WSSM's.. Debunking the Myths

BIGREDD

BIGREDD

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Location
Peterborough, Ontario
Browning and Winchester recently released the test results on the Super Shorts and Petersons Hunting did an article on it in this months "Hunting".
It seems that all the naysayers were wrong again... just like they were with the Short mags.
None of the test barrels showed any signs of excessive throat errosion or barrel wear after thousands of rounds fired.
In fact they found that with standard, non-chromed barrels the wear performance of the WSSM's is equal to the .22-250. In Chrome-Lined barrels the wear resistance and accuracy longevity is DOUBLED!
It should be noted that Winchester/Browning has never sold a .223WSSM or a .243WSSM under their brand name without a chrome lined barrel!
Regarding the 25WSSM none of these issues are a factor as the velocities are virtually identical as the 25-06 and thus presents the same wear profiles as the old cartridge.
How bout them apples:)
 
Go figure!
If a person thinks about it though, you can only get so much wear erosion using so much powder and caliber , right?

This is what always bugged me about the Shortmag thing, they don't erode any faster than any of the other magnums!

It all depends on how they are being fired....
Cat
 
It's still taking a manufacturer at their word, which I won't do. That being said, I think anyone talking about a "Barrel Burner" in a modern firearm is too damn lazy to keep their guns clean.
 
It still remains though that those bored with that calibre have literally nowhere to go.
The action is specifically designed for WSSM rounds.
And it's not like you can neck them down or blow them out or trim them; that's what Winchester did to INVENT them.
Here in Australia the dealers are flogging them for cheap because they can hardly give them away.
Let's consider the .223 WSSM's main competion, the 22-250.
  • It's a short action - albeit not an "extra" short action......the jury is still out on whether extra short means it's "SUPER"!!!:rolleyes:
  • It can loaded to full power or down to .223 peformance.
  • Ammo is cheap and easy to find.
  • It has a reputation for accuracy.
  • EVERYONE chambers it in rifles that stretch from economy all the way up to "sell-your-grandmother" level.
And then there's the 243 WSSM's competition, the 243 Win.
  • Again, short action.
  • Only 150fps behind the 243WSSM with premium 95gn Ballistic Silver Tip factory loads; in fact I'd LOVE to chronograph both of them to see if Winchester are telling little porky pies.:p
  • Again cheap and easy ammo and components.
  • Again, reputation for accuracy.
  • And AGAIN, economy to "Donald Trump" priced rifles.
Ok, so your throat erosion is slightly lower, maybe, but brass costs, only one company makes factory ammo and I could be wrong but wouldn't the OAL of those rounds be fairly short so they actually fit in the mag? :confused:
Not much room to play with, especially on the 243 and 25.
If the 25 was a 25WSM Winchester would've been marketing a short-action equivalent of the 257 Weatherby.
Now THAT would've been something to write home about.;)
 
Last edited:
If the 25 was a 25WSM Winchester would've been marketing a short-action equivalent of the 257 Weatherby.
Now THAT would've been something to write home about.
Click to expand...

That was the cartridge that I was hoping they would release instead of the 25wssm.
 
Dustin said:
It's still taking a manufacturer at their word, which I won't do. That being said, I think anyone talking about a "Barrel Burner" in a modern firearm is too damn lazy to keep their guns clean.
Click to expand...
Well I don't think you need to take the manufacturers or Petersons Word.... but certainly we should be smart enough not to be influenced by internet hearsay and outright lies.
I think Petersons Publishing and #### Metcalf who wrote the article are beyond reproach with regard to their reputation in the industry.
As far as Browning/Winchester is concerned they would be seriously remiss to commit marketing suicide by fudging numbers in a published test!!!

The science or the physics of the Short fat case is not something new nor is it unproven. Efficiency is improved due to more propellent being exposed to the primer making ignition more consistent. This also lessens recoil and allows for shorter stiffer actions which improves accuracy.

And you are right Dustin...Keeping your gun clean is important and the smaller and faster the projectile the more important it becomes.
 
Ihave the article and was interesting to read but I don't think there is much of a future for the wssm's. Once people get it in their head that the wssm's are barrel burners its very hard to get it out.
Why would a guy want a 223 wssm when you can have near identical performance from a 22-250. I think the wsm's are here to stay but the wssm's will be a marketing gimmick that will fade out. When Remington, Savage, Sako, Tikka , Weatherby ect... start chambering these rounds they may be here to stay but untill then I would be hesitant of buying one.

Cheers!!
 
Scarecrow said:
WSSM = Answer to a question nobody asked.
Click to expand...

By that logic, you could say the same about many of today's most popular calibres calibres. .308? the answer to a question nobody asked....300WSM the answer to a question nobody asked...???

Marketing new calibres to sell more rifles? you bet

Useless and a waste of money? If you think that, well then its really easy not to buy one isn't it? Let those that buy the rifles and try the calibres for themselves be the final judge.
 
mysticplayer said:
If the rumor mill is correct, the WSSM may be discontinued in 2006. You might want to check with Win/Browning. If so, start stocking up brass.

Jerry
Click to expand...
See this is exactly my point.... What Rumor Mill?... Is this the same Rumor Mill that predicted the demise of the Short Mags? Why would Winchester/Browning spend Millions of dollars on developing a new action? Or Millions more on adveritising and marketing and then do the testing twice just to shut down the naysayers? Only to turn around and discontinue a line-up that is already developed. That makes a lot of sense.:rolleyes:
There is a much smaller market for the original super short... the 6PPC... and it is still chambered by Sako and other makers of bench rifles. Brass and components for all the super shorts are hanging in the local gun store right now.
I would be very interested to read something in a reputable magazine or by an industry professional that predicts the discontinuation of the WSSM's :rolleyes:
 
BIGREDD said:
Why would Winchester/Browning spend Millions of dollars on developing a new action? Or Millions more on adveritising and marketing and then do the testing twice just to shut down the naysayers?
Click to expand...

Because history has proven that gun rag writers on the manufacturer's indirect payroll are very good at convincing half the hunters out there that because new cartridge X came along, their old reliable round is not longer capable of killing deer effectively, nevermind that it's done so for X number of years... :eek:

This then means that the manufacturer sells a whole pile of new Model 70's or 700's or whatever to guys who are convinced that they "need" to "upgrade" their "obsolete" .30-06's or whatever.

Often this more than makes up for the R&D costs, etc. (Reference the short mags you so deftly used as an analogy).

This is a money making gamble the shareholders of companies like Winchester DEMAND they take. Sometimes it works out, other times people might *yawn* not buy into the hype and decide to keep their trusty .30-30 or .30-06 or .308 or whatever the case may be.

Can you honestly say that many hunters would see a great benefit from trading in their ubiquitous .25-06 for a .25WSSM wich may or may not be offered well into the future?

Sometimes a real big performance boost would be required to make people spend $1000 on new kit that they probably don't need and I'm not convinced the WSSM rounds offer that big an improvement over what's already out there. And no, I don;t consider 1/2" less of bolt throw (possibly at the expense of some degree of feed reliability depending which gun writer you read) to be a "huge" improvement.
 
I don't really see any accuracy or performance advantage of any of the short mags or super short mags over the existing cartridges they were designed to duplicate. The only noticeable benefit is a slightly shorter action, if you can even call that a benefit. These are not benchrest guns that you might get 1/8moa improvement by going from a long action to a slightly stiffer short action, they are commercial production hunting guns. The weight saving is barely mentionable. Any benefit the case design has would only be seen in a custom made bench rifle.
Now, there is no need to justify the short or super short mags, people want them and companies want to make them, and that's enough of a reason for me. It's the same old "which is better" debate that has been going on with the 30-30 and 32special, or 270win and 280 rem for ever, the bottom line is there is really no performance difference in the field on game.
 
If you build it, someone will buy it. Thats all that matters. I don't care what you shoot, as long as you are out there having fun, have at it I say!! It is too bad that we are so critical of someone's choice that they feel a need to justify it. And who cares what the next guy is shooting, I have a 243 winchester and you have a 243 wssm, for all practicle purposes, where I hunt, the deer WILL NOT know the difference. I just hope that the folks out there that buy the new cartridges don't use them as an excuse to not practice with their firearms. I have no desire to buy a new super short mag, but I am glad they are here, they are generating sales for the shops that might not other wise get that sale.

