Terry Wieland’s On Shooting .... (written in the year 2006 - the 100th anniversary of the .30-06 Spr)

http://www.africansportinggazette.com/html/volumes/vol-12-1/shooting.html

Comparing profiles: The 300WSM (left) compared with the .30-06 (center) and .375 H&H. The latter two cartridges are renowned for their ease of feeding from the magazine, and reluctance to jam. The short, fat, 300WSM and others of the new "short magnum" family present difficulties in feeding, and many riflemakers are reluctant to chamber them.

Selling Short: Finally, the truth.

Over the past five years, the success of the so-called ‘short magnums’ (‘so-called’ for reasons we will get to in a moment) has been the wonder of the rifle business.

Winchester’s so-called creations (so-called, again, for reasons we will get to) took the shooting world by storm. Suddenly, you were nowheresville if you were not shooting a .300 WSM or .270 WSM. As gunmaker Darcy Echols wryly observed at the Safari Club International convention just past, “It’s a wonder any animals ever died, shot with inadequate cartridges like the .30-06 and .270 Winchester.”

This, of course, was the very same SCI convention during which it was announced that FN was closing down the old Winchester plant in New Haven, Connecticut, and discontinuing the iconic Winchester 94 lever- action as well as the Model 70 bolt-action rifle. In recent years, the Model 70’s lifeline has been the above-mentioned so-called short magnums, with new calibres appearing every year accompanied by the increasingly bizarre claims of the PR people.

So what happened?

Gather round, friends, and listen to a sorry tale of nefarious corporate America.

To begin with, the term ‘short magnum.’ Originally, this was appended to the .264, .338 and .458 Winchester (belted) magnums when they were introduced in the 1950s, to differentiate them from the ‘long’ .375 H&H-length cartridges. So even the term Winchester Short Magnum (WSM) was misleading. But I carp.

Fact is, they were not designed by Winchester at all – or by Olin-Winchester, the ammunition people, in cooperation with U.S. Repeating Arms, maker of ‘Winchester’ rifles, and Browning, its sister company. By the way, I apologize for the blizzard of quotation marks and parentheses that are flooding the page, but the situation is so weird and convoluted, it demands it. Please bear with me.

At any rate, none of the above companies designed any of the above new ‘short magnum’ cartridges. The concept belongs to one Rick Jamison, a rifle writer of considerable renown, who came up with the idea in the 1990s and took it to Winchester with an offer to allow them to produce the designs in return for putting his name on them. The companies declined with thanks. Six months later the first of the short magnums appeared with the sobriquet ‘WSM.’

What they had not counted on was the fact that Jamison, no fool, had patented his design. Not only that, he patented virtually every bore diameter (.338, .257, etc.) to which it might be adapted. When the first WSMs appeared, Rick sued. Six years later, Winchester settled, reportedly for about three million dollars. Within a month or two, U.S. Repeating Arms closed down its ancient New Haven plant. Whether there is a connection is still a matter of conjecture. Personally, I doubt it, but right now the Internet chat rooms are buzzing with speculation that Rick Jamison is personally responsible for the death of the Winchester 94.

Promptly, letters went out from Jamison’s lawyers to every riflemaker that might have chambered one of the short magnums in a rifle, demanding a retroactive royalty. Equally promptly, riflemakers fell over one another denouncing the short magnums as having a number of inherent flaws, and insisting they would not chamber them henceforth. Or, if a client insisted, they would add a premium to the price to cover Jamison’s royalty. Riflemakers like Darcy Echols, who have never chambered a short magnum and refuse to do so for a variety of sound ballistic reasons, are laughing.

So what are those sound ballistic reasons that, for some mysterious reason, never surfaced before all this legal turmoil came about? Why does everyone suddenly notice that the emperor is scantily clad indeed?

Not to brag, but in the 2004 Gun Digest, your obedient correspondent authored a piece entitled ‘Short Magnum Con,’ as part of a pro-and-con article in which Jon Sundra defended the short magnums and I attacked them. If I now continue the attack, it is not because I have suddenly seen the light.

So, the sound ballistic reasons: First, look at the claims. According to the company flacks, most of whom would not know a chronograph if they tripped over one on the way to the salad bar, the WSMs (and the similar Remington designs) produce higher velocity with greater accuracy, out of shorter rifles with shorter barrels.

The greatest law of ballistic science ever articulated says flatly “There is no free lunch.” This is no less true of the short magnums than of any other cartridge, from the .38-40 to the .378 Weatherby.

The concept behind the short magnums is nothing more than scaling up the 6 PPC, the darling of the benchrest world since the 1980s, which delivers great accuracy and supposedly, with its shorter powder column (it is a short, fat cartridge) greater burning efficiency and consistency. I have no argument with this concept in the 6 PPC. At larger bore sizes, however, it does not necessarily translate into a superior cartridge.

Do the WSMs really deliver higher velocity per grain of powder? Not that I’ve seen. Are they any more accurate? Not that I’ve seen. Do they operate at pressures that I do not want mere inches from my one and only set of eyes? They certainly seem to, if the stiffness of the bolts after firing and the flatness of the primers are any indication.

Finally, it is indisputable that short, fat cases do not feed easily in a bolt-action rifle. Probably the slickest cartridge in history is the .375 H&H, and it is thus because it is long, narrow and tapered. It slides out of the magazine and into the chamber like butter. With a WSM, the axis is farther from the line of bore, and with their almost parallel sides, the point of the bullet is directed out to the side. They tend to rock fore and aft in the magazine, and generally enter the chamber kicking and squealing.

This is not a huge drawback hunting pronghorns in Wyoming, but it can be a significant problem if you are after leopards in the bundu.

To date, to their credit, none of these companies has tried to translate the short-magnum phenomenon into a .375 or larger cartridge. It would be nice to think this is due to a sense of responsibility on their part, but somehow I doubt it.

The pressure question is something else. Kenny Jarrett, who knows more about accuracy, pressure, barrel-making, and cartridges than anyone I know, says one reason pressure builds excessively in the short magnums is because the bullet extends down into the powder chamber. Ideally, the base of a bullet should be seated no deeper than the base of the cartridge neck, becoming in effect part of the cartridge wall. When it extends into the chamber, the rising gas pressure does not start to move the bullet gently forward. Instead, it sits there like a champagne cork until the pressure reaches a peak, and then pops.

Kenny’s argument makes sense. A couple of years ago, when Winchester announced the .25 WSSM (a short-short magnum), we went to the firing line at the SHOT Show to test it by sending a few rounds downrange. Accuracy was nothing to write home about. What everyone noticed, however, was the severe jolt, remarkable for a cartridge that size, and the difficulty in lifting the bolt handle. This was on a cool winter day in the Nevada desert, shooting from a shaded bench. What the pressures might be under the Transvaal sun, I shudder to think.

So, at long last, everyone is bad-mouthing the short magnums. With the Model 70 gone, at least temporarily, the WSMs have lost their major vehicle. Independent riflemakers are finally telling their clients they really should look at other cartridges, for a variety of reasons. The Remington offerings, which are not involved in the donnybrook, are on life support anyway, according to industry scuttlebutt.

Since this is the 100th anniversary of the .30-06, look for a ‘rediscovery’ of its virtues and those of its offspring. Or even the original ‘short magnums. The .358 Norma, anyone? Or the .264 Winchester? Why not? They are great cartridges both – with no smoke, mirrors, or salad-bar bullshit.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Will WSM's become the mainstay in the next decade?
Or will it fade slowly with one or two offerings remaining?
Did the Rick Jamison payout for his patent cripple Winchester?
Was that the watershed event that made Ruger create its own 'short-cartridges'.

The following may be of interest for those that do not know ....

"As I picked up the January 2007 issue of Shooting Times magazine and began to read the articles, I realized the magazine had lost its best contributor.

Rick Jamison was a man of substance. His Precision Reloading section of Shooting Times will be dearly missed. His knowledge and experience made us all better and safer reloaders. Many a men and women were persuaded to begin reloading because of his expertise and simple no nonsense approach.

Who will carry on the candle? I don't know. All I have left know is Handloader magazine to inspire me to continue my spark for reloading. No one else has ever come close to Rick's indepth detail and precision to reloading. I doubt no one ever will.

Rick Jamison was the guiding force in the creation of the WSM cartriges. If you do a search for cartridges such as the 280 Jamison, 350 Jamison etc. These were all short action magnum cartridges based on the 404 Jeffery parent case.

Anyway, Winchester failed to compensate him financially for his work for them. In return Rick filed a lawsuit against Winchester. The case was settled. Rick received a money settelment in exchange that he would never write again.

7-30 Waters"


Warrior

Whiz---bang
and they were gone!

What's the next marketing gimmick ?

Would I join the hype around the WSM's .... with scarcity of both ammo and cartridge cases in my country? The answer is no! Here is some of my observations ....

As more and more cases are designed for cartridges, we run into a problem by just simply referring to a case as either short or long. Standard length cases refer to 30-06 Spr category (63 mm) and Magnum length to the 300 H&H (73 mm) category. Later, with the development of the 300 Win Mag, the name "standard length magnum" case came about (66 mm). When the 308 Win was launched, it was considered to have a short case (51.18 mm), as it was shorter than the 7 x 57 mm case (Mauser built them on intermediate length actions specifically for the 57 mm case length). The 6 mm Remington features a case length that is just a tad shorter at 56.72 mm. The recent proliferation of cases has complicated this designation because Winchester introduced a short case called the WSM (Winchester Short Magnum) in their 300 WSM (53.34 mm) and another shorter one, the WSSM (Winchester Super Short Magnum (42.55 mm), whilst the PPC is even shorter at 38.18 mm. As cases became shorter, they also became fatter, as it is believed that the shorter powder column burns more efficiently, and because it resembles the 6 mm PPC, manufacturers all latch on to it and claim enhanced accuracy, even though it has not been conclusively demonstrated with the myriad of new cartridges that have now been developed.

This is what Chuck Hawks has to say ... "I think that the popularity of short, fat cartridges is simply a fad, driven by clever marketing. Just as zoot suits were a fad in the 1940's and bell-bottom trousers were a fad in the 1970's. The first fad of the 21st Century has brought us short, very fat, rifle cartridges. I doubt that the shape of the case actually makes much practical difference (within reasonable limits) in hunting cartridges, even when fired in specialised varmint rifles. Other factors in the rifle/cartridge/load equation are far more important."

The 300 WSM is probably the most sucessful offering of the lot, but the hype has cascaded down to the WSSM's on which I will concentrate.

The .243 WSSM looks like a bloated version of the 6mm PPC. The PPC was actually intended for single shot target rifles and not for magazine rifles. The .243 WSSM has a rebated rim design just like all the other WSM cartridges - the rim diameter is .535" and the case head is .555". The shoulder angle is 28 degrees and the case length is 1.675". It shoots a .243" bullet and the specified rifling twist is 1 turn in 10", the same as for the .243 Winchester. What makes it better than a 243 Win? The velocity is more by a mere 100 fps at 3,110 fps. With its shorter and stubbier case, its sharper neck and its rebated case, manufacturers are busy solving feeding problems in magazine rifles - they are simply better used in single shot rifles such as for competition shooting where a round is inserted manually by hand. The .243 WSSM might be slightly faster than the 243 Win, but it cannot beat the 6 mm Remington, built on a standard short action. Also, it is by far inferior to the real .243 calibre Magnum cartridges or even the wildcats such as the 6mm-284 and the 6mm-06. Browning and Winchester were the first gun manufacturers to announce rifles for the .243 WSSM cartridge, based on their super short versions of the A-Bolt II and Model 70 bolt actions. Most of its velocity advantage over the standard .243 Winchester is lost in the short barrels, 21-inch and 22-inch barrels, that are being fitted by Browning and Winchester. Where is the niche?

The .223 WSSM is really the same as the 243 WSSM, it only shoots a smaller calibre bullet like the .223 Remington – a 55 grain bullet at 3,850 fps and a 64 grain bullet at 3,600 fps. Its short and fat case, wide shoulder, and rebated rim make it a nightmare to feed from the magazine - a jam might just happen, when you have to chamber quickly and so loose your buck. Browning has been forced to delay the release of their super short action rifles due to feeding problems (the A-Bolt II is a push feed action) and the extremely rapid barrel erosion. Winchester have now solved their feeding problem with their new hybrid "controlled round push feed" action. I am of the opinion that both the 243 and 223 WSSM, just like the 6 mm PPC and 22 PPC, will serve better at the bench than as hunting cartridges. Custom building them, require that special action and adapted magazine to avoid any feeding problems. These shorter cartridges require an action that is half an inch shorter than the WSM. If a benchrest cartridge is what you seek, stay with the proven 6 mm PPC, but in a benchrest rifle with a single shot action; then there is no problem.

Here is another interesting quote for you, by Jim Carmichel ... "The 6PPC wins at least 9 out of every 10 benchrest championships and thus can be justly promoted as the most accurate cartridge on earth. Yet during the brief period that it was offered in a more or less standard-grade factory rifle, it proved no more accurate than that rifle's other chamberings. So if you want an accurate wildcat, build an accurate rifle first." The 6 mm PPC is even shorter than the WSSM's - the case is only 1.503 inch long (38.18 mm) with a shoulder angle of 30 degrees.

Warrior

quote:

What's the next marketing gimmick ?

318 Westley Richards.


Don't laugh it might just come true!

Is terry wieland paying you to publicize his print output?

Ever thought about posting his books two or three pages at a time?

Rich
DRSS

Rich,

I noticed that a lot of people do not like Terry Wieland - unbeknown to me. Terry may be a lot of things, but that does not mean we have to disagree with him on every iota. He offered his opinion on short cased magnums, and that is open to everyone's critisism or even agreement. I have my own opinion on WSM and WSSM's, which I have stated here, as that is the actual point of discussion here. The actual questions I posed here were: -

- Will WSM's become the mainstay in the next decade?
- Or will it fade slowly with one or two offerings remaining?
- Did the Rick Jamison payout for his patent cripple Winchester?
- Was that the watershed event that made Ruger create its own 'short-cartridges'.

I have not read a single book of Terry's, but have read several articles he wrote which I found interesting, so I cannot quote pages of his book or books, and nor is Terry paying me. I think Winchester paid him a handsome amount of money in the settlement, and so believe Terry does not need to pay me to promote him.

Terry might be an idiot in your mind for whatever reason, but certainly not in my mind. I can only judge Terry on his few articles that I have read. Perhaps when I read his books I might also disagree with him on some points, who knows. That is life, but what I read so far seems in the ball-park. My posting here on AR about Terry's article is purely for entertainment purposes, and we should be big enough to accommodate various opinions here, as we may just not have all the circumstances and facts in front of us. If there is righful critizism, then so be it - I am not fending for him. I am just taking his articles at face value, as if he is an electric Robot that writes about various aspects.

This means inter-alia that I cannot critisize your opinion about Terry, as I have to defend your right to differ with me or anyone else for that matter. I could have elected not to put Terry's articel up, and we would have had none of this fun.

Warrior

Warrior ----- I don't know is the WSM's will be mainstays in future years or not, but my two .270 WSM's will be around for me and my son and grandsons to shoot for a long time. A 130 grain North Fork at 3450 fps, a 140 grain Nosler Accubond or Barnes TSX at 3262 fps, all doing one holers is good enough for us. When you show me something that will beat that, I will look at that also. Good shooting.

Phurley,

I respect your view and your rifle's accurracy is certainly a bonus.
We just hope that cartridge cases will always be freely available, as that can be a killer.
Here is a comparison by Dick Metcalf from Shooting Times:

How The .270 WSM Compares

Factory load ----------- Muzzle Velocity (fps)

.270 WSM, 24-inch Test Barrel
Win. 130-gr. BST --------- 3275
Win. 140-gr. FS ---------- 3125
Win. 150-gr. PP ---------- 3150

.270 Winchester, 24-inch Test Barrel/COLOR]
Win. 130-gr. BST --------- 3050
Win. 140-gr. FS ---------- 2920
Win. 150-gr. PPP --------- 2950

[COLOR:BLUE].270 Weatherby Magnum, 26-inch Test Barrel
WBY 130-gr. Partition ---- 3375
WBY 140-gr. BT 3300 ---- 3385
WBY 150-gr. Partition ---- 3245

The .270 WSM is based on the very fat .300 WSM case, but just necked down. The body of this case is so fat (.555 inch) that the magnum size .535 inch rim must be rebated (made smaller in diameter than the cartridge body) to allow the cartridge to work with a magnum size bolt face. The case length is 2.1 inches. The shoulder angle is a very sharp 35 degrees with a short neck relative to the 270 Win. Magazine capacity is reduced by one round compared to standard diameter magnum cartridges like the 7mm Remington Magnum. This ultra fat short magnum exceeds the velocity of the .270 Win. slightly, but falls short of the more powerful .270 Weatherby Magnum.

Warrior

I have a 45-70 Browning 1885 purchased when they first came out .More recently they chambered it in WSSM - talk about bizarre !!

Warrior ----- As you well know, to a reloader the book speeds are just good funny papers. I shoot 99% of my loads over a Oehler 35-P chonograph, they are real speeds. I bought 500 pieces of brass to start with, they will last me a lifetime. I also shoot a .243 and 25 WSSM, and my grandsons consider them classics. If you will notice the manufacturers are all chambering the .270 WSM, they do that for a reason. The old .270 was great, the WSM version is freaking fantastic, IMO. Notice what the writer of the article said about the WSM and the Weatherby, compare my speeds to the Weatherby. I can take the Weatherby to much higher speeds than his figures show, it is also fantastic. Good shooting.

Personally I liked the writting and concur with it's point about it just being a marketing scam. Thanks for posting it. roger

Well time has shown that only two of winchesters offerings are going anywhere- the .270 and .300 WSM. They also helped create the 'short fat craze' which is still ongoing- see Rugers new rounds, and the .300 and .338 Norma (which are based on a shortened .338 lapua case) and the 7mm Blaser (not quite as short as the 7mm WSM and more case taper so better feeding but same balistics)...

Terry does actually know quite alot about shooting, loading and firearms in General and several times we have talked about shooting a few elephant together, but it has never happened. I am sure a few nights together round the campfire would have given me far greater insight into the gentleman in question rather than a few hours chatting at SCI and reading many of his articles. Of late he has made more than the 'regulation' number of sloppy mistakes which are small details that do not actually affect the substance of the article but annoy the hell out of me.

