I just plucked this from another site. As a non fan of the WSM family I was amused and found it interesting.
Terry Wieland’s On Shooting .... (written in the year 2006 - the 100th anniversary of the .30-06 Spr)
http://www.africansportinggazette.co.../shooting.html
Comparing profiles: The 300WSM (left) compared with the .30-06 (center) and .375 H&H. The latter two cartridges are renowned for their ease of feeding from the magazine, and reluctance to jam. The short, fat, 300WSM and others of the new "short magnum" family present difficulties in feeding, and many riflemakers are reluctant to chamber them.
Selling Short: Finally, the truth.
Over the past five years, the success of the so-called ‘short magnums’ (‘so-called’ for reasons we will get to in a moment) has been the wonder of the rifle business.
Winchester’s so-called creations (so-called, again, for reasons we will get to) took the shooting world by storm. Suddenly, you were nowheresville if you were not shooting a .300 WSM or .270 WSM. As gunmaker Darcy Echols wryly observed at the Safari Club International convention just past, “It’s a wonder any animals ever died, shot with inadequate cartridges like the .30-06 and .270 Winchester.”
This, of course, was the very same SCI convention during which it was announced that FN was closing down the old Winchester plant in New Haven, Connecticut, and discontinuing the iconic Winchester 94 lever- action as well as the Model 70 bolt-action rifle. In recent years, the Model 70’s lifeline has been the above-mentioned so-called short magnums, with new calibres appearing every year accompanied by the increasingly bizarre claims of the PR people.
So what happened?
Gather round, friends, and listen to a sorry tale of nefarious corporate America.
To begin with, the term ‘short magnum.’ Originally, this was appended to the .264, .338 and .458 Winchester (belted) magnums when they were introduced in the 1950s, to differentiate them from the ‘long’ .375 H&H-length cartridges. So even the term Winchester Short Magnum (WSM) was misleading. But I carp.
Fact is, they were not designed by Winchester at all – or by Olin-Winchester, the ammunition people, in cooperation with U.S. Repeating Arms, maker of ‘Winchester’ rifles, and Browning, its sister company. By the way, I apologize for the blizzard of quotation marks and parentheses that are flooding the page, but the situation is so weird and convoluted, it demands it. Please bear with me.
At any rate, none of the above companies designed any of the above new ‘short magnum’ cartridges. The concept belongs to one Rick Jamison, a rifle writer of considerable renown, who came up with the idea in the 1990s and took it to Winchester with an offer to allow them to produce the designs in return for putting his name on them. The companies declined with thanks. Six months later the first of the short magnums appeared with the sobriquet ‘WSM.’
What they had not counted on was the fact that Jamison, no fool, had patented his design. Not only that, he patented virtually every bore diameter (.338, .257, etc.) to which it might be adapted. When the first WSMs appeared, Rick sued. Six years later, Winchester settled, reportedly for about three million dollars. Within a month or two, U.S. Repeating Arms closed down its ancient New Haven plant. Whether there is a connection is still a matter of conjecture. Personally, I doubt it, but right now the Internet chat rooms are buzzing with speculation that Rick Jamison is personally responsible for the death of the Winchester 94.
Promptly, letters went out from Jamison’s lawyers to every riflemaker that might have chambered one of the short magnums in a rifle, demanding a retroactive royalty. Equally promptly, riflemakers fell over one another denouncing the short magnums as having a number of inherent flaws, and insisting they would not chamber them henceforth. Or, if a client insisted, they would add a premium to the price to cover Jamison’s royalty. Riflemakers like Darcy Echols, who have never chambered a short magnum and refuse to do so for a variety of sound ballistic reasons, are laughing.
So what are those sound ballistic reasons that, for some mysterious reason, never surfaced before all this legal turmoil came about? Why does everyone suddenly notice that the emperor is scantily clad indeed?
Not to brag, but in the 2004 Gun Digest, your obedient correspondent authored a piece entitled ‘Short Magnum Con,’ as part of a pro-and-con article in which Jon Sundra defended the short magnums and I attacked them. If I now continue the attack, it is not because I have suddenly seen the light.
So, the sound ballistic reasons: First, look at the claims. According to the company flacks, most of whom would not know a chronograph if they tripped over one on the way to the salad bar, the WSMs (and the similar Remington designs) produce higher velocity with greater accuracy, out of shorter rifles with shorter barrels.
The greatest law of ballistic science ever articulated says flatly “There is no free lunch.” This is no less true of the short magnums than of any other cartridge, from the .38-40 to the .378 Weatherby.
The concept behind the short magnums is nothing more than scaling up the 6 PPC, the darling of the benchrest world since the 1980s, which delivers great accuracy and supposedly, with its shorter powder column (it is a short, fat cartridge) greater burning efficiency and consistency. I have no argument with this concept in the 6 PPC. At larger bore sizes, however, it does not necessarily translate into a superior cartridge.
Do the WSMs really deliver higher velocity per grain of powder? Not that I’ve seen. Are they any more accurate? Not that I’ve seen. Do they operate at pressures that I do not want mere inches from my one and only set of eyes? They certainly seem to, if the stiffness of the bolts after firing and the flatness of the primers are any indication.
