Wsm's

With the powders available today. theres no reason not to reload for the intended purpose, be it game or target shooting. The manufacturers are always coming out with new zoomy cartridges and rifles to scoop your money.

As for game, the good old stuff like 30-30, .303 Brit., .270 Win, .308Win, 30-06 and others still generate the most in sales.
f:P:
 
Whelen B said:
????? - if intrusion by an equal amount, then the volume the bullet base cylinder displaces is identical regardless what it is encroaching upon - I think.
wdlgh310_350RM_2.820sm.jpg
Click to expand...

No.

If you have a short case and a long one of equal volume, the longer the case, the less volume there is at any particular height from the base. The greater the volume there is at any given length of a cartridge, the more volume that is displaced by the intrusion of the bullet into that space. But again it only matters with very long bullets . . . and it matters to me because I generally choose very long bullets.

Check the loading data for the .300 Winchester and the .300 WSM in the Nosler manual. The 220 gr Partition data shows that with R-22 the maximum charges for both cartridges produce 2757 and 2752 respectively, however, 64.5 grs of powder in the WSM is a compressed load, while 68.5 grs in the .300 Winchester is not. If a 240 gr bullet was chosen, the longer cartridge would have a significant velocity advantage, to say nothing of ease of loading. I hate compressed loads, and avoid using them when I can.
 
Boomer said:
If you have a short case and a long one of equal volume, the longer the case, the less volume there is at any particular height from the base. The greater the volume there is at any given length of a cartridge, the more volume that is displaced by the intrusion of the bullet into that space.
Click to expand...

Simple geometry says the bullet will displace the same volume in both, as it is a constant value. The only difference is that the WSM will have more powder beside the bullet, as the case is wider.

Volume displaced = (3.1416)(r2)(h)

Jordan Smith said:
The magazine and throat design make more a difference here than whether the cartridge is a standard Mag or a WSM...
Click to expand...

Correct.
 
Another benefit for me with a wsm is the use of a short action allows me much more freedom in scope mounting. I'm quite particular about how my scope fits so with a wsm i can use scopes with shorter tubes.
 
Boomer said:
Check the loading data for the .300 Winchester and the .300 WSM in the Nosler manual. The 220 gr Partition data shows that with R-22 the maximum charges for both cartridges produce 2757 and 2752 respectively, however, 64.5 grs of powder in the WSM is a compressed load, while 68.5 grs in the .300 Winchester is not. If a 240 gr bullet was chosen, the longer cartridge would have a significant velocity advantage, to say nothing of ease of loading. I hate compressed loads, and avoid using them when I can.
Click to expand...

That's because the .300WM has more powder capacity, not because of its geometry...
 
Boomer said:
But again it only matters with very long bullets . . . and it matters to me because I generally choose very long bullets.

Check the loading data for the .300 Winchester and the .300 WSM in the Nosler manual. The 220 gr Partition data shows that with R-22 the maximum charges for both cartridges produce 2757 and 2752 respectively, however, 64.5 grs of powder in the WSM is a compressed load, while 68.5 grs in the .300 Winchester is not. If a 240 gr bullet was chosen, the longer cartridge would have a significant velocity advantage, to say nothing of ease of loading. I hate compressed loads, and avoid using them when I can.
Click to expand...

This. And the example of the .300 Win Mag you used is spot on. I load the 220gr Partition with H1000, and it is a lightly compressed load, but does give a chronograph verified 2858fps out of a 24" barrel. It is a thumper of a load.
 
blargon said:
Simple geometry says the bullet will displace the same volume in both, as it is a constant value. The only difference is that the WSM will have more powder beside the bullet, as the case is wider.

Volume displaced = (3.1416)(r2)(h)



Correct.
Click to expand...

Take a clear bottle-neck salt shaker and a wooden dowel just small enough to enter the neck. The clear bottle will allow you to see what happens. With the bottle sitting on the table, press the dowel into the mouth of the bottle and push down with steady pressure. How much salt is displaced along the sides of the bullet? Answer - none.
 
Smokeless powder isn't salt...

The fill volume isn't affected by whether or not the bullet displaces the powder, since that would be the same whether the case is wide or narrow, but rather the fact that the powder fills up the lateral space of the wider case as powder is added. Volume is volume.
 
Jordan Smith said:
Smokeless powder isn't salt...

The fill volume isn't affected by whether or not the bullet displaces the powder, since that would be the same whether the case is wide or narrow, but rather the fact that the powder fills up the lateral space of the wider case as powder is added. Volume is volume.
Click to expand...

Smokeless powder can be spherical, extruded or flake, it matters not though. Once the powder column fills the cartridge to the shoulder, where do you imagine this powder will displace to? Even if it could displace, which it cannot, the longer cartridge has room for it to displace to where the shorter cartridge does not. But what happens is that the powder is compressed to 100% density directly under the bullet while the powder beyond the diameter of the bullet does not allow it to spread out because it is held in place by the wall of the cartridge.

As for the volume of a long narrow case compared to a short fat one, when the volume is equal between the two cases, it means that there is greater percentage of volume under the bullet in the long case, and a greater percentage of volume beside the bullet in the shorter case. Thus when the bullet is seated deeply into the short case there is less volume available for the powder to occupy.
 
Boomer said:
As for the volume of a long narrow case compared to a short fat one, when the volume is equal between the two cases, it means that there is greater percentage of volume under the bullet in the long case, and a greater percentage of volume beside the bullet in the shorter case. Thus when the bullet is seated deeply into the short case there is less volume available for the powder to occupy.
Click to expand...

how does that work? doesn't a bullet seated say 1/4" below the neck occupy an equal volume whether the case is short and fat or long and thin?
 
MiG25 said:
how does that work? doesn't a bullet seated say 1/4" below the neck occupy an equal volume whether the case is short and fat or long and thin?
Click to expand...

Its not a question of total volume, it is a question of where the volume is and how much volume is available. Again check the Nosler manual for the .300 Winchester and .300 WSM data with R-22 and the 220 gr Partition. The WSM maximum load is compressed but holds 3 grs less than the maximum .300 Winchester load which is not compressed.

With light to medium weight bullets that only extend a quarter inch below the neck f the cartridge the issue never comes up, but when loading long, heavy for caliber bullets, that may extend well into the shoulder or even into the body of the case's powder capacity it becomes a limiting factor of the shorter cartridge. A .350 Remington Magnum will never be able to shoot a 275 gr Speer as fast as a .35 Whelen when the bullets are seated to the same depth in both cases, despite the fact that they have equal powder capacity.
 
Boomer said:
Its not a question of total volume, it is a question of where the volume is and how much volume is available above the base of the bullet.
Click to expand...

any reason it matters other than being undesireable to seat the bullet below the neck in either case?
 
Boomer said:
Again check the Nosler manual for the .300 Winchester and .300 WSM data with R-22 and the 220 gr Partition. The WSM maximum load is compressed but holds 3 grs less than the maximum .300 Winchester load which is not compressed.
Click to expand...

doesn't the winchester long mag (i know) have more volume than the WSM regardless of how the bullet is seated?
 
MiG25 said:
any reason it matters other than being undesireable to seat the bullet below the neck in either case?
Click to expand...

Seating the bullet below the shoulder is undesirable for a number of reasons, including the problems of reduced useable volume, but in some cases it cannot be avoided such as when long for caliber bullets are seated in short cases or when the magazine length and throat length dicatate a short OAL, regardless of case length.
 
MiG25 said:
doesn't the winchester long mag (i know) have more volume than the WSM regardless of how the bullet is seated?
Click to expand...

If the cartridges are ballistically equal, then their volume must be similar or there would be a disparity of velocity when the ammo is loaded to the same pressure. The smaller cartridge would not be able to produce the volume of gas necessary to match the volume of gas in the larger cartridge when fired in similar rifles. In the case of the .300 Winchester and the .300 WSM, the velocity only varies by 5 fps according to the Nosler manual, and 5 fps is meaningless in term of performance.
 
From the Speer manual . . .
"The only limitation to the .300 WSM and its look-a-likes is that long bullets (200 grs and up) protrude into the case and take up powder space. Velocities with heavy bullets do not track with those of lighter bullets, and we elected to not show data for our 200 gr bullets. We screened some 200 gr loads and there was little gain over the .30/06."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom