Is there much talk about the new short mags going on up there? Down here I see alot of B.S.
on thinking the old stand by's are not good enough to kill the animals.Or being better at least.They down play the .270 the 7mm Rem the .25-06 and the .300 Win for only a modest
velocity gain.It is nice to have choices but
the new cartridges dont amount to much of a gain
with the exception of the .300 Rem ultra,.338 Rem ultra and the 375 Rem ultra mags.

Are you guys being subjected to this these shorter packages that only limit magazine capacity?

I am seeing some interest in the short mags from those already looking for a new gun. Not so much the reason for a new gun but an option if the purchase is already planned. It will be a long time until the latest whiz bangs really put the tried and true out to pasture.
Hell I'm still using standard non magnum named cartridges. Your user name suggests the same. 30-06 still works for me as well as 303 Brit, 45-70 etc.

The short mags are outselling thier counterparts in new rifles by a big margin.

And it makes sense- They are new and interesting. And they are jsut another choice for shooters and hunters.

The 270WSM offers a real increase in velocity over the .270 WIn.

I dnn't understand why some peopel get thier knickers in such a knot over the short mags. If you don't like them, don't buy one.

If you are concerned that the "Big Gun Companies" are using the short mags as a marketing tool- You are correct. Surprisingly, they want to sell more rifles.

I dont' see much wrong with that...

They are selling pretty well up here.I got a 270WSM cause I wanted something new to play with. It's a nice working and shooting rifle but nothing to stain your drawers over. With comparable bullet weights and a 2" longer barrel over my chrono it averages about 175-200fps over my other .270's before I get flattened primers and sticky extraction so in my gun there really is not much real world. difference between the two. I can't accomplish any more with it than I can with my old .270's and wouldn't attempt to take a shot with it I wouldn't take with the others.

Cal30 1906
Don't forget the 7mm RUM it's slightly better than the 300RUM for long range and almost as effective in the killing dept.

I bought my son one of the Remmy Model 7's in 300 SAUM in stainless steel and it's a fantastic rifle. It's getting about 3100 fos with the 150 grain Barnes Blue XLC's..is more than accurate enough for deer/bear etc..light weight, great little adjustable trigger..easy too handle etc...ZUMBO said it not me, just might be the perfect NA big game rifle..wished they made one in left handed !!!

Well, "down here in the USA", I love my .270 WSM !! I have several rifles including a .270 Win, but just wanted to try one. I don't know if it's the caliber or the rifle, but my Savage shoots 140 grain Nosler Accubonds into little tiny .25 MOA groups !!! It also shoots 140 grain bullets about 300-350 fps faster than my .270 Win. I would say that's a significant improvement. I'm getting 3175-3200 fps with the 140 Accubonds. Some shooters are reporting almost 3400 with 140 grainers and Magpro powder which is what I use. If you want something flatter shooting than a regulad old .270 Win, but don't like belted cases like the .270 Weatherby, try a .270 WSM !!

I still do not see much need for the new chamberings. Gun manufacturers are in a difficult position. Our numbers are declining. Most of us are older and already have all the guns we require. I think several of the manufacturers will be going under shortly. As a last ditch effort to sell guns, they're coming out with all these new chamberings to make us feel that what we have is inferior to what they're producing. I don't think too many of us are buying that line. At least I hope not. Best wishes.

Cal - Montreal

Have a 7mm rum in a Savage. Luv it-shoots great.

It'll be interesting in the next decade or so to see which of these new chamberings survive--looking at the history of modern ammo, there are many instances where 2 or more very similiar cartridges came out at the same time--usually only one is still around in commercial loadings.

My friend bought a Winchester 300WSM I bought a Remington 300 Win Mag. I can see no big difference he shoots his max load at 200fps less than I do. The only thing is his likes 150gr Partition Bullets mine don't go figure.

I have 2 of the new WSM rifles. One in 300 and one in 7MM. The main reason I tried them was they were lighter than my standard Mags and I figure I need to save every pound I can when in the high country. I didn't run out and sell my 300 Win Mag or my 270 but if the new 7MM WSM shoots really well I might sell my 270. I was planning on building a custom 284 Win for a mountain rifle so it saved me a bunch when the 7MM WSM came out.

I have the 338 Rem Ultra Mag. That rifle is great for long distance shooting,hunting. Close up hunting I down load my bullets for average F.P.S. I really like this rifle.

I have been doing some research on the subject of which cartridges will survive, and the early guess is only the .300 WSM will make it.

We have always had a lot of room seemingly in the .30 cal bore size in North America, but not so for the other bore sizes. It seems as if one design gets popular, then the others just go away. In some choices like .35, 8 mm, 6.5 mm we don't even have one getting popular.

Of course I have a .376 Steyr and a 6.5-'06, but then I have a penchant for not well-known cartridges.

jim

I htink the 270 WSM is pretty safe, too.

It's actually the most interesting of them all.

Like Gatehouse pointed out, it seems plenty people get uptight about these new chamberings and I don't know why. The obvious SM advantages get ignored and small advantages that the standard magnums have get stretched pretty thin. People point out that they only come within 100fps of the standard mags(7rem, 300win, 270 weath) so why do we need them. Its not need but practicality. I reverse the question to these people and ask why do we need the longer powder hogs that require the extra length reciever and action along with longer barrel, increased recoil,etc.. if it only gains 100fps over the short mags? If that don't concern you... fine. But all things being equal, you get more bang for your buck and less bucked for your bang.

I know the same argument stands for the non magnum standards vrs. the SAUM's but the velocity gains with WSM have a wider margine. If you are going to compare non magnum standards, its only fair to compare the short actions ie.. 308, 7mm-08. I still say the 270WSM is in a class all in its own. Some of my published velocities beat the 270 Weatherby with lighter bullets like the 130 and 140 gr.

I guess when people are only focusing on velocity gains they don't see to clearly that these short fatties have alot to offer.

I own both the 270 WSM and 300 WSM in model 28s ULAs. I just recently returned from a Dall sheep hunt with the 270 WSM. They are very light and very accurate. That is part of the beauty of the short mags.

I am having a 6.5/300 WSM built currently. The ballistics of this cartridge are impressive. When topped with an 8.5-25 Leupold, it will be my new long range antelope gun.

I think the Remingtons are doomed to failure, they are outperformed by their Winchester counterparts. Remington is already chambering their 700's in .300WSM and .270WSM in a wide variety of models, there are more WSM's in Remingtons lineup than SAUM's. The fact that Browning and Winchester and Savage and Ruger and Weatherby (to name a few) all offer WSM's, I think the short action Magnum wars will be won by Winchester in a few years. They make great lightweight and handy rifles especially deep in the sticks, and they have a lot of power for open country shots a well...

Hey gang I am not from over the border, however I do have a couple of thoughts on this. These are made up from the hunting fields, the range and from behind the counter and 3 years of retail gun sales. So take em for what they are worth, just comments not intended to sway anyone.

First off make no doubt about it, the short mag craze has been one of the best "marketing" jobs to come along since I've been around guns (I'm 46 and been around them all my life.

They sold a lot of info, some true and some I would not agree with. Did it keep people in jobs and sell guns, you bet it did.

As for people I see interested (in Montana and the west is what I am speaking about here) in the shorts. It tends to be new or young shooters ( I heard a lot of "my Dad and my Uncle and my Grandad shoot a 300 Win but I am gonna get this new short mag, it has it all over their ancient guns!). It also was the people that are gun looney's and need a play thing and they played with it and shot it more than they did hunted with it. I know of only one serious hunter that worked with 2 or 3 of them and he has sold them all and went back to an 06. I do not know of any other serious hunters that use them. They just kept to killing big critters and most of these guys are not what I would call gun looney's. They are generally way to busy scouting and planing their next forray for big horns than playing with a new gun.

Someone mentioned that Zumbo thought that the 300 Saum with a 150 at 3100 might just be the perfect combo. Hmm... I think that is incredibly close to our old 06! Isn't it?

Weight-they are not any lighter than their counter parts. Go and weigh a M70 FWT and you'll be amazed what those hogs weigh. Nice guns that they are, but they are no lightweights. People may be able to fool thier wives with this one, but not me, I've weighed them. (but hey its our secret I won't tell)

The only possible advantage I can see to carrying a short, is if you could get it in a gun a considerable amount lighter than what they had the old mags at. To me that would be at least one pound lighter. For the same basic price.

