Author Topic: wsm vs belted mags. (Read 2096 times)

j.trevor123 · « **on:** February 17, 2004, 05:12:35 AM »

OKay heres the question everyone has tlked about.. Do u think the short mags are worth the wild? Or would u just go with the dependable belted mags.

Lawdog · « **Reply #1 on:** February 17, 2004, 03:46:13 PM »

I have a number of belted(from .224 Weatherby to .450 Marlin) magnums and I also own a .223 WSSM. I am also looking at a couple of Savage rifles chambered in .270 WSM, trying to make up my mind on which one to get. I believe the Winchester line of short magnums will be around for a long time as at the moment they are selling like hot cakes. If Winchester had brought out the .257 WSM instead of the .25 WSSM(which I have one on order) I would have the .257 WSM now. I like the new magnums but have NO intentions of getting rid of my old belted magnums either. Lawdog

j.trevor123 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 17, 2004, 04:41:54 PM »

but wouldnt u agree lawdog that the short mags do not have that big of a atvantage? I was reading a artical that was saying the short mag will beat a belted mag with the short barrels but with a longer one the belted one will take off from there. Well hey i caught myself.... they are better then haha as long as you are not using a 24' or longer barrel.

longwinters · « **Reply #3 on:** February 17, 2004, 04:48:15 PM »

I think you are basically correct J.T123. There is not much difference between the two. The short mags are not magic. You can go either way and probably do well in a caliber choice. But like Lawdog says, stick with the Winchesters like he is. They do have the best chance of survival.

long

stork · « **Reply #4 on:** February 17, 2004, 05:38:14 PM »

the short mags can keep up with the belted mags only in short barrels. I think the wsm's are here to stay, but you never know. I would buy a short mag instead of a belted mag because they will do everything a belted mag will do exept when the barrel gets longer than 22', and even then i think the difference is only about 100-150 fps.

CEJ1895 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 18, 2004, 03:00:51 AM »

Lawdog - I see that you have a .224 Weatherby Magnum. I've got one also but I'm having trouble finding reloading information for it. Do you know of any sources of reloading information? Thanks! CEJ...

jhm · « **Reply #6 on:** February 18, 2004, 03:40:24 AM »

cej1895 : The sierra second edition has several loads for the .224 wea. mag. if you cant locate send you address and I will scan and send to you.

JIM

CEJ1895 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 18, 2004, 06:24:30 AM »

jhm - Thanks for the information! I really like this rifle but the lack of loading data had me thinking about trading her for something less exotic! I'll start looking for a copy today and if I can't find one then I'll ask you to do me that favor, I'll cover all of the costs. Thanks again! CEJ

Lawdog · « **Reply #8 on:** February 18, 2004, 11:32:22 AM »

CEJ1895,

Actually I have two .224 Weatherby Magnum Mark V's. I have a number of loads for it if you want. PM me with an e-mail address and I will send them to you. Also the new second edition of Modern Reloading has a nice section on the .224 as does some of the older Sierra and Nosler loading manuals.

As for any difference between the belted version over a short fat version, there is NO real difference when compared in rifles of the same barrel length and weight. The only advantage that I could find was the shorter bolt throw of the .300 WSM over the .300 Winchester Magnum. This comparison was done with my brother in-laws M70 .300 Win. Mag. and his wife's M70 Coyote in .300 WSM. Both rifles weight the same, have the same barrel length(24 inches and that seems to be the norm for magnums - both belted and short) and have the same scope mounted on them. The chronographed velocities were the same(within a foot or two) using the same bullet. Accuracy was a touch better with the .300 WSM but we couldn't tell any difference in the felt recoil. The shorter, stiffer actions do lend toward better accuracy as does the more compact powder column in the shorter cartridges. But like I said before am I going to get rid of my belted magnums in favor of the new offerings, NO. But as a new rifle in my collection they do have a place. Lawdog

jhm · « **Reply #9 on:** February 18, 2004, 01:09:02 PM »

csj1895 : Their wont be a cost , just PM your address and I will send them to you to look over b-4 you go thru the expence of a manual. JIM

j.trevor123 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 18, 2004, 05:42:34 PM »

lawdog, i did hear that when the barrel length is added then the belted mags will blow past the wsms, like if u had a 26' barrel then the wsm couldnt hold a light to it. I dont know

Lawdog · « **Reply #11 on:** February 19, 2004, 10:28:18 AM »

j.trevor123,

Most that say that are compareing a 22 or 24 inch barrel to a 26 inch barrel. Like I said we could not find any advantage in velocity when the barrels were of the same length. My brother in-law bought his wife the .300 WSM because he was told there was a big difference in recoil. Again that was a not what we found to be true. But his wife does like the WSM and she uses it for everything she hunts in Alaska. Lawdog

Muddyboots · « **Reply #12 on:** February 20, 2004, 06:46:19 AM »

Everything is basically true when comparing barrel lengths with one notable exception. The belted mags really shine when going to heavier weighted bullets since they better case capacity to prevent bullets being overly intrusive into the powder capacity of the case. If you intend to shoot the mid range weight of bulleets then I agree the short mags are equivalent to abelted mag for purposes. But if you think you will want to shoot heavier bullets, then the belted mags take over and do so hands down. In fact, I shoot a 200 gr. Accubond out of my 300 WM 26" Sendero 50 fps faster than my 300 WSM can send a 180 down range. It may not sound worth debating but the 200 gr. provides that extra edge when hunting elk or bear. If you put the 200 gr in a short mag, it reduces powder capacity and you will be way behind the belted mag in performance. Otherwise, the short mag in my book is just as good. Forget the recoil hype the short mags still knock the snot of you.
Muddyboots

azshooter · « **Reply #13 on:** February 20, 2004, 09:35:11 AM »

Quote from: Muddyboots

In fact, I shoot a 200 gr. Accubond out of my 300 WM 26" Sendero 50 fps faster than my 300 WSM can send a 180 down range.

Are you saying you are shooting 200 gr bullets at 3200 FPS? Because a WSM with a 26 inch tube can shoot a 180 at 3150. Where are you getting this loading data? I would like to see with my own eyes. If your claim is true, you are way over published data for the WM.

Muddyboots · « **Reply #14 on:** February 20, 2004, 04:50:44 PM »

Azshooter,
The 200 is at 3,000 fps with RL-25 and I still had 0.5 gr left but it shot best at this load and the 180 was out of my T-3 at 2950 and it was at pressure. The T-3 as you probably know is 23" barrel vs the Sendero 26" which accounts for the difference. The point is still the belted mags can shoot the heavier bullets at higher velocities simply due to case capacity. They shoot essentially the same for 180's and less in bullet weight if in same barrel length. A 180 out of my Sendero does push 3200 but it doesn't have the down range pop the 200 Accubond can carry. Plus the 200 Accubond has been superbly accurate getting <1" at 200 yds. There is nothing wrong with teh short mags but they still have their limitations when using heavy bullets.
Muddyboots

azshooter · « **Reply #15 on:** February 20, 2004, 05:22:13 PM »

Quote from: Muddyboots

Azshooter,
The 200 is at 3,000 fps with RL-25 and I still had 0.5 gr left but it shot best at this load and the 180 was out of my T-3 at 2950 and it was at pressure. The T-3 as you probably know is 23" barrel vs the Sendero 26" which accounts for the difference. The point is still the belted mags can shoot the heavier bullets at higher velocities simply due to case capacity. They shoot essentially the same for 180's and less in bullet weight if in same barrel length. A 180 out of my Sendero does push 3200 but it doesn't have the down range pop the 200 Accubond can carry. Plus the 200 Accubond has been superbly accurate getting <1" at 200 yds. There is nothing wrong with teh short mags but they still have their limitations when using heavy bullets.
Muddyboots

I must respectecfully disagree with the limitations. See loading data from Hodgdon at the below link. Even with heavy bullets, the 300 WSM is the equal of the 300 WM. Note the data is for 24 inch. With a 26 inch barrel, the WSM gains about 150 fps just like the WM does.

Compare
http://www.hodgdon.com/data/rifle/300winma.php
and
http://www.hodgdon.com/data/rifle/300winshortmag.php

Nosler has also published WSM data that shows it is every bit as performant as the WM as well.

http://www.shortmags.org/shortmags/downloads/300wsm_nosler.pdf
I would agree that 1 year ago, the WSM was lacking good data and appeared to be slower than the WM but this is no longer true even for heavy bullets.

Muddyboots · « **Reply #16 on:** February 21, 2004, 10:02:22 AM »

Azshooter,
Isn't this fun??? Take alook at Nosler Fifth Edition for load data 300 WM 24" barrel with 200 gr partition. IMR 4831 71.0 = 2972, RL-22 72.5 = 2960. The IMR 4831 max load shot laousy which was in line with Nosler data. This is higher than Hodgdon data. The RL-22 shot great at max load or close to whcih was also in line with Nosler. RL-25 shot even better at max load. The 200 gr Accubond has better bearing surface so it is a tad faster than similar weight Partition. My chronograph data confirmed that and so did Nosler. In my Sendero with 26" it was on average 100 fps faster than published data in 24" barrel. The 300 WSM data was with 26" barrel and it was still slight slower than the 300 WM data in 24" tube. If you go to heavier grain bullets 200+ the belted mag will still give you the slight edge. The real issue when comparing rifles. The average 300 WSM is still 23" tube and in a lighter rifle. The 300 WM is about evenly spread between 24 and 26" which is expected for belted magnums. The 300 WM will gain the benefit of longer barrel just because it shoots slower powders. You do gain as well in the WSM's but not to same degree. Anyway, that is why we have different opinions. I also prefer Alliant and IMR powders for magnums since they seem to give slight better performance than Hodgdon. I use H for 06 and 270 but switch to Alliant for belted stuff. RL-22 and RL-25 have been real performers for my rifles.

Anyway, since you have a 26" barrel, I'd be curious as well which rifle is it in? If an Encore, I'd be real careful since TC has repeated warned folks not to use WSM's due to frame stretch from bolt thrust. If they weren't so worried about it they certainly would have them available for sale. Keep me posted if production rifle since I'd really wouldn't mind a 7MM WSM in a 26" barrel.
Thanks!!

Muddyboots

azshooter · « **Reply #17 on:** February 21, 2004, 03:49:06 PM »

Muddyboots

I shoot a Savage model 12(heavy barrel model with accutrigger). Yesterday at Ben Avery range here in Phoenix I put 3 shots in a 3/4 inch center to center group at the 200 yard mark shooting Hornady 180 gr BT Spitzers. I was shooting 64 gr of H4350. I don't own a chronograph, but rather go on published data for velocity. Published velocity for the load should be 2950 fps from a 24 inch barrel. Each rifle is different however I did recently read your post about the chambers on the Tikka being too long and reducing velocity. I have not heard this about the Savage. I don't think there is any dispute about the additional 150 or so fps the extra 2 inches of barrel will give and that would put the 180 grain WSM bullet at about 3100 FPS.

Muddyboots · « **Reply #18 on:** February 21, 2004, 04:42:26 PM »

Azshooter,
Kind of interesting. I am ordering a Savage Model 16FSS in either 270 or 7 MM WSM next week. My first rifle was a Savage 110C in 270 over 36 years ago and I still have it. Wouldn't trade it for anything. Shoots as well as the day I bought it. 22" barrel but it is quick to point and is my favorite rifle to still hunt with. The savage OAL for 300 WSM in Savage is SAAMI at 2.860 which provides you the velocity and pressure needed to push at best powder efficiency. That is why I am buying a Savage. They may not be fancy but shoot lights out. FYI - Boyds Stocks has really nice laminate versions for the Savages at reasonable prices which I intend to switch to when mine comes in. The Tikka saga continues. No answer from either BerettaUSA or from Tikka.FI which is very disappointing.
Muddyboots

azshooter · « **Reply #19 on:** February 21, 2004, 04:52:41 PM »

Muddyboots

I also was trying some Winchester CT Fail Safes at the same distance and same charge but had about 2 inch groups at 200 yards- still working on getting them to shoot as well.

Muddyboots · « **Reply #20 on:** February 23, 2004, 06:50:41 AM »

Azshooter,
Just got some Nosler 180 Accubonds and will let you know how they do as well. I may try them in the Tikka only because they have longer profile and will help eat up the throat issue. Take care,
Muddyboots

Lawdog · « **Reply #21 on:** February 23, 2004, 10:28:04 AM »

Muddyboots,

Are those 180 gr. AccuBonds .30 caliber? Lawdog

Muddyboots · « **Reply #22 on:** February 23, 2004, 01:31:43 PM »

Lawdog,
Yup, new .30 180 gr. Accubonds. I am hoping they shoot as well as the 200 gr Accubonds did for me. Will let you know.
Muddyboots

Lawdog · « **Reply #23 on:** February 23, 2004, 02:20:31 PM »

Muddyboots,

The reason I asked is I can find no listing for the 180 grain AccuBond. Not even Nosler's web site has them listed. Even so let me know how they work out as maybe, just maybe they will be better then those pitiful Big Game Ballistic Tips. Lawdog

Muddyboots · « **Reply #24 on:** February 24, 2004, 06:24:07 AM »

Lawdog,
Here is link for Nosler dealer that carries them plus seconds at great prices. http://www.shootersproshop.com/accubond2nds.html The 2nds are typically blemishes and shoot the same as new stuff. Of course they are not as pretty but I don't think the deer or elk will notice. :-D
Muddyboots

Flash · « **Reply #25 on:** February 27, 2004, 02:01:21 AM »

The WSM's are nothing more than a cheaper and quicker way to produce a gun and cartridge. 1964 was a huge turning point for Winchester that covered nearly their entire product line. Since that year, there have been many changes but none noticed as much as the pre 64' guns. With the WSM's, the chamber reamer will travel a shorter distance while machining the 10's of thousands of barrels. The machining equipment can stay dedicated to a short action set-up. Less powder can be used to manufacture the same rounds that previously used more. Marketing is just one piece of the pie but cost effectiveness is a bigger piece. Who wouldn't rather pump up a 25/06, than have a maxed out 257 Roberts, by another name?? I'll bet that once the WSM's begin to be reloaded, their balistics won't shine as well as their advertising.

skb2706 · « **Reply #26 on:** March 09, 2004, 10:14:05 AM »

how does one become a ballistic expert with no chronograph ..........hmm

Lawdog · « **Reply #27 on:** March 09, 2004, 12:57:30 PM »

Quote

From the March 2004 Precision Shooting, Jacob Gottfredson writes...

Tim Lambert competed in the unlimited benchrest class which includes rifles that shoot from rails and weigh as much as 250 pounds (pictured in article) and are sometimes made totally from metal with no conventional stock. Lambert did something a little different.

Lambert used an action taken from a $350 Savage bolt action rifle. He screwed a Hart barrel on it. Instead of using a fiberglass or steel stock, Lambert used a maple stock (not even laminated). Chambered it for 7mm WSM.

Lambert then proceeded to win the 2003 Heavy Gun 1000 Yard Group Championship.

A week later, Lambert won a Mile Long Competition setting a new World's Record of ten inches for five rounds at a mile.

With a Savage action and a plain wood stock !

Guess there IS something to the Savage accuracy and that of the new WSM line of cartridges. Lawdog

Muddyboots · « **Reply #28 on:** March 09, 2004, 01:11:59 PM »

Lawdog,
I bought my first Savage 35 years ago Model 110C in .270 Win. Still have it and it is still the most accurate field rifle I have that hasn't been tweaked to death by host of modifications. Wouldn't sell it or trade it for anything. Thay went through a bit of a down turn but they are back just as good or better than they were 30+ years ago. The action in my 110 is like glass and wished the newer ones were as slick. I think we all sometimes get overboard with accuracy since we are really talking MOD and not MOA. For those who are not familiar with the MOD terminology, it is used by us wannbe rednecks as minute of deer. I don't care if the rifle shoots MOA or 1.5 MOA. Dead is dead. I shoot some bench and I get cantankerous about groups then but with hunting rifles, if I can get them inside 1.5" consistently, they are shooters and I keep them around. For years the 300 WM was used in 1,000 yd so it is definitely accurate. Will the WSM's be the same? I am sure they will be. Will they be that more accurate than a 300WM? Not likely to be seen by anyone shooting a field rifle all things being equal. But it is sure fun to knock it around on a forum.
Muddyboots

Coyote Hunter · « **Reply #29 on:** March 09, 2004, 07:02:54 PM »

Quote from: j.trevor123

OKay heres the question everyone has tlked about.. Do u think the short mags are worth the wild? Or would u just go with the dependable belted mags.

Being something of a traditionalist, I don't care for the WSSM's. The WSM's don't offend my aesthetic senses quite so badly.

In general I fail to see the need, and am somewhat mystified at the interest in the WSM's and WSSM's. Given a choice of a WSM, standard belted mag or RUM, I would lean toward the RUM.