Short Magnums. What are they bringing to the field?
- Thread starter RememberTheSomme
- Start date
sir_springer
Regular
- Location
- East Kootenays
IMHO...
The .300 WSM will be around for a long time, and will be regarded as a caliber against which other will be measured in the same regard as are the 30.06, .308, etc. today. And the .270 WSM will chase it in the same manner as does the .270 Win. follow after the 30.06.
Would I get rid of my .300 WM for a WSM? No, what's the point in that?
But I might want something lighter to pack than my Vanguard .300 WM one of these days.
In which case I would be looking for something in a WSM.
The WSMs I've shot were lighter rifles, and yet still did not thump quite a hard as my Vanguard WM. Has to do with pressure curves, burn rate, efficiency, whatever the science, they do kick a tad less.
What I find impressive is when I hold up a .300 WSM along side one of my .300 WMs for comparison. The difference in cartridge size is quite remarkable, considering they both crank out about the same amount of horsepower, eh?
Have to say though, with respect to the endless back and forth over .270 Win. vs .270 WSM, it's a tad bit paradoxical as to how much time and expense some people will go to for the benefits (?) of about 100 ft/sec gained in an Ackley Improved you name it, but nevertheless the 250 ft/sec + or - edge of the .270 WSM is somewhat pointless, if not foolishly extravagant.
???
The .300 WSM will be around for a long time, and will be regarded as a caliber against which other will be measured in the same regard as are the 30.06, .308, etc. today. And the .270 WSM will chase it in the same manner as does the .270 Win. follow after the 30.06.
Would I get rid of my .300 WM for a WSM? No, what's the point in that?
But I might want something lighter to pack than my Vanguard .300 WM one of these days.
In which case I would be looking for something in a WSM.
The WSMs I've shot were lighter rifles, and yet still did not thump quite a hard as my Vanguard WM. Has to do with pressure curves, burn rate, efficiency, whatever the science, they do kick a tad less.
What I find impressive is when I hold up a .300 WSM along side one of my .300 WMs for comparison. The difference in cartridge size is quite remarkable, considering they both crank out about the same amount of horsepower, eh?
Have to say though, with respect to the endless back and forth over .270 Win. vs .270 WSM, it's a tad bit paradoxical as to how much time and expense some people will go to for the benefits (?) of about 100 ft/sec gained in an Ackley Improved you name it, but nevertheless the 250 ft/sec + or - edge of the .270 WSM is somewhat pointless, if not foolishly extravagant.
???
RememberTheSomme
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nova Scotia
I'm reading from all posts, exactly where these new cartridges fit in.
I know Boo,.... the WSM 300 has been around a decade, but that is new in terms of the center- fire, small bore, high velocity world.
I like the efficiency idea, of the same velocity with a little less grains, and short actions are a little more rigid and a bit shorter/lighter. So a plus there for first rifle purchase in WSM caliber.
Do WSM cartridges feed as reliably as standard calibers in the same platform, i.e a 270 Win versus 270WSM in say a M70FWT?? I have never read of any but looking at those steep shoulders and short straight bodies i'm just asking.
When you say magnum power in a short action, I understand the idea , using a .284Win for many years, but the performance of the 270WSM against the .270Win, i'm not really seeing much here.
Is the .270Win a magnum class Rifle then??
If the WSM was rolling out .270Weatherby velocities, than theres not much to argue if ultimate velocity is your goal over Jack's baby..
The large case without the "Belted kool-aid", is a great concept as well. We all know where this idea came from and how its been pushed for so many years.
One mentioned the 300WSM as being the one that will probaly hang on and have enough sales to ensure ammo avaliability, and after seeing it first hand in the BAR, I would buy one, no question, should I be inclined to a magnum Autoloader.
As to the 325WSM versus the .338,..... when I see those winchester 225 Accubond CT's in the .338WM@ 2800, I don't think I would chose it over the 325 considering both would most likely be a Magnum size rifles where 1/4 pound saving on a receiver is not a pro but maybe a con for shooter comfort.
I guess at the end of the Day,... rifle cartridge performance upgrades are measured in tiny tiny mounts.Look at the span between the .270 and the .270WSM. And to the Rifle enthusiasts, if they are measureable at all, and moving in the right direction of tighter groups or faster velocities, or tiny efficiency gains, there will always be a hunger for it. I know the feeling from Computer hardware and Sport Bikes, just not as mad in Rifle ammo I guess. Great posts guys.
I know Boo,.... the WSM 300 has been around a decade, but that is new in terms of the center- fire, small bore, high velocity world.
I like the efficiency idea, of the same velocity with a little less grains, and short actions are a little more rigid and a bit shorter/lighter. So a plus there for first rifle purchase in WSM caliber.
Do WSM cartridges feed as reliably as standard calibers in the same platform, i.e a 270 Win versus 270WSM in say a M70FWT?? I have never read of any but looking at those steep shoulders and short straight bodies i'm just asking.
When you say magnum power in a short action, I understand the idea , using a .284Win for many years, but the performance of the 270WSM against the .270Win, i'm not really seeing much here.
Is the .270Win a magnum class Rifle then??
If the WSM was rolling out .270Weatherby velocities, than theres not much to argue if ultimate velocity is your goal over Jack's baby..
The large case without the "Belted kool-aid", is a great concept as well. We all know where this idea came from and how its been pushed for so many years.
One mentioned the 300WSM as being the one that will probaly hang on and have enough sales to ensure ammo avaliability, and after seeing it first hand in the BAR, I would buy one, no question, should I be inclined to a magnum Autoloader.
As to the 325WSM versus the .338,..... when I see those winchester 225 Accubond CT's in the .338WM@ 2800, I don't think I would chose it over the 325 considering both would most likely be a Magnum size rifles where 1/4 pound saving on a receiver is not a pro but maybe a con for shooter comfort.
I guess at the end of the Day,... rifle cartridge performance upgrades are measured in tiny tiny mounts.Look at the span between the .270 and the .270WSM. And to the Rifle enthusiasts, if they are measureable at all, and moving in the right direction of tighter groups or faster velocities, or tiny efficiency gains, there will always be a hunger for it. I know the feeling from Computer hardware and Sport Bikes, just not as mad in Rifle ammo I guess. Great posts guys.
Smaller powder charge for given muzzle velocity = less recoil
Very good question! Short and fat cartridges:
This means that a 300 WSM might required 70gr of powder to drive a 180gr bullet at 2900fps while a 300 Win Mag might required 80gr of powder to do the same.
Free recoil energy = (bullet weight * muzzle velocity + powder weight * 3700) ^ 2 / (2 * rifle weight)
The reduced recoil comes from the fact that 10gr less of powder is burned to get the same muzzle velocity. It's only a 4% difference but since it's squared, you end up with 8%-9% less recoil energy.
The is even more evident when comparing the recoil of 6mm BR and 243 Win.
They basically do the same job but 6mm BR used 30gr of powder while 243 Win needs 40gr of powder.
Alex
Very good question! Short and fat cartridges:
- burn powder more efficiently,
- have smaller case capacities which does not needed to be filled by expanding gas,
- and are loaded to almost 100% capacity
This means that a 300 WSM might required 70gr of powder to drive a 180gr bullet at 2900fps while a 300 Win Mag might required 80gr of powder to do the same.
Free recoil energy = (bullet weight * muzzle velocity + powder weight * 3700) ^ 2 / (2 * rifle weight)
The reduced recoil comes from the fact that 10gr less of powder is burned to get the same muzzle velocity. It's only a 4% difference but since it's squared, you end up with 8%-9% less recoil energy.
The is even more evident when comparing the recoil of 6mm BR and 243 Win.
They basically do the same job but 6mm BR used 30gr of powder while 243 Win needs 40gr of powder.
Alex
sir_springer
Regular
- Location
- East Kootenays
Another way to look at the WSMs...
What has driven bullet development since the days of ramming lead balls atop of patches down barrels loaded with blackpowder is "efficiency".
If a cartridge can deliver the same performance, if not more, for less metal, powder, and thus weight carried on one's shoulder, there almost certainly will be a market for it. Which is exactly how the 7mm Mauser, 30.06 Springfield, .308 Win., .223 Rem., etc., were arrived at. Throughout a century of development of these cartridges, the magic has generally been provided by advancements in powder more than anything else...albeit bullets have vastly improved over the last decade and certainly are a factor as well.
And for every caliber that attains success in the market, there inevitably are another whack of 'em that fail, often miserably.
Which certainly has been the case with the .270 and .300 WSMs.
For a parallel, I'd suggest Ford's new 3.5 liter Eco Boost V6. I'm talking regularly, because I'm back in the automotive business, to guys who've bought one of these puppies and who just can't seem to rave enough about what an amazing rocket this thing is to drive...and still delivers up to 30 mpg to boot!
I know for a fact that Ford's biggest worry about this project was market acceptance of a V6 in a full size pick-up truck...and not just in size/displacement, but even regarding how they sound under the hood. V8s have ruled for a long, long time, eh?
Face it, "bigger is better" has been a (primarily) North American fascination since forever.
Which is to say, there's just something more "manly" about a big ol' .300 WM than one of those short ass little WSMs. You know?
What has driven bullet development since the days of ramming lead balls atop of patches down barrels loaded with blackpowder is "efficiency".
If a cartridge can deliver the same performance, if not more, for less metal, powder, and thus weight carried on one's shoulder, there almost certainly will be a market for it. Which is exactly how the 7mm Mauser, 30.06 Springfield, .308 Win., .223 Rem., etc., were arrived at. Throughout a century of development of these cartridges, the magic has generally been provided by advancements in powder more than anything else...albeit bullets have vastly improved over the last decade and certainly are a factor as well.
And for every caliber that attains success in the market, there inevitably are another whack of 'em that fail, often miserably.
Which certainly has been the case with the .270 and .300 WSMs.
For a parallel, I'd suggest Ford's new 3.5 liter Eco Boost V6. I'm talking regularly, because I'm back in the automotive business, to guys who've bought one of these puppies and who just can't seem to rave enough about what an amazing rocket this thing is to drive...and still delivers up to 30 mpg to boot!
I know for a fact that Ford's biggest worry about this project was market acceptance of a V6 in a full size pick-up truck...and not just in size/displacement, but even regarding how they sound under the hood. V8s have ruled for a long, long time, eh?
Face it, "bigger is better" has been a (primarily) North American fascination since forever.
Which is to say, there's just something more "manly" about a big ol' .300 WM than one of those short ass little WSMs. You know?
LongBomber
CGN Regular
- Location
- Fernie, bc
Your right, it is only a 200-270fps difference between the two. However that is in the same range as the difference between a 30-06 and a 300 win mag. Perhaps you are not seeing that people argue to the near death about such small changes, even if they really don't amount to much. How many would argue that a 300 win mag is not a step up in power from a 30-06?
Sure. But what is the practical application or advantage of a .300 magnum in a short action? Nothing except hype. No practical, usable advantage except to sell more rifles.
Don't tell me it's more accurate or faster stroking or has less felt recoil, because they don't, except as the figment of someone's imagination.
Some people like red trucks, some people want black. Doesn't really matter what we think about somebody else's reason for liking that colour, and in the same vein i'll respect anyone else's choice of hunting cartridge because they LIKE it.
The 6mm PPC started the Short & Fat case trend and it's not stopping.
A fatter case burns propellant better and more uniformly, a fatter piston burns fuel better in a car engine also.
It has nothing to do with imaginatin and everything to do with thermodynamics.
Of course, there are limits to this optimization but it's generally true.
Alex
It actually costs me less to feed my 300WSM than to feed a 300WM, since I use less powder in the WSM, with essentially the same performance.
- Location
- Calgary, AB
I want a real magnum, not some wanna be. The word magnum means large. If I wanted a short action, lightweight rifle, I would buy a .308Win!
RememberTheSomme
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nova Scotia
I see it oh to well. The point I made was that if we are comparing apples to apples,..... lets look into the magic of Winchesters on line Ballistic calculator. They both belong to Winnie ,and Winnie loads lots of goodies for both. The fairest comparison I can possibly make with factory ammunition.
In the handload world, we could argue all night because just like my 7mmRem Mag driving High bC 175gr bullets at weatherby velocities+ in a 24" Barrel, who the hell knows whos crucifying his smoke pole, really.
Back to apples to apples. 24" test barrels and universal receivers.
I picked the excellent 150 gr XP3 for both cartridges. Both excellent game getters in either i'm sure.
I see a 170FPS gain in the Magnum, in MV over the 270W, and a mere 188ft-lbs of energy at 500yds! Thats 1549 vs 1361! We are not talking 1000 -1600 here we are talking nothing here. In the 130XP3's its less than 200 ftlbs at 500yds!
Not really hurting my little .270 with that Magnum case are you.
I see the .300WSM's future stability, the 270WSM, except for the lovely ring of Two-Seventy in its name, its doesn't look so bright ,nor maybe should it be.
- Location
- Prince Albert, Sk
Hmmmmmmmmmmm, sounds like inadequacy issues to me, I'm not a doctor but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express less night.
All those who claim to feel a 4% or even an 8% reduction in recoil, raise your right hand.
Which is to say, there's just something more "manly" about a big ol' .300 WM than one of those short ass little WSMs. You know?
Why is the 300WM referred to as "Big ol' " while the WSM is "short ass" when they are for all intents and purposes equal ballistically?
LongBomber
CGN Regular
- Location
- Fernie, bc
I believe you just proved my point exactly. Everyone argues about cartridge choices with very little actual difference between them. But case "A" is always better than case "B"...
I looked at federals premium ammo, thats where I can up with my 200-250fps difference, for both the 270 - 270wsm and the 30.06 -300 win mag. The spread between them is similar. You have pointed out exactly why the magnum - standard debate is really pointless, if you look at the paper numbers there is not much difference 270 - wsm or 30.06 - 300 mag. There are people that will spend thousands trying for that kind of a velocity difference, trying to "improve" casings, and many wildcats out there gain much less than 200fps over the original case.
If you are not one of the people who would spend money to gain a bit of speed, then the 270 is a great fit for you. Thats the great thing about having choices out there, rifles are available to make either of us happy.
Personally I like them both, long and skinny or short and fat. I even like long and girthy.. I convered my bases in the 308 cal... 308, 300wsm, 300win mag, 300rum. Each person has what appeals to them, I bought a 300wsm as it was on sale about 2 months after it was introduced. I already had a 300 mag, but I wanted to try it. You know it works well, as well as any 300 win mag. And it costs almost exactly the same to shoot.
Sure. Short fat cases make better bench rest cartridges when you use them in a precision bench rest action. Which has everything to do with absolutely nothing I was talking about....
300 mag is a hunting cartridge in a sporting action. The 300 short mags have no practical advantage over the longer 300 mags, optimization or not. It's hype. Period.
OK, I'm about to blow the "Short & Fat being more efficient" right out said door.
The 300 H&H magnum [remember, the old Super 30?] and the 300 WSM hold almost exactly the same amount of powder.
WSM case is 2.1" long, 300 H&H case is 2.85" long.
Can't tell me the 300 H&H has a short powder column.
Loaded similarly, they deliver almost identical velocities. Recoil is similar, Longer action on the 300 H&H of course.
The WSMs sit exactly where they should as far as case capacity is concerned.
The 300 WSM sits slightly below the 300 Win Mag [or 308 Norma Mag] simply because it has a bit less case capacity.
The factory loading for the WSM's are loaded plenty hot, probably in an attempt to measure up to the claims about them.
A number of factory loads I have shot in mine leave marks from the ejector on the case head...that is plenty hot, believe me!
The one single advantage they do have is: If we are shooting them in a 24" barrel, the WSM has, effectively, about an extra ½" of barrel length to gain a slight amount of velocity.
Inherently more accurate? You would have to chamber them in true bench rest guns to establish that.
Very few hunters using a BR platform for hunting.
Accuracy in a hunting rifle is more a matter of the rifle itself than the chambering.
The 300 WSM and 270 WSM will probably be around for some time.
Many have drank the Kool-Aid surrounding them, and that is OK.
Just let's not call them some sort of "Magic" that they are not.
Regards, Eagleye.
The 300 H&H magnum [remember, the old Super 30?] and the 300 WSM hold almost exactly the same amount of powder.
WSM case is 2.1" long, 300 H&H case is 2.85" long.
Can't tell me the 300 H&H has a short powder column.
Loaded similarly, they deliver almost identical velocities. Recoil is similar, Longer action on the 300 H&H of course.
The WSMs sit exactly where they should as far as case capacity is concerned.
The 300 WSM sits slightly below the 300 Win Mag [or 308 Norma Mag] simply because it has a bit less case capacity.
The factory loading for the WSM's are loaded plenty hot, probably in an attempt to measure up to the claims about them.
A number of factory loads I have shot in mine leave marks from the ejector on the case head...that is plenty hot, believe me!
The one single advantage they do have is: If we are shooting them in a 24" barrel, the WSM has, effectively, about an extra ½" of barrel length to gain a slight amount of velocity.
Inherently more accurate? You would have to chamber them in true bench rest guns to establish that.
Very few hunters using a BR platform for hunting.
Accuracy in a hunting rifle is more a matter of the rifle itself than the chambering.
The 300 WSM and 270 WSM will probably be around for some time.
Many have drank the Kool-Aid surrounding them, and that is OK.
Just let's not call them some sort of "Magic" that they are not.
Regards, Eagleye.
