Long vs Short Action??????

ok, how about this:
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore the creation of a certain muzzle energy via the velocity of a projectile will have an equal and opposite reaction - recoil. Assuming the projectiles weigh the same, because objects at rest want to remain at rest, the recoil should be similar. The difference in powder burned is not that great. How can one cartridge release this energy, which is the same or similar to another cartridge, yet have a lower opposite reaction??????

Maybe I'll just have to try one.

I know the effect of powder charge weight, but it is minimal in these cases.
 
Hey 1899 have you ever looked at a "Burn Rate" Chart?
Riddle me this Batman... How can two different powders give the same recoil if they burn at a different rate?
How can two cartridges give the same recoil if they burn the same powder at a different rate from two different shaped cartridges?
How can a simple thing like changing the type of primer used effect velocity and recoil so dramatically?
My point should be abundantly clear to you now... recoil calculators that use only the weight of the powder and the weight of the bullet are only very, very rough estimates of recoil!:p
 
You guys are drifting here, Topic is Long action VS Short, not WSM VS the world.

I like the short actions, when I'm using short cartridges. They won't work for Long cartridges, so I like Long actions for them.
BOTH actions have enough accuracy for me. I can't shoot well enough to say for sure if there is a difference in accuracy between the two, as, theoretically, there should be.
There are a lot of design differences in rifles besides long VS short. Some of them could easily negate the action length advantage.
 
BIGREDD said:
Hey 1899 have you ever looked at a "Burn Rate" Chart?
Riddle me this Batman... How can two different powders give the same recoil if they burn at a different rate?
Click to expand...
The faster power ramps up pressure faster, therefor the recoil weight would be the same but the recoil velocity faster. Is that right?

BIGREDD said:
How can two cartridges give the same recoil if they burn the same powder at a different rate from two different shaped cartridges?
Click to expand...
As above, but the overall rearward energy (recoil) should be the same becuase forward energy is the same.

BIGREDD said:
How can a simple thing like changing the type of primer used effect velocity and recoil so dramatically?
Click to expand...
I've not noticed a dramatic difference in recoil in changing primers, but then again I use Federal primers exclusively. 210M in regular cases, 215M in bigger cases or those with larger charges of slow powder.


BIGREDD said:
My point should be abundantly clear to you now... recoil calculators that use only the weight of the powder and the weight of the bullet are only very, very rough estimates of recoil!:p
Click to expand...

I agree! However it is counter intuitive to say that equal amounts of energy can be created in one direction, with vastly varying amounts of energy in the oppsite direction. :confused:
 
short mags

I owned a 270 win for 20 years it was great, i now own a Win. featherwieght in 270WSM and it is even better for speed, accuracy is about the same, 200fps faster for every bullet wieght so i would say the short mags are a little better over all, not to say the old reliables won't do the job just might not have as much range or as flat a shooter. I think the 270WSM is one of the finest all round big game rifles except for the big bears providing you use barnes TSX or partition bullets.
 
Last edited:
He did say it was for deer hunting, right? I don't see that he can go wrong, regardless of the choice he makes.
 
1899 said:
The faster power ramps up pressure faster, therefor the recoil weight would be the same but the recoil velocity faster. Is that right?
No... both the wieght and the velocity of the recoil are different

As above, but the overall rearward energy (recoil) should be the same because forward energy is the same.
Again, energy spread out over a longer period of time or in a gradual manner would not be the same!


I've not noticed a dramatic difference in recoil in changing primers, but then again I use Federal primers exclusively. 210M in regular cases, 215M in bigger cases or those with larger charges of slow powder.
How could you possibly have noticed a difference between one type of primer... that is a special bus answer:rolleyes:




I agree! However it is counter intuitive to say that equal amounts of energy can be created in one direction, with vastly varying amounts of energy in the oppsite direction. :confused:
Intuition would only apply if you were using supposition or the psychic friends network to come to a conclusion.... physics is universal in its application and conclusions;)
Click to expand...

Have you done any load development or real shooting comparisons between the Short Mags and the Standards or the ShortMags and the Belted Mags?:confused:
 
Amphibious said:
long action = longer cartridges. Short action = Shorter Cartridges. simple as that.


as for the speed thing :rolleyes: I'm sure the animal will notice the 0.000001 sec difference between the two :p
Click to expand...


So don't sweat it!!
 
BIGREDD said:
Have you done any load development or real shooting comparisons between the Short Mags and the Standards or the ShortMags and the Belted Mags?:confused:
Click to expand...

I have not shot any of the short mags. Which is why I posted earlier that I may have to buy one, since no one can explain why it recoils less. DarrylDB pm'd me with the best explanation so far.

