Agreed, not to mention the feeding issues in non crf rifles.

Not really though, you get -1" due to the sort action but + 2" w/ the needed 24" magnum barrel.

That said, I dont know why anyone but the most dedicated long range western hunters would want a magnum cartridge these days, the ammo costs (3 years ago) alone made me sell my 7mag, and the WSMs? Those are 10$ more per box compared to regular mags, and about 20$ more than std calibers. shot to shot reloading costs, same thing. Pure waste of money IMO. my lil 7-08 is light, short, pleasant to shoot from the bench, and cost much less to shoot compared to a mag. As far as ballistics and power, the extra powder capacity is way overrated. zeroed at 140yds , im a couple inches low at 200yds and the 150gr .284 impacts doing 2200fps ,@ 200yds ,when launched at a modest 2600fps. What more do you need to kill most NA game?

Absolutely nothing, and you dont have a flinching problem or need a controlled round feed action to feed properly.

What does the length of the action of the rifle have to do with the killing power of the bullet when it gets to the animal?

Not so much speed as it is not short stroking the longer cartridge in a high adrenaline and an excited condition.

6-8 ounces. Not enough to matter.

I was making more of the point of a short mag is a short action round, but has the velocity of LA rounds like the .270win, or .300win.mag, when comparing them to the .270wsm and .300wsm.

I agree. The last thing the market needed was more new cartridges to sell more rifles. The gamut of cartridges today are plenty. Just look at the number of variants in 7MM that were available BEFORE the SM's came on the scene. What does the 7mm WSM bring to the table that the 284 Win. lacks?

Not true at all for a reloader.

Tom

I agree, mostly sales hype. I have been hunting the coal regions since I was a kid. The most popular rifle there was probably the lever action in 30-30 or .35 Rem. We probably would have never heard of the .270 with out magazine articles. Now with T.V. added in, I see some of the most ridicules calibers being carried for short range shooting in laurel thickets.

There's really no difference as far as the shorter action being better for fast follow up shots.As others mentioned the real advantage is the lighter weight humpin up/down mountains after some smart ass goat or whatever that would enjoy a good laugh watching some fool hunter tumble on down.

I don't believe that the length or velocity should be the overall deciding factor in a hunter's choice.

I know I have always favored short carbines in a very light and handy package. And even though I own a few such weapons none are currently in a short action. But thinking about a Ruger in a Compact or Lightweight.

I can get the UltraLight in a 20" barrel in 30-06, but if I want the extremely short 16.5" barrel I have to go with a Compact which comes only in short actions.

I'll probably go with the Compact models in a short action round (probably 308) but not because of anything but the length of the overall gun. I won't worry one bit about the loss of velocity or the extra speed with which I can crank in a round that is 0.69" shorter (a short .308 compared to a long 30/06).

If I really want to lighten my load when hunting I should look to losing 20 lbs before I start skeletonizing my rifle.

I think each hunter/shooter should pick the round he really wants in a package that suits him and the round and not lose a minutes sleep over velocity or stroke length.