Something of interest
- Thread starter chuck nelson
- Start date
- Status
Just horsing around. They do have their place. In something like a Kimber where the gun is scaled down and actually is lighter/smaller. Not for me but then i tend to use too much gun for everything.
I bought a Savage 16 In 7mm WSM years ago, and I haven't used it for hunting since the first year I owned it. I went back to my lever in .250 Savage and actually had better luck (more accurate). I don't mind the WSMs, but for the amount of recoil and powder burned, there are better cartridges out there. There was definitely a lot of hype when they first hit the market.
Erik.
Erik.
Absolutely nothing "magical" about the Short Mags. They perform exactly as any other case would that has the same internal capacity. I bought one on a smoking deal. [brand new Vanguard] It shot well, but not any better than did my 308 Norma. It produced velocities very similar to the 300 H&H magnum [which has practically identical case capacity, imagine that!] It fed OK, but occasionally a cartridge would "pop" up high enough from the magazine to jam if you worked the bolt quickly. Recoil? Definitely more than a 30-06 would deliver. I hunted it one year, shot a moose with it at 360 yards, and have since sold it. No desire to buy another. If it gave some life to Winchester et al, fine. As far as the short action/lighter weight argument goes, the advantage is minimal IMHO. It's no panacea, for sure. Regards, Eagleye.
]
Yet his "Legend" line of rifles are all magnums?
The concept was done far before Jamison came around. He just patented it, which makes good business sense, but the patent maybe shouldnt' have even ben issued, since he certianly wasn't the first to make a "short fat magnum"
So going from 6mm to 7mm or 7.62 makes the concept invalid? Hmmm. *bullshcit* AN increase in 1mm in diameter shoudl have no affect on the concept. Wieland agrees with it for a 6BR but disagrees with it in a 7WSM or 300WSM because it is convenient for his article, and offers NO supporting information to back up his claim that it doens't translate to a larger bore size.
Put the same amount of powder in a 300WM and a 300WSM and the 300WSM will go faster, since the case is smaller and pressure will be higher. That's pretty basic stuff, and I'm surprised Terry doesn't know that.
But the 6BR is more accurate. Hmm.
Sure the pressure is higher. It's why the WSM brass is so damn thick. Again, pretty basic stuff. It's not so high that it's going to blow up your gun though, or we woudl be hearing about it for the last dozen years.
I've had cartridges of every description fail to feed well. Yes, the WSM's were a bit of a challenge at first, but everyone seems to have figured it out now. Every WSM or SAUM I've worked with in the last 5 or 6 years feeds fine. Ironically, one rifle that gave me feeding issues was a 375 H&H! If it wont' feed, look at what is wrong with the rifle. More basic stuff...
(My 300WSM, built by Bill Leeper feeds as smooth as any other rifle.)
I'd have no reservation taking my 300WSM on a grizzly or leopard hunt. But most of us have little knowledge of leopard hunting, so Wieland can get away with throwing that bit in there and accept it as fact.
Sorry guys....The 300 Winchester Long Magnum is out. Too short a neck...
Only if we are going ot agree that ANY time a bullet is seated slightly into the case, in ANY cartridge, the pressures will increase to dangerous levels and all hell will break loose.
PS Jarrets proprietary 300 Jarret has a 35 degree shoulder. Same as the WSM. And it's a "blown out" case with little taper. Same as the WSM...Why no feeding issues with the 300 Jarret?
Winchester should have got it right the first time before introducing the rifles and cartridges at SHOT, but it probably isn't fair to judge all short magnums by the performance of the first rifles/ammo off the production line. Through the years, PLENTY of new cartridges have ben introduced with "hot" velocities and then reworked later when pressure signs have shown up. A memorable one was the 7RM.
Yet the 300 and 270WSM are more and more popular, and many different companies chamber rifles for them.
Lots of great cartridges out there. Some people only like old stuff. Others like to try new stuff too. Some folks dont' like stainless or synthetic. Others don't liek wood and blue.
SOme folks use computers and email, others still hand write letters and attach sufficient postage.
Wieland strikes me as a double rifle/Mauser/wood-blue "traditional" rifle and cartridge type of guy. I wonder what he would say if it was mentioned that the WSM's are really .348 rimless Gradle Express cartridges with sharp instead of rounded shoulders, introduced 60 years ago, and often built on Mauser or Enfield actions?
Probably most important to use whatever works for you and makes you happy. There are millions of WSM rifles being used by happy hunters, that is probably a more important statement than a gun writer with an agenda.
”
Yet his "Legend" line of rifles are all magnums?
The concept was done far before Jamison came around. He just patented it, which makes good business sense, but the patent maybe shouldnt' have even ben issued, since he certianly wasn't the first to make a "short fat magnum"
So going from 6mm to 7mm or 7.62 makes the concept invalid? Hmmm. *bullshcit* AN increase in 1mm in diameter shoudl have no affect on the concept. Wieland agrees with it for a 6BR but disagrees with it in a 7WSM or 300WSM because it is convenient for his article, and offers NO supporting information to back up his claim that it doens't translate to a larger bore size.
Put the same amount of powder in a 300WM and a 300WSM and the 300WSM will go faster, since the case is smaller and pressure will be higher. That's pretty basic stuff, and I'm surprised Terry doesn't know that.
But the 6BR is more accurate. Hmm.
Sure the pressure is higher. It's why the WSM brass is so damn thick. Again, pretty basic stuff. It's not so high that it's going to blow up your gun though, or we woudl be hearing about it for the last dozen years.
I've had cartridges of every description fail to feed well. Yes, the WSM's were a bit of a challenge at first, but everyone seems to have figured it out now. Every WSM or SAUM I've worked with in the last 5 or 6 years feeds fine. Ironically, one rifle that gave me feeding issues was a 375 H&H! If it wont' feed, look at what is wrong with the rifle. More basic stuff...
(My 300WSM, built by Bill Leeper feeds as smooth as any other rifle.)
I'd have no reservation taking my 300WSM on a grizzly or leopard hunt. But most of us have little knowledge of leopard hunting, so Wieland can get away with throwing that bit in there and accept it as fact.
Sorry guys....The 300 Winchester Long Magnum is out. Too short a neck...
Only if we are going ot agree that ANY time a bullet is seated slightly into the case, in ANY cartridge, the pressures will increase to dangerous levels and all hell will break loose.
PS Jarrets proprietary 300 Jarret has a 35 degree shoulder. Same as the WSM. And it's a "blown out" case with little taper. Same as the WSM...Why no feeding issues with the 300 Jarret?
Winchester should have got it right the first time before introducing the rifles and cartridges at SHOT, but it probably isn't fair to judge all short magnums by the performance of the first rifles/ammo off the production line. Through the years, PLENTY of new cartridges have ben introduced with "hot" velocities and then reworked later when pressure signs have shown up. A memorable one was the 7RM.
Yet the 300 and 270WSM are more and more popular, and many different companies chamber rifles for them.
Lots of great cartridges out there. Some people only like old stuff. Others like to try new stuff too. Some folks dont' like stainless or synthetic. Others don't liek wood and blue.
SOme folks use computers and email, others still hand write letters and attach sufficient postage.
Wieland strikes me as a double rifle/Mauser/wood-blue "traditional" rifle and cartridge type of guy. I wonder what he would say if it was mentioned that the WSM's are really .348 rimless Gradle Express cartridges with sharp instead of rounded shoulders, introduced 60 years ago, and often built on Mauser or Enfield actions?
Probably most important to use whatever works for you and makes you happy. There are millions of WSM rifles being used by happy hunters, that is probably a more important statement than a gun writer with an agenda.
Last edited:
Not true. The WInchester magazine is long enough that if you want to seat your bullets so they barely sit in the end of the neck, you can. The Remington 300WSM I loaded for last week also had a magazine that you could seat bullets out pretty far if you so chose.
What WSM rifle magazine were you looking at?
- Location
- Eastern Edge of the Foothills
Good points Gatehouse, and well delivered.
I shoot a 7 WSM. I'm under no dillusions that it is vastly superior to the good ol' 7RM. I like it a lot, and it works. I think that if someone were to tell me that their 7RM were vastly superior to the WSM version, then that person is full of crap, and the reverse is true as well. I think that there are some slight advantages either way, depending on what you're looking for.
I shoot a 7 WSM. I'm under no dillusions that it is vastly superior to the good ol' 7RM. I like it a lot, and it works. I think that if someone were to tell me that their 7RM were vastly superior to the WSM version, then that person is full of crap, and the reverse is true as well. I think that there are some slight advantages either way, depending on what you're looking for.
Here is a link to a good article on the Gradle Express cartridges/rifles, in case anyone is wondering.
http://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/PDF/R248 Partial .pdf
http://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/PDF/R248 Partial .pdf
I've said right form the start- If you have a 7RM or a 300WM you like, then don't bother with the 7WSM or 300WSM. They won't do anything radically different. If, however, you are on the market for a new cartridge, then look at the WSM's if they interest you.
I have a 7RM and it's a great cartridge that I killed many animals with. I dont' hunt with it much anymore since I like my Leeper rifle more than the 7RM rifle I am under no illusions that one will kill a moose better than the other.
If I ever get another "all around" rifle built, it would probably be a 7RM. Or maybe a 7WSM....
- Location
- Back in the Peace Country
That sure was informative Gatehouse,..thanks.
