The Dying WSSMs and others doomed for extinction

Handloader

Many could argue persuasively about the theoretical advantages of the WSSM and RSAUM series. They would extol the virtues of these rounds as touted by the gun rags (ie shorter action, lighter rifles, more efficient cartridges, better accuracy). And, I must admit, on a theoretical level they could probably make a good case. Such academics, however, aren't the main reasons, from my observation, that our customers puchase rifles. At our store the WSSMs and the RSAUMs sit on the shelf and wither away alongside the 204 Rugers.

Feeding difficulties, cost of ammo, the need for new loading blocks, the price of brass, etc, have potential buyers giving standard cartridges and rifles a second look. Most of what we sell is in traditional chamberings.

Advances in powder and bullet technology has breathed new life into standard rounds like the 243Win, 308, 06, 270Win, etc. These long time favorites simply have gotten much better. So much so that I doubt we will hear of the super short fat magnums as time marches on. Remington has already scaled back on the RSAUMs.

I say "good ridance" and RIP. I believe the overwhelming rejection of the short and fats is a grass roots snubbing of those manufacturers that believe simply because something is "new" that it is "better" and will an instant success. They have done it before with the 5mm Remington, 256 Magnum and other pretender rounds. And, while I am ranting would anyone care to speculate on the future of the 17HMR and 17 Mach II? Do you believe they will be around in five or ten years? I believe they will be dead in five years. But, that's just the opinion on one jaded hunter and handloader.

What do you think? Do you give a thumbs up or down on the future of the WSSMs/RSAUMs?

BTW: Next year we celebrate the 100 anniversary of the 06; I am sure it will have a 200th anniversary as well.

Gil Martin

Good points. I was never in the market for the WSSMs, RSAUMs and the 17 calibers. In my opinion, they were a marketing ploy to get us to buy something we did not need and would probably hardly use. All the best...
Gil

Bushmaster

And what's wrong with my .30-06 and my .30-30 (not to mention my several .22's). When I retire and move to Missouri I might need a different rifle, but until then the above work just fine. My oldest son is looking at the .300 Win Mag and the .30 WSSM. I already told him to go with the .300 Win Mag...We'll see what he does...

Blaine · Member Joined: Feb 24, 2005 Posts: 260 Location: Maine

I've always felt that the "new and improved" shorts have a trade off price to pay. You've mentioned cost but another is felt recoil. The main reason for shortening is to make a shorter "lighter" action. Lighter action means lighter gun and more felt recoil. I don't own a short mag, but I've shot a few and I'd rather have my 270 any day. Just my opinion.....and I agree that the "chubby stubbies" will fade away as the newness wears off.

Blaine

kbis

I have to agree with the rest of you, give me the old "out dated" standard cases. I was looking at the .17's until I looked at the price of ammo, my old 22's will do just fine.

DallanC · Site Admin Joined: Jan 18, 2005 Posts: 3572 Location: Utah

I hope the .17HMR doesnt go anywhere... I really like mine and find I use it more often because its quieter than digging out a .22-250. I really like it... if they ever discontinue it I'll have to buy a couple cases of rounds I guess.

-DallanC

LittleMagnum · Member Joined: Jul 05, 2005 Posts: 105 Location: Vermont

The 17HMR is here to stay. It's too great a little round, many guns out there. Short mags will hang on for awhile, before sales slow to that off the ultra mag sales.

robfromaz1977

Bushmaster wrote:

And what's wrong with my .30-06 and my .30-30 (not to mention my several .22's). When I retire and move to Missouri I might need a different rifle, but until then the above work just fine. My oldest son is looking at the .300 Win Mag and the .30 WSSM. I already told him to go with the .300 Win Mag...We'll see what he does...

HELLO BUSHMASTER,
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH YOUR .30-06 OR .30-30. WITH THOSE TWO CALIBERS YOU GOT ALL YOUR BASES COVERED ANYWHERE YOU HUNT. IN FACT I OWN TWO .30-06'S JUST BECAUSE I LIKE THEM SO MUCH. IF I COULD OWN ONLY 1 RIFLE IT WOULD BE ONE OF THE TWO I GOT. ALSO YOUR SON WOULD BE WELL ADVISED TO GO WITH THE GOOD OLE .300 WIN MAG. FOR ONE IT IS EASIER TO GET FACTORY AMMO INCASE YOU NEED IT. ALSO IT CAN BE HANDLOADED TO OUT PERFORM THE WSM. HOPE HE LISTENS TO YA.

longwalker

The point is what do we really gain. There is a jump in preformance from a 30-30 to a 30-06. and jump to the 300 win. mag. But what do you really gain going to the 300 wssm ? Not a whole heck of a lot. The Ultra Mags are a different story. All you have to do is watch a new guy with his new gun beat himself senseless trying to sight it in. Do they all offer an improvement yes. But the question needs to be what is the price preformance ratio?

My 30-06 does not reside with me. Instead I have a 338-06 and a 25-06. Along with a 30-30 and other guns. If I can't get it done with these I most likely can't get it done with much else.

I launch a 200 grain bullet at 2670 and have 3000ft/lbs at the muzzel. If I know to hold low for the first two hundres yards, I am dead on at 300 yards and still have 1800 ft/lds. In addition, at 400 yards I need to hold 15 inches high and hit with a little over 1500ft/lbs. How much more advantage do I need. That is almost, "hold on" trajectory out to 400 yards!

As for the 17 HRM I think it is a winner, but for only one reason sound. It is a nice quiet round. Therefore it may kill a few more Prairie dogs because they don't dive as fast.

