Anyone with any experience or thoughts on this cartridge yet. I want to build a rifle that I can load up for Elk, but also successfully load at 308 Win levels for our small whitetails. Tried it with a 300 Win Mag and failed. It only shot well with full throttle loads. Too much blast and recoil. I'm thinking of a 30/06 on steroids. This case looks to be smaller than the 300WSM. Any feedback appreciated.

I'll give you my thoughts which, when added to $2.50, will get you coffee in most restaurants.

I have a .308 I've been itching to do something with for awhile. There are lots of short action cartridges I might choose, but the Rem. and Win. short mags really appeal.

In .30 caliber, the velocity level I desire is that of the .30-06 Ackley Improved - about 3,000 with a 165 grain bullet or 2850-2900 with a 180 (all assuming a 24" barrel). As you stated it, a 30-06 on steroids.

While both companies have been hawking their offerings as velocity equals with the .300 Win Mag, that's not what I'm looking for, nor do I think that you can equal the Win Mag's velocity in equal length barrels at equal pressure with typical propellants when the powder capacity of the shortys is less than the long Winnie. Something has to give - either the shortys operate at higher pressure than the long winnie, or the factory long Winnie ammo is underloaded (pressure-wise), or we're being fed a line. The reason being proffered, "short, fat cases are more efficient", doesn't hold water as far as I'm concerned.

For me it doesn't matter, as I'm convinced either shorty will give me the ballistics I'm looking for. I'd probably accept the velocity loss trimming the barrel to 23" barrel, and have a rifle that weighs, feels, and handles like my .308 with enough more thump to make a difference. To answer your question, I think the short Rem magnum would make a fine elk/deer cartridge, and would not be hard to download to .308 ballistics. The reduced powder capacity (vs. the long Winnie) favors downloading efforts.

If remington happened to introduce a .25 or .35 on their short/fat case, I might be swayed away from .30 as I like both the quarter-bore and its .358 bigger brother.

Best regards,
BigIron

[This message has been edited by BigIron (edited 01-12-2002).]

I'd like to get my hands on both Winchester's SM and Remington's short UM cartridge specs to compare.
I asked if anyone had the measurements on another thread, but I assume from the lack of responses no one has them (or don't like me )
Does anyone have the cartridge measurements?

Safe Shooting!
Steve Redgwell
303british.com

Steve:

Can't find a handy pic for the SAUM to post. Basically it's about 1/8" shorter with a 30 degree shoulder instead of 35 with a slightly longer neck.

Case capacity for the WSM is 81-82 grains of water, about 75 for the SAUM.

Although they aren't exactly the same as the case specs, you can compare the reamer specs here:

http://www.clymertool.com/cgi-bin/reamer.cgi

Click on "Rimless" and you'll find specs for both.

Thanks very much Jon. I extracted both. It will be interesting to watch this little battle. It will all boil down to who manages the best ad game.

I've always had a fascination for short and fat. Glad my wife isn't around...

Safe Shooting!
Steve Redgwell
303british.com