Finally, it is indisputable that short, fat cases do not feed easily in a bolt-action rifle. Probably the slickest cartridge in history is the .375 H&H, and it is thus because it is long, narrow and tapered. It slides out of the magazine and into the chamber like butter. With a WSM, the axis is farther from the line of bore, and with their almost parallel sides, the point of the bullet is directed out to the side. They tend to rock fore and aft in the magazine, and generally enter the chamber kicking and squealing.
This is not a huge drawback hunting pronghorns in Wyoming, but it can be a significant problem if you are after leopards in the bundu.
To date, to their credit, none of these companies has tried to translate the short-magnum phenomenon into a .375 or larger cartridge. It would be nice to think this is due to a sense of responsibility on their part, but somehow I doubt it.
The pressure question is something else. Kenny Jarrett, who knows more about accuracy, pressure, barrel-making, and cartridges than anyone I know, says one reason pressure builds excessively in the short magnums is because the bullet extends down into the powder chamber. Ideally, the base of a bullet should be seated no deeper than the base of the cartridge neck, becoming in effect part of the cartridge wall. When it extends into the chamber, the rising gas pressure does not start to move the bullet gently forward. Instead, it sits there like a champagne cork until the pressure reaches a peak, and then pops.
Kenny’s argument makes sense. A couple of years ago, when Winchester announced the .25 WSSM (a short-short magnum), we went to the firing line at the SHOT Show to test it by sending a few rounds downrange. Accuracy was nothing to write home about. What everyone noticed, however, was the severe jolt, remarkable for a cartridge that size, and the difficulty in lifting the bolt handle. This was on a cool winter day in the Nevada desert, shooting from a shaded bench. What the pressures might be under the Transvaal sun, I shudder to think.
So, at long last, everyone is bad-mouthing the short magnums. With the Model 70 gone, at least temporarily, the WSMs have lost their major vehicle. Independent riflemakers are finally telling their clients they really should look at other cartridges, for a variety of reasons. The Remington offerings, which are not involved in the donnybrook, are on life support anyway, according to industry scuttlebutt.
Since this is the 100th anniversary of the .30-06, look for a ‘rediscovery’ of its virtues and those of its offspring. Or even the original ‘short magnums. The .358 Norma, anyone? Or the .264 Winchester? Why not? They are great cartridges both – with no smoke, mirrors, or salad-bar bull****.
Terry Wieland’s On Shooting .... (written in the year 2006 - the 100th anniversary of the .30-06 Spr)
http://www.africansportinggazette.co.../shooting.html
Comparing profiles: The 300WSM (left) compared with the .30-06 (center) and .375 H&H. The latter two cartridges are renowned for their ease of feeding from the magazine, and reluctance to jam. The short, fat, 300WSM and others of the new "short magnum" family present difficulties in feeding, and many riflemakers are reluctant to chamber them.
Selling Short: Finally, the truth.
Over the past five years, the success of the so-called ‘short magnums’ (‘so-called’ for reasons we will get to in a moment) has been the wonder of the rifle business.
Winchester’s so-called creations (so-called, again, for reasons we will get to) took the shooting world by storm. Suddenly, you were nowheresville if you were not shooting a .300 WSM or .270 WSM. As gunmaker Darcy Echols wryly observed at the Safari Club International convention just past, “It’s a wonder any animals ever died, shot with inadequate cartridges like the .30-06 and .270 Winchester.”
This, of course, was the very same SCI convention during which it was announced that FN was closing down the old Winchester plant in New Haven, Connecticut, and discontinuing the iconic Winchester 94 lever- action as well as the Model 70 bolt-action rifle. In recent years, the Model 70’s lifeline has been the above-mentioned so-called short magnums, with new calibres appearing every year accompanied by the increasingly bizarre claims of the PR people.
So what happened?
Gather round, friends, and listen to a sorry tale of nefarious corporate America.
To begin with, the term ‘short magnum.’ Originally, this was appended to the .264, .338 and .458 Winchester (belted) magnums when they were introduced in the 1950s, to differentiate them from the ‘long’ .375 H&H-length cartridges. So even the term Winchester Short Magnum (WSM) was misleading. But I carp.
Fact is, they were not designed by Winchester at all – or by Olin-Winchester, the ammunition people, in cooperation with U.S. Repeating Arms, maker of ‘Winchester’ rifles, and Browning, its sister company. By the way, I apologize for the blizzard of quotation marks and parentheses that are flooding the page, but the situation is so weird and convoluted, it demands it. Please bear with me.
At any rate, none of the above companies designed any of the above new ‘short magnum’ cartridges. The concept belongs to one Rick Jamison, a rifle writer of considerable renown, who came up with the idea in the 1990s and took it to Winchester with an offer to allow them to produce the designs in return for putting his name on them. The companies declined with thanks. Six months later the first of the short magnums appeared with the sobriquet ‘WSM.’
What they had not counted on was the fact that Jamison, no fool, had patented his design. Not only that, he patented virtually every bore diameter (.338, .257, etc.) to which it might be adapted. When the first WSMs appeared, Rick sued. Six years later, Winchester settled, reportedly for about three million dollars. Within a month or two, U.S. Repeating Arms closed down its ancient New Haven plant. Whether there is a connection is still a matter of conjecture. Personally, I doubt it, but right now the Internet chat rooms are buzzing with speculation that Rick Jamison is personally responsible for the death of the Winchester 94.
Promptly, letters went out from Jamison’s lawyers to every riflemaker that might have chambered one of the short magnums in a rifle, demanding a retroactive royalty. Equally promptly, riflemakers fell over one another denouncing the short magnums as having a number of inherent flaws, and insisting they would not chamber them henceforth. Or, if a client insisted, they would add a premium to the price to cover Jamison’s royalty. Riflemakers like Darcy Echols, who have never chambered a short magnum and refuse to do so for a variety of sound ballistic reasons, are laughing.
So what are those sound ballistic reasons that, for some mysterious reason, never surfaced before all this legal turmoil came about? Why does everyone suddenly notice that the emperor is scantily clad indeed?
Not to brag, but in the 2004 Gun Digest, your obedient correspondent authored a piece entitled ‘Short Magnum Con,’ as part of a pro-and-con article in which Jon Sundra defended the short magnums and I attacked them. If I now continue the attack, it is not because I have suddenly seen the light.
So, the sound ballistic reasons: First, look at the claims. According to the company flacks, most of whom would not know a chronograph if they tripped over one on the way to the salad bar, the WSMs (and the similar Remington designs) produce higher velocity with greater accuracy, out of shorter rifles with shorter barrels.
The greatest law of ballistic science ever articulated says flatly “There is no free lunch.” This is no less true of the short magnums than of any other cartridge, from the .38-40 to the .378 Weatherby.
The concept behind the short magnums is nothing more than scaling up the 6 PPC, the darling of the benchrest world since the 1980s, which delivers great accuracy and supposedly, with its shorter powder column (it is a short, fat cartridge) greater burning efficiency and consistency. I have no argument with this concept in the 6 PPC. At larger bore sizes, however, it does not necessarily translate into a superior cartridge.
Do the WSMs really deliver higher velocity per grain of powder? Not that I’ve seen. Are they any more accurate? Not that I’ve seen. Do they operate at pressures that I do not want mere inches from my one and only set of eyes? They certainly seem to, if the stiffness of the bolts after firing and the flatness of the primers are any indication.
Finally, it is indisputable that short, fat cases do not feed easily in a bolt-action rifle. Probably the slickest cartridge in history is the .375 H&H, and it is thus because it is long, narrow and tapered. It slides out of the magazine and into the chamber like butter. With a WSM, the axis is farther from the line of bore, and with their almost parallel sides, the point of the bullet is directed out to the side. They tend to rock fore and aft in the magazine, and generally enter the chamber kicking and squealing.
This is not a huge drawback hunting pronghorns in Wyoming, but it can be a significant problem if you are after leopards in the bundu.
To date, to their credit, none of these companies has tried to translate the short-magnum phenomenon into a .375 or larger cartridge. It would be nice to think this is due to a sense of responsibility on their part, but somehow I doubt it.
The pressure question is something else. Kenny Jarrett, who knows more about accuracy, pressure, barrel-making, and cartridges than anyone I know, says one reason pressure builds excessively in the short magnums is because the bullet extends down into the powder chamber. Ideally, the base of a bullet should be seated no deeper than the base of the cartridge neck, becoming in effect part of the cartridge wall. When it extends into the chamber, the rising gas pressure does not start to move the bullet gently forward. Instead, it sits there like a champagne cork until the pressure reaches a peak, and then pops.
Kenny’s argument makes sense. A couple of years ago, when Winchester announced the .25 WSSM (a short-short magnum), we went to the firing line at the SHOT Show to test it by sending a few rounds downrange. Accuracy was nothing to write home about. What everyone noticed, however, was the severe jolt, remarkable for a cartridge that size, and the difficulty in lifting the bolt handle. This was on a cool winter day in the Nevada desert, shooting from a shaded bench. What the pressures might be under the Transvaal sun, I shudder to think.
So, at long last, everyone is bad-mouthing the short magnums. With the Model 70 gone, at least temporarily, the WSMs have lost their major vehicle. Independent riflemakers are finally telling their clients they really should look at other cartridges, for a variety of reasons. The Remington offerings, which are not involved in the donnybrook, are on life support anyway, according to industry scuttlebutt.
Since this is the 100th anniversary of the .30-06, look for a ‘rediscovery’ of its virtues and those of its offspring. Or even the original ‘short magnums. The .358 Norma, anyone? Or the .264 Winchester? Why not? They are great cartridges both – with no smoke, mirrors, or salad-bar bull****.
And regardless of how much the internet talks them up, they don't feed as smoothly as a longer skinnier cartridge in any rifle other than a single shot!
