Long vs Short Action??????

[BIGREDD]

Geez I just reread this thread... it is still pretty funny!
I noticed that "RickF" asked repeatedly what kind of groups I get from my long action rilfes.
I apologize for not answering your query Rick and admit that I got caught up in a spirited debate with Phib over fly#### in pepper.
I will respond to your posts one at a time.

Apparently I'm a naysayer too. Too bad, it appears that 20+ years handloading experience with over 70 rifles, 15 or so custom on long and short actions pales in experience to the "cut and paste" experts so prevalent here.
If you want a short mag, great. But to brow beat others because of your opinion and rhetoric gets old. Show me an animal that will ever know the difference between a 270Win and the 270WSM, and we can talk. Even better, we can compare the mighty WSM to my 28" custom barreled 270Wby on a Ruger #1. Might be illuminating, but would hate for empirical results to get in the way. Cartridge arguments can be entertaining, but make damned little difference once you drop the computer mouse and go to the field.

I was not brow beating anyone but only arguing the facts as they apply.
I am in the field almost every day Rick and I can attest to the advantages of an extra 200 fps and accuracy has made on long range killing ability.
Your "empirical" mention of the superbly overbore 270WTHBY as some kind of comparison certainly suggests you value the extra velocity over the standard .270 as well. But it does nothing to bolster your argument against Short Mags or Short actions.
Your modest 20+ years of experience is commendable but your assumption that others here have less experience than you is imprudent. Trotting out numbers of guns to qualify your experience is somewhat like using numbers of kills to prove ability. I find a persons knowledge is evidenced by his ability to elucidate and debate with facts.

Bigredd, in your experience with long and short actions just what level of accuracy have you gotten from both, and what difference would you expect of the two in a hunting configuration rifle?

What level of accuracy, velocity and case life are you getting with your short fats?

I get longer case life out of my .270WSM than I did from any of my bolt action rifles... I actually have not retired any .270WSM brass as of yet and one particular set of 20 matched brass has been loaded nine times.The 25WSSM has tripled my case life over the 25-06 as well.
The question of accuracy is ambivalent in its relevence... but I will answer it thus... I get sub MOA groups at longer ranges and more consistently with the 270WSSM I am now shooting than any other .270 I have owned. Not withstanding, I have seen many long actions that will shoot sub MOA groups as well. My 25WSSM is a factory Browning that is the most accurate factory rifle I have ever seen. I actually am shooting with a very accomplished shooter using a Sako Custom Single in 6PPC right now... and it is very close.
In a hunting rifle the difference between a Short Mag and a Standard caliber is not just measured in velocity and accuracy but in recoil, rifle wieght and ergonomic function. I consider the Short Mags advantageous over a long action rifle because of all these factors.
I hope that answers your question.

 

[Jeff/1911]

A short action runs all of 2-3 oz lighter than a long action in a typical M70 or M700. After all, we're talking 2/3" or so here.

In the world of benchrest, a short action is theoretically stiffer. In a sporter weight rifle the minute difference is more in the mind of the shooter than in any real world difference.

If you want a short cartridge, a short action makes sense. But the recent "improvements" come in the form of advertisements convincing us to buy a new rifle. Fun to talk about but nil for real world difference.

The "ancient" 270 Winchester has been around for 80 years, and we haven't yet developed a "better" deer round. I would be very happy with a 270 Win as a deer rifle, and advertising notwithstanding, the new "short fats" are only different, not better.

I couldn't agree more...and besides, factory .270 Winchester ammunition can be found in any sporting goods store shelves along with .30-06, etc.

Jeff.

 

[BIGREDD]

I couldn't agree more...and besides, factory .270 Winchester ammunition can be found in any sporting goods store shelves along with .30-06, etc.

Jeff.

You should do a little research before you agree with that statement Jeff...
First the average weight difference from the Short Mag Action to the regular action in any and all Model 70's is not 2 or 3 ounces it is a minimum of 8 ounces... that is half a pound before you load it!:

Second to suggest that 200fps, 30% less recoil, in a shorter lighter rifle is of no significant advantage for a sporter-weight just because it is used only for hunting... is a very weak argument. They are different yes... and the difference is an improvement for hunting.

I cannot speak for your sporting goods store in the west... but here in the east WSSM's are readily available. And forgetting or running out of bullets of any caliber is the same thing when you are 100 miles from the highway.

Sorry bud. I cannot pass on a good argument/debate.

 

[Levi Garrett]

I would say Short action, why, well you got some excellent deer cartridges that will fit this action length, and every oz of weight saved is a plus at the end of a long day afield.
The ultimate for me would be a 700 SA with a light sporter Match quality barrel of 20-22 inch length, and topped with a 10-11 oz scope of good quality.
Frank

 

[1899]

You should do a little research before you agree with that statement Jeff...
First the average weight difference from the Short Mag Action to the regular action in any and all Model 70's is not 2 or 3 ounces it is a minimum of 8 ounces... that is half a pound before you load it!:

A long action Remington 700BDL weighs 2lbs 7oz
A short action Remington 700BDL weighs 2lbs 4oz

A long action Ruger weighs 2lbs 8.5oz
A short action Ruger weighs 2lbs 6oz.

I could not find the weight of Winchester actions, but why is there only a 2.5-3oz difference in Remington and Ruger actions, but an 8oz difference in Winchester actions?

Second to suggest that 200fps, 30% less recoil, in a shorter lighter rifle is of no significant advantage for a sporter-weight just because it is used only for hunting... is a very weak argument. They are different yes... and the difference is an improvement for hunting.

I still don't get this lowered recoil thing. If a 7mm WSM is loaded with the max charge of 70.0gr of Retumbo, and a 160gr Swift gives a velocity of 2958fps. The 7mm RM uses 69.5gr of Retumbo under a 160gr Partition to give 2915fps.
How can it be possible that the 7mm WSM would recoil less? It defies the laws of physics.
Maybe the question I have is: The recoil is 30% less than what? Are you implying that the .270 WSM will give you 200fps more velocity, with 30% less recoil than a .270 Win?

 

[RickF]

Biggredd,

Thanks for the reply. The reason I mentioned my experience is that I find too many people on here argue with rhetoric and "cutting and pasting" arguements. We can all do that, we would be better served by relating actual experience. Of course we can't all relate experience, so it gets downplayed. Rhetoric is cheap and easy.

Re action weights, 1899 already covered it. I have owned both, custom and factory, in M70 rifles. 3 oz...that's it. Actual experience there.

Action lengths? Arguing shorter is more accurate is more fly#### in pepper. In a properly bedded, straight action with good barrel and straight ammo, a long action factory sporter will shoot right along with a short action sporter.




It's fun to debate this, but there's too many guys on here who shoot too. What impresses the one-box-a-year shooters at a typical sporting goods store gets the same reaction here it does by knowledgeable shooters there.

 

[1899]

I did some more research

.270 Win + 63gr H1000 + 140gr A-Frame = 2979fps
Recoil in an 8lb rifle = 22ft-lbs

.270 WSM + 66.0gr of H1000 + 140gr Aframe = 2984fps at 55,700psi
Recoil in an 7.5lb rifle = 24ft-lbs

.270 WSM + 70.0gr of H1000 + 140gr Aframe = 3137fps at 63,500psi
Recoil in an 7.5lb rifle = 28ft-lbs

So the .270 WSM uses ~3gr more powder to achieve the same velocity as the .270 Win (both out of 24" barrels). Plus it recoils ~9% more. If you pick up the pace with the WSM you get 27% more recoil.

I don't think you can have your cake and eat it too.

 

[todbartell]

maybe thats why some guys put brakes on their 270 WSMs
​

 

[LeePeterson]

Yea but how much recoil does a .270 win have with the same weight of gun?

I Guess a .270wsm using more powder and a lighter gun would have more recoil.

 

[todbartell]

in a 7.5 lb rifle a 270 Win will have 24 ft-lbs, one more than a 8 lb 270 (firing 140's @ 2979 fps over 63 grs. H1000)

in a 8 lb rifle, a 270 WSM would have 26 ft-lbs (70 grs. H1000/3137 fps)
​

 

[LeePeterson]

So a 270wsm and 270win making the same velocity same weight of gun have the exact same recoil.

I also wonder is the H1000 the most efficient powder for the WSM?

 

[todbartell]

So a 270wsm and 270win making the same velocity same weight of gun have the exact same recoil.

the 270 WSM will recoil slightly more due to the fact it will use more powder to get the same speed compared to the smaller capacity of the 270 Win cartridge. probably not noticeable.

I also wonder is the H1000 the most efficient powder for the WSM?

probably not. 4350 of some sort will get the most speed per grain of powder burnt in both 270s

 

[DarrylDB]

For anyone with half a brain, the term efficiency comes to play. Let me explain in the context of cars. 20 years ago, you had 4 cylinders with a turbo making 200 horsepower (max in most if not all applications) this made use of low compression, and retarded timing which made nearly no power in a straight motor combination. Now you have naturally asparated 4 cylinders with close to 300 horsepower. Why? Efficiency.
and computers were able to help define efficiency in a car, and did the same with the shortmag. (though we knew it allready) For those of you that dont see an advantage, Competition shooters have for a long time. The 6mm BR, PPC, and mose of the X-284 combinations were spawned out of this Idea as were the 264 Mag and the 350 rem mag.
With regards to a car, the arguement had more variables. (Bore stroke, reciprocating mass etc) but all hold a similar place in a rifle. When you shorten a powder column, you decrease the dwell time( the best way i can explain the time it takes to completely burn powder) thus burning more powder in a shorter time frame (literally, Milliseconds). when your powder burns more completely in the bore you have less EXPANDING gases coming out of your rifle thus reducing recoil. Anyone can understand that less powder = less recoil in the same bore diameter.
Shortmags make better use of slower powders than traditional mags because they burn more completely in the bore/case increasing velocity over a similar charge in a "skinny" case. In most cases, faster powders are nearly useless in a shormag unless you build a wildcat like a 35 WSM. Because they burn so much powder on initial ignition, and the powder burns faster because the lot of it is closer to the source.
Your bullet doesnt go any faster once it comes out of the tube. And to answer your question Tod about brakes on a 270 WSM, some people are retired because they have VERY bad shoulders, and a 270 WSM with a brake kicks less than my Abolt 243 does with 95 gr ballistic tips. Because your too matcho (apparently) to understand the advantage of a brake in this case, My buddy has a 7.5 lb magnum you can see bullet strikes through the scope @ 300 yards. Do you have anything you can claim to do that with?
Maybe your 223, but thats it.

 

[todbartell]

great post Daril

​

 

[1899]

When you shorten a powder column, you decrease the dwell time( the best way i can explain the time it takes to completely burn powder) thus burning more powder in a shorter time frame (literally, Milliseconds). when your powder burns more completely in the bore you have less EXPANDING gases coming out of your rifle thus reducing recoil. Anyone can understand that less powder = less recoil in the same bore diameter.
Shortmags make better use of slower powders than traditional mags because they burn more completely in the bore/case increasing velocity over a similar charge in a "skinny" case.

Well, the fact is you need a certain amount of power to drive that car down the track. 1hp is 1hp.
You need a certain amount of energy to drive a 160gr bullet to 3000fps. The oxidization of the powder releases a certain amount of energy. This energy is converted to noise, heat and the motion of the bullet (kinetic energy). Take my example of the 7mm WSM and the 7mm RM. They use almost identical amounts of powder to reach almost identical velocities. The WSM burns a little more to go a little faster. Virtually NO difference in efficiency. How come?

So a 270wsm and 270win making the same velocity same weight of gun have the exact same recoil.

I also wonder is the H1000 the most efficient powder for the WSM?

No, the WSM would STILL recoil more, as TodBartell pointed out, because it burns more powder. The issue is that some claim the WSM recoils less, and at the same time they claim the rifles are more compact and lighter.
Here are the figures for IMR4350
.270 Win
130gr Hornady SP 55.0gr 3028fps
.270 WSM
130gr Hornady SP 62.5gr 3230fps

The .270 Win gets 55.1 fps/gr of powder burned.
The .270 WSM gets 51.7 fps/gr of powder burned.

I still don't get it. Maybe I am dense, but I will look up more data and post it after my calculations.

 

[DarrylDB]

Well, the fact is you need a certain amount of power to drive that car down the track. 1hp is 1hp.
You need a certain amount of energy to drive a 160gr bullet to 3000fps. The oxidization of the powder releases a certain amount of energy. This energy is converted to noise, heat and the motion of the bullet (kinetic energy). Take my example of the 7mm WSM and the 7mm RM. They use almost identical amounts of powder to reach almost identical velocities. The WSM burns a little more to go a little faster. Virtually NO difference in efficiency. How come?

Yes, but one horsepower can be garnered from less than one hundredth of a CC in one application, and from 1 CC of petroleum in another.
1 horsepower is one horsepower, but there are a plethora of ways to create it some more efficient than others.
Take a Dodge Neon SRT, 215 HP and 13.15 @ 107 in the quarter. About 550 Km to the tank.
Take a 1991 Camaro with a 305CI TPI motor in it. same horsepower, yet less than half the fuel economy.
Why is that?
Efficiency.
Now compare more than the one load you can muster for the 7mm WSM against more than one load for the 7mm Rem mag.
Retumbo is harder to compare because its one of the slowest powders on the market, only recently available and is very efficient in itself. It ignites quick yest burns slow in its extruded form and created an advantage with heavy bullets in Traditional magnum cases. But useless with light bullets in a traditional 7mm magnum. The WSM on the other hand...

Try the same comparison with H4350, and its a tad different.

With regards to the 270 win, and 270 WSM
Your 100% right, burn more powder, and your recoiling harder. ON one is dispelling the laws of physics with a WSM,

 

[1899]

.25 WSSM - 115gr Ballistic Tip
IMR7828 47.0C 2910fps = 61.9fps/gr
IMR4831 44.7C 2919fps = 65.3fps/gr
IMR4350 44.5C 2944fps = 66.2fps/gr


.25-06 - 115gr Ballistic Tip
IMR4350 48.7 3000fps = 61.6fps/gr
IMR4831 50.7 3030fps = 59.8fps/gr
IMR7828 55.5 3040fps = 54.8fps/gr
RL22 53.5 3197fps = 59.8fps/gr - from Nosler #4
IMR4350 49.0 3095fps = 63.1fps/gr - from Nosler #4


7mm WSM
160gr Partition
IMR4350 58.3 2925fps = 50.2fps/gr
IMR4831 59.3 2922fps = 49.3fps/gr
IMR7828 65.5 3004fps = 45.9fps/gr
140gr X
IMR4350 63.2 3155fps = 49.9fps/gr
IMR4831 64.3 3130fps = 48.7fps/gr
IMR7828 68.0 3104 fps = 45.6fps/gr
140gr Nosler Partition
H1000 72.0 3091fps = 42.9fps/gr
H4831 66.0 3116fps = 47.2fps/gr
H4350 61.5 3133fps = 50.9fps/gr


7mm Rem Mag
160gr Partition
IMR4350 60.0 2998fps = 50.0fps/gr
IMR4831 63.0 3008fps = 47.7fps/gr
IMR7828 66.5 3090fps = 46.5fps/gr
140gr X
IMR4350 65.0 3161fps = 48.6fps/gr
IMR4831 66.0 3138fps = 47.5fps/gr
IMR7828 70.0 3147 fps = 45.0fps/gr
140gr Nosler Partition
H1000 70.0 3036fps = 43.4fps/gr
H4831 64.0 2950fps = 46.1fps/gr
H4350 59.0 2927fps = 49.6fps/gr

So it appears that the WSM, at least to the cartridges I compared them to, are more efficient, although I wouldn't consider it quite the epic development as some say it is.
From the chart you can see that the 7mm WSM can use faster burning powder (read less) to reach the same velocities that the 7mm RM reaches, but the latter needs slower burning powder (read more).

However, since case dimensions favour different burn rates, the true question is: what is the energy per grain (of weight) of each powder, and how is that translated into feet/sec?

If anyone has the values for energy/weight (calories, joules or whatever) for various powders, please pm me and I'll redo the calculations and post something more meaningful!

 

[BIGREDD]

All the recoil calculators and ballistic programs in the world are just speculation.... and they cannot measure efficiency and its effect on recoil.
Spend a few years reloading for a few dozen WSM's, Standard Calibers and Belted Magnums of the same caliber, and shoot hundreds of rounds from them all over a chrony, from the bench, off hand and at game. Practical experience is inevitably very different from detached and limited research.


Nearly all factory cartridges were originally designed for easy manufacturing with the military in mind, hence the long sloping shoulders. Our standard cartridges were designed to function in machine guns and automatic weapons... this is old tech... and it is an undeniable fact.
The Ackley Improved, PPC & BR, RSAUM, WSM and WSSM were all developed with efficiency, accuracy and function in mind for hunting and sporting firearms... not for the military.

You guys really need to spend some time shooting some of the cartridges developed in the last few decades.

 

[kombi1976]

All the recoil calculators and ballistic programs in the world are just speculation.... and they cannot measure efficiency and its effect on recoil.
Spend a few years reloading for a few dozen WSM's, Standard Calibers and Belted Magnums of the same caliber, and shoot hundreds of rounds from them all over a chrony, from the bench, off hand and at game. Practical experience is inevitably very different from detached and limited research.

Nearly all factory cartridges were originally designed for easy manufacturing with the military in mind, hence the long sloping shoulders. Our standard cartridges were designed to function in machine guns and automatic weapons... this is old tech... and it is an undeniable fact.
The Ackley Improved, PPC & BR, RSAUM, WSM and WSSM were all developed with efficiency, accuracy and function in mind for hunting and sporting firearms... not for the military.

You guys really need to spend some time shooting some of the cartridges developed in the last few decades.

BR, I agree with everything you've said and I'm not putting words in your mouth.
But some might interpret this as suggesting that old cartridges are inefficient or inaccurate or not particularly functional.
Clearly this isn't the case, unlike a certain magazine article I read recently that suggested .303 British was good using milsurp or factory ammo but wasn't really worth reloading because of it's case stretching tendencies!
I was very tempted to send an email to the author via the publication telling him to get his hand off it.
But I digress.
I think we need to remember that the recent cartridges we enjoy often had their basis in successful military cartridges or in aborted trials when the cartridge was unviable for a number of reasons(but usually the cost of rebarreling & 'smithing existing arms & stocking ordnance).
And those cartridges that were heading in the right direction are still excellent choices.
I might also add that cartridges like the .375H&H and 303 British which both suffer pretty chronically from case stretching are famous for their reliability and performance and accuracy, something prized in the military too.
Personally I like older cartridges(probably because I prefer the old rifles ) and I tend to resent the "velocity-at-all" costs approach a lot of new cartridges appear to have.
I guess we'll have to agree to agree.
If you have the $$$ to afford the new stuff then great.
If you're me then that isn't viable but there is so much cool old stuff to play with it doesn't matter.
And what's more, all those tricks they learnt over the years when designing cartridges and developing new powders that maximise the performance of the WSMs and PPCs also make the "old faithful" rounds shine.

 

[Mumptia]

Gotta improve these arguements fellas, the old fart from Peterborough is pretty stubborn.