Buyer's remorse or satisfaction with short mag calibers?

[Questor]

After all the hoopla about short magnums the dust seems to have settled. Anybody got buyer's remorse? Why? Did it not deliver as expected? Was it not worth the trouble of upgrading?

On the other hand, if you got one and you're really happy with it, can you tell us why?

[Questor]

Well, I wasn't looking for that kind of a connection. But the reason I asked is that I've seen articles lately that are based on taking the 270WSM on eland, nilgai and elk hunts. Results were documented as being fantastic.  The problem is that the WSM only shoots 100 - 200fps faster than a standard 270 Winchester, and as the gun writers say "the 270 is marginal at best for elk-sized game."  

Are we catching them in a lie, uh exaggeration, uh inexactitude?

[Zachary]

I too read an article where (I think) the 270WSM was used to get a nigali.

I think that the bottom line is that the WSM cartridges are good, but really not that much better than their non-WSM counterparts.  

Although I have purchased some of these WSMs, I bought them because I wanted them, not because I needed them.

Zachary

[Lawdog]

Although I have purchased some of these WSMs, I bought them because I wanted them, not because I needed them.

Is there ever a need for any rifle past the first one?  If John Q. Hunter has a .30-06 does he NEED any other caliber for most of the big game he will take?  Not really.  As far as the WSM(this also includes the RSAUM line although I don't think they will stand the test of time as Winchester just flat out beat Remington to the punch here) line they are proving to do pretty much just what they were designed to do.  Is the added 200 fps. an advantage?  They said the same thing about many other so called standard cartridges and the answer is YES.  It is an advantage.  An additional 200 fps. in a .277 caliber bullet equals an additional 350 fpe..  On deer size critters it is not going to mean much but on bigger, tougher game it can mean the difference between getting your trophy or not.  It is also being proven that the design of the new short-fat cartridges is a more accurate design.  Does all this mean you should go out and sell your old favorite venison getter?  Of course not but if you are in the market for a new rifle/caliber and you don’t give the new short-fat cartridges a look you could be making a big mistake.  I like my new .270 WSM and am looking forward to hunting with it this fall.  Small groups and tight lines to all.  Lawdog
 

[jvs]

I hope after all this hoopla ends one of the SAM's can rise high enough to take it's place with the standard calibers and become a standard itself.

Which one/ones will it be?  Who knows.

[Zachary]

I think it's going to be the 300WSM, with the .270WSM in second place.  I say this, in part, because I see more and more guns being made in the 300WSM, and more and more ammo being offered in the 300WSM.  Again, the same holds true for the 270WSM, but just to a lesser degree.

As for the 7mmWSM, I think it's going nowhere fast.

As for the various RSAUM's, I think that they were dead about a year after they came out.  The reason for this, I think, is two fold: 1) WSM came out first, and 2) the WSMs have more velocity than the RSAUMs (I know the difference is slight, but there are a lot of people out there that give a significant amount a credence to the mythical "foot pound numbers."  Trust me, I hear many, many people saying things like "Well, this bullet give me an extra 10 foot pounds of energy."  What?  10 foot-pounds?  PLEASE!

Zachary

[oldelkhunter]

I have owned 2 300wsm (browning abolt and  winchester 70CRF) and currently own a 7 WSM.  I have been very pleased with all three 2 of them have shown incredible accuracy and all easily outshoot larger magnums I have owned as is from the factory.  Current project is a 7sam featherweight which shoots under 1" with factory 150 grain powerpoint ammo. I have taken 4 deer with it this January in Alabama and could not be more pleased with the performance. I have chronographed these cartridges and have found very little difference between actual and published velocities. I feel for my purposes a 7sam is better then the 300 wsm or 270 sam. Recoil is less then a 300 wsm and it shoots a 140 grain bullet as fast as the 300 wsm shoots a 150 grain but with better sectional density. 160 grain bullets can be launced at 3100+  and that is substantially better then a few 7mmRemington mags I owned ever did. I also should point out that load development is a snap with these cartridges and case trimming because of design is minimal. They will be here for a long time to go. Not so sure about Remingtons short version although they are fine cartridges as well.

[Zachary]

One of the gunwriters said that he believed that the 300 and 270 would make it in the WSM, but that the 7mm would make it in the Remington SAUM.

I happen to be a big fan of the 7mm too, especially for most of the hunting in North America, but I think that the advantages of the .300 seem to be with heavier bullets, like 165 and especially 180, while the best all round bullet for a 7mag is probably 150 to no more than 160.  Yes, a 175 grain trophy bonded bullet in a 7mm will penetrate a building, but it's not an all purpose bullet.

I was thinking about getting a 7mm RSAUM, but I'm really concerned about factory ammo in the future (or even brass much later on down the road).  I'll just wait and see. :grin:

Zachary

[oldelkhunter]

Zachary, I see no need for a heavier bullet then a 160 in any 7mm mag especially with the selection of premium bullets available to us. I have noticed zip difference in killing power especially Elk with a 160gr 7mm compared to a 180 out of a 300 mag either Win or Wthby take your pick.    Now I have not used a 300 Ultramag so I can't say whether they kill any better. The selection of 7wsm ammo from Federal is simply outstanding. It is one very nice cartridge..just took a while later to come on board because of its case dimensions as opposed to 270 and 300 wsm.

[Zachary]

I certainly agree with you about the 160 being more than enough weight in the 7mm, especially with premium bullets.

I have never shot an elk.  As such, I truthfully can't comment on the difference between a 160 in a 7mag and a 180 in a 300 Mag or Wby.  I would think that, based on everything that I have heard and understand, that a heavier 180 grain bullet (assuming same type) in a bigger caliber like a .300 would have better terminal performance on an elk (or any other animal for that matter.)  

I understand that you say that you haven't noticed a difference, but maybe the elk did? :grin:

Zachary

[oldelkhunter]

I am seriously considering having the 7wsm rebarrelled after the end of the upcoming hunting season to same caliber with the same contour but SS and then putting it in a high tech stock with a custom 1 pc trigger guard. I would then put it in a High Tech Stock and using it for nothing but Elk and Muledeer. :grin:   I will then use my Sako 75 7 STW  for those annoying Whitetail deer. Can you tell I like 7mm's ?

[Zachary]

Sure can, and there ain't nothing wrong with it either. :wink:

Zachary

[ms]

By Craig Boddington from rifle shooter mag  stated he shot a elk marco polo sheep and wild hog with 140 grain federal accubond load no problems. From a 270wsm the Elk was 235 yards the 270 get's my vote. :wink:

[Ghoster]

MS, what exactly is an: Elk Marco Polo Sheep, one of those new cloned animals?  

I have read one of Craig's articles about taking a Marco Polo Sheep in the Pamirs with his 8MM.  Maybe the 7MM Elk you are referring to was in another article. :lol:

[ms]

Hi Ghoster the article is in the July/August 2004 mag Rifleshooter on page 70. He shot three diffrent animals. :wink:

[Con]

Personlly I have no time for the WSMs, until they bring something out like a 338WSM or 35WSM, that would be fun!  Articles in Australian magazines have had the 7WSM and 300WSM used on everything up to Asiatic buffalo sucessfully. They sound like wonder cartridges, but I think they're proof of the advances in bullet technology. The buffalo taken have been with Failsafe projectiles. Load Failsafes into a 300 Winchester Magnum and voila, 300WSM performane on buffalo. From what I gather, in Australia it looks like the 300WSM will dominate the WSM line. The Rem short cartridges are hard to find and being Remington will probably be obsolete in 10 years.
Cheers...
Con

[leverfan]

Personlly I have no time for the WSMs, until they bring something out like a 338WSM or 35WSM, that would be fun! (snip) Con

I would love to see Ruger come out with a 35 short mag derived from the WSM, and chamber it in the 77 Mark II with a 24" barrel.  That would get me on the short mag bandwagon.  As one earlier poster said, we don't really need much more than a 30-06, but it sure is fun to try out the new ones.  Coming up with excuses for another rifle when you already own a 22LR, .223 Rem, .30-06, and a .375 H&H in your hunting battery is also good for developing the creative side of one's mind.

[Con]

Leverfan,
Mate no excuses are needed for more guns, one may develop a hiccup and then you need a spare! The 35WSM (35 Sambar) has been done in Australia and velocity was just below that of the 358 Norma with a 23" barrel, very handy. Whilst complaining about the WSMs perhaps someone should remind Winchester they had rocks in their heads producing a 25WSSM rather than a 25WSM. Now that Weatherby has offered the 257 Weatherby in the Vanguard (albeit with a 24" barrel), Winchester has lost a prime opportunity.
Cheers...
Con

[Warthog]

My M70 Classic Laminate .270 WSM is a heck of alot more accurate than I am.  I've dumped my Model 7 & 700, so I guess I don't have any buyers remorse.  I really like short actions, and the perform out of the 24" is hard to beat.  At my gun shop, there's a .300 WSM twin to my .270.  If I could figure out even a remote case where I'd need a .300, I'd love to have it as a mate for my rifle.  Oh, well, I guess you don't have to NEED a new rifle to get one, huh?  We'll see.

[Judson]

Now as a custom rifle builder, (that is how I make my living) I do not mind building you a rifle in any caliber you want.    However, please tell me one thing that any of these short mags do that is not already done as well or better by a standard mag.    Now you have to take pressure into account with this as the short mags are running in the 60,000 psi range where the standard mags are in the low to mid 50s and I am not talking C.U.P.   If you load any of the regular mags to the short mag pressures then it will blow the shorty into the weeds!    As for less recoil, if you have the muzzle energy you have the recoil so that is bunk about less recoil, sure you use a little less powder but not enough to change the recoil figures any great amount.    I think the short mag fans are falling for a great advertising  campaign.    However do not get me wrong!!!!    If you want a short mag then get one!!!!    I am only saying look at phyisics, and do not get swayed by sales hype.    After all there is no chambering that we have to have, it is really about what we want.

[leverfan]

Leverfan,
Mate no excuses are needed for more guns, one may develop a hiccup and then you need a spare!

Well, the excuses are to sooth my own conscience.  I don't have much money to spare on things that, in all honesty, I don't need.  If I didn't have kids to spend money on, then I wouldn't need excuses to spend it on myself! :lol:

[Zachary]

Leverfan,
 Now that Weatherby has offered the 257 Weatherby in the Vanguard (albeit with a 24" barrel), Winchester has lost a prime opportunity.
Cheers...
Con

I totally agree.  I would definately buy a .25 if it was a WSM, but not the WSSM.  The extra velocity of the WSM would possibly bring it very close to the Weatherby.

I think sales of the Vangaurd in .257Wby will be double, or even triple, the sales of Winchester rifles in .25WSSM.

Zachary

[JJ79]

"I think sales of the Vangaurd in .257Wby will be double, or even triple, the sales of Winchester rifles in .25WSSM."


Zachary...you sure about that?  I'm still undecided on the whole short mag concept, and whether one thinks it is just a marketing ploy or not, the fact is that they are selling, whatever the reason.  It would take some heavy-duty advertising indeed to out-do the WSM/WSSM "ad blitz"  :wink:   Sadly enough, there are a lot of folks out there who base their purchases more on pictures, captions, etc. than on what actually comes out the barrel...

As for me, I'm going to give the short mags a try (probably the .25 WSSM) and if they don't live up to all the hype, I've got no worries.  I can always fall back on that "plain old boring .270"!!!!  

[Lawdog]

When a rifle is discharged, the barrel vibrates in a more or less elliptical orbit. If the bullets emerge from the muzzle at the same point on that orbit, they hit at the same point downrange(a good thing). One of the things you can do to make the bullets emerge at the same point on the orbit is to give them the same amount of time traveling down the barrel, and that is accomplished by making each powder charge burn uniformly, thus giving uniform velocities. And the best way to make powder burn uniformly is to pack it into a short column.  This is not theory, this is a proven fact.  Just ask the benchrest shooters.  Now from the standpoint of the rifle design, one of the building blocks of accuracy is short, stiff actions.  Now you take these two items and put them together and you have a rifle/cartridge combination that is proving to be a more accurate.  In a hunting rifle this means being able to put your bullet where it belongs with greater confidence.  And isn’t that what we are all after.  Small(er) groups and tight lines to all.  Lawdog
 

[leverfan]

Lawdog-

Those advantages really only show up in any meaningful way in benchrest rifles, when you get down to it, not in the field.  I think that the accuracy that folks are reporting from their short mag rifles has a lot more to do with the fact that these rifles are being cranked out on relatively new tooling.  Crisp, uniform machining and rifling is good for accuracy, too.  

If it helps your mental game to know that your cartridge choice is theoretically capable of tighter groups under controlled bench rest conditions, then by all means, buy one.  If your favorite big game rifle already shoots under .75", why bother?

[Camp Cook]

I have heard somewhere that WSM's have had feeding problems because of their fat bodied cases and rebated rims. A .338 or .350 WSM would be great for a guide gun application which is what I'm currently looking for, but would I have feeding problems?  
Cam

[Lawdog]

Camp Cook,

I have heard somewhere that WSM's have had feeding problems because of their fat bodied cases and rebated rims.

As with any new cartridge, when the. .300 WSM was first introduced there were a few cases where there was a problem.  This has been taken care of and is a non issue now.  I know of no one that is having a feeding problem with their WSM/WSSM rifles.  Have no worries.

leverfan,

Those advantages really only show up in any meaningful way in benchrest rifles, when you get down to it, not in the field. I think that the accuracy that folks are reporting from their short mag rifles has a lot more to do with the fact that these rifles are being cranked out on relatively new tooling. Crisp, uniform machining and rifling is good for accuracy, too.

Oh it is showing up in the field too.  If the new short-fat cartridges are more accurate because” these rifles are being cranked out on relatively new tooling” why are they more accurate than the same new rifles that are chambered in older cartridges(such as the .300 WSM being compared to the .300 Win. Mag. in new rifles of the same manufacture)?  Small groups and tight lines to all.  Lawdog
 

[longwinters]

I gotta agree with Leverfan.  As much as I strive for accuracy on the bench or in hunting, how accurate does a rifle have to be before it outshoots the shooter.  I don't doubt that an awful lot of rifles are limited by the shooter more than anything "inherent" about a rifle or caliber.  I have no quams about the new short mags at all.  If a person wants one he should go buy one.  Who knows maybe someday I will to if I find one that strikes my fancy.  But it wont be because of all the "inherent" riflebabble that I dont think any shooter can prove.  Of course this is only an opinion :-)

Long

[leverfan]

leverfan,

Oh it is showing up in the field too.  If the new short-fat cartridges are more accurate because” these rifles are being cranked out on relatively new tooling” why are they more accurate than the same new rifles that are chambered in older cartridges(such as the .300 WSM being compared to the .300 Win. Mag. in new rifles of the same manufacture)?  Small groups and tight lines to all.  Lawdog
 

New reamers, especially for the initial runs.  It's a common phenomenon in the shooting industry, new cartridges are often seen as being especially accurate.  New cutters, reamers, sometimes new receiver designs.  

There are plenty of long range records shot with the old 300 Winchester Mag, it just takes a good rifle, and consistent loads.  The advantage of the short, fat case shape shows up in tiny fractions of an inch in competition rifles.  That wins benchrest matches, but it doesn't matter a bit when you're taking a shot over a rolled up coat at a buck with your favorite sporting rifle.  Unless, of course, it helps your mental game and improves confidence in the shot.  That's important, too.  

Even if I was having a long range "beanfield" rifle built, I wouldn't care if it was chambered in the old magnum style or the new short mag style.  I've seen how well the old belted mags can shoot, and in a quality rifle, under field conditions, nobody could tell the difference.  Even from the bench, unless it's a bench rest rifle with competition grade reloads, I'd have to say the vast majority of folks just can't tell the difference in guns of similar quality.  Just my  :money: