Shortmag myths

[Leeper]

There were compromises made in the designs of both the WSM and the 300 Win mag in order to fit them into magazines which were shrter than the cartridges really needed. The standard throating dimension for both cartridges necessitates deep seating of heavy bullets, mag length notwithstanding.
The feeding issues which exist with some WSM rifles are the result of the factories trying to take the cheap way to get them to function. The magazines should have been made wider to accomodate the fat cartridges at the proper stack angle. Remington did the same thing with their Ultra Mags and many of them have feeding problems as well.
Not long ago, a friend of mine mentioned that he saw no need for anything larger then the 30/06 case if the caliber was under 338. I tend to agree with him.
I am not a fan of the WSM's but they have been well received by shooters and hunters who lack my maturity so I suspect they'll be around for a while. I continue to avoid owning one. Regards, Bill.

 

[ratherbefishin]

frankly,I see very little advantage in these modern rifles for the average hunter whose shots are generally well within 200 yards.My 100 year old swede is still putting game down very efficiently-for a very simple reason, its accurate, low recoil ,high SD and it works -if you hold it straight.I do allow that modern chamberings have their place,R&D is what drives the market-but for the average guy-I suggest practice and bullet placement are far more important-too many guys think a new rifle is a substitute-and its not

 

[Grizzlypeg]

frankly,I see very little advantage in these modern rifles for the average hunter whose shots are generally well within 200 yards.My 100 year old swede is still putting game down very efficiently-for a very simple reason, its accurate, low recoil ,high SD and it works -if you hold it straight.I do allow that modern chamberings have their place,R&D is what drives the market-but for the average guy-I suggest practice and bullet placement are far more important-too many guys think a new rifle is a substitute-and its not

Absolutely. Rifle making and cartridges reached their near pinacle in the late 1800's to 1st decade of the 20th century. But it is enjoyable to buy a new rifle and try out something new. WWI era rifle cartridges are more than sufficient for what most of us do.

 

[woodlotowner]

That certainly wasn't my observation when I had one; the Whelen beat the Remington by 100+ fps with 250 and 270 gr bullets. But the .350 was years ahead of its time and it remains a well balanced hunting cartridge, despite the small disadvantage.

While I do not own a 35 Whelen my chronograph agrees with the ballistic data I have found...more or less...while trying to compensate/guestimate for differing barrel lengths in the data, when shooting my Model 673.

Look here; http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_ballistics_table.htm

Please bear in mind that Mr. Hawks didn't produce the data.

I'd be very interested in your comparison data.

 

[Boomer]

Chuck Hawks data came from Cartridges of the World, Cartridges of the World in turn used data from a number of different sources rather than working up loads themselves. When I had my .350 many years ago, chronographs were not readily available, but the data of the day said that my loads were pushing 250 gr bullets about 2400. Despite this, those were compressed loads. Similarly, the .35 Whelen data that was available at that time stated 2500 fps for the 250, 2400 for the 275, and 2300 for the 300, none of these need to be compressed unless a powder with a slower than necessary burning rate is chosen. Neither of the heavier longer bullets could be loaded in the .350 without seriously reducing the powder charge below maximum due to the short length of the cartridge.

Someone on here once told me that when you seat the bullet, the powder will be displaced as the bullet would buries itself in the powder; going on to explain that if you poured a mound of propellant on the table and pushed your finger into it, it would simply displace. That is not what happens in a cartridge. If you were to pour powder up to the neck of a glass salt shaker, so you could see what was happening, then attempted to push a wood dowel just small enough to pass through the neck without breaking it, you would find that upon contact it would compress the powder slightly, then refuse to move any deeper. The same thing happens with compressed powder charges in brass cartridges. The loading press provides mechanical leverage to compress the powder, but even under this force, the bullet can only proceed so far before you distort the cartridge case. When you run up against the wall in this respect, the next thing you try is a faster powder that does not take up as much space. But the faster powder creates maximum pressure more quickly, and the maximum load is slower yet.

By the way, the compressed load I used in the .350 with a 250 gr bullet was with IMR 3031, which is a reasonably fast rifle powder, but the data of the day suggested it was the top choice. I'm afraid I no longer have any of that data, the 1970s were a long time ago, and much water has since passed under the bridge, taking my old records with it.

 

[RememberTheSomme]

Here's my thoughts.......If you had 3 rifles, all exactly the same weight, all with the exact same weight design, all shooting cartridges at exactly the same velocity, but one was in 300 winchester mag...........one in 300 H&H..........one in 300 winchester short mag; blindfolded, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
As for feeding; there are many factory rifles built in the WSM cartridges that have had issues with feeding...........there was at one time a gunsmith in or around Kamloops that was making a very good living making the factory WSM's and RSUM's feed reliably. does this mean that they can't feed, no, but the factories have had a more difficult time with them due to their squat shape. I tend to think this is the reason that Savage moved to their straight feed magazine.
Conversly, the 300 H&H is renouned as the best feeding cartridge ever.
Others may disagree with these statements, but they are reality. Does this make the short mag cartridges junk; no, but they are a different animal to deal with.
Mike

.300 H&H, as I stated in another post with its bigger cousin the .375 are the 2 greatest "Magnums" of the 20th century. Based soley on what was before and the advancements since.

And I'm hardcore 7mm Remington Magnum, right down to the Jim Carmichael tattoo!

I see some advantages to those new fatties,by the way i'm a .284WIN fan having 2, so it's not i don't like the cases, it's kinda like why the .284 never really took off. It was already done for years and it was called the Jack O ConnorWinchester(.270).

I guess we need something new coming down the pipe once in awhile to sell new Rifles and ammo. We all get bored with the same but it never means what we already have dosen't work. Unless maybe cycling BARs and such.

I shoot the 7mm Rem Mag with 175 BTSPs at 3070(old factory advertised velocities) 15 feet from muzzle, with great accuracy and good pressures. This in a 24 inch Model 70 XTR. Thats with 66 grs of IMR 4831 in front of Win LRPs

What velocities are guys getting reloading for new 7mmWSM with the same type Bullet(Sierra Game King 175BTSP)??

I feel both Winchester and Remington killed their mid range magnum Factory loads(7mmRM and .300WM) years ago to prepare for the new Princes(short magnums) being coronated, and a new generation of rifles and ammo being sold. We already had the extreme fliers in each caliber already by Mr Weatherby. Though being very overbore and inefficient.

Is there reloaders here of both the old and new magnums that can comment on velocities and accuracy gains in same rifles? Are there throat erosion gains from the socalled more for less in these magnums.

I haven't really researched the new kids so I'm not knocking you new magnum I woulkd like real world experience from shooters of "Both long and short Magnums in same caliber.


A side by side comparison. Apples to Apples. I need alot of convincing to buy a new M70 in 7mmWSM and retire the old.


If you reply with anything in terms of data from my questions, I'd love to continue the discusion at lenght, and don't mind being schooled!

 

[LongBomber]

Someone on here once told me that when you seat the bullet, the powder will be displaced as the bullet would buries itself in the powder; going on to explain that if you poured a mound of propellant on the table and pushed your finger into it, it would simply displace. That is not what happens in a cartridge. If you were to pour powder up to the neck of a glass salt shaker, so you could see what was happening, then attempted to push a wood dowel just small enough to pass through the neck without breaking it, you would find that upon contact it would compress the powder slightly, then refuse to move any deeper. The same thing happens with compressed powder charges in brass cartridges. The loading press provides mechanical leverage to compress the powder, but even under this force, the bullet can only proceed so far before you distort the cartridge case.

If you seat a bullet to where it is starting to be a very compressed load, a simple touch of the case on a case tumbler or a couple taps on the side of the case will free up seating depth. This again will only gain you possibly a tenth of an inch. My 325wsm required this as it is built on a short HS action with a short magazine and COAL. I seat 200gr accubonds till I can feel the resistance of it pushing into the powder in the case and then tap it a few times on the side of the case with a pen, then finish seating the bullet. I cannot get it to the proper COAL without giving it a couple of taps.

 

[Gatehouse]

Yes the 300 WinMag has a short neck, one slight disadvantage if you want to call it that, however, it will always do better than the WSM with 200 and 220 grainers.

Yup, by 50-100 fps. Just like with all the bullet weights, the 300WM has more case capacity so can be loaded to higher velocities. The point I was making is that some people feel that the WSM's can't use 200-220gr bullets because the bullet sits deep in it, just like the 300WM.

Bottom line is that you can use any weight .308 caliber bullet in the WSM's, and they will all be a bit slower than the 300WM because of case capacity, although they will all work fine.

 

[Win/64]

Save your Brass the wsm's are not doing well.

 

[woodlotowner]

Save your Brass the wsm's are not doing well.

Okay, then. You have piqued my interest in this regard. What information is your comment based on? I know the 7WSM is probably going the way of the dodo bird, but I imagined the .270 and .300 were here to stay based on word of mouth and comments from the gun shop owners I have spoken to.

Do tell...

 

[Win/64]

Okay, then. You have piqued my interest in this regard. What information is your comment based on? I know the 7WSM is probably going the way of the dodo bird, but I imagined the .270 and .300 were here to stay based on word of mouth and comments from the gun shop owners I have spoken to.

Do tell...

Why would you even consider one? There are so many tried and true cartridges out there. 6.5x55, 7x57, 9.3x62 (I love metric). Did you fall into the Marketing trap that said WSM's were better? Your game can't tell the difference.

 

[Camper]

Why would you consider one? Why are we GUNNUTZ???

 

[Win/64]

Why would you consider one? Why are we GUNNUTZ???

I agree to the "nutz" part of that.

 

[Gatehouse]

Save your Brass the wsm's are not doing well.

COnsidering how many hunters and shooters have embraced the WSM's, it's unlikely that there iwll ever be a shortange of ammo or brass. Heck, you can buy 300WSM ammo at Canadian Tire. Forget finding 6.5x55, 7x57, 9.3x62 ammo there!

Most gun stores will carry WSM brass but 6.5x55, 7x57, 9.3x62? Much less likely to find.

 

[Win/64]

COnsidering how many hunters and shooters have embraced the WSM's, it's unlikely that there iwll ever be a shortange of ammo or brass. Heck, you can buy 300WSM ammo at Canadian Tire. Forget finding 6.5x55, 7x57, 9.3x62 ammo there!

Most gun stores will carry WSM brass but 6.5x55, 7x57, 9.3x62? Much less likely to find.

I will take my chances and look for it. Here in Ontario Metric Brass is easy to find. Much easier than for example 25 WSM.

 

[Gatehouse]

I will take my chances and look for it. Here in Ontario Metric Brass is easy to find. Much easier than for example 25 WSM.

Considering Winchester never introduced the 25 WSM as a factory cartridge, I am not surprised.

 

[Win/64]

Considering Winchester never introduced the 25 WSM as a factory cartridge, I am not surprised.

Actually they did http://www.rifleshootermag.com/wssm25_1119/. But I think I understand you. You think the 375 Ruger is superior to the 375 H&H. The 375 H&H is tried and true. As far as guns go what would you rather have a Holland & Holland or a Ruger.

 

[Gatehouse]

Actually they did http://www.rifleshootermag.com/wssm25_1119/. But I think I understand you. er.

That is the 25 WSSM, not the 25WSM....

The WSSM;s were a bad idea, that was easy to tell from the start.

You think the 375 Ruger is superior to the 375 H&H. The 375 H&H is tried and true.

The 375 Ruger is indeed superior. If the H&H were to be introduced today, it would be laughed at.

As far as guns go what would you rather have a Holland & Holland or a Rug

If Holland & Holland was to chamber the 375 Ruger, I'd be interested. Who wouldn't?

But there is already a thread about the NEW KING of the .375's...this is about short mag myths.

 

[Win/64]

That is the 25 WSSM, not the 25WSM....

The WSSM;s were a bad idea, that was easy to tell from the start.



The 375 Ruger is indeed superior. If the H&H were to be introduced today, it would be laughed at.




If Holland & Holland was to chamber the 375 Ruger, I'd be interested. Who wouldn't?

But there is already a thread about the NEW KING of the .375's...this is about short mag myths.

Sorry Did I have to many S's in my short mag.? What is it? WSSM or WSM. I get confused. Get a metric it's less confusing.

 

[Gatehouse]

Sorry Did I have to many S's in my short mag.? What is it? WSSM or WSM. I get confused. Get a metric it's less confusing.

Yes, you are confused. Winchester never introduced a WSM in 25 caliber as you originally suggested. It did make a 25 super short magnum, and it was a bad idea.

Only metric caliber cartridges that really caught on in North America are the 7mm's, which is why you will see 270 WSM, 300WSM and .325WSM ammo on the shelf at Canadian Tire, but you will never see 9.3x62.