There's a very good srticle in the latest AFrican Sporting Gazette by terry Wieland with an "assist" from D'arcy Echols. PRetty well sums it up, all hype and a solution to an non-existent problem. jorge

quote:

Originally posted by jorge:
There's a very good srticle in the latest AFrican Sporting Gazette by terry Wieland with an "assist" from D'arcy Echols. PRetty well sums it up, all hype and a solution to an non-existent problem. jorge

Jorge,

Please provide more details on the article. For instance is it about belted bottlenecked rounds being a solution to a non problem?

Here is a link to the magazine but it does not include an article like you mentioned.

This is PDF and slow to download.

I have a WSM because it's fun to shoot something new. The arguments over the 7mm and 300wsms are legit because they don't give a ballistic advantage over the longer versions (even though they are more efficient cases), and the rifles they're chambered in are not put together well enough to capitalize on the theoretical inherent accuracy factors that the short mags bring (more uniform ignition, shorter, stiffer action).

I see the .270wsm as something different though. I've been handloading for the 270wcf in various rifles for 30 years, and I've owned and handloaded for three different 270wsms. I've tested and chronoed close to 200 different loads for the .270wsm, and it's good for a 200fps gain over the .270wcf. For instance, my current pet load using the 140gr TSX and RL22 or 25 handily gets 3250fps, just about 200fps over max in the 270wcf. That's a clear upgrade over the old 270 and is treading on the heels of the 270wby. Does it matter on game? No. But it's fun, and I don't want to get bored with shooting. To follow the logic of some posters here, none of us should bother with more than one .30-40 Krag in the gun safe.

My own tinkering has also convinced me that most people make a couple of mistakes when loading for the .270wsm. It's an overbore case, moreso than most folks realize, so slow powders work best. Many people start off with powders in the 4350/RL19 range when even 4831 is a little on the fast side IMO. It really shines with RL22 and 25, 7828, Magpro and the like. The other mistake (again, IMHO) is that the case doesn't require magnum primers. You get lower pressures and better accuracy with standard primers, and can use larger charges.

My two cents.

quote:

Originally posted by jorge:
There's a very good srticle in the latest AFrican Sporting Gazette by terry Wieland with an "assist" from D'arcy Echols. PRetty well sums it up, all hype and a solution to an non-existent problem. jorge

They used pretty much the same arguement against the first "Horseless Carriages". They were noisy and unreliable and no faster than the tried and true horse drawn carts.
Fortunately there are always though willing to see possibilities in something new and improved.................DJ

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tumbo:
I read an article a year or so back that stated more die sets in 270WSM had been sold in a particular month in the USA than for any other cartridge.
QUOTE]

I'm sure that what I was remembering was something to that effect. I just wish I could find the particular article so I could be more specific. I have a photographic memory - but ran out of film!..... ........DJ

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:
They used pretty much the same arguement against the first "Horseless Carriages".

...and BTW, thank GOD for Charles Kettering too!

Here is the link to Jorge's magazine download.

African Sporting......

Yep, that's the issue and it made perfect sense to me, unlike the Horseless carriage analogy.
Subject carriages represented a quantum leap over the horse and buggy (in case you missed that one) whereas in the case of the WSMS, aside the fact of a minuscule reduction in action length, they bring nothing to the table from a ballistic POV that exixting cartridges already provide.
I guess I'm gullible, but when one of America's premier gunmakers won't touch WSMs with a ten foot pole, it gives me pause, but then again, I'm a sucker for logic... jorge

Jorge, you are completely missing the point that at the first "horseless" carriages really were not a quantum advance over the horse drawn ones. They are now but at first the were so slow and unreliable that they were hardly any improvement whatsoever.
As time goes on the WSM's small improvements will increase with further developement. Not as much as todays cars over horses, but new bullets, powders etc. will accentuate the advantages of the WSM's.
You don't have to be a Luddite! Just because the old Mags were good doesn't mean that there's not room both the old mags and something new and in some ways better. ..................DJ

Hey, that's why there's black and there's white. It's just that some are "more blacker or whiter" than others. In this case, i'm with D'Arcy and the author. Wouldn't own one myself, but fi you like them, see my first line above. jorge

I have the 270WSM and the 300WSM and am amazed by the accuracy and performance of these two cartridges.

So by the arguments that they were not an improvement over the existing cartridges, they were a waste of time and money. With that same reasoning, the 308 should not exist as it is only a shorter version of the 30-06.

Ah, but there was a REASON for the 308. As they were both military rounds, the 308, due to it's shorter case, made it easier to cycle through automatic weapons. So I'll ask again, did you guys READ the article? jorge

quote:

Jorge,

Please provide more details on the article. For instance is it about belted bottlenecked rounds being a solution to a non problem?

Here is a link to the magazine but it does not include an article like you mentioned.

Jorge,

I did not read the article as it's not on the link that I provided.

No I didn't read the article. Is reading someone's opinion mean that everyone has to believe it? There are people that like the Short Mags - myself included - and reading an article is not going to make me sell my rifles and use only 40 and 50 year old cartridges.

Not everyone has to agree on the Short Mags. If you don't like them, don't buy them. That simple. But don't criticize someone because he has a different opinion than yours.

I found that when Kimber introduced the WSM's in their Montana version it was a significant improvement over previous magnums. The Kimber rifle weights two whole pounds less than other typical magnums including the 'Legend' by Echols.

Thats a significant reduction in weight yet the rifles provide similar power to the old type rounds.

Also being a handloader I appreciated that the WSM's headpaced on the belt providing longer case life and better headspacing.

While the cartridges themselves were not big improvments in performance they did allow a new class of magnum rifle.

Hog: I don't believe I criticized, but if I did, I apologize. What I WAS doing is stating my OPINION based on facts proferred by two gentlemen, one an accomplished writer and the other arguably the best gunmaker in these United States. Maybe NICKUDU or Saeed or one of the moderators can scan the article and post it if allowed to do so. jorge

It would be nice to have the article. I may not agree with the conclusions but their opinions especially D'Arcy's carry a good bit of weight.............DJ

The article seems to imply that the exact same criteria that prevail in killing thick-skinned dangerous game in Africa apply to the taking of whitetail deer. Even if that's true, what does it have to do with the WSMs?

Let's suppose for a moment that the velocity/penetration argument invalidates the WSM cartridges. If that's the case, the same argument also invalidates the 300mag, 7mm mag, 270 Weatherby and other cartridges with essentially identical ballistics. If you're going to take the position that the 300 mag is not an effective and useful game cartridge, you're getting pretty far out on the limb.

Guess I read the wrong article. The one I read talked about feeding and pressure problems, they don't give you anything over the exitisting cartridges and most of them are on the way out with only the 300 showing any kind of sales. I beleive Ruger's already dropped them. jorge

I think most of the WSM's will survive but think the WSSM will only live by handloaders. Only time will tell. What actualy determines weather a round lives is how many guns are sold and how high the demand for the ammo stays.

Well, I'm a sample of exactly one, but I've had three wsms that I've shot a good deal, and I've experienced exactly zero misfeeds. A M70, a Kimber and a Tikka. Pressure problems? You can load anything too hot. I don't see what WSM has to do with that.

Here is what i know, All of the wsm cases that i load are all VERYaccurate. I have a 6mm WSM, 6.5mm WSM, 270 WSM and i am haveing a .257 WSM made now. I love them all. Easy to load for. The .270 wsm is my main deer rifle and it shoots the 130xlc barnes at 3500fps with reloader 19. One hole groups at 100yds if i am having a good day. On the 7mm and .300 wsm i will have to say not a big difference in them and the 7 rm and .300 win mag. I really think the .270 will make it.

Two pages and growing. I was hoping this thread, like the WSMs, would just fade away...

jorge,

I wasn't referring to you about the criticism. That was my mistake for not being clear on that - Sorry for that. I meant some of the prior posts were not too kind for people who did not agree that the Short Mags were a mistake.

After reading this entire thread, I have come to one conclusion; there are people that are passionate about the WSM line on both sides of the debate. It is my opinion that though the Short mags did offer some advantages in some areas, they also presented problems in others. This is the reason that some people like them and others do not. Some of the ideas of the short mags do appeal to my tastes but I didnt like the execution as a whole and therefore have not purchased one. It is the same reasoning that does make cartridges such as the 9.3x64 Brenneke and the new 375 Ruger catch my eye. Comparable power to an existing cartridge in an overall shorter and in more efficient case. I think the 375 Ruger basis is the direction the search should have gone; standard .532 base without a rebated rim and no belt. The short mag case design presented problems that some (not all) shooters weren't willing to overlook in pursuit for a more efficient cartridge. I do think the idea of the short mags will live on, but it is my opinion that their popularity in their present form will fade. It is also my opinion that cartridges based off the 375 Ruger design will be the next evolutionary step. If you like it, buy and shoot it. If you dont, buy something else and shoot it. We can all agree to disagree sometimes and respect the others choice. Every cartridge is a compromise of rationales or else there would only be one universal chambering for us all.

quote:

Originally posted by brasskeeper:
I think most of the WSM's will survive but think the WSSM will only live by handloaders. Only time will tell. What actualy determines weather a round lives is how many guns are sold and how high the demand for the ammo stays.

The WSSM's fit the AR-15 platform, and they fit in a .223 sized action, so you can have 25-06 power

Jorge,
How does the fact that a 308 has a shorter case make it cycle thru automatic weapons easier? Just curious.

quote:

Originally posted by 260encore:
Jorge,
How does the fact that a 308 has a shorter case make it cycle thru automatic weapons easier? Just curious.

Though the question wasnt for me.
Shorter rounds cyckles FASTER tru automats, because the bolt neds to travel a shorter distance.
308 compared to 30.06, is 22.6% shorter

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:
[Though the question wasnt for me.
Shorter rounds cyckles FASTER tru automats, because the bolt neds to travel a shorter distance.
308 compared to 30.06, is 22.6% shorter

Don't overlook the weight savings on components like the bolt. Shorter, lighter parts can travel faster with less stress. It also allows for higher cyclic rates for single barrel full-auto weapons.

Oh yeah that's a BS call! The 8x57 chambered MG42 had a max cyclic rate of fire right at 1000 rpm and you've never heard anyone complain it wasn't sturdy enough, on the flip side the 7.62 x51 chambered M60 has a long and glorious history of shortcomings with a 400 rpm slower cyclic rate of fire and a 22.6% shorter shell.They both weigh about the same give or take a pound. Just to make a minor point. Oh yeah and the M14 was heavier than the 06 shooting Garand. The Army didn't want to have wasted space in the -06 case and it's associated component costs, thus the .308.

quote:

Originally posted by MajorCaliber:

quote:

Originally posted by brasskeeper:
I think most of the WSM's will survive but think the WSSM will only live by handloaders. Only time will tell. What actualy determines weather a round lives is how many guns are sold and how high the demand for the ammo stays.

The WSSM's fit the AR-15 platform, and they fit in a .223 sized action, so you can have 25-06 power

And unless I'm mistake Bushmaster has an AR-10 commercially available chambered in 300WSM.

AllanD

I really like the 270 WSM. If nothing else, it just idles along at speeds that really strain the 270 Win. I own both and The 270 WSM is in the same class for the hunting uses.

Thanks for the tip on the slower powders and standard primers. I have only loaded one batch so far and that was with IMR 4350. Those loads were just 3050 fps with the 130 grain Sierra Pro-Hunter.

quote:

Originally posted by Allan DeGroot:

quote:

Originally posted by MajorCaliber:

quote:

Originally posted by brasskeeper:
I think most of the WSM's will survive but think the WSSM will only live by handloaders. Only time will tell. What actualy determines weather a round lives is how many guns are sold and how high the demand for the ammo stays.

The WSSM's fit the AR-15 platform, and they fit in a .223 sized action, so you can have 25-06 power

And unless I'm mistake Bushmaster has an AR-10 commercially available chambered in 300WSM.

AllanD

You missed the point! I don't have to buy the AR-10, I can use my .223 lower!

quote:

Originally posted by Planemech:
Oh yeah that's a BS call! The 8x57 chambered MG42 had a max cyclic rate of fire right at 1000 rpm and you've never heard anyone complain it wasn't sturdy enough, on the flip side the 7.62 x51 chambered M60 has a long and glorious history of shortcomings with a 400 rpm slower cyclic rate of fire and a 22.6% shorter shell.They both weigh about the same give or take a pound. Just to make a minor point. Oh yeah and the M14 was heavier than the 06 shooting Garand. The Army didn't want to have wasted space in the -06 case and it's associated component costs, thus the .308.

Sorry but i dont get the BS part.
Are you saying that you can not increas the fiering rate by shortening the rounds by 22.6% if also redesigning the weapon?????

Jorgen, I think that the point being made is that in full automatic weapons the rate of fire is not determined by the length of the round it's controlled by other factors usually designed into the machine gun. The MG-42 though shooting a full length round had an extremely high rate of fire compared with current machine guns that shoot shorter rounds...............DJ

I have a hard time understanding the animosity directed at the WSMs. I must admit I was a little sceptical when they first came out. I concluded, as did many others, that they were a solution to a problem that didn't exist. Recently I purchased a rifle in 300 WSM. I bought it, not because of the calibre, but because I liked the rifle it was in. The gun weighs just under 8 pounds, and is short enough, even with a 24" barrel, to fit in a standard length gun case. I was apprehensive about recoil, but have found the recoil, although stout, quite manageable. Felt recoil is less than my 9+ pound .338 WM. Best of all, the gun is superbly accurate right out of the box.

On the negative side, the first round from a fully loaded magazine seems to chamber roughly, but subsequent rounds slide in slick as can be.

On balance, I am pleased with both the rifle and the cartridge. The cartridge seems to deliver everything that was promised of it.

Going back to my first sentence, I don't understand animosity focussed on the WSM. Not only do many folks not like the cartridge line, they actively root for its failure. This is odd, because it seems to me that anything that keeps guns going out the gunshop's front door is a good thing!

I love my 300WSM - it is accurate and esay to reload for. It will start 180 grain bullets at 3000 to 3100fps (handloads) so it is a flat shooting.

If I could keep just one light rifle, I probably would choose the 300WSM