375 or 458
- Thread starter brybenn
- Start date
Rod;
As Dogleg said, cartridge families are not based on time line but those of very similar case design, sharing case head dimensions, shoulder placement and most importantly case length, give or take .050". I read way back that there was another reason Win did not do a 30-338 which was the obvious logical step, was due to the fact there was some deal or infringement with the 308 NM which was legitimized by Norma in 1960. There had been no end of 2.5-2.6" belted wildcats in 30 cal up till then but Norma beat Win to the gate with their 308 NM. Winchester also did not wish to make a cartridge that could be fired in a 308 NM for liability reasons as well as sales reasons, obviously. And vise versa, they did not wish to build a rifle which would readily fire 308 NM loads. The 308 NM was designed and built for the US marketplace as 30s were not popular in Europe, the land of metrics. In doing so I seem to remember something about a patent or proprietary rights Norma registered in the US. (Anybody can feel free to correct me on this, if I'm mistaken, I'm going from memory of something I read 30 or more years ago) Therefore Winchester would have to introduce a cartridge significantly different from the .458 based 308 NM so as to not infringe on patents or proprietary design. Hence the 300 WM which is most definately enough different so as to meet this crteria. It was therefore placed far enough outside the .458 family of cartridges so as to not be considered part of the family, thus my hairsplitting earlier.
The 300 Winchester Magnum is therefore considered part of the shortened and improved 300 H+H family, not the 2.5" necked down .458 family of cartridges.
Douglas
As Dogleg said, cartridge families are not based on time line but those of very similar case design, sharing case head dimensions, shoulder placement and most importantly case length, give or take .050". I read way back that there was another reason Win did not do a 30-338 which was the obvious logical step, was due to the fact there was some deal or infringement with the 308 NM which was legitimized by Norma in 1960. There had been no end of 2.5-2.6" belted wildcats in 30 cal up till then but Norma beat Win to the gate with their 308 NM. Winchester also did not wish to make a cartridge that could be fired in a 308 NM for liability reasons as well as sales reasons, obviously. And vise versa, they did not wish to build a rifle which would readily fire 308 NM loads. The 308 NM was designed and built for the US marketplace as 30s were not popular in Europe, the land of metrics. In doing so I seem to remember something about a patent or proprietary rights Norma registered in the US. (Anybody can feel free to correct me on this, if I'm mistaken, I'm going from memory of something I read 30 or more years ago) Therefore Winchester would have to introduce a cartridge significantly different from the .458 based 308 NM so as to not infringe on patents or proprietary design. Hence the 300 WM which is most definately enough different so as to meet this crteria. It was therefore placed far enough outside the .458 family of cartridges so as to not be considered part of the family, thus my hairsplitting earlier.
The 300 Winchester Magnum is therefore considered part of the shortened and improved 300 H+H family, not the 2.5" necked down .458 family of cartridges.
Douglas
Douglas . . . Winchester Short Magnum refers to a "family" of cartridges developed by Winchester in the late 1950s and early 1960s, all based on the same basic cartridge case. The basic case was a "short magnum", meaning it would work through a standard 30-06 length rifle action rather than requiring the longer magnum, 375 & 300 Holland and Holland, actions. . Moving the shoulder forward or slightly lengthening the case does not take anything away from this classification. . Tapered straight wall, bottleneck , shoulders moved forward, etc. doesn't change the family of 4 Winchester Short Magnums of that time frame based on the same case. . Numerous belted magnums, of the day, used the two H&H case head designs . . .Weatherby, Norma, Winchester, Remington etc.
The 308 NM is also longer than the 458 WM. . Winchester stretching the case to accomodate the 300 WM, doesn't matter. . All four Winchester short magnums were and still are considered the original "Winchester Short Magnums" based on the same case and that was the 458 WM. . The 38-55 WCF case was longer than all the subsequent chamberings that followed. . 32-40 WCF, 25-35 WCF, 30 WCF and 32 Win. Spec. . Doesn't matter, all are of the same case family. . 38-55 ammo available today is slightly shorter than Winchester's original 38-55 offerings as they're currently loading the 38-55 using the 30-30 case length. . Slight case length variance longer or shorter doesn't mean it's a different classification no more than the design difference between the calibers does. . Splitting hairs, maybe one way to describe the difference.
The 308 NM is also longer than the 458 WM. . Winchester stretching the case to accomodate the 300 WM, doesn't matter. . All four Winchester short magnums were and still are considered the original "Winchester Short Magnums" based on the same case and that was the 458 WM. . The 38-55 WCF case was longer than all the subsequent chamberings that followed. . 32-40 WCF, 25-35 WCF, 30 WCF and 32 Win. Spec. . Doesn't matter, all are of the same case family. . 38-55 ammo available today is slightly shorter than Winchester's original 38-55 offerings as they're currently loading the 38-55 using the 30-30 case length. . Slight case length variance longer or shorter doesn't mean it's a different classification no more than the design difference between the calibers does. . Splitting hairs, maybe one way to describe the difference.
Actually Rod the original 32-40 was exactly the same length as the 38-55, but again splitting hairs. I will ackowledge That the 300 WM is of the Short belted Magnum classification of the early 60s. But I cannot agree that it is .458 family because it is .110" longer and the shoulder is significantly farther ahead. Apparently to proprietary definitions and/or patents .110" is enough of a difference to remove it from a specific family or cartridges and move it into a class all it's own. Anyway we both know what we mean, so splitting hairs it is, I'm sure you get my drift and possibly I'm just talking further down the refinement ladder.
