It just crossed my mind the other day that the 300 Wby is now one of the oldest of what might be classed as main stream calibres that are sold.

270, 30/06, 375 and the lever action calibres would be those that are older. Can't think of any others offhand. About everything else is mid 1950s or younger. 308 family, 222 family, Winchester and Remington magnums.

yep, they're old news these days as far as speed. I guess they will have to make it on their classic good looks! I'm just happy they never got into having double rifles built by somebody.

Rich
DRSS

The 270 WBY. The first of the Bee calibers!

I'm still shooting a 300 H+H. The father of your Weatherby and a true classic!

30-30?

Old yes...classic? no

JMO

Older, yes. Classic, yes. It still is one of the, if not the benchmark "magnum" cartridges.

quote:

Originally posted by DavidReed:
It still is one of the, if not the benchmark "magnum" cartridges.

No harm, but what makes you say this?

quote:

Originally posted by buckeyeshooter:
I'm still shooting a 300 H+H. The father of your Weatherby and a true classic!

+1 Me too, 300H&H a genuine classic. JC

quote:

300 H+H. The father of your Weatherby and a true classic!

Agree 100%
I see the H+H family, maybe the Norma chamberings & a few others being "Classics", I cant even put in my head the fact of any bee being classed a "Classic" except maybe one day the 375 Weatherby.

quote:

Originally posted by cmfic1:
Old yes...classic? no

JMO

I've hunted for quite a few years and know a lot offolks with a .30-06 or a .300 Win Mag and even a couple with a .300 H&H, but I've never known a man or hunted with a man that owned a .300 Weatherby.

Classic?, I agree with cmficl

JMO[/QUOTE]I've hunted for quite a few years and know a lot offolks with a .30-06 or a .300 Win Mag and even a couple with a .300 H&H, but I've never known a man or hunted with a man that owned a .300 Weatherby.

JMO, now you know someone who owns and hunts with a 300 WBY. ME!!

What makes for a classic calibre or cartridge?

quote:

Originally posted by James Cardwell:

+1 Me too, 300H&H a genuine classic. JC

Didn't the 300 H&H have a relatively short life and was crushed by the 300 Winchester and the 300 Winchester was ushered in by the success of the 300 Wby.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike McGuire:

Didn't the 300 H&H have a relatively short life and was crushed by the 300 Winchester and the 300 Winchester was ushered in by the success of the 300 Wby.

In a word, No.

The Super .30 Belted Rimless (.300 H&H to Americans) was introduced by H&H and then was used commonly all over the world for about 40 years before the introduction of the .300 Winchester.

And actually, the .300 Winchester was likely ushered in by other short Magnums, such as the .308 Norma Mag and, more particularly, the .264 Win Mag.

The .264 Mag started every one looking for a .30 on the same case, and pretty much everone expected something very much like what later became the .308 Norma Mag.

Unfortunately for Winchester (and some people think for shooters as well), Norma beat Winchester to the punch by bringing out the .308 Norma Mag. Well, no way Winchester was gonna bring out a copy of the .308 Norma, so they brought out the .300 Win instead, with a longer case body but much shorter neck.

At the same time, everyone was looking for a short 7 m/m magnum, such as popular gun writer of the day Warren Page used in wildcat form for much of his hunting. He wrote about it just about as much as Jack O'Connor wrote about the .270 cartridge.

Again, Winchester was beaten to the punch, as they were still trying to flog the .264 Winnie Mag and didn't want to compete with their own invention. So this time it was Remington who beat them to the punch with the 7 m/m Rem. Mag which came out in 1962.

(Phil Sharpe and a Mr. Hart whose first name I don't know, had already made available the 7x61 Sharpe and Hart Magnum, but the Shultz & Larsen rifles in which it was chambered were not widely distributed in North America, were relatively expensive, and had rear locking lugs, all of which left the marketing doors open for American manufacturers.)

Maybe I should have said the magnums in general from Winchester and Remington were a by product of the 300 Wby success.

In the early 70s the M70 XTR was very Wby like and Sako and even copied the style of the Wby bolt shroud and a Sako Deluxe was very Wby like.

But I can't see how the 300 H&H is a classic when it died.

The 308 Norma was the common magnum In Australia and especially with conversion of M17s. Actually, a lot of M17s were rebarreled to 270 and the 30/06 barrel was use to make 308 Norma. I had a Sako 270 and it was rebarreled to 308 Norma using the M17 barrel. Then I maangaed to get som emore money and got my first Wby, a 300

Taking a 300 Wby to the range back in those days got a reaction simiilar to taking a 30-378 today.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:

(Phil Sharpe and a Mr. Hart whose first name I don't know, had already made available the 7x61 Sharpe and Hart Magnum, but the Shultz & Larsen rifles in which it was chambered were not widely distributed in North America, were relatively expensive, and had rear locking lugs, all of which left the marketing doors open for American manufactuers.)