I guess I'm skeptical because the general answer is "they are more efficient". Which doesn't answer the questions I posed. In fact, I answered your questions BIGREDD, but you didn't answer mine, you replied with questions. I have admitted that they are slightly more efficient than a regular magnum. But the only way I see them recoiling 30% less (allthough you STILL haven't answered my question of "30% less recoil than what?") is by having a lower muzzle velocity.

Anyways, one day I'll get the same rifle in two comparable calibers side by side, chronograph the loads and see what it feels like. Hey BIGREDD, have you done that? Like a T3 in a .270 Win and one in a .270 WSM, load em up to the same velocity, have someone hand you the loaded rifle (without knowing which caliber it was) and fire them one after another? THAT would satisfy me.
 
270 WIN and the 270 WSM isn't a fair comparison to make in regards to recoil..or anything else, really. The 270 WSM can achieve far higher velocities than the 270 WIN.

A more fair comparison would be the 300WSM vs the 300 WM.

Luckily,you guys have me:p

I have owned and loaded for BOTH!!! And I they were in similar rifles!! YAY!!:)

Here are the facts with those cartridges:

Factory ammo: Both at similar velocity, 300WSM recoils slightly less. Less powder, and less "rocket effect" I guess!:)

Handloads: 300WM has higher case capacity. With a handload, you can get higher velocity with the WM than the WSM.

Recoil is agian slightly higher with the 300WM. More powder...

Bottom line?

If the 300WM recoil in any configuration bothers you, then dont' expect the 300WSM to fix your flinch!;)

(And the 300WSM is COOOOL)
 
Gatehouse, your comments have been the most clear of any.;)
What's more, they confirm my own suspicions although I've never shot a WSM.
Doesn't mean I wouldn't like a 270 WSM though why I'd need one is questionable.:rolleyes:
 
1899 said:
I have not shot any of the short mags. Which is why I posted earlier that I may have to buy one, since no one can explain why it recoils less. DarrylDB pm'd me with the best explanation so far.

I guess I'm skeptical because the general answer is "they are more efficient". Which doesn't answer the questions I posed. In fact, I answered your questions BIGREDD, but you didn't answer mine, you replied with questions. I have admitted that they are slightly more efficient than a regular magnum. But the only way I see them recoiling 30% less (allthough you STILL haven't answered my question of "30% less recoil than what?") is by having a lower muzzle velocity.

Anyways, one day I'll get the same rifle in two comparable calibers side by side, chronograph the loads and see what it feels like. Hey BIGREDD, have you done that? Like a T3 in a .270 Win and one in a .270 WSM, load em up to the same velocity, have someone hand you the loaded rifle (without knowing which caliber it was) and fire them one after another? THAT would satisfy me.
Click to expand...

Actually I have done both comparison's with factory and with reloads with the T-3's in both 300WM against a 300WSM and a 270 against a 270WSM. I have done similar tests with a few Browning A-bolts as well.
I get to shoot lots of new firearms as part of my job. I started to use a chrony when doing sight ins and repair tests about five years ago when all this controversy started. I was one of the non-believers like most others here when they first released the WSM's and the RSAUM's.;)

I will qualify my 30% reduction in recoil statement though. I achieved this in my rifle with handloads after trying many different powders and loads. Most factory loads will not show this much difference.
Two of my favorite "performance" loads use H1000 in a .270Win and Retumbo in a 270WSM. Both loads very friendly in the recoil department and extremely efficient in all others. Loaded to Max loads in identical T-3 rifles the difference in velocity between these loads is typical at about 200fps. The recoil difference is palpable and off the bench on bags, I would rate the felt recoil at 30% less in the WSSM.:)

Here is an excerpt from a article in this month's rifle shooter by M.L. McPherson.
The article explains scientifically and in great detail how efficiency and cartridge shape affect recoil.


