These new Kimber rifles are NICE. Sunday I was shooting with a friend who just bought a new 270WSM 8400. At 300 measured yards he shot a 3 shot group with all rounds touching using factory ammo. Then he repeated it. He decided the rifle was a keeper.

I have to agree with jeffeosso, what's the point? I don't see that this new offering will really have anything to offer that can't already be done with the .300. I think a .338WSM would have been a better choice. On the subject of Kimber rifles, I bought an 84 Montana in .243 last spring. Liked it so much I started planning to buy one in 7-08 to rechamber in .284. Then I saw the limited offering of 8400 classics in french walnut. I have a .300 on the way . I am still entertaining the idea of the rechamber. For me, these rifles are as close to the ideal production hunting rifle as any I have seen.

As i gaze into my crystal ball i see a more deverse selection of 8MM bullets to choose from in the future!

The .325 is odd to say the least, does it actually use .323" bullets? I don't believe I've read that anywhere. I personally think a .358WSM would have been a better choice than a .338 if only for the fact that the bullets aren't as long which would eliminate any overall length problems with the loaded rounds and a nice 250gr bullet. I think it might help eliminate any potential feeding problems having a larger caliber bullet as well, less shoulder, more bullet. but I haven't seen anything personally to indicate feeding problems with the WSMs. In fact, the .270 and .300 that I've fired have both been real nice performers, and they were both only partway through load development.

The 350 Rem Mag case is about the same capacity as the "06".

That would probably perform on a par with the 8mm-06.

The WSM case is quite a bit larger in diameter and therefor has a considerably larger capacity.

The 350 Rem Mag case is based on a shortened H&H case with a head (belt) diameter of .532. Remember this is the belt dia. and not the actual case head dia.

The WSM is (about) .545 and this is the actual case head dia.

All the data I see puts it on a par with (factory) 338 Win Mag performance.

I stumbled across the following and thought I would pass it along.



-Bob F.





Posted by: Dan Johnson at 7:06 PM 11/7/2004

What do you think of Winchester going with the .325 WSM rather than a .338 WSM?



Posted by: Craig Boddington< !--color--> at 7:20 PM 11/7/2004

Dan, I played with the .338 WSM a bit, and there was just no way I could get it up to .338 Win. Mag. velocity. Winchester tried, too, and their judgment (which I think was correct) was that it would be a sure flop if it didn't come very, very close to the "existing" .338.< !--color--> The .325 has no competition. It's also pretty darned fast, and although bullet selection is limited, there are enough good 8mm bullets out there (Swift, Barnes, Hornday, Sierra, Nosler, etc.). I am a big fan of the 8mm Remington Magnum, so I like the .325 WSM. Of course, the risks are obvious: No 8mm cartridge has ever done particularly well in North America, and the 8mm Rem. Mag., a classic example, is barely hanging on. So we'll see!



Taken from:

http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/zerothread?cmd=print&id=273957

What isn't there to like about the 325? Everyone pines away for the 338 yet when I worked in retail, we didn't sell that many. The 325 offers heavier bullets than the 300 for elk and yet you could also use it as a good deer gun. Sounds like a good all around gun to me.

A good side benefit, with the bullets out there, you could use a less expensive bullet on elk and not be worried about bullet performance. (220 gr PowerPoint or 220 gr Sierra Gameking)

Aaron

Actually if one really looked into the bullet availabilty thing without the anti metric bias, I think you would find a much broader range of bullet weights available in 8mm as compaired to .338.

8mm bullets can be had in weights from 125grs. to 250grs.

Everybody wants to compare the difference between the 300WSM to the 325WSM. Hardly anyone critisizes the 270WSM which in my opinion was a lame duck considering the balisticly equivilant if not superior 7mmWSM that has a vastly wider bullet selection.

The 8mmWSM would nicely complement the 7mmWSM. Now we have a duo that really covers the range of game that would be appropriate for these (WSM) chamberings from Antelope with a .284 120gr bullet to Elk and large African plains game with the .323 200gr bullet to large bears with the .323 220gr or even the .323 250gr bullets.

Lets get off of the American obsession with "3"s, 27, 30 and 33 caliber.

Imagine a trio consisting of a 7mmWSM, an 8mmWSM and a 9.3mmWSM for heavy bullets @ moderate velocity for (dependable) DEEP penetration on very large game.

Now you are talking a wide range of versitility.