What is the point of the WSM and RSM
I can understand the 270 short mag, because it is a step up from the 270. But what I don't understand is the 7mm short mag and the 300 short mag, etc. Why not just use a 7mm mag or 300 win mag. Why would you want to step down. Maybe I'm just stupid, but it doesn't make any sence to me. Can someone help me with this?
0
-
Supposedly the shorter cases use less powder therefore are more effecient and THEORETICALLy would be cheaper to reload. This might be true if they took off. I think the main alleged benefit is the shorter case allows for a shorter action which is stronger. Does it make a difference? Not that I can see.
The RUM's (Remington Ultra-mags) do have a little more oomph than the 7mm mag or .300 win, but at the expense of a lot more powder burned, additional recoil and noise.
With firearms there is no free ride, if you want more velocity and/or energy you'll pay for it somewhere - usually in recoil.
It matters not how many times you've been knocked down. What matters is how many times you've gotten back up.0 -
Sales.
mag0 -
I agree the 270 shows the only real advantage the rest are short, fat case, and beltless has some plus but not enough if you already into one. The short action and weight saveings yep there is something there. So am I going out and get one not yet but if I do it will be the 270 WSM but I have a fine 270 win that I get 3100fps out of a 130gr Nosler Part.
psalms 160 -
MONEY, ALWAYS MONEY.PROFITS MAKE THE WORLD GO AROUND
I WOULD RATHER BE DUCK HUNTING.0 -
Most have hit around the benefit of the short mags but lets see if I can expound a little on the reason for them. True the short action is more ridgid than the long magnum actions. So accuracy "should" should be better. Next less powder. Cheaper to reload. Or to produce in the factories. But here is the big reason. The short mags perform their magic from "short" barrels. This is due to the short powder column. And yes they will hang in there with and even out do the long mags in some instances.(the big ultra magnums being the exception) They allow magnum power from short light rifles that are easy to manuver and a pleasure to carry. But here is the trick to the long mags whipping the short ones. Use a 27 or 28" barrel. The 24" and 26" dont allow complete use of the long powder column these loads have. But who needs all that power unless you are hunting elephants or big grizzly bears. Thats why the short mags are so popular. You just cant get the performance out of a 7mm Rem mag or 300 win mag from a 22" barrel that you can with one of the short mags. It just aint gonna happen. But my problem is that those light guns kick the hell out of you. Thats why my wsm weighs around 12lbs. I get almost 3300(3270fps to be exact) with 165grn swift sciroccos. Now tell me where the step down is. Your factory 300 win mag wont touch that unless you got one heck of a long barrel.
Everyone has a photographic memory. Only some have film.0 -
We're laboring under several unfounded "facts" here.
Long magnum actions for belted magnum rounds are no less "rigid" than actions for any other round. If they were; wouldn't it make sense that a 3" naval guns' breech would be even less "rigid" than a 308?
There's also the notion that the WSM/RSM have a longer powder column due to the shorter case?!HELLO! How can a shorter container hold more than a longer one?
3120fps is the published speed of the SX300WXA 165gr Failsafe factory load from a 24" barrel.
It would be right at 3300fps if we added another 3" to the barrel, but then, handloads can get those bullets rolling that fast in a 22" barrel.
The only reason these Lilliputian loads exist is because some people have more dollars than sense.
If you know it all; you must have been listening.<br>WEAR EAR PROTECTION!0 -
Gunnut, #1) the short action long action ridgidity theory. There is truth to that. Lets take 2 pieces of steel rod say 2" in diameter. And lets assume one is longer than the other. The longer one will take less pressure to bend or flex than the shorter one. Thats a law of physics. Same applies to rifle actions. And even bringing a 3" naval gun into the picture is obsurd. Lets compare apples to apples here. And where did the notion about the powder colums you speak of come from. The short magnums make use of a shorter powder column therefore they are able to perform like they do from shorter barrels. Getting the same velocities from the belted magnums from those short barrels isnt going to happen. Maybe at pressure levels above those prescribed but not otherwise. And as for the velocities I get with my rifle. 71.5 grains RL-19, a cci 250 magnum primer, and a 165 swift scirocco from my 26" barrel produces 3270fps according to my chrono. So before you start speaking of unfounded facts again, do your homework.
Everyone has a photographic memory. Only some have film.0 -
Bob Forker's excellent reference book, "Ammo & Ballistics" is where I did my homework.
The stated velocity is for FACTORY loading for the Win Fail Safe 165gr out of a 24" barrel. Drop to a 150gr bullet like the FACTORY load for the Rem (R300W1) pointed sp core-lokt, and the velocity is 3290 at the muzzle from a 24" barrel.
My handloads do much better than that while staying well below the 64,000 psi SAAMI maximum pressure.
Your 26" barrel will artificially add about 100-150fps over a 24" barrel, but I doubt that even with a 26" tube you could match velocities from a 22" barrel using handloads at ranges where the belted magnums really perform (500yds+).
You say that your 26" barrel really outshines the "old" magnums with your pet load; but then I use a 24" on my Ruger, and a 22" on my Sako TRG-s, and have recorded velocities higher than yours.
As to the flexible nature of the steel used in magnum rifle receivers; it's a push-pull force; not a bending action. If steel were so flexible in a gun's action, short or long, I wouldn't want to fire anything through one!
So, a short (meaning smaller) powder column gives optimum results in a shorter barrel? Does that mean a 22lr with a 2" barrel is more efficient than a 458 with a 24" barrel? Methinks someone's been sniffing the Hoppe's #9.
If you know it all; you must have been listening.<br>WEAR EAR PROTECTION!0 -
Short, fat rounds have been around a long while......The PPC and BR series in 22, 6mm and 7mm.
The advantages of these rounds have been pretty well covered......powder efficiency/loading density, shorter actions and barrels, recoil/noise, intrinsic accrracy, etc..
The introduction of the current batch didn't come about because the "traditional" chamberings leave a great deal to be desired. They are here because the rifle/ammo manufacturers needed more products in their lines to generate more sales. It is amazing how many nimrods will rush out and buy whatever they read about in G&A or some other magazine.
If you want a more accurate arm, practice. If you want more "thump", go to a larger diameter bullet.0 -
Much misinformation rampant here,due to speculation,instead of application.
Sorta amusing,that the naysayers are armchair theorists and proponents have dabbled with said chamberings. I'm not steeped in the WSM/SAUM's,as I've only had 3. A brace off 300WSM's and a single 7SAUM.
Firstly,all hold three in the belly,typical of H&H based offerings and Ultra based rounds. The sole example is the new Remington Ti,who's ADL configuration and shallow stock profile through the belly,negates the third round in the magazine.
Myself,I'd open the bottom,install a BDL Factory bottom unit and treat myself to the third poke in the magazine. That despite my preference for the ADL's simplicity/durability. A 2-shot magazine is something I have disdain for,even on my 378Wby. That is a poor call IMHO,in both instances,as it would have been easy to improve upon at the Factory.
As far as performance,the WSM/SAUM's bring more to the table than any mainstream short action offering and tread right on the heels of typical H&H based long action short "magnums"(meaning those destined for an '06 length action,not the full length H&H versions).
What those short/fat chamberings due,is meld many attributes and keep them nestled in a tidy package. No doubt that the shorter receivers,of exact same diameter,boast an edge in rigidity. That is a fact. Now I'd be the last to say the difference is huge,though it is certainly there and that is a good thing IMHO and yet another feather in the short/fat's cap.
Capacity is what dictates performance,until you go too far over the top and are forced to incorporate ridiculous barrel length to show any velocity improvement. All the WSM/SAUM's operate in the realm of "efficiency",which of course is a broad generic term. But long story short,neither is hyper-dependant upon obscene barrel lengths to perform capably.
Both my 300WSM's had 24" tubes(I tripped my S/S Winny Classic and retained my 700 short version of same). Both would push 175MK's at 3050fps with excellent brass life(have yet to lose a case),supreme accuracy and modest recoil. Having had 300Winny's,H&H,Wby's,30-STW's and a 30-378Wby to reflect upon,I'd state the following. That is damned good performance,as far as amount of propellant used and recoil generated. It isn't the The Holy Grail in sheer performance,though it bridges many things handily and puts it all in a nice package.
Let me put it this way,it offers 300Winchester-esque performance out of a 308 sized package. That ain't bad IMHO. My barrel is a #5 contour fluted Hart twisted 1-10" and it is a Holy Terror to the 1000yd line(and beyond). None of that speculation.
A guy would play hell,trying to beat that level of performance,without compromising other attributes. I know,because I've tried.
Now as far as the SAUM's and the 7mm in particular,it is simply amazing. My example is a S/S Model Seven with a handy 22" tube. The SAUM boasts more capacity than the 280Ackley Improved and of course will slightly exceed it's performance,assuming like barrel length. Another tidbit,is that in like length barrels,the short/fats actually get more barrel length to use,as their chambers are shorter. So that is another ballistic "freebie".
Again,it offers mainstream performance unheard of in a short action,while boasting the attributes of that package. I'm an X bullet fanatic(my assumption is that some will recognize my handle and connect those dots)and dote on the 120XBT in particular,in that chambering. My rifle will deliver 3350fps out of that 22" tube and due it with sub .75MOA accuracy. With a McMillan Mountain Rifle patterned handle in place,Talley alloy base/rings(they are homogenous)and a Leupold 6x42 glass,it weighs 7.25lbs and recoil is dick.
I don't know about anyone else,but that is much juice in a tidy wrapper. I've had a herd of 7mmRemmags and think highly of the chambering,have had a brace of 7mmSTW's and explored that thoroughly too. With that being said,the handy 7SAUM will do anything the above will do on Game,it just does it in a smaller package and with much less recoil.
Couple the above rifles with an elevation turret(they both wear 'em) a Leica 1200LRF and good bullets(that means X) and the boundaries are few and rewards many,as applied to dead critters.
There is no way in hell I'd go back to the abbreviated H&H offerings,to yield redundant short action performance,via a long action. Talk about going backwards!
My love for the 30-8mmRemmag(30STW) is strong and the 338Ultra as well,but most other long action offerings are now much tarnished with the availability of the extremely capable short/fat spawn.
Should you think I'm guessing. Think again....................0 -
I agree to some point that some of this is marketing. Automobiles, ect. is bigger, faster, more horesepower, ect. Laseroni started this(and others, think Weatherby) a few years ago, then Remington took up the challenge and Winchester come online. Some of it is boredom and too much money and time.
The argument of long vs short for "bending" just doesn't hold water, unless of the older designs that have locking bolts at the rear. I'd say that 100% of these actions use front locking lugs for the primary bolt lock up, altho they may have a rear backup lug.
The main argument is keeping the rifle shorter, lighter, more manageable, and a shorter bolt throw (espec. for those with smaller features and unfamiliarity with bolt use).0 -
Is there a #1 offered on any of these cal. ? 0 -
Short or longer powder columns has nothing to do with efficiency in a barrel length. It has been proven that ALL powder,...even H870 in a 30-378 wthby (the epitome of overbore) is burned within the first few inches of the barrel. Therefore,...either caliber has burned it's charge and is simply chasing the bullet down the tube after that point. Shorter powder columns are slightly more consistent however.
Big Stick,...nice to see you over here. How's the MK IV working out for you on that 7mm-08?[8D]
why chase the game when the bullet can get em from here?....
Got Balistics?0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
13 comments