I think it is Richard Hart. I will check later. I have Philip B Sharpe's Complete Guide to Handloading and there is a full chapter on the 7 X 61 S&H.

It is quite interesting to read an old book like this and in particular the reloading tables. 270 Win was not all that old and Wby calibres were still wildcats. And of course maximum loads were maximum loads.

Pages of data on 30-06 from gallery loads with a round ball and up.

An interesting part of the 270 write up....."For handloading purposes, the major objection to the 270 Winchester is the lack of variety in the bullets available in other than the cast variety"....That section is Part 1 of the book and the Wbys (plus new 270 data) is in Part 11

quote:

Originally posted by Mike McGuire:
What makes for a classic calibre or cartridge?

IMO a classic is a"Classic", when it has been around as long as the H+H has, and weather it has dies or not, look at the cartridges developed from the case itself....now thats classic!

BTW, I predict that like (in certain circles)the 9.3's, 264 Win Mag, the 358 Norma etc etc, the 300 H+H too will be "re-kindled"

I have nothing against the 300 bee, But I will also say that I would never own one!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cmfic1:

BTW, I predict that like (in certain circles)the 9.3's, 264 Win Mag, the 358 Norma etc etc, the 300 H+H too will be "re-kindled"

QUOTE]

9.3 is a forum calibre. Check the bullets that Hornady, Speer and Sierra make.

The 375 H&H is the classic, not the 300 H&H. 300 and 340 users have used 375 brass to make the two Wbys. 300 H&H brass is real thin on the ground. It is extinct. About the only reason you would get one is to pair up with a 375 H&H in a custom rifle but even then 300 Win and 300 Wby get the vote. Check was D'Arcy Echols and David Miller chanmberings are...300 Win and 300 Wby with the Wby being the favourite of Miller and Echols.

I have a pair of 300 weatherbys. Love them, have a model 70 classic in 300 weatherby that is truly a friend. All that said, I just don't think of it as a classic cartridge. No real reason, just when you say classic I think 30-06,375H&H etc.

quote:

All that said, I just don't think of it as a classic cartridge. No real reason, just when you say classic I think 30-06,375H&H etc.

I would agree on 375 H&H.

But 30-06, without military status is nothing

quote:

Originally posted by Sevenxbjt:
I have a pair of 300 weatherbys. Love them, have a model 70 classic in 300 weatherby that is truly a friend.

300 Wby has something about it.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
(Phil Sharpe and a Mr. Hart whose first name I don't know, had already made available the 7x61 Sharpe and Hart Magnum, but the Shultz & Larsen rifles in which it was chambered were not widely distributed in North America, were relatively expensive, and had rear locking lugs, all of which left the marketing doors open for American manufactuers.)

When you reread the Philip Sharpe book it is easy to see why the 300 H&H died.

quote:

Alberta Canuck

Another book I have here is by Earl Naramore. Principles and Practices of Loading Ammunition.

Great stuff and well before the times of.....don't attempt to stop the chainsaw with your hands.......or....don't use the toaster in the bath etc...

Mike, you seem quite enamoured with the 300 Weatherby, which is cool, we all very likely have a chambering we feel the same about.

I can agree somewhat that the 9.3's are a "forum caliber", but up here in small town Alberta, I've seen a few floating around at the range, believe me, them guys I doubt have checked much on forums....so I wonder how/where/why they had thoughts on getting one.

BTW, in 11 yrs of guiding in AB, BC & the Yukon without question theeee most popular cartridge in any camp from Deer to Moose/Griz hunts was/is the 300 Win Mag, I can only recall ever seeing one 300 Weatherby, so I'm not real sure how popular it is! and I believe popularity is what will lead a cartridge to be a "Classic", not age alone.

quote:

Originally posted by cmfic1:
Mike, you seem quite enamoured with the 300 Weatherby, which is cool, we all very likely have a chambering we feel the same about.

People who know me would tell you 378 and 460 and the Wby custom shop would confirm

quote:

and I believe popularity is what will lead a cartridge to be a "Classic", not age alone.

If it is popularity then we can drop the 300 H&H and 416 Rigby, just to name two

But I do believe the 300 Wby paved the way and as I my opening post says, it crossed my mind how old the 300 Wby was. It is and has been chambered in a wide range range of rifles. It is still seen by many as a radical calibre, you know...why would you need it etc and etc and etc....