It's all good!!!!:D
 
You are missing the point Claven... you assume that the Manufacturers wish you to trade in your 25-06 or your .223 on a new WSSM version... this is not the case.
The WSSM's are an alternative to the standard cartidges not a replacement... and if you don't wish to trade in your .243 on a .243WSSM nobody is asking you to. But if a new buyer is out there and wants options then he has them... he can buy whatever he wishes. But don't try and say they are not a viable option or that they have some inherent deficiencies just because you don't like them.
The 25-06 was a wildcat and became a standard... what was wrong with the .257 Roberts?? What about the .257 Weatherby Mag.... how many of them have you seen... they are still offered in many Manufacturers Line-ups and the brass is readily available.
Your statement of feeding issues is another case of ambigous rhetoric with no basis in fact.... They feed just fine... I have one and have shot several others... you should really try shooting one instead of buying into the claptrap and bologne.
If the 30-06 is one hundred years old and the .308 which is the same calibre but in a shorter action enjoys such success... How could this be??? In your logic the .308 is redundant... the shorter action in not valid... and the .308 should have been doomed to failure.... Ya right:rolleyes:
 
The 1885 is only being offered in the WSM, why is that? If I want one I have to go to the WSM and that helps the cartridge's survival. I think Bigredd is right, the WSM will survive. People who have been hunting for many years prior to their introduction will probably be less open to change than the new hunter. But in time the "new hunters" will outnumber the old.
 
BIGREDD said:
You are missing the point Claven... you assume that the Manufacturers wish you to trade in your 25-06 or your .223 on a new WSSM version... this is not the case.
The WSSM's are an alternative to the standard cartidges not a replacement... and if you don't wish to trade in your .243 on a .243WSSM nobody is asking you to. But if a new buyer is out there and wants options then he has them... he can buy whatever he wishes. But don't try and say they are not a viable option or that they have some inherent deficiencies just because you don't like them.
The 25-06 was a wildcat and became a standard... what was wrong with the .257 Roberts?? What about the .257 Weatherby Mag.... how many of them have you seen... they are still offered in many Manufacturers Line-ups and the brass is readily available.
Your statement of feeding issues is another case of ambigous rhetoric with no basis in fact.... They feed just fine... I have one and have shot several others... you should really try shooting one instead of buying into the claptrap and bologne.
If the 30-06 is one hundred years old and the .308 which is the same calibre but in a shorter action enjoys such success... How could this be??? In your logic the .308 is redundant... the shorter action in not valid... and the .308 should have been doomed to failure.... Ya right:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't think I'm missing ANY point. Most new rifle sales are NOT to the new shooter equipping for the first time. Most new shooters buy used and buy cheap to decide if the sport is for them. I'd bet my left nut most WSSM buyers are long time shooting enthusiasts who believe the WSSM will kill better or make them a better shooter or for "cool factor".

Also, I never said they don't feed well. I said some gun writers (Chcuk Hawkes for one) THINK they don't feed well - an entirely factual statement on MY part. I have no idea if its true or not, but some people think it is.

As for the .257 Roberts vs. .25-06 arguement, I personally .25-06 became popular because of the abundance of .30-06 military brass laying around and the ease of converting it to .25-06 whereas .257 Roberts brass either had to be bought or made and it takes more to make .257R than it does .25-06. In other words, reloading convenience. FWIW, both rounds are still around today.

The WSSM rounds also have chrome lined bores. I personally like this feature as it eases cleaning and adds life to the back end of the barrel's wear cycle. One thing I might wonder about though is its inherent accuracy if used for target shooting. Most target enthusiasts agree Chromo is more accurate than chrome lined tubes. Wonder if the mfgr did any testing to see how much they sacrificed by going with chrome?

Lastly, the .308 is NOT the same round as the .30-06 only shorter. Up close maybe, but the .30-06 will retain more hitting power at distance than the .308 will. I view .308 as a fine 200 yard deer round. I view the .30-06 as a fine 300 yard deer round. I suspect alot of shooters share that view.

I have shot some WSSM's at the range and I won't be buying one. I'm glad you like them and want to buy them, but just in case you might want to lay in a supply of components - at least until the future of these rounds is more certain. MANY calibers made in alot more rifles than Winchester has made in the last three years have faded away for reasons less compelling IMHO.
 
I also think that the Chromo is better for accuracy and that is the reason I opted for the .25WSSM instead of the .243WSSM... no chrome lined barrel.
Here is an excerpt from the article that may be interesting for some...