The Rem. shorts I personally do not see them cutting the biscuit, I believe Rem. saw that light and went to the WSM's.

The 7 WSM as good as it is, I'm not sure will make it. It may just die a very long and slow death. But it may make it. I have zero doubt that the 300 and the 270 WSM's are here to stay.

They can be made in a shorter lighter package, I've yet to of seen that as true. You can surely use the same tube length on the old mags than you can the new. So, you have it in a short action, yeah that is gonna be quicker to work. Tkae one of each, say both in 300 and go to the range. Shoot at a gong at 100 yards, and run 3 rounds thru each. have someone time you from start to finish. You will be amazed at how little if any difference there is in speed of operation. I've a clue for you, in theory there should be but in realy life you won't find it.

I've a short mag 338, it is on the 300 WSM case I cal it "Fat Bastard". I've run it a bit for speed doing the same tests. Mind you I've used my 340 Wby (I don't have a 338 WM). I've clocked it, I can work the bolt and reaquire the target just as fast with the bigger longer action. So... I don't buy into this theory either. It is a neat round though! Kind of fun to play with but it doesn't do anything a standard 338 wouldn't do better.

As far as speed goes, I've worked with a lot of 270's over the years. I've found there to be between the regular old vanilla 1925 version and the new WSM version to be between 100 and 200 fps. Like someone else said, not enough to really worry about. There are a ton load of 270 WSM's out there being feed factory ammo and I'd be for betting that they aren't running much faster than my old 270 with handloads ( it runs with a 23" tube the 130's at 3200 and the 140 at 3100 and the 150 at 3000). For whatever that is worth, I guess it is worth something whenever a user of factory ammo try's to tell me how much better his new short mag is.

I am a bit of a stickler for a gun to feed perfectly, ok ok I am a big time stickler for this! I've been around a lot of these new ones and a lot of the old ones. Bottom line is that I've seen many an issue with feeding with the shorts. Rarely do I see such issues with the old rounds. I've also talked to a lot of people about this and they've said "oh mine feeds perfectly" then I get to work with it a bit and I quickly find out that that is not so! They just don't know, and unless they ask I won't spoil there fun.

Lastly again mind you I've been around quite a lot of these and for the most part they are quite close (speed wise)to what the old mags will run. But, day in and day out I would bet on the old mags breaking the tape first. The new boys as a rule will run within 100-150 fps of the olds. Not enough to quibble about for the most part, but a person also can't say that they are just as fast or faster! I just won't buy into that.

Such is my thoughts on the short mags, oh yeah one last one I still can not believe that Win did not come out with the 257 WSM and the 338 WSM. They were doing great until then... Plus now if they could actually make one and sell one for a decent price that was around 6 lbs or so...

Good day all.

MD

and by all means take the cal to the dance that you want, not trying to swade anyone here at all!

With lite weight rifles people tend to count ounces and grams. A shorter reciever and bolt will shed weight. That cannot be denied. I don't know about saving time on a shorter bolt stroke but in a excited situation, you are less likely to short stroke a short mag over a long action. As far as poor feeding goes, I've heard this many times but will point out that it does not happen with the Tikka T3 single stack magazine. Smooth as silk.

Winchester did a lot of research on the 338WSM possibilities but they didnt get the velocities that would put them anywhere near the 338 Win. I guess it would of hurt them when it was not quicker than the 338/06. As far as the 257WSM goes, way over bore. I think this is ground Remington could win back with their smaller powder capacity short round. A 257 or 264 would put them back in the thick of things.

boiler--you make a good point about the Tikka T3, to me it is the best rifle made in my time. Light, accurate, cost effective...

It is also made in a 300 WM and it weighs the same so.... it kind of is a moot point to me.
Although to me if I were to be inclined to go short it would be a T3 No questions asked! But if I wanted a 300 I would no way pick a short over the standard in the T3.

Short stroking can certainly happen either way, I'll also give you this that if you use them both a fair bit I do believe that there is the possibility to begin short stroking the long one, if you spend time going from one to the other.

257 WSM overbore, I know the term but to me I buy a mag for performance, not whether or not it is over bore or efficient. Those are nice terms, and to me they fall under the category orf micro management. I do not know of one serious hunter who worries about whether or no their round is over bore or efficient!

I don't give a hoot for what is claimed to be Winchesters comment about their study's about what 338 short mag can or can't do. I mean this is the company that decided to go to a 25 WSSM instead of a 25 WSM, I mean come on they are not rocket scientist (at least not in my book).

Add to that, I've noticed they do not shy away one bit about promoting a line or rounds (270,7 and 300 WSM) when they in fact do not run as fast as the old standby mags. I'll bet on there being 100 fps difference on a day in and day out basis. Grant you 100 is not much, but if there line is that the short 338 wouldn't stand up to the standard 338 then they are full of prunes! I've also done my fair share of work with the 338/06 and it is not the same as a 338 short, close but then again it won't make it. Plus the 338/06 is not an issue when it comes to factory rounds.

I've been working with a 338/300 WSM for going on 3 years now. It has a 21" Schneider on it. I had it running with 250 MK's the other day at a bit over 2700. Now you tell me that is much different than what there standard 338 is running. Nope it isn't. It runs as close to the standard mags as the other WSMs and that is the way it is, it is within 100 fps for the most part. So... I just don't belive what they say. Guess I've been around gun companies enough to know that they shovel it just like the rest of the world.

I've done a lot of testing with bullets from 180-250 weights. I also corespond with a couple of fellas who are doing the same. The 338/300 WSM is every bit as close in terms of speed to the 338 WM than the 300 WSM is to the 300 WM.

So to say that they couldn't get the speed I say horse hockey! I know better than to believe that one.


Don't get me wrong they are neat rounds am I am not trying to change peoples minds one way or another. I am just trying to give people my thoughts and experiences and in the mean time keep things a bit real.

Thx for your time

MD

I think time and sales will tell. Winchester is not stupid, if the .325 WSM doesn't sell like they are hoping, you can bet they will try and add a round that will satisfy the needs of the consumers. It might be a .338 WSM, or maybe a .358 WSM. But I think Winchester engineers have already done preliminary testing on the .338 and they decided to ditch it. On the plus side, they've given us a great new case to work with!

I have encountered a few rifles that didn't feed smoothly. It's not the fault of the round from my experience, it's the fault of the rifle. A little work on the rails cleared up the issues, which resulted in very smooth and reliable feeding rifles. Most of the rifles that had feeding problems were .270's, the larger diameter bullets in the .300's result in a smaller shoulder, which seems to feed more easily.

I have noticed that in standard 24" barrels, they do seem to be about 100 fps slower than their parent cartridge. I don't see this as a big deal though, for the most part the parent cartridge is pretty stiff competition for a short action round. The new short magnums do extract maximum performance from their action length, and if one was buying a lightweight high country rifle, the WSM's give them the option to shave a few ounces off of a long action and still deliver excellent performance. I generally regard a .308 caliber bullet of 180 grains with a muzzle velocity of 3000fps to be ideal for hunting pretty much all big game in my general area, and the .300 WSM delivers.

I think people looking for a new rifle would do well to consider the WSM's. Not necessarily in comparison to the magnum cartridges they compete with, but on their own merits. A slightly smaller, lighter action. A fatter, shorter powder column resulting in more efficient, consistent burn and more accuracy. Somewhat less recoil with less powder burned overall. Far more power than other short action rounds. You can get a light, easy to carry sporter for pushing bush and still have plenty of long range power to sit in a treestand all day overlooking a field.

I think they're great. I don't think they're "getting rid of other guns to buy one" great, but as a new addition, especially if you get your factory rifles tuned by a good 'smith before they hit the bench, they're a good, versatile choice for a lot of hunters.

Mark,
Thanks for your informative objective posts on the subject. I'm a 270 and 300 Win Mag fan, but the 270 WSM is tickling my fancy for some reason.

Hey if it tickles your interest let er rip...

MD

although personally I'd go 7 Rem mag and be done with it...grin