Its been awhile sence I logged on last just to busy working from 5am to 8pm.
As some of you know I'm a rifle nut. Building custom rifles is part of what I do.
I was just wondering what all of you thought of the wsm vrsese the ultra mags. Caliber doesnt realy matter just what you like or hate. I know what I build the most of.
But I'm out west hear in the open.

Well considering the WSM's are about 5% inferior to the WM line, and the Ultra Mags are about 15% (20% more in some loadings its claimed) then the WM, I am not sure what you are trying to compare?

Myself I see the WSMs and especially the WSSMs as a means of having a short action in a similar standard caliber. Such as the 300 WSM being a short action 30-06 with alittle more punch.

The Ultra mags are a difference beast, anything less then what weights you see 338 Lapua's being manufactured in shouldnt be done. They can go far, but most hunters will never need it, and do to caliber restrictions in Africa for the Large Dangerous game, UM's have little use for them as well unless you load up the 375RUM (I am assuming they did make it, only remember it from a pre-production report).

I know of one good, long time gunsmith that will NOT sight in Ultra Mags anymore after his first encounter with a light weight M700 SPS chambered in 300 RUM.

Dimitri

I just had to choose between the .270 WIN and .270 WSM. I found with the lighter 110gr bullets, neither has an apparent performance advantage. With the heavier 150gr bullets, a shooter could gain up 100 fps or more velocity advantage with the WSM. However, I’ve heard from experienced hunters, the inexpensive legacy bullets don't hold together well at these speeds and high-performance bullets, like Barne’s Triple Shocks, are a must. I plan to hunt with the light 110gr Barnes TTSX so I went with the .270 WIN. I already have several 110gr loads with velocities in excess of 3400 fps in a 22.75” barrel that are short of the max powder charge. These are higher velocities than all the .270 WSM loads listed in a G&A Article (Mar 09, pg 28) listed for the 110gr using less powder. From what I have seen myself and learned from other reloaders, the .270 WSM is inefficient with the lighter bullets and takes more powder to get similar results. So, unless one is planning on shooting the heavier, high-end .277”/6.8mm bullets and needs the extra velocity, the .270 WIN still has the better all-around versatility, IMO. I think the .270 WSM Comes Up Short. Others must too because I see a lot of WSM on consignment at Cabela's and BassPro.

I just love the subject of WSM’s !!! Got to be one of the most controversial subjects of the times !!!
Of coarse Winchester didn’t do themselves any favors by the way they marketed them when they first came out.

slimjim, Welcome to Hunting Nut !!!

Large case capacity and light for caliber bullets don’t go well together in anything!!!
So your choice to stick with old tried and true was a good choice.

But to make the statement about the legacy bullets..............
You stated that they come up short but you have to run premium bullets in them. I’m a little confused!!!

The reason you see so many on the used racks is because everyone thought/expected them to be more than what they are.

Sorry, back to the original question now!!!

Velocity..............I think we all know who the winner will be.
This could be to an advantage if you’re taking shots into the next zip code.
I however am not a fan Of the RUM’s

Since this is a build I’d look into fixing a few short comings with the WSM.
A longer barrel and more throat so the bullet doesn’t need to go so deep will add some extra fps.
Of coarse you’ll have to look at the length of bullets and see what you can get away with as far as making use of the magazine.
A long action might be worth looking into to solve those issues as well.

I wasnt trying to compare wsm to ultra. Just wondering what every one els thought of the two.
If I build 10 rifles
8 will be 300 ultra mags
1 300 wsm
1 could be just about anything
I have not chamberd the grate 30/06 in 11 months!
Of the 8 ultra mags 5 will hace a muzzle brake installed at the time the rifle is built. 2 of the 3 will come back for a muzzle brake after the first range session.

The wsm shooters half will instal a muzzle brake.
the outher half usaly wont come back fore a brake.

If I quite building and shootig the 300um you can see 80% of my bussness would be lost in a flash!

Im just wondering if this is true els whear

Dimitri wrote:

Well considering the WSM's are about 5% inferior to the WM line, and the Ultra Mags are about 15% (20% more in some loadings its claimed) then the WM, I am not sure what you are trying to compare? Dimitri

How did slightly slower become 'inferior'. Poor choice of words and not accurate even in a stretch.

Using that line of thought the RUM would be superior because it uses alot more powder to get a very small gain overall in speed. It would be superior because even fewer people could tolerate the added recoil. Superior because the price of the factory ammo is higher.

No wonder inferior starts sounding better all the time.

If I were building a custom .30 cal it would be a WSM, short action, light weight.

skb2706 wrote:

How did slightly slower become 'inferior'. Poor choice of words and not accurate even in a stretch.

Inferior because when the WSM line came out, they said just about anything to make people believe a 300WSM will preform like a 300WM but in a short action and people bought it at first, many arguments have been had over that stretch of truth in advertisements.

Armed with a ballistics table of factory ammunition I made a few people upset when I sat down and showed them the 300WSM they bought to replace their 300WM was not all it was made out to be

Dimitri

chambered221 wrote:

But to make the statement about the legacy bullets.............. You stated that they come up short but you have to run premium bullets in them. I’m a little confused!!!

I've heard from custom reloaders that the older bullet designs don't function well with the WSM on impact (terminal ballistics) and can break apart, shed their lead core, etc when shots are taken close in with the higher velocities. I'm sure the same with happen with the RUM. They recommended using only modern premium bullets if I purchased a 270 WSM.

When I stated. "I think the .270 WSM Comes Up Short," it was just a play on words - WSM - Short.

I really can't compare the WSM's. The only one we have is a 300 WSM. I can say we like it very much. It's been deadly on bear and elk and is very accurate and not that bad on the shoulder. I think it is a great SM.

I keep hearing guys talking down on the WSM’s about the lack of velocity, did not live up to expectations, nothing more than a standard cartridge with a little more oomph, nothing more than a glorified 06, does not even come close to the Rem or Win mags, etc, etc.

And now you want to try and convince me I need better bullets.
This isn’t the first time I’ve heard a statement like this about the need for premium bullets in the short mags.

So which is it ??? If you need premium bullets.................

My opinion on this whole matter is this, there are a lot of guys talking crap about stuff they now nothing about or have experienced themselves. I get tired of hearing guys make statements like, “I read on the internet the other day” “the guy at the gun shop said” and my favorite “My buddy told me”

slimjim, please understand my attitude is directed at the issue and not you personally.

Like I said earlier in this thread “I just love the subject of WSM’s” !!!

Bullets really don't care what cartridge they are fired from, only what velocity at which they are expected to perform. Since both the .300 Winchester and the .300 WSM operate at roughly the same velocities it seems ridiculous to think that specialty bullets are required for one and not the other.

Just for fun, I compared loading tables for some of the various cartridges using the same powders between "Standard" and WSM or WSSM flavors:

.25/06 Remington – 120 grain bullet 3,007 fps w/ 48 grains of IMR4350
.25 WSSM 2,874 fps w/ 45 grains of IMR4350

.243 Winchester – 100 grain bullet 3,071 fps w/ 46 grains of H4831
.243 WSM 3,058 fps w/ 45 grains of H4831

7mm Remington Magnum – 140 grain bullet 2,962 fps w/ 60 grains of H4350
7mm WSM 2,994 fps w/ 61 grains of H4350

.270 Winchester – 130 grain bullet 3,113 fps w/ 60 grains of H4831
.270 WSM 3,251 fps w/ 68 grains of H4831

.300 Winchester Magnum – 180 grain bullet 3,079 fps w/ 71 grains of H4350
.300 WSM 3,054 fps w/ 65 grains of H4350

The real surprise in this mix is the .300 WSM with a whopping 6 grains less powder than the .300 Winchester Magnum and a virtually identical velocity. This cartridge is obviously a near-perfect balance of case capacity to bore diameter when compared to the .300 Winchester Magnum and could well be a truly top-notch choice for the shooter wanting all of the benefits of shooting a .30 caliber magnum while keeping it in a short action. Looking over the rest of the listings show that in many cases the newer WSM cartridges use less powder but still get within shouting distance of their older equals. These cartridges actually make a certain amount of sense…especially to those who want top performance levels while keeping to short action lengths.

Before anyone gets too excited, I am fully aware that the above figures can be altered in various ways by selecting the “absolute perfect” powder for any of the given cartridges. My goal was merely to find a common powder for each to present a relatively fair comparison of velocity/powder relationships. Please note that I deliberately avoid using published manufacturer’s velocity of factory ammunition since it is so often more than just a little optimistic and woefully inaccurate in a real-world setting (Example: Remington solemnly lists its .17 Remington cartridge with a 25-grain bullet at 4,020 fps but actually chronographs a tic over 3,860 fps in my rifles…though safe handloading brings this back into the 4,000 fps range).

Like with anything else, cartridge choice is as much a personal one as a choice between blonds and brunettes (or red-heads or...). It's all in the eye of the beholder.

chambered221 wrote:

slimjim, please understand my attitude is directed at the issue and not you personally.

My comments were for the 270 for which I have experience. I studied the 270 WIN and 270 WSM and talked with as many people as I could. I even decided on the bullets I was going to use before I made my purchase decision. I decided my deer load was going to be the Barnes 110gr TTSX and my long range target Berger's 150 VLD. What the custom reloaders told me about the 270 WSM being ineffecient with lighter bullets was backed up by the reloading manuals. Example for 110gr TTSX below.

270 WIN IMR4350 57.5 3287 fps 60.5 3460 fps
270 WSM IMR4350 63.0 3277 fps 67.5 3552 fps

At the low end, the 270 WIN had 10 fps more velocity with 5.5gr less powder. At the max end, the 270 WSM had 90 fps more with 7.5 additional grains of powder.

If you look at data from the range, any advantage the 270 WSM has is harder to find. The 110gr TTSX data from G&A Reloading: The 270 WSM for the 270 WSM showed velocities from 3325 fps to 3384 fps. My 270 WIN Tikka T3 Lite is launching the 110gr TTSX at 3450 fps.

The velocity results list in G&A for 150 bullets loads range from 2842 to 3092 fps. I'm getting 3000 fps with my 150 VLDs with 51.0 of IMR4350.

Maybe my 270 WIN Tikka just has a good barrel on it but I'm not seeing the advantage of the WSM in 270.

chambered221 wrote:

Large case capacity and light for caliber bullets don’t go well together in anything!!! So your choice to stick with old tried and true was a good choice.

Did you miss this ???