Opinions of the now not so new WSMs

27 October 2003, 08:04

ART338

My oppoligies if this quesition has been asked before, but I was just wondering what the overall truely objective opinion(s)are held by those of us that are expert in the feild of rifles of the Winchester Short mags especially the .300 and the 7mm, now that well over a year has passed since thay were introduced.

I am quite interested in buying a light weight rifle in eithor 7mm, or .300 WSM.

I have read posts on other websites that claim the new short mags are quite prone to feeding problems, but other than that I have not heard any negative things about them.

And lastly, which of the rifles chambered in them have the largest or sufficaint magazine space to allow loading the heavier bullets so as to obtain advertized velocities.

I would realy like to hear from people who base there opinions on first hand experience.

Greatest of thanks,
Art.

27 October 2003, 08:43

olarmy

Art: welcome! My first hand experience is with a "Super Shadow" M70 in 270 WSM. There are NO feeding problems with this rifle, it feeds as smoothly as any bolt action I own, including several pre64 M70's. It is very accurate, all the handloads I have tried have shot anywhere from 1.5" to 0.5". Not bad from a $389 rifle from Wally World.

You might also want to check out the Short Mags forum...lots of info there: http://www.shortmags.org/shortmags/forum/default.asp

27 October 2003, 08:54

RuffHewn

My custom .300WSM was built on a new stainless classic action a couple of summers ago. With a straight taper Mike Rock barrel measuring .9" at the muzzle and with the Choate US&T stock it is far from light weight. However, in the very brief time this rifle was a .300WSM Classic Stainless I did form some opinions.

Metal finish was bead blasted stainless and looked very nice. Now it is tefloned black and I like that more.

There were no feeding problems with this rifle, nor any .300WSM that I am aware of. I have been told of feeding problems with some .270WSM and a couple of 7mmWSM but none with the claw extractor controlled-round-feed classic action.

The magazine length of my rifle would allow seating a bullet to a couple of thousanths over 3" but I achieve expected velocity from my 26" barrel with factory ammo seated even shorter than the listed COL of 2.860". My favorite handload with the 190 gr Sierra Match King is seated to 2.861", max of .006" from the lands.

Come on over to www.shortmags.org and ask questions till your doubt is eased. Also go to www.longrangehunting.com and find out what the .300WSM is capable of at long range in the hands of a capable rifleman.

27 October 2003, 09:57

BBBruce

quote:
Originally posted by RuffHewn:
The magazine length of my rifle would allow seating a bullet to a couple of thousanths over 3" but I achieve expected velocity from my 26" barrel with factory ammo seated even shorter than the listed COL of 2.860".

--------------------
Rapid fire is the crutch of an incompetent marksman. ONE SHOT, ONE KILL.

Looking at your tag line, why would you own a rifle with a magazine? [Big Grin]

27 October 2003, 10:10

GeorgeS

quote:
Originally posted by BBBruce:

quote:
Originally posted by RuffHewn:
--------------------
Rapid fire is the crutch of an incompetent marksman. ONE SHOT, ONE KILL.
Looking at your tag line, why would you own a rifle with a magazine?

Multiple targets!

George

27 October 2003, 10:46

<Savage 99>

I have had a 7mm WSM in a M70 Classic for a year now. It's accurate enough to be a long range varmint rifle and the cartridge is just fine. It's easy to load for and plenty of powders and bullets work well.

The magazine on the Winchester is longer than the throat for sure. I have not loaded a bullet longer than the 160 gr Partition however and that fit's fine. No 300 WM here!

27 October 2003, 10:52

Bwana-be

That's the shame, I think. If I ever, I'll think long and hard about throating it for med-heavy bullets, seated to max - what? 3.07" or so?
That would give a LOT more room in there, I'd think. And you'd still be seated in the entire neck (what their is of it.)
Too bad Winchester didn't play it a bit more selfish and give it a real neck, and 3.07" COL.
I'll bet it would hang in there with the belted mags up through the big bullets (almost.)

28 October 2003, 02:44

Chuck Nelson

In Reply to: "There were no feeding problems with this rifle, nor any .300WSM that I am aware of. I have been told of feeding problems with some .270WSM and a couple of 7mmWSM but none with the claw extractor controlled-round-feed classic action."

No offence, but what rock have you been hiding under? I have yet to see a classic actioned SM of any flavour without some sort of feeding hickup. So they surely exist.

Chuck

[ 10-27-2003, 17:45: Message edited by: Chuck Nelson ]

28 October 2003, 03:00

RogerK

Well Chuck, I have a 300 short M-70 blue and it feeds just fine. Right now I am in Colorado at my sister's place waiting for the third season to open. This will be my second season with this rifle. It shoots exceptionally well. Sub MOA groups out of a cold clean barrel, if I do my part.

But I also have a 270 WSM that is a dog. I mean a real bitch. 300 rounds through the damned thing and not a decent, sustainable group in the bunch. Some groups over 7 inches. Feeding was tight, but a little bending of the extractor fixed it. It feeds just fine. It just won't shoot. I'm giving up on 270 cals forever. From now on it .30 cal. all the way.

28 October 2003, 10:25

<Steve in MI>

I have a pooch of a gun as well a super shadow in 270 WSM. Best group to date is 1.580
I wish I had just rebarreld my 25-06 sendaro instead. Well i guess for my money I got a action and trigger.

28 October 2003, 10:56

KevinNY

Chalk up one more 300WSM that feeds just fine. I have the laminate model and had it pillar bedded and the Barnes 180 TSX goes just under 1/2 MOA with 65 grains of IMR4350 and Fed210 primers, consistently. It will go to SA next spring with me.

28 October 2003, 11:07

RuffHewn

quote:
Originally posted by GeorgeS:

quote:
Originally posted by BBBruce:

quote:
Originally posted by RuffHewn:
--------------------
Rapid fire is the crutch of an incompetent marksman. ONE SHOT, ONE KILL.
Looking at your tag line, why would you own a rifle with a magazine?
Multiple targets!

George

George, obviously you were on board when I recounted the 2 feral hogs near 700 yds.

BBBruce, it is in one of the extremely long MatchKing discussions here, but might be easier to locate on the shortmags.org site. I will search and post a link if you like.

28 October 2003, 11:13

Lawdog_Gary

Chuck,

I don't own a WSM, Y E T, but that most likely will change shortly. I DO own a M70 Coyote in .223 WSSM and have had no feeding problems with it either. My brother in-law's wife shoots a M70 Coyote in .300 WSM and never a feeding problem there either. The 1 or 2 percent that have had problems means that the other 98 or 99 percent are totally reliable. Lawdog

28 October 2003, 11:28

RuffHewn

quote:
Originally posted by Chuck Nelson:
In Reply to: "There were no feeding problems with this rifle, nor any .300WSM that I am aware of. I have been told of feeding problems with some .270WSM and a couple of 7mmWSM but none with the claw extractor controlled-round-feed classic action."

No offence, but what rock have you been hiding under? I have yet to see a classic actioned SM of any flavour without some sort of feeding hickup. So they surely exist.

Chuck

No offence taken, Chuck.

No offence, but it is inconsistent with probability that every shortmag delivered to your geographic area, and few released elsewhere, has feeding problems. Please provide details: qty of rifles inspected, cause of problem, repair procedure and cost, etc.

My rifle did not shoot good groups as released from the factory but function was flawless. Even the factory trigger, though adj heavy, had very little overtravel and was smooth.

28 October 2003, 12:24

ART338

Thanks a great deal to all who took the time out to help me with their experience(s). I will most likely buy a rifle in .300wsm, as that seems to be the best all-around of the WSMs.

Once again, thanks.

Art.

28 October 2003, 15:44

Chuck Nelson

The problems that I saw with the feeding of the short mags, 300 included, was feeding them slowly from the magazine. More often than not they hung up. Winchesters new PF/CRF is in my opinion an answer to clasic action feeding problems with these short and stubby's.

I don't doubt that there are those that feed well, but to say that all the talk about feeding problems is a myth is pure folly.

Back to the original question, I wouldn't own one, but have nothing against those who do or want to. But that is just my opinion.

Chuck

[ 10-28-2003, 06:47: Message edited by: Chuck Nelson ]

28 October 2003, 20:56

Tom

I too have the Super Shadow, in 270WSM.

I bought it a Wally world about 2 months ago( they had it marked down to just $275 WOW!). No feeding problems at all after about 120 rounds through it. Shoots reasonably well under 1.5" with about any load I try and some handloads get down to under 1". Over all I am happier with thsi than I ever expected given the very lwo price. Just wish that stock wasn't so ugly lol.

29 October 2003, 11:07

Trapdoor

My Model 70 Classic Laminate 300 WSM feeds flawlessly.

It is a great rifle and a great cartridge in my opinion.

Shooting 150 SST, my rifle agg's 3/4". Most of those groups are well under that, but it gives the occassional group that makes me wonder what the heck just happened and takes the agg that high...might just be me..... [Eek!]

I can't believe I just said that!

29 October 2003, 11:35

Lou270

I have a .300 WSM Browning Abolt Composite Stalker and a .270 WSM M-70 Classic Stainless. I have not had feeding issues with either. I have not heard of any feeding issues at all with the pushfeed variety, only the CRF variety. John Barsness, who frequents another site I visit, mentioned the same thing in print as well as on posts on the site.

My objective opinion of the WSM rounds is thus:

1) Very accurate
2) In the Browning A-Bolt, definitely shorter lighter than their long action counterpart. The Win M-70 versions are as heavy / long and don't take advantage of the short action as much.
3) Factory loads reach factory velocity - not so true with more established rounds
4) This is not so objective, but I do feel they recoil less. This is based soley on comparing the browning .300 WSM to a Win M70 I got rid of a while back (both shooting 180 gr bullets). It could be stock design or something, but the .300 WSM is definitely not as bad even though it is 2 pounds lighter. The .270 WSM recoils more than my .270 Win (as expected, but some marketing stuff is a little misleading).

So, in summary, I like the shortmags. Ballistically, they offer nothing new that we didn't already have, just do it in a different package. The .270 WSM bridges the gap between the .270 Win & .270 Weatherby, the .300 WSM bridges the gap between the .30-06 & .300 Win Mag, but can be had (though not always are) in shorter, lighter guns. Some guys love them because they are new, other guys hate them because they are new.

-Lou

29 October 2003, 13:07

olarmy

quote:
Originally posted by Lou270:
I Some guys love them because they are new, other guys hate them because they are new.

-Lou

Lou: A very estute observation! What I can't understand is why some guys hate them because they are new. No, they are not needed. Every deer I have shot could have been very well taken with the M70 270 that my dad left to me, but I have sure had a good time buying oher rifles and trying them out. One could argue that none of the cartridges that have been introduced in the last 50 years have been NEEDED. But haven't we had fun trying them out! No one is forcing anyone to buy anything. Guess I just don't understand all the negativity.

29 October 2003, 14:07

Lou270

Olarmy,

I guess some things never change. I was hunting with my buddy and his Grandpap in PA a few years back and he looked down his nose at my scoped .270 Win. I don't know which he hated more...the hot rod .270 or the new fangled scope. He alternated between a .30-40 Krag and a .30-30 for his hunting in PA and couldn't see why you needed anything else.

-Lou