farther and kill deader.
 
jethunter said:
That would be relevant to the converstaion if somebody actually wanted a 6lb - 300 mag. I've been there and I wouldn't recommend it for most folks. My 300 winmag weighs 8.5 lbs with scope and i can carry it all day. I don't want a 300 mag that weighs less than that.

For a real walk-in mountain hunt I'm going with an ultralight 7-08 and a 22" barrel, thereby saving several more ounces on ammo, not to mention the reduced bbl length. If 4 oz is relevant in a rifle then it is in the ammo, too.
Click to expand...

The question is: What do short mags bring to the field?

I responded to that. Short mags may not be for everybody, but there are people out there (such as myself) who want a lightweight magnum. Short mags are the answer. Why do I want a 7Mag over a lighter-weight 7-08? Because I just do. I shoot long quite frequently, and the less wind drift, the better. I've also hauled 8.5lbs rifles up mountains, gaining a couple thousand meters in elevation in 4 hours, and I'll gladly carry a 7lbs rifle instead of a 8.5 pounder. More velocity and power don't hurt, either, when you have to get through grizzly-infested bush to get up to the sheep or elk ;)
 
Jordan Smith said:
The question is: What do short mags bring to the field?

I responded to that. Short mags may not be for everybody, but there are people out there (such as myself) who want a lightweight magnum. Short mags are the answer. Why do I want a 7Mag over a lighter-weight 7-08? Because I just do. I shoot long quite frequently, and the less wind drift, the better. I've also hauled 8.5lbs rifles up mountains, gaining a couple thousand meters in elevation in 4 hours, and I'll gladly carry a 7lbs rifle instead of a 8.5 pounder. More velocity and power don't hurt, either, when you have to get through grizzly-infested bush to get up to the sheep or elk ;)
Click to expand...

There you finally found a valid reason to justify the short mags - because you like it.

The short magnums don't improve performance over the long magnums and they weigh more than the real lightweights. OTOH they work pretty well and are as capable as the long mags and that's not damning with faint praise.

Personally I'll live with the non-existant loss of defensive capability that my 7-08 lightweight suffers compared to your 7mm shorty :p because when it comes to climbing mountains I do like lightweight rifles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom