WSSM's.. Debunking the Myths

I'm not sure where ebveryone got the idea that these things were supposed to be better than the standard magums as far as velocity goes.:confused:
Of course, the 300Win mag was poo pooed by many when it first came out due to its short neck.

There are countless numbers of cartridges out there to compare, but I'm not gonna get uptight about one over another , well , almost, unless we are talking about a certain 6mm sized case of which I can't stand, but that is just me.
Many use it and like it....
Cat
 
I can hardly wait until the ammo companies, and firearm rags re-discover the .577 Snider...maybe calling it a .500 short mag. :p :D
 
I still have not heard any facts from you fellas and that so called test by Barsness and Sisk is very subjective to say the least.:bsFlag:
Burst my bubble... I don't think so, your opinions are far from scientific and your arguments are simply not pointed enough to burst my bubble.:wave:
 
Let's see ...... You've poo poo'd O'Connor, Barsness and Sisk in the last week. Everyone else is just plain "special".

Is there any writen word out there that you'll accept, or just that which lines up with what you want to read. ;)





.
 
Seems like three or four guys have strong opinions on the WSSM. I read post #2 by catnethehatt and thought it was settled. Amount and type of powder and operating pressures is what erodes barrels, not cartridge shape.

So what's the verdict? Do they burn barrels less or more than the WSM, standard, magnum, or long magnum?

P.S. I read the article in Handloader and was not surprised. Even if the shorter cases were "more efficient" to the tune of 2-3 grains, so what? You get another 3 loads out of a pound - not enought to rush out and buy one for reasons of economy.

Has anyone considered that the WSM and WSSM with their fatter cases exert a lot more bolt thrust than thinner and longer cases (Bolt thrust = casehead diameter X pressure)?

A good discussion for educational purposes if nothing else. :)
 
1899 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The 1885 gets its caliber changed every year, sometimes very second.
I don't know what it is being offered in this year, but I had an awfully hard time not buying a very cool lookig Oactsagon barreled 1885 last year!
We raffled one of , and I just think thhey are the coolest action around-
that's why I own 5 of them in different calibers from 6.5WSSM to 45/70!!
Only two are factory rounds, but I don't buy factory ammo anyway....
Cat
 
In Barsnes article, even he admitted that it was far form scientific, since the example was too small.

However, I wasn't really surprised wiht the results. Anyone wiht a loading manual can tell that 300WSM and 300H&H velocities are abotu the same.

I've never been interested in the 300H&H, though, so It's unlikely I'd ever own one.
 
303carbine said:
The only thing different is that the wsm's are new, nothing better or worse than any other caliber.
The wsm lineup is just new rubber on an old wheel.........:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Exactly!! No one is condemning them, if they are able to root out a firm place in the scheme of things, that is just as it should be. Nothing wrong with expressing a like for them, nor a dislike. What rots my socks is trying to give them some magical, mystical properties that they do NOT possess. They perform precisely as they should for a given case capacity, nothing more, nothing less. If the short mags or the super short mags appeal to you, you should use them. If they don't, then no one has us in a hammerlock forcing us to buy one. Regards, Eagleye
 
Once again people are saying the same thing.
Good cartridge, nothing new in performance.
Ditto.
And BR, if you are wondering why I haven't responded to your reply in detail you clearly didn't understand the "drunken sailor" story.
 
catnthehatt said:
I'm not sure where ebveryone got the idea that these things were supposed to be better than the standard magums as far as velocity goes.:confused:
Click to expand...
I think most of the "Miconceptions" about the Various "Short Mags" stems from the Advertising that the Manufacturers pumped out when they were introduced....many ads claimed the 300 WSM outperformed the 300 Mag etc.
Mostly this was due to a higher BC bullet used in the short mag vs a lower one in the standard mag which gave a slight edge to the short mag on paper ;)

Of course "real world" performance doesn't support this but they are what they are.....
Magnum "Ballistics" in a Small Package, nothing wrong with that:rockOn:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom