300 Win Short Mag

Valdez

Moderator
I just became aware of this round and heard a report that a M70 classic is being manufactured for it. Supposedly the .300 WSM matches the ballistics of the .300 WM in a short action and a fat beltless case that holds slightly less powder than the .300 WM.

Anyone have any experience or thoughts on this new cartridge?
 
For accuracy, Short & Fat, is Where it's At.

For reliability and feeding, Long and Thin Goes Right In.
 
I too have read a couple of articles on the 300 WSM it sounds very interesting. My plans this year was to purchase a Browning Lignting BLR in 300 Win. Mag. I see Browning is going to chamber the 300WSM in their A Bolt guns so I'll wait and see if they offer the the 300WSM later on in the BLR. The short action lever throw is a lot quicker for a second shot.

Turk
 
Deanf, Thanks for the link to your earlier thread, must not have been around when it started.

The only criticism I've seen forwarded is the feeding issue. I don't have any practical experience with this.

I know that the late Mr. McMillan wrote very highly of the .300 WM, in fact, he implied that he considered it the best North American big game round.

To me it seems at least theoretically possible that a shorter stiffer action would increase the liklihood of greater accuracy potential, and a fatter powder cylinder would lead to more efficient burning of powder. Also there seems to be near universal agreement on the preference for a beltless case.

I'm interested in any other possible criticisms or benefits. Thanks for the info so far.
 
It probably won't make it

Like the .280, which improved upon the venerable .270, the fact that its essentially the same performance with more or less minor improvements will probably doom it to extinction. The .280 is headed that way. "Tried and true" wins more often than not.
 
So, what case is the little bugger based on? It seems to have most of the apertanances of a .404 Jeffries that has been cut down. Does anyone know if it has a rebated rim or a full size rim?
Where can I see drawings and/or specs on the case?

I am interested, but hesitant to fall in love with yet another newbie case.
 
According to the Feb. 2001 Shooting Times, it is based on the .404 Jeffery case. From pictures, it appears to have a full size rim.


Case head size? Well I don't know what that means, but the Winchester ad in the same issue says this:

. . . the unique geometry of this beltless magnum cartridge delivers the same precise head spacing and high accuracy as cartidges designed for bench rest shooting.
 
The .280 is dying?? I don't think so. Ten years ago I had never even heard of it or the 7mm Express. If anything, I think riflemen are getting wise to the fact that the .280 has more to offer than the .270, especially those who handload. I don't think it will ever displace the .270, but the .280 is here to stay and is gaining popularity.

As far as the .300 WSM goes, I think it will succeed just like the .308 succeeded in spite of the .30-06. People like lighter rifles, and I believe the WSM is going to prove to have higher accuracy potential than the .300 Win Mag.
 
.308 vs .30-06 is not a fair comparison. The .308 has/had the advantage of being a military round which undoubtedly contributed to its acceptance in the "marketplace". An advantage the .300 WSM does not enjoy.

Most likely the .300 WSM will find its niche on the target range for awhile.

-ric
 
Why? Of what possible use is this cartridge?

For tactical shooting, the weight saved by a short action over the long action in a non-issue, as tactical boltguns weigh upwards of 10 lbs. For hunting, due to the recoil of the standard .300 WinMag in a 7 pound hunting rifle, shaving half a pound of weight off the rifle is a *bad* thing. Making the rifle a bit shorter and handier is also a non-issue, as the .300 mag calibers are for long range shots in open country, and are almost always found in longer-barreled rifles. As for accuracy, anyone who thinks they have the skill to actually take advantage of the miniscule difference in accuracy between the standard and short .300 WinMags should immediately apply to the US Olympic Shooting Team - or get real. The only venue where this cartridge may have some realistic utility is competitive benchrest shooting, where small differences in accuracy can win matches (for the pros, anyways). Otherwise, this caliber is a solution in search of a problem. But there's always many who are dying to have the latest and greatest, what sense it may make or what real utility it may have not being an issue even considered. The .300 Remington UltraMag is a case in point. For this reason, the new .300 WinShortMag will probably sell like hotcakes - until a new latest and greatest caliber comes along. ...
 
All good points Ought Six. My only consideration is the short action. Easier to cycle the bolt smartly after the shot.

I'm no rifle expert. I know nothing about "head space" or why a shorter/fatter cartridge might be slightly more accurate, or much else, for that matter. If I can shoot a .300 Win. Mag. and be able to cycle the bolt faster, that's enough for me.