And Besides, to quote John (Pondoro) Taylor...´'If a story is worth telling, it's worth exaggerating' Which is a phrase Peter Capstick took to heart but much of his stuff is still a good read!

quote:

Warrior ----- As you well know, to a reloader the book speeds are just good funny papers.
I shoot 99% of my loads over a Oehler 35-P chonograph, they are real speeds. I

Book-speeds are the loads given by ammo companies, and that is one way of comparing as most non reloaders can only compare this way. Is it 100% equitable? .... No it is not !!!

Likewise, we cannot compare a hot custom load in one caliber with another that is not. So it dawns on us then that we need a measuring stick, and that stick is the pressure level. For example, we cannot compare a 65,000 psi load in a .270 WSM with a 270 Win at 63,000 psi and then conclude the .270 WSM yields more velocity - it aught to be done at the very same pressure level, and once that is done, the apparent superiority might disappear or be so similar that it becomes a non-event.

At the end of the day, 50 fps this way or that way in the same caliber (eg .277") does not really have any practical benefit at practical hunting ranges. It is more about the rifle make or its design features that one prefers over the other, and so it becomes a personal choice.

Naturally all ammo needs to be shot over a chronograph to get real velocities. Ammo typically get tested with TEST-BARRELS that are 24 inches or 26 inches long in some cases, whereas in real life a rifle company may offer it in say 21 or 22 inch barrels, and so the velocity will drop and thus vary from published figures based on test-barrels. Most WSM rifles came out with shorter barrels to be in line with the shorter action to fit the theme of a lighter carry-rifle, but still a magnum. And so with shorter barrels we give velocity away again.

Warrior

quote:

Warrior ----- I don't know is the WSM's will be mainstays in future years or not, but my two .270 WSM's will be around for me and my son and grandsons to shoot for a long time. A 130 grain North Fork at 3450 fps, a 140 grain Nosler Accubond or Barnes TSX at 3262 fps, all doing one holers is good enough for us. When you show me something that will beat that, I will look at that also. Good shooting.

phurley

Phurley, those look like some pretty good results. Mind if I ask what your loads are??

I had a 300wsm back before Jamison had to go cry to mommy and get his cut. I liked the rifle, had to sell it due to dire times. That was nearly 10 years ago. As to the original post, one cannot claim the greatness of Jamison but then bad mouth "his creation", huge contradiction. I still think that dude needs a kick in the nuts every day for the rest of his life for needing an ego boost. How many other wildcats have been turned into factory cartridges with no credit to its creators? Before he pee'd in everyones cheerios, the wsm's were being chambered in every major manufacturers rifles. If they were such a fluke, that wouldn't have happened. Plenty of good carts meet their end because other companies will not chamber them.

My take, Jamison was just a jealous cry baby because one of his bretheren gun writers DID get his creation legitimized, quickly, and it was a "me too me too!!!" Situation. Did Layne Simpson do something so extraordinary with the STW? Not really, he improved an old case. Something that had been done before, but he still got credit. But he didn't help shut down one of our oldest and dearest gun makers either, so I have no beef with him.

270WSM vs a 7mm WSM- which is better or are they practically the same?

http://www.browning.com/librar...news/detail.asp?id=5

A ballistic toss up.
Differences are cosmetic.
Really all that matters here is which one you prefer.
WSM's represent essentially a proliferation of calibers to me, just to sell more.
WSM's are punted as light to carry magnums for mountain hunting, not so?

Truth be told, I've met very few rifles more handy than a Winchester Model 70 Featherweight, which comes in .30-06 among others, which I would much prefer as more flexible, as I can shoot 150, 165, 180 and 200 grainers - even 220 grainers. Quite a spread in one cartridge to cater for your every need; almost.

Warrior

I still think the WSM's should of been sold with a 26" barrel.

1. Ah, jeez, Idaho, not this again? What, you've got a Weiland-thread detector bundled in your software? I still think Dangerous Game Rifles is a valuable work (by the way, your PM acknowledged and appreciated).
2. Regarding the short magnums:
"Ain't many problems than a man can't fix
With $700 and a thirty ought-six."

This, from a man who lives and dies by the 7X57.

Good hunting to all.

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
Naturally all ammo needs to be shot over a chronograph to get real velocities. Ammo typically get tested with TEST-BARRELS that are 24 inches or 26 inches long in some cases, whereas in real life a rifle company may offer it in say 21 or 22 inch barrels, and so the velocity will drop and thus vary from published figures based on test-barrels. Most WSM rifles came out with shorter barrels to be in line with the shorter action to fit the theme of a lighter carry-rifle, but still a magnum. And so with shorter barrels we give velocity away again.

Warrior

Which companies are selling WSM's in 21" or 22" barrels?
Only one I know about is the Remington model 7..
Browning = 23"
Winchester = 24"
-------------------------------------------------
-Truth be told, I've met very few rifles more handy than a Winchester Model 70 Featherweight, which comes in .30-06 among others, which I would much prefer as more flexible, as I can shoot 150, 165, 180 and 200 grainers - even 220 grainers. Quite a spread in one cartridge to cater for your every need; almost.
Warrior------------------------------

I agree with the 30-06 part as being flexible but I don't see it being any more flexible than a 300 WSM and I have three other 30-06 length actioned rifles that are handier than my Win. Feather Wt. Nothing wrong with the Fwt. mind you..
Comparing the FN made Winchester Extreme SS you get:
30-06 22" barrel, 6 3/4#
300WSM 24" barrel, 6 3/4#
300 WM 26" barrel, 7#

FN made Feather Wt. Model
30-06 22" barrel, 7#

You know Warrior I find it sad that people who are so insure in their choices of firearms/scopes/cart./bullets/etc. that in order to give themselves credibility they have to try to drag others who don't use what they use down to their level into a little cat fight..
It seems esp. true here at AR and I suspect that is because of demographics.. The 24hr.CampFire site is completely different.. Generally if you ask a question there people are glad to help you and in a cheerful manner whether you are shooting a .270WSM or a 300Sav... You don't see a lot of threads started just to put down somebody else's choice in rifles or cart.. They do get heated sometimes but I don't see a threads started just for that purpose like you see here.. ie. like this one and others started here on dissin' .375 Ruger, RCM's and the short mags..
Oh almost forgot, the 45-70..

Funny thing Chuck Nelson who posts here on AR cut and pasted your original post up top to start threads at the CanadianGunNutz and a Alberta Outdoor site... He got his head headed to him by the forum members...
Why? Demographics!, the very thing that is going to determine which cartridges survive into the future, not what a "few" grumpy old farts here at AR think..
I must admit as a young buck of 63 years old I find some of the self absorbed grouches here quite amusing while watching the paint dry on Wall St. every day, so keep up the good work..

There are some excellent forums here in particularly the Big Bore,Wildcat,Singleshot and Gunsmithing forums..

quote:

You know Warrior I find it sad that people who are so insure in their choices of firearms/scopes/cart./bullets/etc. that in order to give themselves credibility they have to try to drag others who don't use what they use down to their level into a little cat fight..
It seems esp. true here at AR and I suspect that is because of demographics.

I cannot see who is unsure when one is buying a rifle. I would have though that it is a carefully weighed up decision, especially if one lives in the USA where there are so many choices. If someone in America then buys a WSM, then I take it as a conscious decision. Likewise, the same applies for scopes, and bullets for reloaders. I also do not see what this has to do with creditability, as each person buys what he likes based on personal opinions.

Nobody is dragged into a fight, every individual can participate on his own volition. If we get different opinions here then that is healthy and certainly why we have a forum where each member can express his ideas or share information with others. The beauty of a debate is that more information comes to the table and that serves a good purpose. So there is no cat fight, I am not sure what mskes you think this is a cat fight, it must be your own interpretation.

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:

Warrior

Please tell me why I need to scroll the page sideways to read what you cut & pasted even though I have a 22" monitor?

The WSM are alive and well, there are so many wildcat variants as to astonish anyone, this doesn't necessarily mean I agree with the concept, but just stating a fact. WSM variants are becoming extremely popular on the AR platform

Antelope Sniper ----- My two rifles are both Model 70 Winchesters. A New Haven Ultimate Shadow and the second a Featherweight Deluxe from South Carolina. They trade places as to which shoots the same load fastest, most of the time fairly close. My 130 grain fastest load is bullet specific with the North Fork. That load is 68 grains of RL-22, and churns out between 3440 and 3460 fps. I also use Magpro at 74 grains that is as fast, accuracy about the same, depending on the day and me. I shoot a Nosler cosmetic blem Solidbase with that load that is not as fast as the North Fork bullet.----- My 140 grain load is 68 grains RL-25 and Nosler Accubond, Nosler Ballistic Tip, Barnes TSX, all loads getting the Federal 210-M primer. I have tried all the powders and settled on these three for 99% of my shooting with the .270 WSM's. My two rifles don't like 150 grain bullets as well as the other weights mentioned. Conparing to all the 7mm chamberings that I shoot extensively, the only ones that equals or beats the .270 fatties is the STW and Weatherby, both of mine taking a back seat in accuracy. In my opinion the .270 WSM's have a great future for a light mountain tool as well as a bean field Deer getter. Good shooting.

the mighty whineland also doesn't see a reason for bigbores .. go figure

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
the mighty whineland also doesn't see a reason for bigbores .. go figure

Ah yes...Thank you for reminding me why I’d written Wieland off as a bozo…he can’t take the recoil so the big bores are useless...If I don’t like it you shouldn’t have it as I know what’s best for you! Hum…is he a progressive liberal???

Oops forgot...if you like/want them the go for it...if not then don't. Fairly simple.

Thank you Phurly, I really appreciate the data. Since I will be loading for a New Haven Ultimate Shadow, this gives me a very good reference point.

I've never shot North Forks, but I do have 130 SB, and the BT's and AB's in both 130 and 140gr weights, all Nosler seconds, and RL-22 on the shelf.

I hear you on the STW, I shoot one for antelope. It's a great long range cartridge, but I also expect great things from this WSM. Thanks again.

OK, bear with here. "Short Magnums" are an oxymoron, sort of like "jumbo shrimp." If you tried to sell champagne in "short magnums" you'd have people passing them up for the full magnum.

Let me go way out on a limb here and state unequivocally that there's no caliber brass in the world that can't be made better and faster by lengthening the case.

The .308 Win. is a nice caliber, but it gets a whole lot nicer when it's lengthened out to 30-06 Spfd.

30-06 Spfd. "God's caliber."

quote:

OK, bear with here. "Short Magnums" are an oxymoron, sort of like "jumbo shrimp." If you tried to sell champagne in "short magnums" you'd have people passing them up for the full magnum.

Let me go way out on a limb here and state unequivocally that there's no caliber brass in the world that can't be made better and faster by lengthening the case.

If you lengthen a Short Mag, you get an Ultra Mag. As for which are better, Short Mags or Ultra Mags, perhaps that could depend on the specific application??

Myopic idiots are annoying.

AS IF Jamison invented the "short magnums". No more than a copy of a number of efforts, not in the least the "heavy express" series.

Now, all of a sudden, having a SHORTER action is a detriment over a "standard action". Does the guy not have an editor? For a century, the shorter the action, the better. Guys spent several month's salaries on rifles chambered in wildcats just to get a short action thumper. Now that's a PROBLEM?

As far as feeding, if you can't make a WSM feed 100% reliably, turn in your pocket protector and your CAD software -- you're no engineer. JMO, Dutch.

Ganyana,

quote:

Of late he has made more than the 'regulation' number of sloppy mistakes which are small details that do not actually affect the substance of the article but annoy the hell out of me.

When one makes detail mistakes, it skews the big picture and renders the author suspect. Take this example:

Warrior quoted Wieland and posted:

quote:

When the first WSMs appeared, Rick sued. Six years later, Winchester settled, reportedly for about three million dollars.

Then he posts:

quote:

I have not read a single book of Terry's, but have read several articles he wrote which I found interesting, so I cannot quote pages of his book or books, and nor is Terry paying me. I think Winchester paid him a handsome amount of money in the settlement, and so believe Terry does not need to pay me to promote him.

From the fact that Warrior thinks that Winchester paid Wieland in the settlement, one must draw the conclusion that Warrior posted the first quote without reading it or, he read it but did not understand it. Typical Warrior - No attention to detail and no comprehension. Entertainment and humor value only. In his defence one must note that he did say he has not read any of Wieland's books. Perhaps that includes not reading the cut and paste pieces either. That would explain why he thinks that the author is Rick Wieland and that Winchester settled with Terry Jamison.

quote:

Terry Jamison

Don't they make a good single malt too ...??

OH! Wait ... uh

Mac,

Jameson, an Irish company, with an "e", does indeed make a whiskey.
I think we need to buy a bottle and send it to our very own Rasputin.
Then we invite Rick Jamison to have a drink with him.
I think Rasputin would love to interview him to give us the detailed facts.
But beware, I am sure he will put a spin on it.

Warrior

Keep flogging that horse boys. All those that believe there hasn't been a decent cartridge developed in the past century are right with you.

Bekker at his typical best. So predictable: He makes a mistake, I point it out, he creates a smoke screen by calling me names.

quote:

Then we invite Rick Jamison to have a drink with him.
I think Rasputin would love to interview him to give us the detailed facts.
But beware, I am sure he will put a spin on it.

Nice Triple Hornswoggle - You have practised it well.

quote:

"What they had not counted on was the fact that Jamison, no fool, had patented his design. Not only that, he patented virtually every bore diameter (.338, .257, etc.) to which it might be adapted. When the first WSMs appeared, Rick sued. Six years later, Winchester settled, reportedly for about three million dollars. Within a month or two, U.S. Repeating Arms closed down its ancient New Haven plant. Whether there is a connection is still a matter of conjecture. Personally, I doubt it, but right now the Internet chat rooms are buzzing with speculation that Rick Jamison is personally responsible for the death of the Winchester 94.

Promptly, letters went out from Jamison’s lawyers to every riflemaker that might have chambered one of the short magnums in a rifle, demanding a retroactive royalty. Equally promptly, riflemakers fell over one another denouncing the short magnums as having a number of inherent flaws, and insisting they would not chamber them henceforth. Or, if a client insisted, they would add a premium to the price to cover Jamison’s royalty. Riflemakers like Darcy Echols, who have never chambered a short magnum and refuse to do so for a variety of sound ballistic reasons, are laughing."

Let me me say it is always sad when relationships end like this ... in a fight ... legal battles ... and the axes come out for each other. The reason is .... GREED !!! Jamison did some work for them and he was not compensated. I take it that Jamison was compelled to enforce his rights.

The development of the WSM case was Jamison's idea for Winchester to diversify their product range to make MONEY ... Winchester must have loved the idea, yes? Jamison took patents out for a range of calibers and that makes him an asstute businessman, and as it unfolds it paid off for him.

The twist in this saga is that Jamison now is killing (bad-mouth) his own idea.
Other riflemakers will be loath to pay royalties, that is understandable.
The other sad thing is that Winchester did not honour their obligation to Jamison.
That is equally bad, but it took a legal battle of 6 years before Winchester offered a settlement.
I cannot see that Winchester would have settled if they were not in the wrong.

Greed, that is how it appears to me.

Back to the actual issue of this discussion .... the virtues of the WSM's and WSSM's or otherwise ....

The proliferation of cartridges over the last few decades essentially stems from just forming a different shape and dimensions from a parent-case. Many different parent-cases have been used to do this - diameters were necked up and down. Here are a few:

7x57 mm case ...... 257 Roberts
308 Win .............. .243 Win; 7mm-08, 260 Rem; 338Fed; 358 Win; etc
30-06 ................... 25-06 Rem; .338-06, 35 Whelen; etc
375 H&H ............. 300 H&H; .244 H&H; The 8 mm Remington Magnum; etc

The 8 mm Remington Magnum case has functioned as the parent case for the 7 mm STW, which is essentially a 7 mm (.284 caliber) necked-down version of the 8 mm Remington Magnum. The 8 mm Remington Magnum case also has functioned as the parent case for the .416 Remington Magnum,

And so it goes for many others.

In the mid-1940's, Roy Weatherby experimented with shortening, necking down, and blowing out the .300 H&H belted case to produce his .257, .270, and 7mm Weatherby Magnums. He used the full length H&H case fire formed for greater capacity for his .300, .340 and .375 Weatherby Magnums.

P.O.Ackley did the same with various calibers in his "Ackley Improved" cases that could be shot in the original caliber, and by taking body taper away and giving the shoulder a 40 degree angle.

Don Allen of Dakota designed a line of proprietary magnum hunting cartridges based on the big .404 Jeffery case shortened to function in standard (.30-06) length actions - these come in 7mm, .300, .330, and .375 calibers.

Warrior

JAMISON is bad-mouthing the WSM's?

Really? I would love to see a citation on that!

Thanks in advance, Dutch.

quote:

http://www.africansportinggazette.com/html/volumes/vol-12-1/shooting.html

Read the second last paragraph in Wieland article ... "Terry Wieland’s On Shooting':-

"So, at long last, everyone is bad-mouthing the short magnums. With the Model 70 gone, at least temporarily, the WSMs have lost their major vehicle. Independent riflemakers are finally telling their clients they really should look at other cartridges, for a variety of reasons."

Everyone must inlude Wieland himself (by deductive reasoning), ... as he is also bringing Kenny Jarrett's critizism in about escalated pressures with the use of long bullets, and he goes on to say that he agrees with him. (At least he is honest enough to admit it, but nevertheless still a critizism).

See this article in the time frame that it was written ... in 2006 ... after Wieland battled 6 years with Winchester to get money out of them. So yeas there must have been a lot of frustration on his part. And remember part of the deal was that Winchester made a settlement deal with him on the condition that he will never write again. So that tell the story .... so he is prevented by way of contract to stop critizing, heh?

Furthermore, Wieland is closing off with a stern message ... by putting the last nail in the coffin, and I quote .... "Since this is the 100th anniversary of the .30-06, look for a ‘rediscovery’ of its virtues and those of its offspring. Or even the original ‘short magnums. The .358 Norma, anyone? Or the .264 Winchester? Why not? They are great cartridges both – with no smoke, mirrors, or salad-bar bullshit."

It is pretty clear to me that Wieland is not bring forth an accolade of praise here.

Warrior

I'll always greedily take headspacing the shoulder,over a superfluous belt. That as well as reduced ES,due to the shortened column.

My belted days are over and I've drove them all.

3 million --less legal fees

Not enough $ for loss of Freedom of speech.



Then again-- I think the patent office

was remiss granting the "utility" patents.



404 based cats were around for years in both

short and long iterations.(Howell, Van Horn, etc)

As were short & fat non-404's (Gradle, Lazzeroni, etc)

And the idea of patent for a base and or bore

diameter is equally specious.


I have built the 6PPC, & none of the WSM's,

don't plan on it.

It's akin to Lou and Ferris being sued by Stalin for the 6PPC.