Big game calibers
07-06-2007, 09:36 PM
#32
Typical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 621
RE: Big game calibers
The 300 wsm shoots faster and hits harder then a 300 win mag its just makes for a shorter action. Check out the ballistics. So that would be a magnum not an almost magnum. Im not 100% with the 325wsm but like i said i have heard good things. But yes the remington ultra mags are nice and more potent then winchester short mags and are definately a no questions asked magnum.
07-07-2007, 09:34 PM
#34
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 145
RE: Big game calibers
ORIGINAL: younggun308
.325 WSM and the 7mm WSM are total failures.
.325 WSM and the 7mm WSM are total failures.
How about some data to back that up or is it just your 16 years of experience on this earth that you are speaking from?
I personally own .243WSSM, 7mm WSM, 300 WSM, 325 WSM. Getting ready to buy a .25 WSSM and have shot them all a whole bunch of times.
My favorite of the bunch is the .325 WSM. It shoots flat, and has very good ballistics. Kinetic energy equal to a .338 with less recoil and a lighter gun with a shorter action.
The WSM and WSSM are both new technology rifles that were based on the original short action theories. They came up with the .308 based upon the .30-06. They wanted a more reliable round that would chamber better, shoot flatter, and work off of a shorter action stroke which in turn accounts for higher rounds per second on target. The new WSM and WSSM's are no different equal, or in many cases better, velocities and knock down power with less powder, less recoil, less rifle weight, shorter action length, and less overall rifle length.
In my opinion the person asking the question would be served just fine from either the .325 WSM or the .338 Win Mag.
07-07-2007, 09:52 PM
#35
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Simcoe, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 104
RE: Big game calibers
ORIGINAL: Waterproof
How about some data to back that up or is it just your 16 years of experience on this earth that you are speaking from?
I personally own .243WSSM, 7mm WSM, 300 WSM, 325 WSM. Getting ready to buy a .25 WSSM and have shot them all a whole bunch of times.
My favorite of the bunch is the .325 WSM. It shoots flat, and has very good ballistics. Kinetic energy equal to a .338 with less recoil and a lighter gun with a shorter action.
The WSM and WSSM are both new technology rifles that were based on the original short action theories. They came up with the .308 based upon the .30-06. They wanted a more reliable round that would chamber better, shoot flatter, and work off of a shorter action stroke which in turn accounts for higher rounds per second on target. The new WSM and WSSM's are no different equal, or in many cases better, velocities and knock down power with less powder, less recoil, less rifle weight, shorter action length, and less overall rifle length.
In my opinion the person asking the question would be served just fine from either the .325 WSM or the .338 Win Mag.
ORIGINAL: younggun308
.325 WSM and the 7mm WSM are total failures.
.325 WSM and the 7mm WSM are total failures.
How about some data to back that up or is it just your 16 years of experience on this earth that you are speaking from?
I personally own .243WSSM, 7mm WSM, 300 WSM, 325 WSM. Getting ready to buy a .25 WSSM and have shot them all a whole bunch of times.
My favorite of the bunch is the .325 WSM. It shoots flat, and has very good ballistics. Kinetic energy equal to a .338 with less recoil and a lighter gun with a shorter action.
The WSM and WSSM are both new technology rifles that were based on the original short action theories. They came up with the .308 based upon the .30-06. They wanted a more reliable round that would chamber better, shoot flatter, and work off of a shorter action stroke which in turn accounts for higher rounds per second on target. The new WSM and WSSM's are no different equal, or in many cases better, velocities and knock down power with less powder, less recoil, less rifle weight, shorter action length, and less overall rifle length.
In my opinion the person asking the question would be served just fine from either the .325 WSM or the .338 Win Mag.
07-07-2007, 10:14 PM
#36
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Republic of Texas
Posts: 12,035
RE: Big game calibers
ORIGINAL: Waterproof
They came up with the .308 based upon the .30-06. They wanted a more reliable round that would chamber better, shoot flatter, and work off of a shorter action stroke which in turn accounts for higher rounds per second on target.
They came up with the .308 based upon the .30-06. They wanted a more reliable round that would chamber better, shoot flatter, and work off of a shorter action stroke which in turn accounts for higher rounds per second on target.
07-07-2007, 11:27 PM
#37
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 145
RE: Big game calibers
Guess I read different ballistics data then you guys do.
Although I think the 7mm WSM is not selling like they hoped I don't see the other WSM's selling that bad at all. The .270 ISN'T the only short mag that performs better then it's parent cartridge.
Post up your ballastic information with documentation and I can post mine.
Although I think the 7mm WSM is not selling like they hoped I don't see the other WSM's selling that bad at all. The .270 ISN'T the only short mag that performs better then it's parent cartridge.
Post up your ballastic information with documentation and I can post mine.
07-07-2007, 11:37 PM
#38
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Simcoe, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 104
RE: Big game calibers
ORIGINAL: Waterproof
Guess I read different ballistics data then you guys do.
Although I think the 7mm WSM is not selling like they hoped I don't see the other WSM's selling that bad at all. The .270 ISN'T the only short mag that performs better then it's parent cartridge.
Post up your ballastic information with documentation and I can post mine.
Guess I read different ballistics data then you guys do.
Although I think the 7mm WSM is not selling like they hoped I don't see the other WSM's selling that bad at all. The .270 ISN'T the only short mag that performs better then it's parent cartridge.
Post up your ballastic information with documentation and I can post mine.
07-08-2007, 07:37 AM
#39
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 145
RE: Big game calibers
Beartooth you prove nothing when you compare factory loads to handloads. Either compares factory to factory or hand to hand. That is like saying an aftermarket tricked out Ruger shoots better then a factory Remington Police rifle so therefore it is the better choice off the shelf.
If it is based upon your opinion then say in your opinion. However don't try to pass it off as a fact and then post a ballistics chart from Remington that only lists two of the Short Mag calibers in it anyway.
If it is based upon your opinion then say in your opinion. However don't try to pass it off as a fact and then post a ballistics chart from Remington that only lists two of the Short Mag calibers in it anyway.
07-08-2007, 09:29 AM
#40
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 4,264
RE: Big game calibers
ORIGINAL: Waterproof
Beartooth you prove nothing when you compare factory loads to handloads.
Beartooth you prove nothing when you compare factory loads to handloads.
He's not comparing handloads to factory, he's comaparing pressure in the cartridges, since the ammo companies load the long-action magnums down, and load the WSM's up, they probably do that to sell more WSM's, to make them normal cartridges, and not have a trace of wildcat in them.
They're doing it intentionally.