Here’s my two cents worth for the WSM, WSSM and SAUM’s: YAWN!

Blaine pretty well echoed my feelings – the promise of higher velocity in shorter, lighter guns means more felt recoil. That may be acceptable in a mountain gun that doesn’t get shot much, but its not what I’m looking for in a rifle – and my hunting is mostly in the mountains.

Add in the uncertainty of long-term cartridge acceptance, which can hinder resale value, higher brass and loaded ammo costs, and the many reports of feeding problems, and they become an even less attractive option.

On the plus side you have a potential for higher accuracy, but that’s all it is – potential – until its proven in the field. Benchrest shooters may see a difference but I’d wager not one in a thousand hunters will be able to detect a practical difference in the field. My bolt guns all shoot well enough to put meat on the table at ranges farther than I am willing to take shots on big game. If I take my 7mm Mag, which has always shot MOA or better (4” @ 400 yards), what advantage is there to a gun that consistently shoots twice as well or 0.5MOA (2” @ 400 yards)? The difference in this case is only 2” but that’s for the total diameter of the group. A more revealing measurement is the difference in the radii of the two groups, as the radii indicate the maximum distance from the intended point of impact a bullet will impact. In this case it is only a 1” difference. I would suggest that if that 1” is important (meaning it makes the difference between a kill or not), the hunter is attempting a shot well beyond his capability.

I’m not bad-mouthing the short mags, just taking a look at the practical side of the issue from my rather jaded perspective.

Coyote Hunter, you are absolutely right. However since brass and reloading supplies are in abundance (fortunately) i don't think i'll ever run out in my life time.

And i do very well believe that many hunters don't take into consideration what it means to shoot MOA or better (Nor do they know MOA does NOT just equal 1" but 1.0472". Which that .0472" may seem small, but magnify that by the power of the scope and how many yards. Plus most guys i've shot with that went out beyond 150-200 yards expected to see the same results, and wanted to trade their rifles after the group opens up drastically taking longer shots).
I've taken many 500 yard kill shots, (but with tactical scopes) and felt pretty confident. Although, would i suggest it, no......because i use mil dot and Horus Vision scopes, plus have loads worked and stored in a pda (with a Horus Vision program) that goes along with using these types of scopes. And trust me when i say my hand 'used' to hurt from writing and calculating figures on paper all day when shooting for accuracy!

I would say though, many hunters suffer from the buck jitters as soon as the cross hairs are on him. Now, consider a 450 yard shot, the amplification of your scope, and your heart beating to where you can feel it and see it in the scope. There is 3" between a solid kill and a few hour blood trail.....do you shoot? Most people would and that as well goes into the hunter is attempting a shot well beyond his capability.

Just meant to put a little technical spin on things and i don't mean to rile anybody up.

Peace

I think it is the "golf club" syndrome. That is why golf club manufacturers are constantly creating new and "improved" clubs to market. Golf clubs, like guns, don't wear out in general use and the only way to keep sales going is to generate their own flase market by introducing new products with some minor improvement and gigantic marketing campaigns. Ithink all these new chamberings are just an attempt to create a market in gun sales. Classic chamberings are classic for a reason, they work. Constant efforts to improve them are undertaken because some of use like to mess around with stuff like that and by arms companies to sell guns.

befus

Welcome befus.

I agree... mfgs need to sell stuff to keep in business. They continually try to come up with things that might interest potential buyers. Some ideas are winners, some end up loosing but its a given they wont quit trying to come up with the "next best thing".

Truely all anyone needs is a .22rimfire, 12GA shotgun and a 30-06... but its nice to have variety.


-DallanC

I have those calibres...And I disagree with you, Mr DallanC. One NEVER has enough guns. Any excuse that I can come up with and I'm off to the gun shop. I'm wondering what calibre I should have when I retire and move to the Ozarks.....Already have my money in my hot little hand...(Only need three calibres. HUH!!! )

I joined this forum just to reply to this post.
Yes, I can kill anything in N. America (except the big bears)with my 30-06 or for that matter my 58 flintlock,but time marches on and we have to try new things to improve them. The short,fat powder collum in the WSM and WSSMs was shown to be more accurate years ago with the BR's and the PPC's. Do we need it for hunting ? I'll take every edge I can get.No one I know has ever handloaded looking for a less accurate round.On the recoil issue,I'm getting 25-06 performance with 15% less powder.The recoil is about like my 243,and this is with a light 25 WSSM Super Shadow. NEXT ...
As far as the feeding problems with the WSSMs I read so much about on these forums,most of the people saying these things have never shot a WSSM.My M-70 in 25 WSSM feeds empty cases better than most 700 I've owned feed live rounds ! I'm not saying there haven't been some feeding problems,but then again I have had feeding problems with several rifles in 30-06 and 243.
Before you write off these rounds,find some one at the range and ask them what they think and if you can send a few downrange.You might be surprised

Sure hope this isn't your last post...We always need another prospective of any subject...And welcome to the site...Please...Stay a while. Vince will be along soon with some of his home brew...Ausie style...

Welcome Gonzo,
Good points. I own two 300 WSM guns and consider the complaints I have seen from writers to be typewriter problems. Never had the problems they describe.
Ed

I to have joined this forum to give my views on the WSSM and WSM bashing that seems to be one of the main topics on a lot of sites. As I stated on a difrent site. I live in an area that is considered Reminton and 30/06 country. Anyway my point is that a lot of people are afraid of change. Imagin back in 1903 when the 30/06 was developed I would say that there were people that felt that there was no need for this caliber. They were probably write. So what would a of people be shooting today. We could still kill our pray with black powder guns. I would say that I have owned almost every modern caliber and I enjoy developing loads and shooting these new calibers. This is my hobby. As far as the short mags, I think they are here to stay. I do not feel the recoil that everyone complains about, because I use the new recoil pads that were developed. Yes there has been feeding problems and it has been cured.

For the 17HMR & HM2 I feel they will be around long after the 22's fade away. How many 22's will group under a dime at 100 yards. I feel a lot more comfortable in the woods with somthing I know will hit it's mark than something that might. As far as I'm cocerned there is not a bad caliber.To each his own.

Welcome to the forums csx99

Pull up a chair and stay a while!

Dimitri

Welcome to the site csx99!

I hope you guys joining just to defend the WSSM's arent offended by the discussion, it is just that, a discussion. I've wondered myself at the life cycle of new calibers, specifically the WSM's. Does the WSM's blaze new paths in rifle calibers? No not really... but neither did the .280 and theres still more 280's and 280's around than about any other caliber. Bottom line is use what YOU like, if its a WSM or a plain vanilla 30-06. There is room for all of it at the shooting range.


-DallanC

A couple of things here! Enough weapons, perish the thought!!! I handload for accuracy, not to hit a dime at 1000 yards, but to give myself the confidence of knowing that my weapons are able to shoot at a level not really needed in the field. Shot placement is the key to a quick clean kill and that is what all the realoading and bench shooting is for that I do.

Yahoo! New forum members. And, I join in extending the big welcome with the hope that you post often and join in the fun.

Those that look favorably on the WSSMs should be pleased as the market for rifles so chambered has fallen remarkably. Look 'em up on Gun Broker and Auction Arms -- brand new ones for bargain prices. Why? Because the market has rejected them.

My personal experience with the 270 WSM, 243 WSSM and 223 WSSM shows no advantages to these cartridges over more established rounds. There simply is no velocity or accuracy advantage either IMO, having chronographed a dozen or so rifles so chambered*. Cost of ammo, cost and availability of brass and the required new loading blocks and powder funnels also dissuade buyers. The 300WSM has made some friends, however, and may survive the next decade or so. Independent tests show it is the equal of the "obsolete" 300 H&H ("Handloader" magazine, John Barsness article on "Case Shape") and that's not faint praise.

17 Mach II and 17 HMR sales locally have ceased, except for a few used ones selling cheaply. Imagine paying 5 to 8 times the price of basic 22lr ammo! Get the shovels out and start digging, these cartridges are beginning to rot and are ready for burying.

*Handload samples recorded, max loads:
270 WSM, 130gr TSX, 3,297 fps, 24" barrel
270 Winchester, 130gr TSX, 3,259 fps, 24" barrel

243 WSSM, 100gr Nosler BT, 3,055fps, 22" barrel
243 Winchester, 100gr BT, 3,060fps, 23.5" barrel

223 WSSM, 55gr Nosler BT, 3,680fps, 22" barrel
223 WSSM, 55gr Nosler BT, 3,811 fps, 24" barrel
220 Swift, 55gr BT, 3,788fps, 24" barrel
220 Swift, 55 gr BT, 3,907fps, 26" barrel

Well I guess it's true , that hitting a pie pan at 40 yards means good accuracy, and also good shot placment in the field. I'm glad to see that this has not died with new technology. Thanks for the info. Thats why I'm here (To Learn).
Also I have spent a lot more money buying shells for a 22 than my 17. Because my 17 will shoot anything I put in it. With 22's I have found that I need to purchase several diffrent brands of ammo to make them shoot.
I am not trying to stir anything up, just voicing my oppinion.
So what should I start digging with ,an old shovel with the cracked handle or a new one that I know will work.

Yahoooo, another good discussion. Now, I enjoy the tried and true but am certainly open for improvements and designs.
But, csx99 ya can't exaggerate toooooo much about how bad the try and true is. My groups at 100yd with my dad's 22lr is about 1.5 inches. It's been that way since I started shooting squirrels with it back in 1965 in Iowa. Never took it to be a 100yd gun, never needed a 100yd gun for squirrels then.
But, I am really interested in some of the new stuff too. The 30tc coming out looks pretty good. I have an Encore waiting for that barrel. I'll wait and see. I was thinking of a 308 barrel but will wait for data. If no real advantage........the tried and true.