RECOIL: A FUNCTION OF MASS AND ACCELERATION RATE
It is demonstrated that, at least initially, in the .45-70 a considerable amount of propellant accelerates into the bore behind the bullet. In a typical loading, this could amount to about 30 grains. Conversely, in the .308, the propellant plug would contain about 10 grains. Equally energy consumed by the accelerating solid propellant cannot contribute to bullet acceleration; hence, case designs that accelerate less solid propellant into the bore accelerate bullets more efficiently.
An understanding of the above will help one realize why case design matters. For example, consider a very fat and very short .30- caliber bottlenecked case. No such case is readily available, but we could certainly create a case that held lust as much propellant as the 308 Winchester but with a propellant column only about one-half inch long. In such a cartridge, primer ignition will reach the bullet base. In this instance, as pressure becomes sufficient to dislodge the bullet, no solid propellant plug will follow the bullet into the bore. All else being equal. accelerating mass will be minimized.
This means that the gun will initially accelerate more slowly into the shooter’s shoulder—less felt recoil, less total work will be done on the barrel—less barrel heating and wear, and more work will be done on the bullet—more velocity Any shooter who has done a side-by-side comparison of otherwise nominally identical guns chambered in .300 WM and .300 WSM will agree that the shorter case generates less felt recoil, despite essentially identical ballistics. This is explained by the fact that the .300 WSM accelerates far less unburned propellant into the bore. (We are nor breaking Newton’s Law here; total recoil may be similar, but the initial rearward gun acceleration will be milder, and that is what the shooter is most sensitive to.)
So, in general, when considering identical usable case capacities, bottlenecked cases are vastly more efficient than cylindrical cases, and progressively shorter bottlenecked cases are progressively more efficient. Modern designs are simply getting closer to the ideal, where the case body is sufficiently short so that very little unignited propellant into the bore.

Hey "99" do you like apples????

How do you like them apples....:p
 
Last edited:
BULL#### Throwing in this doesn't negate all the gibberish in front if it, he is guilty of typical journalistic hype AKA Bull####.
(We are nor breaking Newton’s Law here; total recoil may be similar, but the initial rearward gun acceleration will be milder, and that is what the shooter is most sensitive to.)
Click to expand...
The way your standing, the style of stock, the clothes your wearing and probably what you had for breakfast affect recoils more than that load of crap article.

Measuring recoil scientifically is easy and extremely accurate. The only thing leaving the experiment is the mass of the powder and projectile and a tiny bit of the primer. I'm not sure what universe some people live in but in mine, the laws of physics apply, not the laws of toy bragging or expenditure justification. Sitting behind numerous rifles, firing hundreds of rounds and guessing which one has more recoil is idiotic. What's next, measureing the amount of carbon fouling left in the bore? :rolleyes:

The combined mass of the projectile and power, the length of barrel, the mass of the rifle and the exit velocity will tell you the amount of actual recoil.
A 300 WSM shooting a 180 gr pill at 2900 fps using 76gr of MAGPRO has the exact same recoil as
a 300 Win Mag shooting a 180gr pill at 2900 using 76gr of H4831.
Switch powders and the recoil will be different because the velocity and charge will be different, just like the average factory ammo.

I've not noticed a dramatic difference in recoil in changing primers, but then again I use Federal primers exclusively. 210M in regular cases, 215M in bigger cases or those with larger charges of slow powder.
How could you possibly have noticed a difference between one type of primer... that is a special bus answer :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Instead of offering to send you a favorite round of mine I use and you put in a mag primer so you can tell us if you notice anything different from ANY round you've ever fired, I'll just remind you that it is a reloading fundamental to rework a load if you change a component.

I have both a 300WSM and a 300 Win Mag and I reload for both in the exact same rifles. NOT A CHANCE IN HELL the difference is noteworthy. I can make the wsm recoil less ever so slightly but I can also make the win mag go a hell of a lot faster, with more recoil of course.

Back to the original question, you answered your own question two months ago. Talk about a post dying lingering death.
 
PEI ROB said:
BULL#### Throwing in this doesn't negate all the gibberish in front if it, he is guilty of typical journalistic hype AKA Bull####. The way your standing, the style of stock, the clothes your wearing and probably what you had for breakfast affect recoils more than that load of crap article.

Measuring recoil scientifically is easy and extremely accurate. The only thing leaving the experiment is the mass of the powder and projectile and a tiny bit of the primer. I'm not sure what universe some people live in but in mine, the laws of physics apply, not the laws of toy bragging or expenditure justification. Sitting behind numerous rifles, firing hundreds of rounds and guessing which one has more recoil is idiotic. What's next, measureing the amount of carbon fouling left in the bore? :rolleyes:

The combined mass of the projectile and power, the length of barrel, the mass of the rifle and the exit velocity will tell you the amount of actual recoil.
A 300 WSM shooting a 180 gr pill at 2900 fps using 76gr of MAGPRO has the exact same recoil as
a 300 Win Mag shooting a 180gr pill at 2900 using 76gr of H4831.
Switch powders and the recoil will be different because the velocity and charge will be different, just like the average factory ammo.


Instead of offering to send you a favorite round of mine I use and you put in a mag primer so you can tell us if you notice anything different from ANY round you've ever fired, I'll just remind you that it is a reloading fundamental to rework a load if you change a component.

I have both a 300WSM and a 300 Win Mag and I reload for both in the exact same rifles. NOT A CHANCE IN HELL the difference is noteworthy. I can make the wsm recoil less ever so slightly but I can also make the win mag go a hell of a lot faster, with more recoil of course.