I'm usually the first to bring up the "answer in search of a question" argument. Did it for the .40 S&W, still do. It's all marketing. Once the market is saturated with a particular gun/calibre, manufacturers need new products to make more money.

I still like the .300 WSM.
 
this caliber is a solution in search of a problem.

Here, here!

Plus, as it turns out, the newbie features a rebated rim. I hate that.
 
Well, as Mad Dog pointed out to me yesterday, the rebated rim suffers from a disinclination to fully engage the extractor during pick up (on a bolt forward-stroke). As a result, the cartridge may not be positively captured, as one wants it. This assumes one is familiar with, and a proponent of positive feed actions (e.g. Pre-64 "Classic" Model 70 style). Push feed or M700 style actions would likely never miss the full sized rim.

Presumably, Winchester designed the cartridge this way to avoid using a larger bolt face. Had they done it properly, I would have been at the front of the line for a Model 70 in this cartridge. Now, let's see Winchester try again with the .338 WSM, but with a fullsize rim this time!

Thanks to Mad Dog for his elucidation of these factors...

-Steve
 
News from the SHOT show...

And to top it all off, Winchester has quit producing this very same short stainless action in other (desirable, usable) calibers, in an effort to drive sales on this silly new cartridge that competes with their other house cartridge, the .300 Win Mag. Somebody at Winchester needs to get off the crack pipe....
Farging bastiches.

GRRRR! They have angered the Dog!

I'm gonna show them! I'll buy one, and rebarrel it as a .308.
HAH! That'll show 'em.
 
The issue of a rebated rim is something troubling that I know little about, as I have no rifle for such a cartridge. I would have thought the whole thing would have been based on the ancient and reliable belted H&H magnum case if I had been making predictions on this. I guess the 404 Jeffery case lets them equal the performance of the old belted magnums in the shorter case.
As for the idea of an extra short magnum, I think it is a natural. After all, the only reason the 300 Win Mag was invented was to take advantage of the 30/06 length receivers that all the riflemakers, with Winchester in the lead, were making at the time. That is the only advantage that it has over the 300 H&H and Weatherby Magnums that require a true magnum length action. This lead to the developement of a whole family of "short magnums": 458 WM, 338 WM, 7mm Rem. Mag. that proved very popular, much more so than the full length magnums, mainly because the rifles for the full length magnums cost more.
Now that the 308 Winchester is the standard military round and manufacturers are belatedy making short actions just for it, it makes extra short magnums aluring from the point of view of rifle manufacturers. They can put these more powerful cartridges to work in their new standard (?) actions.
Just because the action is shorter does not mean you have to build a light rifle out of it. You can make an even lighter light rifle if you want, but if you want a heavier rifle you can put more weight in the barrel were it will no doubt do more good than in the action. Yes, the shorter, fatter cartidge should have more consistant ignition and thus be more accurate, at least in fuzzy common wisdom. For bolt guns, the bolt throw should be a little shorter, always better. And most important from the perspective of manufacturers, the short actions can be produced in greater quantity and thus more efficiently.
Finally, as soon as the new case hits the market, you can bet that wildcatters will neck it up and down and improve it in every conceivable way, so that a whole family of new extra short magnums will be born. Winchester and the rest can just sit back and pick and choose among the most popular of the lot for their next hopefully popular introduction.
I'd say that an extra short magnum in the ever popular 308 caliber has been something begging to be born as soon as the shorter actions came on line. Actually, it is the flexibity and economy of computer assisted machining that has made these actions feasible in the market place, so I guess you can ultimately blame the whole thing on computers if you are not happy with it.
 
Anyone remember the .284 Winchester? Developed for their long since defunct model 100 auto and model 88 lever guns.
Another dead wonder cartridge, ignored by all but the most esoteric handloaders.
It featured a rebated rim. It had a body almost as big as a belted magnum. The idea was to squeeze .270 Win/.280 Rem performance out of a short case.

Rebated rims in controlled feed actions pretty much defeat the purpose of controlled feed. The reduced size of the rim in relationship to the case body makes it much more difficult, if not impossible, to repeatedly allow the bolt face/extractor to grab the rim as it feeds off of the ramp.
So, you have created a push feed weapon with a claw extractor... DUH!

Now, Winchester has gone a step further and made an even larger case body, with the same rim size as the .284, thereby further reducing reliability in controlled feed.
They would have been much better of with a larger rim, in line with the body, therefore able to take advantage of the controlled feed available in the action they have chosen for the round.
Sheesh. Talk about a short corporate memory...

Given the number of "GeewhizIgottahaveone" posts here, it will probably be a sucess for a while at least.
Sigh.
 
Back
Top