But the 300 Wby can't be too bad when it is the favourite of D'Arcy Echols and David Miller.

quote:

But the 300 Wby can't be too bad when it is the favourite of D'Arcy Echols and David Miller.

Who are them guys?

300 Win mag, 300 H+H, every other 300 magnum (wildcat or otherwise)......then the 300 bee.....thats the order for me

quote:

Rod

I just checked the Hornady site.

1 bullet in 9.3

No brass or ammo. But both brass and ammo for 300 Wby. Therefore, according to your reasoning the 300 Wby is more classic, in fact much more classic than 9.3 X 62.


All good fun.

The 300 Wby, 9.3 X 62 etc are basically gun enthusiast's calibres and in the process drive the gun business along.

If there was no 300 Wby Vs 9.3 X 62 to argue about or in line push feed Vs staggered CRF etc. the forums would be dead and those shooters who only want to know which powder for their 270 or 30-06 would have nowhere to go.

Your right Mike, its all in good fun.

Now I gotta get, time to line up the componants for my new 9.3X62
Oh ya, I will only use "cheap" hornadys for shoot 'em ups anyhow

Rod,

The 9.3 X 62 has become quite popular in recent years in Australia with Sambar deer hunters and mainly because of lighter rifle than 375 H&Hs such as the CZ. The 375 Ruger is also doing well because of lighter and small rifle.

quote:

Originally posted
I can agree somewhat that the 9.3's are a "forum caliber", but up here in small town Alberta, I've seen a few floating around at the range, believe me, them guys I doubt have checked much on forums....so I wonder how/where/why they had thoughts on getting one.

.

I don't know how this fits in with the question about the .300 WBY, but speaking of 9.3x62s, I bought the one I have now in Edmonton in 1973.

Anyway, I don't know if the .300 WBY is a classic or not, though for 50 or so years I have owned one made by Roy Weatherby from a Model 70 .300 H&H, and have used it to kill a bunch of game.

But I really do feel the .300 H&H IS a classic, if for no other reasons than it was the first belted .30 and is still being chambered by one firm or another from time to time almost 90 years later.

As to saying the .30-06 is not a classic because it was a military cartridge, one could say the same for both the .303 Brit and the 8 m/m Committee, AKA 1888 Mauser, cases.

Before making all those judgements for and against different cases, perhaps we should have a thread on "What Constitutes a Classic Cartridge"?

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:

As to saying the .30-06 is not a classic because it was a military cartridge, one could say the same for both the .303 Brit and the 8 m/m Committee, AKA 1888 Mauser, cases.

I would say the same about 303 and 308. Their popularity is because they were/are military calibres and one thing that usually means is cheap ammo and rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike McGuire:

quote:

Alberta Canuck

Another book I have here is by Earl Naramore. Principles and Practices of Loading Ammunition.

Great stuff and well before the times of.....don't attempt to stop the chainsaw with your hands.......or....don't use the toaster in the bath etc...

Yeh, Mike, I have had both those books on the shelf for at least 50 years now and they are well written and interesting. So is Sharpe's other large book, "The Rifle In America". Incidentally both those books are considered "classics" among gun book collectors and publishers of gun books.

It was those books plus others such as P.O. Ackleys', and the Brit books by Bell, Taylor, Corbett, et.al., which got me into collecting both rifles and gun-related books starting some 50 years ago or more. And kept me poor! By 35 years ago I had a sizeable collection of double rifles (and others), and had a good start on my "library" of gun reference books which now numbers about 3,000 different titles if one includes paperbacks & periodicals.

But though priceless sources of info, books only tell us of other people's experiences and opinions. I base my own list of "classics" on having been there and having felt the respect (or lack of same) which the user public had and has of them.

BTW, I know it is the "in" thing for people to bad-mouth Weatherby products, and big belted cartridge cases in general, but I find it very difficult to lay much weight in the negative opinions of people who have never owned or used even one Weatherby rifle or cartridge, or haven't even known people who did.

To me, fully buying into their view of Weatherbys is kind of like putting one's self in the hands of a brain surgeon who has read all the texts but never opened a skull before.


Sure, they may have a well-developed theoretical idea of what MIGHT have been a problematic reality or MIGHT lie ahead, but thanks, I'd rather trust actual experience with the subject at hand.

Sharpe and Ackley's pair of books and the first edition of Cartridges of the World were big for me.

As to Wbys, I can only speak about Australia and on our biggest guns/hunting forum there is a little Wby bashing but not much and what there is usually relates to recoil, barrel life, cost etc. But at the rifle range or in the bush don't see it at all.

We also don't get much on the Push Feed Vs CRF. Where our forums are very different to AR is Rem 700 is held in high regard. A lot of 375 H&Hs are in Rem 700s and very few in M70 but plenty in CZ.