Back to the original question, you answered your own question two months ago. Talk about a post dying lingering death.
Click to expand...

You are full of #### too Rob... not one thing in your whole argument is based on any science. Are you going to tell me that you have more experience than McPherson.... yeah right buddy ... you sound like the rest of the experts on here.... myself included! You should maybe submit an article to one of the most respected and read shooting mags in the world with your expertise and tell them what is bull#### and what is not!:rolleyes:
Poor deluded Potato farmer.......;) :p
 
If your sold on .270 cal. then I suggest you go to a gun shop and pick a rifle that "fits" you & you really like. A good gun for you will feel comfortable in your hands when you hold & shoOt it. .270 Win has been around for a lot of years, it is a great deer caliber. Just make sure the one you bring home is YOUR FAVORITE It's like a wife you're the one who has to live with it:D
 
BIGREDD said:
You are full of #### too Rob... not one thing in your whole argument is based on any science. Are you going to tell me that you have more experience than McPherson.... yeah right buddy ... you sound like the rest of the experts on here.... myself included! You should maybe submit an article to one of the most respected and read shooting mags in the world with your expertise and tell them what is bull#### and what is not!:rolleyes:
Poor deluded Potato farmer.......;) :p
Click to expand...
Sorry BIG REDD, but your the delusional one. My post was science not what was felt behind the rifle. If you can't understand that the "because it is written in a magizine it must be true :rolleyes: nonsense", then nobody can help you. I don't claim to have any scientic data on this and I sure as hell haven't read any experts reply with real data using a scientific method either. The only thing I am saying is the laws of physics apply. If your going to tell people about less recoil, tell them why, don't pretend its because of efficiency. It is because of mass and velocity.

MTM said:
So Rob, are you saying the WSM doesn't go faster with less recoil while burning less powder in a shorter barrel?
Click to expand...
No. I don't know how many ways it has to be said, if I load my two rifles to 3000fps, the win mag will kick more because I normally use more powder in the win mag. BUT if I use a unsuitable powder in the wsm, it will kick the same or even more than the win mag with optimum powder. THE EXIT MASS IS GREATER.

To BIGREDD, I would think your a pretty good fellow, I just respectfully think your misinformed, not the same as full of #### as I don't think you are at all. And I don't farm potatoes BTW, I just shoot over them. :D

Cheers
 
The simple truth is that the 300wsm and 300win mag are so close in performance and recoil that it isn't worth arguing over.If you load both to produce the same velocity,the recoil is virtually the same.As far as the wsm action being a fraction of an inch shorter and a few ounces lighter,that too really isn't significant.As far as accuracy is concerned,I have shot my 300ultramag against a 300wsm after I got tired with the owners constant bragging about the increased accuracy of the wsms and he ended up being very embarrassed and dissappointed.The quality of the gun and load mean a great deal more than a slightly shorter action.
 
You are entitled to your opinion Rob but you are the same as most of us in the sport... we are only limited by our own experience.:)
The difference between us is only one of perception.... I believe what I see not what I read... but I don't disbelieve everything just because of preconcieved notions and my own limited experience.
I think you should find that article and read it in it's entirety... it is science and relates directly to the laws of physics it is definitely not bull####... I read it twice and discussed it with some real experts... they agreed with his assertion on propellant movement. I also did a bunch of research on the theory and it has been proven repeatedly since the days of Black Powder.:rolleyes:
Obviously Ackley, Lazzeroni, Louis Palmisano & Ferris Pindell and the Engineers at Winchester and Remington must be delusional as well... :eek:

And I do value your opinion.... but I stand by my Bud the Spud reference.;):D
 
this is a good read guys.

i have no horse in the race, i have never shot anything besides a few cans with a 270 win and have never shot a WSM, but i can't imagine a deer being able to tell the difference. and since i have no experience with these cartridges, i will offer my opinion to anyone and everyone.

for a newbie i definately think a 270 win is the way to go.

270 win cartridges are available anywhere ammo is sold, this might not be a concern when near wholesale sports or some other big sporting goods store, but in other areas i would say it is. try finding WSM ammo in southeast bc and see how many stores carry it, better yet, try it on a sunday. i know where 270 win ammo can be found.

people keep trundling out the PPC cartridges to defend the short mags, i think this is just riding on other's coat tails, the PPC's are mild cartridges based on the 7.62x39, which i don't think anyone would call "short and fat". ok, short maybe.

yes, i think the short mags are useful, but that they are largely a marketing exercise.

as to short action vs long action, i think it is best to select the cartridge you want, then select the appropriate action based on that. hunting isn't competitive shooting, accuracy differences in factory rifles will be minimal to non-existent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom