Well I was loading my first short cartriges . A 308. I wanted to get these ballistic tips about .010, .020 from the lands to test some loads. Well,,, Hell,,, they wont fit this short magazine so I had to seat the bullets down more so they would fit the short magazine . .055-.060-.070 from the lands.And thats a thight magazine fit. I guess that isnt bad and some partitions will get closer with its Ogive.



I am used to being able to play with my distance from the lands with my other cartriges 6.5x55, 270 ,06, etc .

These short mag cartidges seems you cant adjust the bullet depth without haveing magazine binding problems.

I dislike short boxes and short throats..My 308 is long throated and has an 06 length box..

Ray did you put a 06 length mag box in your 308?

Depends on the rifle GSP. What rifle are you working with? - Dan

I don't think "short sucks" when it comes to varmint cartridges, but (and this'll get the pilgrims riled!) I do think that "short" is pointless for a big game rifle. Because of that, I'll take a .30-06 over a .308 every time, and I'd also take a .300 H&H or .300 Winchester over a .300 WSM everytime........

AD

GPS7, Get a Ruger #1. Then you can seat them however you want.

That Ruger #1 would resolve most of the length issues, all right.

A lot of currently-produced bolt rifles have throating that can prevent ideal seating depth for leade clearance with some bullets, as is stated herein. Barnes X-Bullets REQUIRE .050" clearance minimum, most of us like somewhere between .020"-.035" AND the ability to carry these same loaded rounds in the rifle's magazine.

Sometimes--that doesn't happen. What to do? Try other bullets in a weight-class or performance-class for the game being hunted, and see if that bullet gets you where you want to go.

For non-critical hunting like varmints/rats, I make the cut at accuracy. With one rifle (Rem 788 x 22-250), it dotes on the Sierra 60 HP, but requires OAL of 2.460" to get its ideal leade clearance (.025"). No magazine usage here! Its brother 788 in 243 shoots cast RCBS 95 grainers into an inch @ 100 yards at 1700 FPS at an OAL of 2.610", and gets slight leade engravement (izzat a word?) at that length. A low-cost low-noise rat zapper of the first order.

The other end of the spectrum is dangerous game. Here I think bullet performance takes precedence over every bit of accuracy, as does cartridge function in the rifle's action. Dangerous game is almost always large, and MOA accuracy is not required for the venue. If it can be had in the context of bullet performance and reliable functioning, great. If not, as long as the rifle will group sufficiently to hit the K-zone on the intended quarry, I think you're good to go.

Caveat--I have almost zero DG experience--dispatching a very pissed-off injured beef steer with shotgun slugs at close quarters on duty is the hairiest I've had, and a close encounter with a black bear that didn't require a revolver shot was sufficiently interesting. From what those who post here that have extensive DG experience--and the writings of others--I think the hunter's skill and focus at the shot is GREATLY more important than a rifle's intrinsic accuracy with a given load, and possibly more so than bullet performance. I would rate system feeding/cycling reliability as an equal to hunter skill/focus.

For deer/elk/pronghorn and other usually non-dangerous critters, some happy medium needs to be met. Accuracy is nice, especially if long engagement ranges are in the mix. You still need feed/cycle reliability and magazine fit in repeaters, and if the smaller calibers like 243 and 250 Savage are getting used on larger deer, a premium bullet might be indicated--like Nosler Partitions, which do very well on paper in my rifles chambered in those calibers. Both rifles seat Partitions with .030" clearance and fit the magazines, and have some tolerance to tweak seating depths if I so choose.

Allen got it right.....again!

Rich Elliott

Not being able to adjust bullet depth to the lands is either bad magazine design or improper throating. My M-70 300 WSM has more than enough room to seat any normal hunting bullet to the lands, as do my Kimber 8400's in 270 WSM and 7mm WSM. The only WSM I've had seating depth issues with is a HS Precision 300 WSM whose magazine box does restrict overall length - this is a design issue. The HS still shoots about 1/3rd MOA however.
I like the 1/2 to 3/4lb weight savings you can get with some short actions. I like the fact that the 7 WSM signifigantly outperforms my 3 7mm Remington Mags in a shorter lighter package.

So in short, Short sucks not............DJ