With belted Vs rimless we only see that a few times and usually from someone about to take up reloading and buying a new gun at the same time.

The .300 Weatherby Magnum is a true classic. I don't hunt with a .300 Wby. Mag. much anymore but back in the 1980's it was my main rifle. I took Moose, caribou, black bear, and deer with my Mark 5. I remember as a boy looking at the ballistic charts, the .300 Wby impressed me so much that I saved my money for a long time, and bought a Mark 5. I still rembember the trajectory of the 180 gr bullet +3@100+4@200 zero@300-9@400-24@500 yards. When I hunted Kodiak Bear back in 1988 I asked the Master Guide what cartridge do most hunters use on Kodiak Bear? He told me with out a doubt it would be the .300 Weatherby Magnum. It works very well on the largest carniverous land mammel. I can remember going to the range in my youth, and impressing a very knowledgable Oldtimer on the accuraccy of that old Mark 5.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike McGuire:
Sharpe and Ackley's pair of books and the first edition of Cartridges of the World were big for me.

As to Wbys, I can only speak about Australia and on our biggest guns/hunting forum there is a little Wby bashing but not much and what there is usually relates to recoil, barrel life, cost etc. But at the rifle range or in the bush don't see it at all.

We also don't get much on the Push Feed Vs CRF. Where our forums are very different to AR is Rem 700 is held in high regard. A lot of 375 H&Hs are in Rem 700s and very few in M70 but plenty in CZ.

With belted Vs rimless we only see that a few times and usually from someone about to take up reloading and buying a new gun at the same time.

Mike -

Having shot in full-bore competition in NZ against you Auzzies ('79 NZ National Tournament & Palma Match), I have nothing but respect for riflemen from your country.

I also know you guys have tried lots of things back when you had much more freedom to own/experiment with guns. I'm still very impressed by all the .303-based wildcats you guys commonly used in the bush...particularly in the northern bush. Also particularly liked the .222 Rimmed developed for the Martini Cadet rifles. You folks have a positive knack for coming up with inexpensive, workable solutions to hunting-related and target shooting problems. For the beginning full-bore competitor, the Omark 44 was a particularly good example.

I am not surprised you seldom if ever see the .300 Wby. It wasn't a Brit cartridge when it was developed, and you had plenty of good long-range cartridges available from "Olde Blighty" and your own country. And the mother-country was, of course, one of the good sources of component supply with little or no import duties.

Funny you should mention Remingtons being bad-mouthed. I had that in my last post, but deleted it before I posted it, because I know there are a lot of participants and lurkers here at AR who really LIKE Remingtons. I do too, but then I like almost all rifles, with very few exceptions. All rifles may not all be great, but they all can generally work pretty much okay if the owner/user learns their foibles and works around them. to you.

AC

quote:

Originally posted by Mike McGuire:

I would say the same about 303 and 308. Their popularity is because they were/are military calibres and one thing that usually means is cheap ammo and rifles.

Mike - I suggest that popularity of the .303 with hunters really first swelled when quite a number of the earlier African ivory hunters wrote books proclaiming what a marvel it was on elephant, with full-patch smokeless-propelled military or commercial ammo.

They just couldn't believe how well it penetrated with its jacketed bullets and how accurate it was compared to the very large bore black powder weapons they HAD been using. I'm talking about guys well before Bell and Taylor.

Some of them used bolt rifles when they became easy to get...others used single shots such as the Fraser (which did suffer from extraction problems). But with careful shots from a .303 they were delighted they could lay elephants low with one shot, rather than having to fire as many as 17 or more into one animal from their black powder muzzle loaders or big black powder cartridge rifles, which they often had to reload while chasing after the ele on a dead run. Many who shot over 1,000 elephant, one who shot over 1,500 such, commented that if only the smokeless .303 loadings had come earlier they could have killed several times the number of elephant they did in their careers.

So, I would consider the .303 Brit a "classic", too...for the changes it wrought in the hunting of really wild places on this earth.

I guess I have never brought cartridges becasue they were old or new I buy them because I want one of them. The last one I brought was a 45-70 very old in a single shot to boot. I would have brought A 450 marlin if it would have came along at the right price and time.

Just being around doesn't make a cartridge better or worse How it preforms is what matters to me.

quote:

Originally posted by rolltop:

quote:

Originally posted by cmfic1:
Old yes...classic? no

JMO

I've hunted for quite a few years and know a lot offolks with a .30-06 or a .300 Win Mag and even a couple with a .300 H&H, but I've never known a man or hunted with a man that owned a .300 Weatherby.

That just proves you just need to get out more.

The 300 Wby just seems to have something about it. The 300 and the 460.