Just got the latest issue of Shooting Times which I let my subscription drop years ago when Rick Jamison started writing for them.

Every article he writes is full of things that are simply FALSE. Just pot this last issue because there was an article about the 375 JDJ I wanted to read.

Anyway, I was flipping trough the pages and came across another article by Jamison which basically stated that the 308 Winchester was up to doing anything that the 30-378 WBY could do ballistically.

The first thing that caught my attention was his bseline velocity for each round which he magically came up with using his computer with no load testing at all which is very common for this fella.

Lets see here, here are the velocities he gave for comparing these two rounds using a 180 gr Partition.

308 Win 2634 fps
30-378 WBY 3141 fps

Now these were out of 24" barrels, another problem I have with him. He blasts the use of long barrels and big rounds but when comparing these two rounds he does not even use the proper barrel length for the 30-378.

Anyone that has done any serious load testing knows full well that even out of a 24" barrel the 30-378 will easily hit 3350 fps with that bullet and out of a 26" barrel we are talking nearly 3500 fps with top loads.

Basically he was comparing 308 ballistics to 300 Win mag ballistics and saying they were for the 30-378 WBY.

He has also made comments about the 300 RUM that it can only be loaded to 3100 fps with the 180 gr pill and stay under safe levels. Factory load velocity is 150 fps over that.

I just get sick of these supposed gun experts spewing false facts. Just because the guy lost his wildcats to Winchester.

Anyway, this is the reason I care little for the large scale gun mags, the writes only serve the manufactures and tell up only pretty things about every gun they touch.

We all know better and I feel Shooting Times would be far better off getting rid of Mr. Jamison and his computer. Has the man actually fired a round in the past ten years?

Anyway, what are your opinions of this guy and gun mags in general.

The funny thing is that in the next issue he will probably be promoting the super mags. Just depends on who is paying his check for the month I guess.

I think he and his "data" are a joke and anyone who knows about handloading would have to feel the same way!

Good SHooting!!!

50

Yup, quit reading them years ago.
I don't know about you, but I get the feeling those scribes write a few articles annually, then sell them to every magazine that will buy 'em.
Even my favorite "Handloader" has gone downhill when compared to one from a decade, or so ago.
However, I still like Ken Waters.

I read the same article about the thirty calibers and could not believe his foolishness.I have never even seen a 300ultramag or 30-378 with a 24" barrel so why would be be so stupid as to pick that length for these cartridges.I actually don't bother to read any articles by jameson,boddington or barsness any more.

I am glad to see someone else cant stand boddington!! I am so sick of his line of reasoning. I also get tired of these gun writers that have nothing to do but sit at the range and shoot the new latest and greatest crap. Then they proceed to write how it compares to this or that, blaw blaw blaw. They never take into consideration the real world scenarios or real world BC's or real world velocities, or real world anything. Just what their handy dany computer tells them or their 200 or 300 yard range data. Heck most bullets havnt even gone to sleep at 200 yards.



In the 308's defense, I love it to death. I will always own and mostly shoot a 308. They are accurate, easy and cheap to load for, comfortable to shoot, efficient, have long barrel life and the list goes on...I do admit that the 30-378 has 2 times the effective range of the 308 and 1/2 the trajectory. There is no sense in publishing that the 308 can keep up with the 30-378. I have owned a 30-378 and it shot around 3450 FPS w/180 X bullets. The fastest I have ever shot my 308's is 3100 FPS, with lighter bullets of course! I can respect both cartridges for their good qualities, but never compare them as apples to apples.

It seems that if you have an article printed, it becomes law to some people, instead of an opinion, as it should be taken. They're in the business to sell magazines. If they told the real world truth, not many magazines would get sold.

Writers of articles about velocity or this is better than that rifle, who may have opinions that are based on fantasy, rather than fact are at the worst, annoying. If some soul wants to sell his 300 Win Mag., because some article tells him he needs a 30-375 Remchester super dooper mag to kill a 175 pound deer, swell. It means one more used good caliber rifle for me to buy.

What really frosts me is the gun store commandos, who monthly give free Lethal force advise on the latest must have gun, caliber, plastic holster, folding assault knife/entrenching tool (take your pick) and will only work if you attend their shootum up school for a week. I see people in gun stores and at the range who follow these paper fighters. They wear two guns with all the bells and whistles, a $200 folding knife, 3 magazines, an atomic powered flashlight and 50 to 100 pounds of fat!!!! You wanna survive, loose some weight!!

The only one's articles I read are Clint Smith's. Get a plan, reliable gun, practice a lot, pay attention to what's going on around you and leave when it starts to look bad. With common sense like that, I don't know how he's able to sell articles to magazines that want you to throw away everything you have and buy whatever their latest sponser is selling.

My solution is simple, don't read the article. Please excuse my rant.

Handloader and Rifle magazines are still the best mags published. But they have taken a more Guns and Ammo/ Shooting Times look and editorial perspective.
I read G&A/ Shooting Times for one year and with that years worth of articles, I have read every article that they have published before and since.
Gun mag's business is to sell guns and gun crap, if you learn anything it's a happy accident.
Jim

I to cant stand boddington. I got a free supscription to Hunting mag . I dont even read his articles anymore at all, I just cant stand seeing his ugly mug poseing for the pictures they print of him every month

Michael_E,

Please realize I am not knocking either of these two rounds, both have they advantages and disadvantages. My problem is as you stated comparing them as apples and apples. Thanks for your thoughs, I agree totally!!

Good SHooting!!!

50

Packrat,

I agree, to bad Mr. Waters could nto replace Jamison. Old timers like Elmer and even Wooters told it how it was. If one thing did not work they said so and then told you what did work.

Not that opinions can not very, that is the spice of life, but for Jamison to print the crap he does an dto get away with it, it just pisses me off.

I feel I am experienced enough to read through one of his articles and pick out every B.S. comment he makes, unfortunately, many new to the sport can not yet do this and take his jumble for gospel.

Real data is collected at the range and in the field, not in an office with a lap top computer.

Thanks for your comments, I feel the same!

50

Stubblejumper,

I really do not mind Boddington all that much, I do not agree with his idea that we need large magnums to harvest deer but to everyone his own. I have yet to see him print the crap that Jamison does and Boddington actually hunts alot.

Again I feel his articles are steered by the manufacturers but at least they are possible and believible. Jamison is just a flat waste of paper.

I hate to say it as a fellow Montana boy but Barsness is as big a sell out as Jamison.

I one read an article from Barsness where he stated that when testing a product, say a rifle, if the first rifle is a poor performer, he will send it back to get a replacement rifle just to give the manufaacturer the benefit of the doubt. If the second rifle performs badly, it is also returned to give the maker another chance before the article is written.

If the third specimen is faulty, then he stated that he will send the rifle back and just not right the article.

That really helps us as consumers. Imagine the odds of getting three bad rifles in a row. No wonder they never have anything bad to EVER print about anyone or anything they test.

My idea of an accurate article, after the first bad rifle, WRITE THE DAMN ARTICLE AND SAY IT WAS A BAD RIFLE!!!

maybe then the quality control in our industry would return to where it used to be.

Of course, being a custom rifle maker, I love the modern rifle, my customers love to see the improvements in accracy after I tune the receiver and barrel for them.

Good Shooting!!!

50

I thought that Jaimison's point, was one that needed to be pointed out, to the many people who've been duped into thinking that the "super-mags" are such super cartridges - when compared to the older (smarter?) standard cartridges.
Looking at my two newest reloading manuals - I see that Jaimison's numbers are about smack on.The Fifth edition Nosler book lists the absolute maximum velocity at 3264 fps in a 26 inch barrel. The Number 3 Barnes book lists the absolute fastest load (with uncoated bullets)as going 3274 with a 26 inch barrel also. Note how the two newest manuals have are almost in exact agreement as to what is the maximum velocity.If you are getting velocities way beyond these (as you say you are) I would suggest your pressures are far abouve suggested SAMMI maximum pressures.
Let's compare the supposed advantages these ultra-mags have over the good old fashioned 30-06.Using the same manuals -and the same bullets (and the same adherance to safe accepted pressures) - Nosler says the 30-06 can achieve 2872 out of a 24 inch barrel. Barnes has the 30-06 going 2796 again out of a 24 inch tube. If we use well accepted norms we can safely add about 60fps to know what would happen with another two inches of barrel.So lets say the 30-06 would max out at around 2930.
Now lets see what great advantage that wonderful 344 fps makes when we compare a 3274 bullet out of the 30-378 to the lowly bullet moving a mere 2930 fps coming out of the lowly 30-06.
Let's see drop figures we get using a 250 yard zero will look like (we'll round it DOWN to 2900fps) 180gr 30 caliber out of a 30-06:
it would be 2.69 inches high at 100 yards
it would be 2.19 inches high at 200 yards
it would be -3.61 inches low at 300 yards
it would be -15.45 inches low at 400 yards
it would be _34.20 inches low at 500 yards
Now let's look at the advantage a high stepping 3274 bullet out of a 30-378 has (we'll even round it UP to 3300):
it would be 1.85 inches high at 100 yards
it would be 1.61 inches high at 200 yards
it would be -2.88 inches low at 300 yards
it would be -12.39 inches low at 400 yards
it would be -25.63 inches low at 500 yards.
Wow! Who would have thought that the mighty super mag would be a whole 3.06 inches flatter at a quarter mile! A whole 8.57 inches flatter at a range (500 yards) that no one with a conscience should be shooting at big game with (in my opinion) if you care about not wounding what you shoot at.
So at 400 yards (still a super long shot for 99% of the hunters out there) you get a around three inches flatter trajectory.Hunters just can't (in actual field conditions)- can even hold a gun with that degree of accuracy in the field - most couldn't with a 30-378 on a bench either!
For about three inches flatter tajectory at a qaurter mile away you use about twice as much powder - get hit almost three times as hard at the shoulder and suffer from much shorter barrel life and much greater muzzle blast! It simply makes no sense!
If you do enough testing using ballistic glue or other test mediums you will alo note that with almost every bullet you will NOT get more penetration with a bullet going 300 to (even with your inflated figures) 500 fps faster - in most cases you will actually get less!
The super-mags are aimed at the armchair hunter who likes to pull out his bigger (ahem) cartridge - and then tell everyone how mighty fast it is and how small it makes the old cartridges look. I know - I used to do that in my younger and more foolish days. I owned many a super-mag (both wildcat and factory) and as I got older and wiser and started using more test mediums and had decades more experience - I came to realize how right the older smaller cartridges are - and how loud, inefficient and punishing the super-magnum family is.
It's a realization that most people I've met have come to when they get older and wiser - at least that's what happened to me. Jaimison was right on in his article! Few professional gun-writers want to write what he did because the average gun-writer knows that he is supposed to push anything new - for the sake of helping the advertising for all the new whiz-bang calibers being shown in the magazines that employ them. The older you get - the more you realize the wisdom in what "Cactus Jack" O'Conner had in his writings.From a man who used his 30-06 to take more than a dozen grizzlies and a some more lions and leopards and other things that bit back - he had a reason for thinking huge over-bore magnums were made for tha arm-chair hunters while the ones with his experience generally used "standard" calibers for a whole lot of reasons.
Sorry to burst your bubble...but that's the way it is...in my opinion anyways.

How dare you cite reputable load books for your fps claims! I'm shocked! And that fool Jamison's computer actually predicted nearly the same velocities! Why, that's proof computers are for fools!

I hate to say that I am not tired of reading anyone particular writer as much as I am tired reading certain publications.

If it isnt Rifle Shooter or Handloader magazine, I thumb thru them at Walmart and put them back on the rack.

I don't know if they have gotten stale or I am just older and wiser. They say the same thing over and over, which is whatever any particular advertising client wants to be said.

If one has read enough of these over the years, ever picked up an article and somehow it sounds vaguely familiar and then you find it in another Peterson Publication from 3 yrs earlier?

Or they have so and so taking his trophy for this month's article, yet you saw the exact same picture of the guy with the same trophy in a reload manual first released 4 yrs ago?

I just save my money and curse myself on all the shooting magazines I have dating back 15 to 20 yrs and think of what else I could have spent it on, like about 10 different rifles, or a scope I may have wanted.

Oh well, someone is getting something out of them as the mags still sell.

cheers
Seafire

If it wasn't Rick it would be his replacement we'd be ragging on. The gun nut monthlies are not pure and holy I'm afraid and that, although it will not eliviate our frustration, is just the way it is. A certain big shot who interviewed me for a job at G&A and turned me down (1976) once wrote that he hit his Black Sable in the nose because the animal jumped when he heard the shot from this guy's .375 H&H. Does that indicate varasity,understanding of subject matter and or editorial ability? It is the way they are so just move on. They, like a lot of our country, are motivated by the great American greed factor.Those rags are not intended for the well informed anyway, and computer forums are begining to dig into their pockets. roger

I stopped reading most of the gun magazines years ago so I don't know anything about the content of Rick's articles. I did, however, know him years ago when I use to write freelance for some of these places. He seemed like a nice guy.

One thing you have to understand about gun writers, however, is that at least for staff people THE prime objective is to make advertisers and potential advertisers happy. That's just the way it is and it isn't going to change.

That, in my opinion, is one reason why the internet is a better source for information.

BCBrian posted



Looking at my two newest reloading manuals - I see that Jaimison's numbers are about smack on.The Fifth edition Nosler book lists the absolute maximum velocity at 3264 fps in a 26 inch barrel. The Number 3 Barnes book lists the absolute fastest load (with uncoated bullets)as going 3274 with a 26 inch barrel also. Note how the two newest manuals have are almost in exact agreement as to what is the maximum velocity.If you are getting velocities way beyond these (as you say you are) I would suggest your pressures are far abouve suggested SAMMI maximum pressures.





For your information I have chronographed two factory 30-378's shooting factory loads at right around 3450fps.Since this is 175fps more than the loads you quote in your manuals and in jamisons article ,are you suggesting that these loads are producing pressures far above the sammi maximums?Are you aware that weatherby quotes this same 3450fps out of their factory loads?Would that indicate that all weatherby loads are producing pressures far above the sammi maximums?Now for the credibility of the nosler manuals.If you compare 165gr loads for both the 300win mag(24" barrel) and 300wby mag(26" barrel) in the nosler #4 manual the 300win mag is listed at producing 48fps more than the 300wby in spite of having a barrel 2" shorter and much less case capacity.Does this sound reasonable?It is glaring inconsistancies such as this this make me suspect some of the data in the nosler manuals.

I consider these forums to be an interactive gun-rag. I don't belive some of the guys on these boards any less or more than rag-writers, on the whole. And the cumulative experience is pretty impressive.

The hard part is taking the computer with you to the john.

I no longer have any subscriptions, though I contemplate getting Handloader.

I don't know everything there is to know about gunbuilding! I don't know everything there is to know about loading for the guns I've built or own! But I do know I don't get paid to write BS articles that a lot of people who want to know but don't, will shell out big money to read hoping to learn something!!! If Rick Jamison is as good as he thinks he is and knows as much as he thinks he does, come on down to VA and we'll turn him loose in the reloading room with MY RIFLES and see if he can duplicate what I do!!! I'll bet not!!! Tooting my own horn here!! I got an invitation to write for a gun rag today!!! GHD

Hi Stubblejumper,
I'd say that the recorded maximums were the maximums for the barrels that they tested them in...nothing more...nothing less.

I would also add though, that velocity and pressure is tightly linked and that you can't get more of one...without getting more of another.If you are getting velocities in your own gun that are much in excess of the norms from a variety of sources, I think it's pretty safe to assume that you are on the high side of sammi maximum pressures (although perhaps not dangerously so - if you don't mind living "closer to the edge")for your particular cartridge.

I'm glad you mentioned Weatherby.For year they have been posting velocities that everyone generally finds hard to achieve as being the "normal maximums" for their guns. While we are writing about pet peaves....MY pet peeve is gun writer who parrot Weatherby's stated velocities for their cartridges as fact...rather than taking the time to chrono the loads themselves and dare to print the usually less-than-impressive real results!

I found it quite humerous when Weatherby (still sticking to that old inflated 3350fps that it still puts in its ads for its 180 gr. .300 with a 26 inch barrel)had to come out and then say that the new super-mag 30-378 using the same bullet - and with about 40 more grains of powder driving it could only beat it by 100 or so feet fps!
Now That's funny!

Let's see what the 30-378's 100 fps advantage (to beleive Weatherby) over the old Weatherby .300 get's us in their 180 gr..
Sighted in at 250 (very reasonable) the new super mag gives us:
About 1/10th of an inch flatter at 100 yards
About 1/10th of an inch flatter at 200 yards
About a quarter of an inch flatter at 300 yards
About 3/4's of an inch flatter at a quarter mile
And finally a whole inch and a quarter at 500 yards!

To achieve these wonderous results we get almost double the recoil, twice the muzzle blast, 40 more grains of powder per shot to pay for - and (depending on who you listen to) and a barrel life that varies between 50 and 300 shots before rather severe throat erosion occurs! Compared to 1000's of rounds for the "normal" Weatherby.

The fact remains, even if you can want to load to get another 100 or even 200 fps. It's a game of greatly diminishing returns - and in my opinion - it just ain't worth the expense, the pain, the wear and tear and the bother.

If you enjoy those rounds....more power to you. No one can explain another man's taste.But if you believe you'll ever see the difference on game or trajectory in the field - I personally think that you are dreaming.

So, I conclude by saying that my pet peeves (when it comes to Gun writers)is when I read them parroting factory information - rather than testing themselves, not ever writing negative reports and not being outraged when some ultra expensive rifle can't get better than 1/ 1/2 or 2 inch groups at 100 yards! I read that a few months ago!

I guess different things bug all of us - eh? (I'm Canadian) and that bugs some people...LOL!

Brian

BCBrian posted



"If you are getting velocities in your own gun that are much in excess of the norms from a variety of sources, I think it's pretty safe to assume that you are on the high side of sammi maximum pressures (although perhaps not dangerously so - if you don't mind living "closer to the edge")for your particular cartridge"





What do you call norms?You can take maximum velocities from several different manuals for the same load and they vary by well over 100fps or more.As I stated earlier ,I have personally chronographed 180gr factory loads at 3450fps out of factory 30-378 accumarks.Since this cartridge was developed specifically for weatherby do you not believe that they would extensively test them to insure that the pressures are not excessive?If guns were to blow up and people were to be injured the liability suits would be very expensive as well as determental to weatherby's reputation.The latest loading manuals usually have the lowest velocities due to the fact that companies such as nosler do much less testing with certain cartridges and are giving ultra conservative loads in order to avoid the chance of liability lawsuits if something was to happen.So what would the norm be in this case?Weatherbys data which has matched the results that I have chronographed,noslers data which I have previously shown to have some serious irregularities or jamesons calculated data which is based on barrel lengths that these guns are not even sold with from the factory and have not actually been verified by shooting them?

The most important fact to remember though is that if you are going to write an article and want to be taken seriously,use realistic data proven by firing the guns and loads not ridiculous calculations skewed to support your veiwpoint such as jameson has done in this case.

BCBrian,

I will tell you this, if you take your Nosler manual and take the fastest load of any caliber you pick, load that up exactly as it is printed in the manual and shoot it over a chrony, you will be anywhere from 150 to 200 fps slower then what Nosler tell you you will be.

This is because they use match barrels with tight match chambers to develope their loads in. In their rifles they do get that velocity but you will get no where near that.

If you never shoot over a chrono you will have no idea where you loads are.

Velocity is a function of pressure and time. Within reason. most rifle will get roughly the same velocity with the same pressure, as long as there are no major variances.

It will take on average 3-4 grains more powder to reach the velocity that nosler lists.

Please also tell me how Weatherby gets 3450 fps with factory ammo. They must be getting 80,000 psi pressure from your thinking, how can these rifles handle that pressure and in soft Norma brass no less.

A little experimenting actually firing a gun will teach alot.

Good SHooting!!

50

Bob338,

The reason for the increase in pressure with the neck sized only case is that when a load is fired using a full length fired case, there is a slight amount of pressure that leaks around the case before it expands to seal off the chamber.

Also, it takes energy to expand the case, i.e. pressure. Since there is more expansion on a full length sized case, more energy is put into that and less into the bullet.

As you said, once the case is fireformed and neck sized, there will be no increase in pressure from that point on unless the brass flows forward and increases the thickness of the neck, this will also increase pressure.

The more you neck size only, the tighter the case will fit in the chamber. This is simply because the more a case is fired the more it is work hardened. It will still expand under pressure but will contract less and less the more it is fired. This is when it is time to anneal your neak and shoulder and bump the shoulder back with a full length sizer.

Again after that you can just neck size. How often you will have to bumb the shoulder will of course depend on the pressure you are running in your loads. A 50,000 psi load will probably never need it, a 65,000 psi load will need it every 5 firing or so.

Good Shooting!!!

50

Groundhog,

Well said my friend!!!

Problem is that Jamison does not have to answer to his "comments", and he certainly would not stand up to your challange.

Good Shooting!!!

50

Brain,

The comparision that started my post was the 308 Winchester and the 30-378. Not the 303 Wby and the 30-378.

Compare a 180 gr bullet at 2700 fps and one at 3450 fps, and tell me there is not difference between the two.

50

You guys are tough on your writers. Must agree Shooting Times is mostly garbage (used to subscribe about 20+ yrs ago - no comparison to what it is now) but I certainly don't discount the knowlege & experience of guys like Barsness, Van Zwoll, Boddington, Sundra & Layne Simpson.

I didn't know Rick Jamieson would misrepresent the facts to that extent but I must admit that I can't recall any Jamieson articles so they are not that memorable.

Sure the articles are sometimes a rehash but heck whats the difference with fishing magazines etc. Its mostly entertainment. I mean magazine are the "fast food" of literature.

Don't know why there is so much Boddington bashing going around on the forums? I'm sure "The Elk Rifle" or "The Perfect Elk Cartridge" is not his favourite article either but every 3 years or so his editors tell him to write it up! Not his fault. And every one of his articles is very well reasoned. He is also not the kind of guy that says he used so & so to shoot a Cape Buff if he did not really use it. So his integrity is very good.

I have read his African Books & as a story teller he is not in the Capstick class but in technical/reference articles they are always very good eg. Safari Rifles & American Hunting Rifles.

Hell he's even put his life on the line for his country. Give the guy a break!

Heck I thought it was only us Aussies that suffered from the tall poppy syndrome.

I am too much of a sucker I guess. I still look forward to receiving my latest issue of Rifleshooter, Rifle & Guns & Game (local product) whoever the writers may be then make up my own mind on what to believe.

OK,
l"ll stick to my rhetorical observation about some other published Weatherby velcities....
Who many of you out there are getting the claimed 3350fps out of 180 grain bullets 26 inch .300 Weatherby Magnums?
I know it's phoney...I believe most of the rest of world knows that's phoney...and I believe Weatherby...and the writors who parrot their velocity figures...know those figures are phoney.
Why are we still seeing it published by Weatherby? It's basically a lie (at least when compared to other manufacturers data about their own proprietary cartridges) isn't it?
Yours,
Brian
PS MY point about Jaimison's writings is - that using accepted recently published data - he's "right on" in his point, that the super-magnums are a gun writers dream - and a practical bust. I stand by that belief, and I've owned my share of big-boomers, I unfortunately I still have a few I'm hoping to pawn off on the uninitiated, and those others who are taken in - by the impressive size of the brass.

Ken Howell once wrote Weatherby ammunition is loaded to a whopping 70,000 psi. There is little tolerance for error at this level, giving the manufacturer of the cartridges (Norma, I believe) fits.



I believe they do this so that pressure in the typical factory rifle runs right at the industry maximum pressure. For most other cartridges, the typical factory load fired in a typical factory rifle is running well below the agreed industry maximum pressure. This gives them plenty of slack for the 75 year old rifles, especially those with corroded throats that can up pressure. The pressure seen in load books is that in very tight pressure barrels; you won't likely see them in your own rifle, thus the lower fps you find at home.



Weatherby cartridges are mostly chambered in Weatherby rifles which have always been hell for stout. Also, they have very generous free bore which reduces the problems of rough throats getting a good grip on the bullet and delaying its initial movement. Weatherby therefore thinks they can be less cautious. The reloading companies (and those spiffy computer programs) use the typical reduction in pressure ratings.



I think the Weatherby cartridges silly. All that powder is mostly wasted with the puny expansion ratios possible with sporter length barrels. They're wonderful if you like muzzle blast; other than that, they are just a nice income stream for the powder makers.

Who many of you out there are getting the claimed 3350fps out of 180 grain bullets 26 inch .300 Weatherby Magnums?

Weatherby claims 3250 f/s for 300 Wby ammo, not 3350 f/s....and it typically does about 3150 to 3180. I have chronographed 300 Wby ammo off and on since 1973. First Chronographing with the old Oehler 10 and paper screens.

300 Weatherby factory ammo and 378 ammo is about 100 f/s under what you can easily load to. I mention the 300 and 378 as those are the Wby calibres where I have chronographed factory ammo across a wide spread of time. However, I think the other Wby calibres would be similar.

A few years ago I chonographed 100 rain 270 Wby ammunition from a Made in USA 270 Weatherby I owned at just under 3700 f/s, which is not that high. With top loads a 270 Winchester is just under 3600 f/s with 100 grainers with 26 inch barrel.

Mike

One time Jamieson wrote that with different powders loaded to the same velocity the same bullet
would have a different B.C.. No data was given to allow reverse calculation. I wrote him and asked
how the bullet would know which powder would be have been used?. Also would he move the muzzle back
another 10 ft and check if the different muzzle blast from the slower powder was upsetting his initial
velocity measurement. He actually replied. He said that he damn well knew what he was doing.
Never answered my questions though. I logged his name unto my BS list.
Take Care!

JohnT,

I agree with most of what you say, in fact I feel Sundra, Simpson, Boddington and VanZwoll learned and write what they DO.

My problem is when an average hunter and an average reloader such as Jamison and Barsness write their gospel and new people to our sport or not so experienced shooters take this them as the only ones speaking the truth.

I have more guys come into my shop that have bought products because they read about them from these two guys and then be totally unhappy with what they really have.

One minute Jamison will be "advertising" for the new big magnums and in the next issue he will be saying the old standards are everybit as good.

Personally, as a smith I do not feel there is such a thing as a bad round, just uninformed shooters using the wrong round at the wrong time.

I agree that Boddington flat out writes about what he feels is best and that is also what he uses himself. I do respect him emensly for that. Simpson brought the STW to the factory rifle so that the average shooter could get better performance even though some of his velocity claims were a bit optimistic. And above that this made the factorys produce other rounds to compete with the new round.

Sundra has probably done more hunting in more places then most gunwrites combines.

I just wish there was a better source of information for new commers to the sport, Jamison is a poor source at best, let me restate that, Jamisons computer is a poor source at best.

Good Shooting!!!

50

Brian,

Most would get offended by being called a liar. Me my friend could care less, believe what you will and have a good happy life, that is all anyone wants.

If you feel 3450 fps with a 180 gr bullet out of a 30-378 is a lie, so be it.

If you think 3400 fps out of a 300 RUM with a 180 gr pill is a lie, good for you.

If you think 3300 fps with a 180 gr pill out of a 300 WBY is a lie then again happy trails.

But if you believe these numbers are a lie, then you must feel that Hornadys new 30-06 loads that drive a 180 gr pill to 3000 fps are also a lie, no load book around lists these velocities.

And of course, we must not ever go off and think for ourselves and see what is over the next ballistic hill.

What do you believe a 257 STW will get with a 100 grain bullet or a 115 gr pill. Oh right, this round is not in any load manual, it simply can not exist and if it is around at all it is simply a lie in the minds of dreamers.

In the real world there are many of us that know how to experiment and how to learn the truth about ballistic and velocity and pressure and safety.

I am also a liar when I say my 6mm-284 with its 30" Lilja and 19.5 lb weight will shoot the 107 gr Matchking at 3500 fps. I am a liar again when I say that combo will shoot flatter and buck the wind better then the mighty 30-378 and it make the 308 look like a black powder round at 1000 yards and beyond.

You will probably call me a liar when I say that last season alone this rifle made dozens of one shot kills past 500 yards with the top four being 713, 715, 902 and 1055 yards on chucks.

You see, I do not believe you need huge cases to get top performance, in fact I disagree with that notion. But to say the 308 will do anything the 30-378 will do and then hamstring the big round with a 300 fps reduction in velocity, hell, since we are calling everyone liars, lets just add 300 fps to the 308 Win and then they will be ballistic twins.

Calling very educated and experienced people liars is a bold comment, those comments are also most often stated behind the protection of a web site.

You may feel I am a liar, but you my friend have alot to learn about the sport you are take such a firm judgement against.

50

Among my stable is a 30-378 which I am lending to my dad for our Colorado elk hunt in October. I have had a 300 Winchester, 30'06 and 308. At first read, I got a bit hot under the collar reading this article, then thought about it a bit. Maybe, just maybe he is simply trying to tell people that they don't need to buy a biggest whiz-bang rifle out there to get their whitetail. I have used all of the 30's mentioned and deer are as dead as they would be with my 30-378. Only reason this comes to mind is that a young cousin who has been coming hunting with us for years is now ready to buy a rifle of his own. We hunt in the Catskills for whitetail where a 100-yard shot is long. Does he need a 30-378? He would buy one if he read all of the hype (or a 300RUM, 300RSAUM or 300WSM, etc) when he could do just fine with the 30'06, 308 or 30-30. I used a 35 Remington in a Marlin 336 for years.
I don't know ... I read all of the gun rags that hit the stands for the "excitement" of living vicariously through someone else's experience. Do I believe everything that is written - about as much as I believe in the local newpapers or evening news - all spun to sell the papers and make the producers/editors happy. I don't know Rick, never met, spoke or wrote to him. I read some of what he writes and this last article touched a nerve in me. Now I just chuckle about it. When hunting, my dad often asked "Hey Paul, do you really need that ...?" (insert 257 mag, 8mm mag, 30-378, 300 Win, 416, 450 Marlin all of which I have carried afield while my dad always carried the same 742BDL in 30'06 and never missed or wounded any game). Maybe Rick was simply doing the same thing.
Maybe just wishful thinking on my part.
Stay well,
Paul

Fiftydriver,
I suggest you re-read my posts. I never said that you were a liar. I don't know where you got that. I did say that the old Weatherby (and I did find some) ads that stated that their .300 Magnum got 3350 (not 3250 - in their old ads) with a 180 grain bullet out of a 26 inch barrel were "inflated". The proof that I'm right is the fact that they have lowered their claims. Additional proof is how many newer printed reloading manuals (which have access to devices to measure pressure) fail to be able to recreate Weatheryby's old claims safely.
The reason handloaders can load bullets to go faster than reloading manuals is because the manual manfacturers are not allowed to publish loads that are in excess of acceptable SAMMI standards - and home reloaders are free to load their loads as hot as they want - until their guns blow up - if they like.
I made no claims against the other loads you mentioned - so I don't know what is promting your one sided rant where you set up straw men just to blow them down.
I wrote originally (and use recognized charts to prove my point) to show that velocity increases of 300fps do very little to trajectory. Increases of 500fps don't do a whole lot more.The difference is less than most hunters can hold in the field.
I don't believe they are any deadlier.I do believe the "super-mags" recoil up to three times more than old standard calibers.They use about twice as much powder. They have a barrel life measured in the hundreds before erosion occurs - rather than many thousand rounds, for the standard calibers.The muzzle blast is much more uncomfortable.Most shooters don't shoot them near as well as those shooting standars either.
Jaimison was pointing this out. I agreed with him. No point to get all confrontational about a simple difference of opinion. I'll use my old Remington 30-06 Pump (that can shoot sub-m.o.a. groups - even though I still own some "big-boomers" from my younger more foolish days)) to take everything that walks in Canada safely, without fuss, bother, much noise or recoil. If you feel the desire to do the same with your 30-378 and think that your animals end up deader than mine - more power to you!
Vive la differance!
Brian

My problem with Jamison is one of ethics. Several months ago [October or November issue of Shooting Times I believe] Jamison wrote an article featuring an accurizing fixture pioneered and manufactured by Greg Tannel of Kersey, Colorado. The fixture itself and the action blue printing process that it employs is quite ingenious.

Jamison duly mentioned Greg Tannel as the originator of the fixture and the concept---once. He then proceeded to illustrate the use of the fixture and the accurizing procedure with copious references to a gunsmithing business in Springfield, Oregon [name of business deliberately withheld]. The clear thrust of the article is to use the ingenious Tannel process and fixture as a vehicle to feature
and promote this Oregon gunsmithing business. The article copies---almost photograph by photograph Greg Tannel's illustration of the procedure on Greg's web site but makes the least reference to Greg Tannel possible [no mention even of Tannel's phone number or address].

At the end of the article, in which the genious and hard work of another gunsmith is employed as a vehicle to feature and advertize the talents of this Springfield, Oregon gunsmithing business, Jamison exhorts his readers that if they want an action accurized with this procedure [i.e., to this high level of precision], they should really send their work to this fine Oregon Gunsmithing business which Jamison writes about and is clearly promoting---with the use of
Greg Tannel's tooling and method and the barest mention of him as the originator.

The obvious purpose of the article is to promote this Oregon gunsmithing entity. And guess who owns this frigging Oregon gunsmithing business that Jamison raves about in the article---and tells us all to hire for our accurizing needs!? You guessed it: Rick Jamison!! [I found this out by calling the business on the phone. Jamison never returned my call.] But in order to preserve the aura of objectivity Jamison never tells the reader about this conflict of interest---that he was promoting and raving about his own frigging business. Nor, I am quite sure, did he tell his employer, Shooting Times.

I wonder how all these gunsmiths who pay dearly to get a small advertizing space in Shooting Times would feel if they knew that Jamison was competing with them by essentially stealing free advertizing from his employer [by not telling Shooting Times Jamison was writing about his own business] and using his status and name to promote his own economic interests under the guise of an objective review?

What the whole thing conveyed to me is that Jamison has incredible contempt for his readers and is out to make a buck anyway he possibly can. I think the man is very knowledgeable about firearms, but I have lost all respect for him as a result of this event. I don't trust him as far as I can throw him.

I have no idea how Tannel feels about all this or whether he is even aware of Jamison's article. It is my opinion and believe that Shooting Times had no Jamison was using them to promote his own business without disclosing the conflict. I find it highly insulting to the reader. Obviously, the reader would have gotten a very different impression of the article and Jamison's objectivity if he had declared "hey, I am here promoting my own business!" Jamison has lost all credibility with me.


Jordan

FiftyDriver: Anyone that shoots woodchucks at over 1000 yds certainly can boast. A while back on
" Shooters" a claim similar to that started a "shooting contest". The winner was shooting prarie dogs at 3500 yds.
So you still have some room for improvement.
Good Luck!

FiftyDriver,

I've never taken notice of Jamieson (in fact I'll have to re-read what few issues of shooting times I have to find out) but please you can't lump Barsness in with him.

Barsness for me anywayway is the one who dispelled the " myth" about reading pressure signs from case head expansion, the stuff you have to do to prep brass for accuracy. In fact again his book " optics for the hunter" dispels " myths" again eg. that 30mm tubed scopes allow more light. That Euro optics were so much better than US Scopes - actually I believe some are but not by much at all. In fact he has dispelled so many " myths" that I now even check out what he says as well as other " Experts". That's a good thing I think.

This guy has done the hard yards & given the "good oil" and gives valuable info. He does not just expect the " givens" that are in the old reloading books that get rehashed year after year.

He is also the one that alerted me to the large pressure variations in the 7mm Rem as we approach max. Its a little bit of an anomoly as it does not happen with the 7mm Weatherby - (so he says). So I will be even more careful with my 7mm Rem. He is precisely what a " novice" shooter/reloader like me needs.

I've been doing it on & off for 20 years but in actual shooting time I'm a novice compared to those guys that do it for a living.

Check him out at 24 hour campfire under the name " Mule Deer" . I'm sure he's a busy guy but everytime I have a genuine query he does not hesitate to reply and give advice or more importantly impart his experience. A good guy IMHO!

Regards
JohnT

In my opinion there is more knowledgable information posted in this thread than Jamison or Boddington have ever written. Between Accurate Reloading, and Hunt America, I've learned more in 2 years than I'd get in a lifetime of reading what jibberish those 2 write. Bill T.