My comparison was only between 300WSM and 300WM regarding projectiles over 200gr. Besides, the REAL 338 Magnum is from Lapua! And you should try a 300WM with projectiles over 200gr, here's an excerpt from Hogdon (http://data.hodgdon.com/cartridge_load.asp):220gr with Retumbo
OAL 3.340"
Starting Charge 76.0gr 2646ft/s 44,400CUP
Max Charge 81.0gr(c) 2810ft/s 52,400CUP
250gr with Retumbo
OAL 3.340"
Starting Charge 71.0gr 2455ft/s 44,700CUP
Max Charge 75.0gr(c) 2589ft/s 52,000CUP
Yet Winchester saw fit to pay him $3MM?
Yet there is equally a lack of supporting information for the other side of the coin.
I'm fuzzy on this one. While I agree I can also cram 50 grains of bullseye into a 30-06 and touch it off. Velocities ought to be spectacular. So will the fireworks.
Fuzzy again. The brass is proof positive they are stretching it your right. Give Charlie Sisk a call on the subject.
Bill Leeper ought to then be consulted on the subject of which is easier to get to feed
Okay, but he also has built many magnums. I'm not sure why Wieland even used his quotes to bolster his argument, but I think it's because he is throwing out random stuff trying to get something to stick, and bolster his anti WSM bias.
If he actually looked at this topic objectively, he would have mentioned that Echols statement not only damns the WSM's, it also damns all the belted magnum cartridges that Echols has used when building many of his rifles.
The issue is that Jamison presented it as a completely new idea and was granted the patent but he certainly WAS NOT the first person to design short and fat cartridges. Winchester had to pay him because Jamison was clever enough to convince the patent people to grant him the patent...
If Wieland had said "I dont' buy that accuracy is gained through minimal taper and steep shoulders" or "The only time you will see an increase in accuracy is when shooting Bench rifles, as hunting rifles arent' accurate enough to be able to measure the gains the steep angle provides" then I coudl have accepted that as a reasonable opinion.
But that's not what he said. Exact words are :
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.
He basically said "I agree with the concept in a 6mm diameter cartridge,but if it's in .270, 7mm or .308 caliber, the concept doesn't work." Which is utter bullschit. Either the idea works or it doesn't.
This further shows to m that Wieland simply has a bias against the WSM's and is trying to come up with more BS and hypocrisy to bolster his argument.
No need to be fuzzy or introduce such ridiculous suggestions about Bullseye to try to confuse the topic. Here, I will make it very simple:
Put 45.5 grains of IMR 4350 into a .308 case and top it with a 165gr bullet and you will get 2745 FPS and 49200PSI
Put 56 grains of the same powder into a 30-06 case and to it with the same bullet and you will get 2745fps and 45 000 PSI.
Why is the smaller .308 pushing the bullet the same speed with less powder? It's due to the higher pressure in the .308, of course. Is the higher pressure a bad thing? No, not really.It's completely safe.
Why does the .308 have the higher pressure with less powder? It's a smaller case!
So if you put 60 grains powder in a 300WSM, you will get slightly higher velocities than 60gr in the 300WM, because the smaller case will have higher pressure.
You can put more powder in the 300 WM, of course, but again Wieland doesn't say that.......
Pretty simple concepts, easy to grasp by anyone that doens't have some sort of anti WSM axe to grind...
More simple stuff here...
The brass is always the weakest part of the system. It's weaker than the steel your rifle is made of. Making brass thicker to accommodate higher pressures isn't something new. It's been done for older cartridges that are still around but are chambered for modern firearms (Think of the old 45 COlt or 45/70 brass that has been revamped into much sturdier brass to be bale to handle the higher pressures in modern firearms)
The pressure of a WSM may be higher, but again, that doesn't mean it's unsafe. We have not been hearing about dozens of guns blowing up and WInchester getting sued by fingerless WSM owners.
Bill Leeper ought to then be consulted on the subject of which is easier to get to feed
We already know Bill isn't a WSM fan (although he did tell me he was considering a WSM for an F-CLass rifle)
Still, the point is this- The rifles chambered in WSM feed fine. Like anything new, the early rifles may have had some bugs and glitches, but all the WSM's I've seen in recent years work just fine.
Again, if they DIDN'T feed, then we'd be hearing about it form every single WSM owner....
Wielands article isn't an objective look at the pros and cons of WSM rifles compared to other designs, it's a hack job opinion piece full of one sided commentary that tries to cobble together an argument that WSM users will somehow be in jeopardy of rifle detonation or leopard mauling if they continue to use thier WSM. Or at the very least they will be supporting the Evil Winchester Empire that tired to screw the little guy who shrewdly patented someone elses idea...
I'd respect the article more if he had just said "I dont' like WSM's because they arent' traditional, and I don't like that schit"
Last edited:
- Status
