is WSM really more accurate?
- Thread starter SanQ
- Start date
john-brennan
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Vancouver Island B.C.
Rembo said:
I agree, have own both and still own the WSM, i found that it shoots a broad range of bullts better in the rifle i own, but the 270 Win. has killed more deer than anything i have ever owned to date.
- Location
- Saskatoon, SK
There is absolutely no difference in accuracy and ballistics are virtually identical between the .300WM and .300WSM as an example.
I made some easy money proving that the wsms are not necessarily more accurate than my 300 ultramags after a wsm owner shot off his mouth too much at the local range.The quality of the rifle and proper loads for the rifle mean much more than the chambering.
stubblejumper said:
Now correct me if I'm wrong here, but the Ultramags follow the same fat body, sharp shoulder concept as the short mags, don't they? So somebody really thought that the extra 5 degree shoulder angle on a WSM was going to make an accuracy difference?
Money well earned in that case.
BBB said:
The shortmags share the short n' fat powder column of the most successful benchrest cartridges (6mm PPC, 22 PPC, 6mm BR, etc.), a fact Winchester used to kind of imply that their WSM were somehow as accurate as the benchrest standards.
Of course, they don't share the benchrest-standard small flash holes and small primer pockets, and they use magnum primers, all of which pretty much takes them out of the running for anything the benchrest community considers 'real' accuracy. But, they look the same and it's good ad copy, so...
I've never heard them claim the shoulder angle had anything to do with accuracy, but they do claim that they're more accurate than 'standard' belted magnums because they headspace on the shoulder, not on the belt. Not only is this a long ways from accepted engineering fact, most belted magnums _don't actually headspace on the belt_. The only reason they have the belt is because the case designs were taken from the ol' H&H .375 (or really, the .300). The 7mm Rem, 338 Win, 264 Win, 300 Win, all headspace on the shoulder. So even in the unlikely event that shoulder was somehow more accurate than belt, it would be a non-issue because all the rest of the magnums already headspace on the shoulder.
The Rem Ultra Mags are ginormous, tall (i.e not 'short n' fat') sort of super magnums based on the .404 Jeffrey. They use a rebated rim AND a beltless case to maximize case capacity in a standard magnum-length action and bolt face. Nobody's claiming that they're more accurate, just that they're HUGE and very fast. Imagine seating a bullet right in the mouth of a 1 lb. can of Retumbo--that's pretty much the design principle behind the RUMs.
Bishopus said:
You're going to have to excuse my ignorance, I'm afraid, because I was out of the hunting rag scene when all the short-fat hype broke, and, while I've been trying to catch up ever since, the internet is at least as good at misinforming as it is at informing.
Now I'm catching what you're throwing with the short length, fat-base idea - more complete ignition off the spark. But I've also heard from more than one person on the net that it's the shoulder angle that concentrates the burn below the base of the bullet that also contributes to increased accuracy.
Now I realize we're off on a totally hypothetical tangent here, because I'm betting we both agree that any increase in accuracy from either a short length to width ratio or the shoulder angle is going to be completely unobservable in a hunting rifle.
But were the original Winchester increased accuracy claims just based off that length to width ratio, or am I the only one who heard that there was some crazy Weatherby-style venturi voodoo going on with the case shoulder that contributed as well?
BBB said:
Which came out first, Remington's Ultramags or Winchester's WSM's. ??? I'll go along with Stubblejumper too. Anyone putting money on a chambering and shooting against someone else who's rifle he doen't know is foolish.
BIGREDD said:Gee wiz... lots of experts here.
No facts though.... this is just another bash the short mags thread... absolutely meaningless.
I don't think anyone is bashing them Red. Arent short mags known more for their velocity vs accuracy ??
I sold my .270 to get a .270 wsm based on the fact I got alittle more velocity and liked the short action.
It would be interesting to see a test done with the same rifle under the same conditions to see which is more accurate vs some hear say on a gun range.
