Just checking to see if anyone has had the opportunity to shoot the new 325 wsm and checked out the accuracy.

Heck, I'm still waiting for the .338 WSM!!!

A couple of months ago I spoke with someone at Kimber who had been testing the 325 WSM's. He said he had shot four of them that day and that the accuracy was one moa or better on all of them.

Vapodog

I think you will be waiting a while. I read somewhere recently (cannot remember exactly where) that Winchester won't produce it in the 338 because the performance falls short of the venerable 338 win mag in the wsm case. Guess they figure correctly that it will not sell if that is true.

Instead of the .325 WSM I wish Winchester had brought out a .350(.358?) WSM. Lawdog

As the WSM case is a copy of the ~100 year old .333 Jeffery rimless/flanged cases

- Why not make a .333 WSM

Nothing is new under the sun!

Husky

I've been shooting one for a couple of months and I must say I'm impressed. I've built several 338 "short/fats" including several 338WSM's and the performance of the 325 with a SAAMI chamber is at least equal to anything I've been able to get out of a 338 with similar bullets. This one, with a 22" Pac-Nor barrel, was extremely easy to load in spite of having no load data and no pressure testing equipment. I've only tried 3 bullets, 220 Sierra Game Kings, 200g Nosler Accubonds and 180 Barnes TSX's. In the first two the accuracy was outstanding as was the velocity. I never got pressure signs during load developement but stopped when the velocity was near 338 Win Mag velocity with the similar weight bullets. I never got the TSX's to shoot at all, the best group just over an inch and almost everything out of ONE box of bullets exceeding 2". Par for the course for me and Barnes. I finally settled on a couple of loads that I felt were at least only moderately hot. In both cases with both propellants (H4350 and Ramshot Hunter,) most of the loads shot under MOA, it was only based on the pattern of the shots that caused me to choose a particular load. I love the 338 caliber but this particular cartridge seems a winner to me.

After reading what Bob just said I too think Win. hit a home run with this cartridge. As to how big a seller it will be... who knows... as it is a bear to figure out big bore sales anyway.
I have 35W, 9.3 x 62 and 338 Win Mag. Really no room in the Inn for a 325 but...if I can get same performance as 338 WM with less recoil along with great accuracy due to short / fat then I think I would need to consider a 325 WSM. Someone coming to me wanting a good Elk rifle would now give me cause to ask them to consider the 325WSM. Before I would tell them that the 338WM is the best for "Elk". Of course I am one of those that killed every Elk so far with 180 somethings from a 30/06. Same for my son.
I am anxious to get more reports from hunters using it on elk and esp. reports on how it does in Africa.
I feel that the 300WSM and 325 WSM will be the long term winners of the WSM family years from now ever tho several others do a good job to.

quote:

Originally posted by Harry:
if I can get same performance as 338 WM

Don't count on it.

Now if only Nosler (or Combined Technologies) would whump up a 220 gr. Partition or Partition Gold or Fail Safe that I could use in the 8 Rem. Mag!

quote:

Originally posted by Jon A:

quote:

Originally posted by Harry:
if I can get same performance as 338 WM

Don't count on it.

Completely agree, especially with the heavier bullets. I think my loads in 200g amd 220g are "over the edge" a bit and while the exceed all I've gotten out of the 338WSM's and 338 Jamison's, they don't quite get up to the WM, at least not safely.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
Heck, I'm still waiting for the .338 WSM!!!

I believe the .325 is it?? At least, as a factory offering!

I believe this article was written before the introduction of the .325 WSM. The web site does not show a date for the article. I added some bold highlights to the text of the article.

-Bob F.


.338 Winchester Short Magnum?
Is there a factory future for this "over-30" wildcat?

By Craig Boddington

Three years have passed since Winchester introduced the .300 Winchester Short Magnum, following up a year later with the .270 and 7mm WSMs. Speculation started immediately about what caliber would follow. Last year Winchester threw us a curve by shortening the WSM case even more, introducing the .223 and .243 Winchester Super Short Magnums, and now there's a .25 WSSM.

Even so, it seems likely that the WSM line will continue to expand, so the speculation continues. Meantime, wildcatters have been having a field day necking the WSM case up and down. One of the front-runners for both the speculators and the wildcatters has been the .338 WSM, the Winchester Short Magnum case necked up to take a .338-inch bullet. Other popular choices have included .257, 6.5mm and .358. There are sound arguments for (and against) any and all of these.

I've never been much of a .25-caliber guy, so I haven't voted for that one. I am a 6.5mm fan, but I accept that cartridges using a .264-inch bullet haven't done well with American shooters, so that would surprise me. I'm also a huge .35-caliber fan, but the same argument applies. So I've been fairly vocal about recommending a .338 WSM. On the surface, such a cartridge has much going for it. The .33s are really popular with elk hunters, and there are lots of good bullets to choose from. A short .33 should come close to .338 Winchester Magnum performance and could be housed in a handier, lighter rifle that would be great in the elk mountains. And, of course, it would have the accuracy and efficiency inherent in the WSM case.

Until recently this has been theoretical thought on my part, but I've just now had the opportunity to actually play with a .338 WSM rifle. The rifle itself was built on a short Remington Model 700 action, the work done by Rich Reiley of High Tech Custom Rifles Inc. (Dept. GA, 3109 N. Cascade, Ste. 102, Colorado Springs, CO 80907; 719/667-1090; www.htcustoms.com). Despite a fairly stiff 24-inch barrel, the rifle weighs a tidy 7 1/2 pounds, including fixed 6X Zeiss scope. This is an ideal weight for a "rough country" hunting rifle--light enough to carry in the mountains but heavy enough to be stable when you're out of breath. Provided, of course, the rifle doesn't kick you into next week. A 7 1/2-pound .338 Win. Mag. will; the .338 WSM didn't.

It's very hard to prove, but I'm convinced that the efficiency of the short case yields a savings in felt recoil. The Decelerator pad and straight stock also help. There is recoil, but it's not unpleasant--and at this gun weight a muzzlebrake (which this rifle doesn't have) is absolutely not needed to make the rifle manageable.

Reiley has done a lot of work with both the cartridge and the rifle, and I didn't try to second-guess him on loads. With lighter bullets he found that RL15 produced the best combination of accuracy and velocity; with heavier bullets IMR 4895 produced good results. Across a wide spectrum of loads, groups averaged about 1 1/4 inches, but we're talking about just one rifle, so that says little about the cartridge's real potential. Anyway, a fast .33 isn't a prairie dog or pronghorn cartridge, so this rifle is certainly on track for elk and bear.

To be completely honest, I must tell you that this particular rifle didn't feed very well. I have a feeling this will not be an uncommon problem when barreling/rechambering actions designed for standard or belted magnum cartridges to the short, fat cases--the feed rails and/or magazine lips may not be quite right. But I did take it hunting, on a bugling elk hunt on my friend Tom Arthur's Chicken Creek Ranch in northwestern Colorado.

It was a perfect hunt, with bull elk bugling all over the place. Knowing I would be there at the ideal bugling time and thus expecting a relatively short shot, I had the rifle sighted dead-on at 100 yards. Of course, we saw a great 6x6 across a meadow at something over 300 yards. It was with cows, and despite ranch manager Mark Jones' wonderful bugling and cow-talk, the bull wouldn't leave its ladies. I didn't blame the elk, but I demurred on that shot. And a good thing that was. With that bull and its cows still drifting in and out of timber far above us, yet another (and equally good) 6x6 came out of nowhere, and I shot him at about 25 yards.

The load was 57 grains of IMR 4895 behind a 225-grain Swift A-Frame bullet. Muzzle velocity was a bit over 2,600 fps. The bullet entered the on-shoulder, exited behind the off-shoulder. It should be no great surprise that the bull piled up 40 yards downhill--there isn't much mystery about how well good .33-caliber bullets perform on elk. The question is, after shooting and hunting with this rifle, do I still think the .338 WSM has commercial appeal?

Honestly, I'm no longer sure. It's a simple marketing fact that when you go above .30 caliber, sales figures drop like a rock. This makes sense. Up to .30 caliber you have versatile cartridges suited for a wide range of game; above .30 caliber you have more specialized cartridges that relatively few hunters actually need. Considering this, the .338 Winchester Magnum sells reasonably well, and from a pure marketing standpoint, it is almost alone in its class. My beloved 8mm Remington Magnum barely hangs on, and neither the .340 Weatherby nor the .338 RUM are burning up the sales charts. A valid concern with the manufacturers is diluting the .338 Winchester Magnum's limited market with yet another similar .33.

From a pure performance standpoint, the .338 WSM is great, providing wonderful elk/bear/moose power in a light, handy and relatively light-recoiling rifle. But consumers don't always think in "pure" terms, and we are obsessed with velocity. The loads I worked with for the .338 WSM produced (nominally) 2,850 fps with a 185-grain Barnes X-Bullet, 2,725 fps with a 200-grain Hornady spirepoint and 2,600 fps with a 225-grain Swift A-Frame. These velocities are all plenty fast enough to do any job you need a .33 caliber to do, but they fall short of what the .338 Win. Mag. can do.

It is quite possible to handload the lightest bullets (175 to 185 grains) to 3,000 fps in the .338 Win. Mag. case. Factory loads with 200-grain bullets run 2,950 fps, and factory loads with 225-grain bullets range from a low of 2,600 fps to a high of 2,950 fps (gulp). This is a big disparity. More intensive load development can undoubtedly close the gap, but I don't believe it can be closed enough to satisfy the velocity-hungry masses (of which I am admittedly a part).

As a wildcat cartridge, the .338 WSM is great and will continue to appeal to riflemen who don't get too wrapped up in numbers. It's fast enough and flat enough for most elk, moose and bear hunting and can be housed in a light, handy and accurate package that won't hurt you. I think that's where it will stay, but I've never been very good at predicting these things. So please don't tell me "I told you so" if the .338 WSM becomes a factory offering.

If it does, it will be a good one.

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/gun_columns/notes/notes0403_0422/

At the S.H.O.T. Show a couple of years ago at the Winchester booth they held a poll asking which cartridge should Winchester bring out next. The winner was the .257 WSM with second going to the .338 WSM. So Winchester brings out the .25 WSSM and the .325 WSM. Winchester crossed up everyone just like they did when they introduced the .300 Winchester Magnum(not the WSM version). Lawdog

A 338WSM, why????

I really hope this 8MMwsm becomes popular. The 8x57 shooters could stand for new bullet development in the .32 caliber.