The marketing advantage is for the ocassisional hunter that has a trip of a life time each year. He will spend several thousand dollars on a trip and doesn't want to come home empty handed because he missed the big buck at 400 yards with his old and slow 30-06. Of course the real down side to this logic is, when he does miss he will only be able to blame himself!

longwalker

A17Shooter

As for the centerfires under discussion I am indifferent. I'm not a big game hunter so my 22-250, 6 X 284, 22-243, 223 and 204 and a bevy of 17 wildcats suit me fine. But, I have both the 17 HMR and the 17 HM2 they both fill a niche for me. I feel a need for these two flat shooting, quiet, accurate, no-recoil cartridges that I don't have to reload for. JMO Very Happy

Gary

calsibley · Super Member Joined: Jan 28, 2005 Posts: 317

I've got mixed feelings on the topic. The number of gun buyers is decreasing. Our numbers have declined quite a bit. The gun manufacturers are desperate to sell new firearms. Nearly all shooters already own a .30-06, ,270Win. or .308Win., even a .243Win. Shooters are apt to already own one of the more popular calibers, They aren't interested in buying another rifle in a caliber they already own. Prices have increased at the same time quality has deteriorated. Many of the new rifles are little more than junk compared to the ones we were formerly buying. The flurry of new, unneeded calibers such as the WSM and WSSMs are a huge effort to get us to buy new and different rifles. It's not working well though. I think we're soon going to see several of the established manufacturers going under. Anyone share this opinion? Best wishes.

Cal - Montreal

Handloader

calsibley: one event that may alter your perception is the SHOT Show, the annual convention that shows the wares of the shooting sports industry and related items. Every year it gets bigger and more lavish and every year the collective firearms industry and related industries shows increases in sales.

What is shifting is the proportionate number of hunting rifle, handguns and shotgun sales. Your point about hunting rifles/cartridges is well taken and may, in fact, be the reason for some of the "new and improved" stuff we are seeing. But, I wonder, if this is much different than when we went through the magnum cartridge craze of not so long ago or when the bolt actions took over from the lever guns a decade or so prior to that? I don't see it as an act of desperation rather a concerted slick attempt at sales and marketing.

We see a lot of cheaper firearms available today, for sure. But, these firearms allow more people to become involved in the sport. They often don't exude the handicraft of yesteryear's guns but they are made with better materials and to better tolerances and give, in most cases, better accuracy and safety (strength). In terms, however, of the price of a 1963 Winchester M70 adjusted for inflation, today's Kimbers, for example, are splendid rifles and less expensive.

Competitive shooting sports have expanded significantly and is probably due in part to more discretionary spending. Look at what has happened with metallic silhouette -- we have handgun, rimfire, black powder, centerfire. Or, Cowboy Action Shooting, Clays, IPSC, IDPA and other disciplines that have brought many to the shooting sports. Expanded CCWs in many states have increased handgun sales notably and that aspect hasn't reached a saturation point either. And, let's not forget that anti gun firearms legislation and liability lawsuits are being challenged and won on a state by state basis more than they are being lost.

Now, after decades of dormancy, there is a revival in some states of high school competitive shooting teams. Arizona has just made such funding available through the state. My hope is that it continues to be a trend that will expand and involve more younger shooters.

Many challenges exist in the industry, in the shooting sports, and in the courts but, I believe overall there is reason for some cautious optomism.

tuck2 · Guest

I spend a lot of time going after prairie dogs. So far I have used the 17 HM2,17 HMR,17 Rem.,204 Ruger, 22LR,22WMR, 22Hornet,221 Rem. 222 Rem, 223 Rem,22-250 .220 Swift ,243 Win,and a few big game cal. rifles on them. For year around prairie dog shooting the new 17HM2,17 HMR and 204 Ruger round are the best af the group. I started shooting P dogs when I was 10 years old , so for 60 years I have gotten new rounds as they come out. It`s great that the gun Mfg. COs keep trying to develop new rifles and ammo. Some of the new rounds will die off as new round have in the past . The 223 WSSM is as flat shooting as the 220 Swift . I think the case design of the 223 WSSM is better than the Swift , but each round have had bad and good press reports. Only time will tell. If I still hunted elk I would have to try out the 325 Win(8MM) on them. The 270 WSM Win would work on prong horn and mule deer but I`ll use the 264 Win. on deer this year.

Happy · Rookie Member Joined: Mar 28, 2005 Posts: 16

I would not say the wsm are doomed but word is getting out that they have has issues with loading/ feeding. Seems the WSSM were about the worse.
I can see wanting a super fast flat shooting rifle on the open but here in the eastern bush a big ol' fat bullet at 2000 to 2500 FPS. pretty well gets the job gone if you do your part.

Now find me a lever that also would keep two or three cups of coffee hot and I might just want one.

515034s10ring

I guess i'm on the other end because i really like the SSM's and SM's, however, i do see the rapid decline in popularity.

The only problems i've had ever were with extraction and after reworking and tentioning the extractor, no other problems arised.

Although i will admit, hardly do my SS's see a hunt because i target shoot with them much more, however, i have taken two deer with my 25 wssm. And also to mention, with the recent demise of my 6mm PPC (lent it to a friend Crying or Very sad

), i have took the 243 wssm and was able to very closely duplicate target results. And i do as well have a wsm that i use for my 700+ yard shots with a Winchester Coyote 7mm wsm modified by JP Enterprises which gives my other precision rifles, a run for their money. Sniper

I do as well have conventional caliber rifles, but just like the short action (wsm and wssm) much more for some reason?