Wsm's

MiG25 said:
a few years back in either rifle or handloader, barsness published a test of the WSM vs the H&H with the same barrel (rechambered) with the same charge of various powders and bullets. pressure numbers and velocity where cited. the conclusion was that there is no difference, capacity being the same. it wasn't exhaustive by any means, but it was real data.
Click to expand...

I think it was Chub Eastman that did that article? I coudl be wrong.

I recall the velocity differences were very small. Same case capacity, radically different case shape, same results.
 
Gatehouse said:
My gawd there is alot of ballistic masturbation on this thread.:)

There isn't any real world difference between the 300WM and 300WSM, regardless of bullet. The difference between them using 200 and 220 grain bullets is less than 100 fps when you use the same powder in each of them. Sometimes it's less than 50fps difference.

;)
Click to expand...

Nobody said there is any real world difference. This is what you call "Hangar Flying".

:)
 
1899 said:
His answers don't address why, when the .300 H&H has about 1gr more capacity (and operates at a lower pressure) the WSM beats it with a light, short bullet, but not with a heavy, long bullet. The case capacity argument is moot, because they are virtually identical.
Click to expand...

The .300H&H actually has about 6-7gr more water capacity than the WSM.

Here's the reason for the similar velocities with light bullets, and an increasing disparity with heavier bullets:

- Light bullets are pushed to highest velocity with faster-burning powders than heavy bullets
- The quick ramp up of the peak pressure curve with fast-burning powders limits the powder charge
- Larger cases are unable to take full advantage of their larger capacity with these fast-burning powders because max pressure is hit before the case is full

- Heavier bullets are pushed fastest when used with slow-burning powders that fill the case
- Larger cartridges see the biggest benefit over smaller cartridges when using heavy bullets, because they can hold larger charges of slower-burning powder than can the smaller cases, which enable them to see higher velocities with those heavy bullets

It has nothing to do with efficiency, but simply that the powders and charges used with light bullets allow the small cases to compete favourably with larger cases, but the large charges of slow powder that make heavy bullets go fast enable the big cases to outrun smaller ones.

A simpler explanation would be that a Ferrarri and a Camry can both go the same speed when the Ferrarri has a speed limiter set at 100 kph (akin to the max pressure hit with medium charge weights of fast-burning powder), but if you remove the speed limiter (using slow-burning powders that don't exceed max pressures when the bigger cases are filled up with powder), the Ferrarri starts to outrun the Camry, and does so more and more the faster it goes.
 
Jordan Smith said:
The .300H&H actually has about 6-7gr more water capacity than the WSM.
Click to expand...

My info says there is 0.9 gr difference - 80.4 vs 81.3:


http://www.gmdr.com/lever/300wsmtext.htm

I'd be really curious to see that article by Chub Eastman/John Barsness.
 
1899 said:
My info says there is 0.9 gr difference - 80.4 vs 81.3:


http://www.gmdr.com/lever/300wsmtext.htm

I'd be really curious to see that article by Chub Eastman/John Barsness.
Click to expand...

Either way, my explanation wasn't so much concerning the .300WSM vs. the .300H&H, specifically, but just a general description of why smaller cases can often keep up with larger cases using light-for-caliber bullets, but not so much with heavier bullets.

If they are the same capacity, I would expect performance to be the same. If the H&H does have 6-7gr more capacity (my sources say that it holds about 86gr of water), then I would expect it to generate a bit better velocity using heavy bullets.
 
Here's another case in point- the 7WSM generates velocities with each bullet weight that are totally in line with the 7RM data from a few decades ago, before SAAMI reduced the pressure limit for the 7RM. About 2950-3000fps with a 175-180gr bullet, 3100fps with a 160, 3300fps with a 140, etc. Case capacity is within a fraction of a grain between the two cartridges.
 
I have a .300H&H, which is obsolete; this is a known fact among modern ballistic masturbators. I've been told that the .300WM, .300Wby, .300WSM are all better, and I suppose the .300RUM must also be better and surely the .30-378 is the ultimate .300 magnum. After all hyper velocity is the most important factor in a hunting cartridge; this is also a known fact among modern ballistic masturbators. I've been told the .300H&H cartridge is too long and it takes too much time to get off a second shot. Because of it's incredible length, expect your rifle to weigh at least 1 pound more than any other .300 magnum rifle. It's a nostalgic cartridge nothing more...


I handload my .300H&H dinosaur with 200gr Nosler Accubonds at 2700fps MV.


Keep on splittin' hairs boys... :popCorn:
 
Demonical said:
I have a .300H&H, which is obsolete; this is a known fact among modern ballistic masturbators. I've been told that the .300WM, .300Wby, .300WSM are all better, and I suppose the .300RUM must also be better and surely the .30-378 is the ultimate .300 magnum. After all hyper velocity is the most important factor in a hunting cartridge; this is also a known fact among modern ballistic masturbators. I've been told the .300H&H cartridge is too long and it takes too much time to get off a second shot. Because of it's incredible length, expect your rifle to weigh at least 1 pound more than any other .300 magnum rifle. It's a nostalgic cartridge nothing more...
Click to expand...

I feel bad for you. As a personal favour I will relieve you of the burden of having such a blight in your safe.
 
i used to have a book that i can't remember the name off (great help i know). it was generally about the state of the world's weaponry circa 1975. what i do remember was the chapter on small arms. there where photos of various funky cartridges some extremely short and fat, some caseless, even some "U" shaped with the bullet seated in one leg of the "U". and i remember the statement that only case capacity mattered for performance, but that funtioning in automatic weapons was a limiting factor in case design.
 
Demonical said:
I have a .300H&H, which is obsolete; this is a known fact among modern ballistic masturbators. I've been told that the .300WM, .300Wby, .300WSM are all better, and I suppose the .300RUM must also be better and surely the .30-378 is the ultimate .300 magnum. After all hyper velocity is the most important factor in a hunting cartridge; this is also a known fact among modern ballistic masturbators. I've been told the .300H&H cartridge is too long and it takes too much time to get off a second shot. Because of it's incredible length, expect your rifle to weigh at least 1 pound more than any other .300 magnum rifle. It's a nostalgic cartridge nothing more...


I handload my .300H&H dinosaur with 200gr Nosler Accubonds at 2700fps MV.


Keep on splittin' hairs boys... :popCorn:
Click to expand...

How long is your barrel?

Be interesting to put the same powder load and same bullet in the H&H and WSM with same barrel length and see what the results are

Should put to rest the argument of if a shorter case and heavy bullet makes a difference. Probably easy to do, too.
 
Gatehouse said:
How long is your barrel?

Be interesting to put the same powder load and same bullet in the H&H and WSM with same barrel length and see what the results are

Should put to rest the argument of if a shorter case and heavy bullet makes a difference. Probably easy to do, too.
Click to expand...

From the link you posted - John Barsness said:
My friend Charlie Sisk did an experiment with this several years ago, partly at my suggestion. We'd found that the .300 WSM and .300 H&H had just about exactly the same powder capacity with the same bullet seated to standard cartridge OAL.

Charlie first chambered a full-diameter Lilja barrel to .300 H&H and shot 150- and 180-grain handloads with three different powders in his indoor range, chronographing and pressure testing each load.

Then he cut the rear of the barrel off slightly and rechambered it to .300 WSM, leaving the same length of barrel in front of the chamber. He shot the SAME powder charges and bullets. Accuracy, velocity and pressure was basically the same, though obviously with some individual variation in loads.

Aside from case shape having almost no effect, the most interesting thing to me was that the same powder was most accurate overall, whether the barrel was chambered for .300 H&H or .300 WSM.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom