WSSM's.. Debunking the Myths

[BIGREDD]

That's very good Kombi but you are not debating yay or nay.... you are just atacking me for taking a position.
You admittedly have no position... but you willfully try and denegrate me for having one.
If you don't want the response you get then don't ask for it.
Am I touchy about the WSSM and WSM debate??? you betcha... I am tired of all the misinformation propagated by those that have no facts only illusory opinions and irrational diatribe.

 

[X-man]

What's everybody getting so testy about? The good cartridges will survive, the not so good will fade away. Sure some "good" cartridges will be overlooked, but that's human nature & who hires the best PR firm.

The nearest sporting goods shop that carries ammo is 33km from my house in a town of about 5,000 people. It carries both WSM & WSSM ammo, however, they don't sell very much of it...maybe 2-3 boxes in 2 years. They've sold pallets of .22-250, .223, .308 Win, 7mm Rem Mag, .300 Win Mag & .30-06 in the same interim. Draw your own conclusions there.

As for manufacturers releasing new cartridges/actions, rather than accusing them of using "ploys" to get us to buy another rifle (as if that was a bad thing), we should be applauding them for continuing to do R&D and trying new things to improve accuracy, performance & efficency. Some attempts succeed, others fail, that's science & marketing. Nobody is forcing the consumer to go out and purchase the latest WSSM or WSM, if you want one, that's great, if not, that's okay too. In most cases the deer or moose isn't going to be able tell the difference between being shot with a .308Win or .300 WSM.

 

[Calum]

In most cases the deer or moose isn't going to be able tell the difference between being shot with a .308Win or .300 WSM.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Why not?]

If you don't mind me asking Ted, What powder are you using to get 3,500FPS?
Cat

Cat, are you shooting a 270 Wby? If so, I would really like to compare notes with you, especially on your long range experiences

Ted

 

[Why not?]

That's very good Kombi but you are not debating yay or nay.... you are just atacking me for taking a position.
You admittedly have no position... but you willfully try and denegrate me for having one.
If you don't want the response you get then don't ask for it.
Am I touchy about the WSSM and WSM debate??? you betcha... I am tired of all the misinformation propagated by those that have no facts only illusory opinions and irrational diatribe.

Whoah there, big fella, .........easy boy, .........easy.

 

[kombi1976]

As I suspected.....you couldn't restrain yourself.
You want a position, BR?
A little reading into my previous posts would've given you a good idea of my position but I'll provide you with one to save you the trouble.
There is little doubt that the WSM and WSSM cartridges are accurate and efficient and that they provide high performance in a short case.
But there's the rub.
I've never prescribed to the short action hype.
There are other short or standard action cartridges that provide similar performance, particularly in terms of the WSSMs, and while a short action in the past may've provided a more solid action, modern engineering and metallurgy mean receivers have less flex and tighter tolerances.
Cycling speed is a gyp.......Lee Enfields are the fastest cycling bolt action and they are VERY long.
And I can't see that the odd inch makes that much difference in a mountain rifle, especially when people happily & successfully lugged 30-06s, 270s and Weatherbys of all description to take mountain game in the past.
Personally I think the best of this group are the 325, the 300 WSM and the 270 WSM.
The 325 because it's step toward a practical 8mm magnum, the 300 because it virtually replicates the performance of the old 308 Norma which was a fine cartridge, and the 270 because it's a step up on 270 Win without the cost of Weatherby brass.
So as you can see, on performance grounds I actually agree with the WSMs, and if folks feel inclined I'm not going to criticise their purchase of a WSSM either.
It's just that for the WSSMs in particular similar performance is already out there in more easily available alternatives.

 

[Salty]

Woah, the kombi kid dodges a birage of smileys, lands on the ropes and takes a couple body blows from BIGREDD. Kombi lunges forward with text book jabs and a devistating right hook just like he did in round 3. Dinnnnnnnnnnnnnng! There's the bell. Round 15 next...

 

[Win/64]

9.3x62

 

[catnthehatt]

Cat, are you shooting a 270 Wby? If so, I would really like to compare notes with you, especially on your long range experiences

Ted

Nope, I did have a 257 Weatherby, but have since sold it.
The Weatherby cartridges are something that never really interested me except for the .257.
Cat

 

[SuperCub]

-------------------->

 

[catnthehatt]

-------------------->

Where can I get one of THOSE??!!
Cat

 

[kombi1976]

Where can I get one of THOSE??!!
Cat

Better yet, where can I get dies for it!

Incidentally, thanks for the favourable commentary, Salty.
BIGREDD is a heavy weight contender from way back and these ribs of mine are still hurtin' from those big hits on the ropes.

 

[BIGREDD]

Hey thats better Kombi, finally a point to debate... and I thank you for the opportunity to counter.

I've never prescribed to the short action hype.
There are other short or standard action cartridges that provide similar performance, particularly in terms of the WSSMs, and while a short action in the past may've provided a more solid action, modern engineering and metallurgy mean receivers have less flex and tighter tolerances.

This argument is one that I hear all the time but it makes no sense to me. All cartridges have SIMILAR PERFORMANCE, geezuz what is more similar than a .308 compared to a 30-06, should we dismiss the .308 as short action hype?
And even a highschool dropout knows that regardless of the alloy used in a bolt and reciever the shorter action has less flex and vibration.

Cycling speed is a gyp.......Lee Enfields are the fastest cycling bolt action and they are VERY long

.

I can only surmise that you have never cycled the bolt on a Browning A-bolt WSSM or any other Super Short or you would not make a claim like this... but I will take that bet with anyone within drivng distance and we can video the results. No contest.

Personally I think the best of this group are the 325, the 300 WSM and the 270 WSM

.

Although this thread was originally about the WSSMs I do agree with you totally on this point.

There is little doubt that the WSM and WSSM cartridges are accurate and efficient and that they provide high performance in a short case..

Well thanx... that is all I have been saying all along.

So as you can see, on performance grounds I actually agree with the WSMs, and if folks feel inclined I'm not going to criticise their purchase of a WSSM either.
It's just that for the WSSMs in particular similar performance is already out there in more easily available alternatives.

Easily available alternatives, I don't get it, is this your whole argument?
Factory Ammunition is readily available and has been for quite some time and the prices are comparable with the standard premium offerings. Reloading components, dies and the new powders spawned by the development of these cartridges is also easy to find.... because the demand is high for these products.

That was fun and although I do prefer your attack style Kombi! And I didn't even use one smiley (that was for you Salty Oh damn I used a smiley Argh there goes another one make it stop)

 

[Salty]

Ouch, that's gotta hurt WilliamShatnerMagnum tee heee hee.

 

[Bigbill]

Efficiency of the new “magnum”

Sure they have a place, but I'm sayin the most of the shots made are under 200yds and all that new "advantage" goes to waste.


sc

The following is a list of data regarding the 257 Roberts. All velocities were obtained for a 100 grain bullets. (Note that the Barnes figures are from a 100 grain X bullet.)

Hodgson Powder Manual No. 27 Data Manual states that the 257 Roberts develops 2950 feet per second in a 24 inch barrel, with 46.5 grains of IMR 4831. Note that the pressure listed is 44,300 CUP.

The Hornady Handbook of Cartridge Reloading Volume 1, states that the Roberts gets 3000 feet per second in a 22 inch barrel with 45.2 grains of IMR 4831. Pressure is not listed.

The Barnes Reloading Manual Number 3 states that the Roberts gets 3117 feet per second in a 24 inch barrel from 48 grains of IMR 4831. Pressure is not listed.


The Nosler Reloading Guide (5th Edition) listed the Roberts gaining 3092 feet per second from 45.5 grains of IMR 4831 in a 24 inch barrel. Pressure is not listed.

The Speer reloading Manual Rifle and Pistol Number 13 states that 3053 feet per second is obtained with 48 grains of IMR 4831, in a 24 inch barrel. Pressure is not stated, but the text indicates that the load does not exceed 50,000 CUP limit, the maximum industrial pressure for the Roberts +P.

It is not hard to figure out what these figures mean. As others have pointed out repeatedly, the significant velocity advantage enjoyed by more modern cartridges over the Roberts is often obtained by loading the newer cartridge to higher pressures than those of the Roberts.

Jack O’Connor says he got 3200 feet per second with his Roberts handloads by exceeding the industrial pressure standard and by exceeding the over-all maximum length. There is no reason to question this.

And here are the figures for the highly touted 25 WSSM taken from the IMR reloading site found on the Internet:

The maximum load (compression load) for IMR 4831, is 48 grains, delivering 3183 FPS in a 24 inch barrel. The pressure is listed as 62,900 PSI. That is, its efficiency is approximately 4% better than the Roberts. The Roberts can be handloaded safely to 3200 feet per second in a 24 inch barrel. Thus, the 25WSSM beats it by approximately 60 feet per second, in its best handload as listed by IMR.

No wonder Elvis loves the 25 WSSM.

 

[kombi1976]

Hey thats better Kombi, finally a point to debate... and I thank you for the opportunity to counter.

No probs.
But some of those other guys are right.
You've gotta lighten up, bud.
I thought you were going to pop a vein!!

This argument is one that I hear all the time but it makes no sense to me. All cartridges have SIMILAR PERFORMANCE, geezuz what is more similar than a .308 compared to a 30-06, should we dismiss the .308 as short action hype?
And even a highschool dropout knows that regardless of the alloy used in a bolt and reciever the shorter action has less flex and vibration.

Maybe 308 and 30-06 are not so good to compare.
You see, most 308s are designed with a maximum bullet weight of 180gn in mind and as such the bbl twist isn't so tight.
30-06s, on the other hand often start at a 180gn load and still have a tighter twist for the heavy 220gn bullets availble in 30 cal.
Undoubtly there is less flex and vibration but the big question is how much less?
It is there that your metallurgy and engineering play a part.

I can only surmise that you have never cycled the bolt on a Browning A-bolt WSSM or any other Super Short or you would not make a claim like this... but I will take that bet with anyone within drivng distance and we can video the results. No contest.

No I haven't.
But I have cycled a SMLE and they are SUPER fast.
This being the case I somehow suspect that if the WSSM action can go faster I wonder how much faster that actually is and how much difference it would make in the real world.
Besides, good practice with the slowest feed in the world can make follow ups quite possible so this line of reasoning is kind of pointless.

Easily available alternatives, I don't get it, is this your whole argument?
Factory Ammunition is readily available and has been for quite some time and the prices are comparable with the standard premium offerings. Reloading components, dies and the new powders spawned by the development of these cartridges is also easy to find.... because the demand is high for these products.

BR, explain this to me.
A 22-250 is embarrassingly easy to get ammo, components and dies for.
It's also a short action cartridge.
It's performance and ability for accuracy is also quite close to the WSSMs so it's difficult to seperate.
Ok, the WSSMs may have 200fps on it in places but at over 3500fps, well, it's a great difference, at least IMO.
If you push the 22-250 to 55,000psi, of which it is capable, I'd imagine it could get even closer.
Admittedly you'd get less reloads and burn the bbl out quicker, but then the WSSMs are barrel burners too.
That's why they have chrome lining.
But I guess my point is for much less expense, at least in running costs, you can get a rifle capable of all the same things.
My choice of extreme varmint rifle would be a 22-250.
And yes I've heard tales from very reputable sources of the frightening accuracy of the WSSMs but at least here in Australia ammo, brass and dies are few and far between.
So much so that dealers were selling the 223 and 243 WSSM Mod 70 Super Shadows for AUD$609, about half of their original price, because the WSSMs seemed like flopping.
And that's significant, because most people here in Oz use so-called varmint rounds i.e. .222 Rem, .223 Rem, 22-250, 243 Win and 6mm Rem for most of the shooting they do.

That was fun and although I do prefer your attack style Kombi! And I didn't even use one smiley (that was for you Salty Oh damn I used a smiley Argh there goes another one make it stop)

Well, I'm glad I provide a source of entertainment.

 

[SuperCub]

The following is a list of data regarding the 257 Roberts. All velocities were obtained for a 100 grain bullets. (Note that the Barnes figures are from a 100 grain X bullet.)

Hodgson Powder Manual No. 27 Data Manual states that the 257 Roberts develops 2950 feet per second in a 24 inch barrel, with 46.5 grains of IMR 4831. Note that the pressure listed is 44,300 CUP.

The Hornady Handbook of Cartridge Reloading Volume 1, states that the Roberts gets 3000 feet per second in a 22 inch barrel with 45.2 grains of IMR 4831. Pressure is not listed.

The Barnes Reloading Manual Number 3 states that the Roberts gets 3117 feet per second in a 24 inch barrel from 48 grains of IMR 4831. Pressure is not listed.


The Nosler Reloading Guide (5th Edition) listed the Roberts gaining 3092 feet per second from 45.5 grains of IMR 4831 in a 24 inch barrel. Pressure is not listed.

The Speer reloading Manual Rifle and Pistol Number 13 states that 3053 feet per second is obtained with 48 grains of IMR 4831, in a 24 inch barrel. Pressure is not stated, but the text indicates that the load does not exceed 50,000 CUP limit, the maximum industrial pressure for the Roberts +P.

It is not hard to figure out what these figures mean. As others have pointed out repeatedly, the significant velocity advantage enjoyed by more modern cartridges over the Roberts is often obtained by loading the newer cartridge to higher pressures than those of the Roberts.

Jack O’Connor says he got 3200 feet per second with his Roberts handloads by exceeding the industrial pressure standard and by exceeding the over-all maximum length. There is no reason to question this.

And here are the figures for the highly touted 25 WSSM taken from the IMR reloading site found on the Internet:

The maximum load (compression load) for IMR 4831, is 48 grains, delivering 3183 FPS in a 24 inch barrel. The pressure is listed as 62,900 PSI. That is, its efficiency is approximately 4% better than the Roberts. The Roberts can be handloaded safely to 3200 feet per second in a 24 inch barrel. Thus, the 25WSSM beats it by approximately 60 feet per second, in its best handload as listed by IMR.

No wonder Elvis loves the 25 WSSM.

You are right about the pressure differential between the two. Many "old" cartridges benefit from new, modern actions, including the 45/70, 7x57, 8x57 and the 257R.

These results pretty much mirror what I found in my long throated 257. I was able to add a couple grains extra to the load w/o any problems, but accuracy dropped off. I will be back this summer trying some new loads after I swap off the stock with a lighter TI. Results to come.


.

 

[kombi1976]

[FONT="Comic Sans MSMany "old" cartridges benefit from new, modern actions, including the 45/70, 7x57, 8x57 and the 257R.[/FONT]

Amen!!
Why it is that people hooked on recently developed cartridges claim their supremacy is due to modern actions I do not know.
I might also add that the modern powders used in new cartridges also can extensively benefit older cartridges.
Anything that can assist those modern cartridges is a dead cert to assist older ones.
It's throwing the baby out with the bath water to think otherwise.

 

[BIGREDD]

BR, explain this to me.
A 22-250 is embarrassingly easy to get ammo, components and dies for.
It's also a short action cartridge.
It's performance and ability for accuracy is also quite close to the WSSMs so it's difficult to seperate.
Ok, the WSSMs may have 200fps on it in places but at over 3500fps, well, it's a great difference, at least IMO.
If you push the 22-250 to 55,000psi, of which it is capable, I'd imagine it could get even closer.
Admittedly you'd get less reloads and burn the bbl out quicker, but then the WSSMs are barrel burners too.
That's why they have chrome lining.
But I guess my point is for much less expense, at least in running costs, you can get a rifle capable of all the same things

.
Firstly I find it necessary to reprint my first post as you have obviously forgotten what this thread is about.

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 erosion 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

This is what I have been talking about all along... the complete denial of the facts and reality in order to justify a personal opinion that is based on misinformation.
You claim that the performance is similar... I say hogwash, that would be like saying a 22-250 is similar to a 220Swift. The 220Swift is similar to the 223wssm in velocity but is quite the barrel burner compared to the Super Short.
And your claim that the WSSM's are barrel burners is based on false information and simply not true.
Maybe in OZ the wssm's are fizzling but that is not the case in NA. The Super Shorts are not significantly more expensive to buy or to shoot than any other varmint rifle, especially for the hand loader.
I submit to you Kombi that your posts have gone from Aggressive to Argumentative and now to Frivolous.

On one hand you tout many of the benefits of the Short fat cartridges and then you dismiss them as nothing new.
I don't get it. ... are you just upset cuz I didn't send you flowers on Valentines Day.

 

[kombi1976]

This is what I have been talking about all along... the complete denial of the facts and reality in order to justify a personal opinion that is based on misinformation.

Are we reading the same post?

You claim that the performance is similar... I say hogwash, that would be like saying a 22-250 is similar to a 220Swift. The 220Swift is similar to the 223wssm in velocity but is quite the barrel burner compared to the Super Short.

And I said that the 22-250 was BEHIND the 223 WSSM in MV but at over 3500fps the real world difference was less evident.
This of course is my opinion.

And your claim that the WSSM's are barrel burners is based on false information and simply not true.

Hold on to that thought.
You quoted yourself saying that the 223 WSSM barrel wear on a non-chromed bore was identical to a 22-250.
I said that a 22-250 can wear out a bore loaded hard.
Where does that say that the 223 WSSM is worse than a 22-250?

Maybe in OZ the wssm's are fizzling but that is not the case in NA.
The Super Shorts are not significantly more expensive to buy or to shoot than any other varmint rifle, especially for the hand loader.

Well, that's nice.
Unfortunately they are more expensive to feed in Oz.

I submit to you Kombi that your posts have gone from Aggressive to Argumentative and now to Frivolous.

And I submit to you that that vein on your forehead finally has popped!!
If you'd described me as ironic or taunting or even a person with suspect reasoning I may've agreed but I'm totally lost on this response.

On one hand you tout many of the benefits of the Short fat cartridges and then you dismiss them as nothing new.

I've ALWAYS said they were something new.......just not the everything new some would have us believe.
A 220 Swift in a super short action to paraphrase your own words.....sounds new to me.
But the Swift performance ISN'T new.
For many years people could buy a 220 Swift and get the performance they now can obtain from the 223 WSSM.
Is it wrong to say this?

I have to say that this "discussion" has all the hall marks of a similar debate I had with a man at a party years ago.
He was whinging that the nautical qualifications he'd achieved in the Royal Australian Navy were not recognised in the merchant marine.
I asked him if he'd been aware when he was in the RAN that his training would not help him in the merchant navy.
He replied yes but that it was unfair.
I replied that I sympathised with him but that he had known this when he trained.
He replied yes but that it was unfair.
Can we see a circular argument forming?
It lasted 3 hours as he drank more and more beer and nursed a grudge.
I was foolish and he was drunk.
He may still be that drunk but I'm no longer that foolish.
BR, if you look closely I have no issues with you owning, using and encouraging others to buy a WSSM and may you have many pleasing years of use for them.
In fact they are fine cartridges.
But lets not labour the point anymore.
Different cartridges of different shapes and sizes will at times have similar ballistic properties and there is nothing either of us can do about it.
Farewell and good night.