[Many of the early reports of bores "burning up" were in reality the result of writers reviewing prototypes that had not been cleaned. Preparing for a shoot, Browning staff were sighting in several demonstration WSSM rifles that had been out on consignment to various writers and had well over a 1000 to 1500 rounds down their bores.
They initially would not shoot any better than two and a half inches at 100 yards. So the Browning guys gave them all a thorough cleaning, complete with copper-fouling removal and then immediately brought them back down to sub-minute performance.]

Your assumption that the WSSM's are targeted to the long time shooting enthusiast may well be correct... I have added the .270WSM and the .25WSSM to my rifle box and will be purchasing a .223WSSM and a .325WSM I am sure.
But I can honestly say that more young and first time buyers are buying the new offerings than old farts like me.
If you have shot them at the range then you are aware that they cycle and feed just fine and there was no reason to add the speculative notion of feeding problems... right. Chuck Hawks is a poser..... this is a fact.
This is why I started the thread.... just to set the record straight for the new guy... end the speculation and put out the facts.
The article I quoted is from a respected Hunting Mag and it was writen by an award winning writer and the content was a published test by a major Manufacturer.
I am betting that the super shorts are here to say... I said the same thing about the WSM's three years ago... I was right then. Ha!
 
BigRedd, I don't make a practise of speculating anything. Give Win/Brown a shout and ask. May as well get it from the horse's mouth.

My info is from an industry insider. He does write mag articles, review product for the big boys. If you pick up any new gen Nikon scope with mildots, you will find his work. he was commissioned to right the instruction manual for Nikon.

Super nice guy to boot.

don't get me wrong, I love all things new and am one of those that would consider new and trendy. I get way too bored with the tried and true (just look at all the wildcats I cook up or play with). The WSM family is here to stay. Sorry RSAUM. Rem will keep it alive only so that Win doesn't get all the glory.

New products cost big bucks in R&D especially if you tool up for a new action too. Maybe sales have just been too slow to keep the project alive. Just give the manf a shout and ask.

If there is enough of an outcry from shooters, that might be enough for the bean counters to keep the project alive. Just look at the support for the 6.5-284 while it was only a wildcat?

Jerry
 
BIGREDD said:
I also think that the Chromo is better for accuracy and that is the reason I opted for the .25WSSM instead of the .243WSSM... no chrome lined barrel.
Here is an excerpt from the article that may be interesting for some...

[Many of the early reports of bores "burning up" were in reality the result of writers reviewing prototypes that had not been cleaned. Preparing for a shoot, Browning staff were sighting in several demonstration WSSM rifles that had been out on consignment to various writers and had well over a 1000 to 1500 rounds down their bores.
They initially would not shoot any better than two and a half inches at 100 yards. So the Browning guys gave them all a thorough cleaning, complete with copper-fouling removal and then immediately brought them back down to sub-minute performance.]

Your assumption that the WSSM's are targeted to the long time shooting enthusiast may well be correct... I have added the .270WSM and the .25WSSM to my rifle box and will be purchasing a .223WSSM and a .325WSM I am sure.
But I can honestly say that more young and first time buyers are buying the new offerings than old farts like me.
If you have shot them at the range then you are aware that they cycle and feed just fine and there was no reason to add the speculative notion of feeding problems... right. Chuck Hawks is a poser..... this is a fact.
This is why I started the thread.... just to set the record straight for the new guy... end the speculation and put out the facts.
The article I quoted is from a respected Hunting Mag and it was writen by an award winning writer and the content was a published test by a major Manufacturer.
I am betting that the super shorts are here to say... I said the same thing about the WSM's three years ago... I was right then. Ha!
Click to expand...

I never said I believed they fed poorly. I only said some gun writers have suggested that. One thing I will say though is me single feeding a few rounds at the range isn't enough to make me want to load up some WSSM's and go looking for grizzly.

WRT new shooters, those that buy new might not have alot of choice. If you wanted a 2005 made Win70 in left hand, for example, it was only offered in WSM and WSSM cals this year. There are other models also marketed thusly. Hard to not try a WSM if you like Winchester and that's all they're pushing at the moment ;) That being said, if enough people "want an '06 like Dad's" then Remington sales will rise and Winny sales will fall, at least in the short term. If the WSM and WSSM lines do fail, it will be probably due to overly agressive marketing by Winchester, not because they are bad products.

Personally I see no need to add any to my arsenal. Oh well. One less sale for Winchester.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom