Originally Posted by djpaintless
Originally Posted by GF1
The short magnum business really is an oxymoron. The point of shorter cartridges in a hunting rifle is making up a lighter and handier rifle via a shorter action wedded to a lighter barrel. The short magnums really need a longer barrel, and the rifles need to weigh 8 1/2# or more to accomodate the barrel length, as well as recoil.

A short action matched with a light short rifle fit; the short magnums simply don't.



You are simply wrong here. As Brad said the Short mags are available in well designed rifles with good recoil pads that are quite comfortable to shoot. The short action also makes a difference in overall length of rifle. Here's a Mato 270 Winchester with 24" barrel next to a Kimber 8400 270 WSM:

[Linked Image]


The Kimber is a couple pounds lighter and is much nicer to carry. Some people will prefer the heavier rifle as feeling more comfortable and stable to shooot. If I'm walking much the lighter easy handling Kimber WSM is MUCH MUCH nicer to be humping up and down hills.
And anyone who doesn't think that the WSM's offer magnum ballistic performance doesn't know how to read a ballistics chart.................................DJ


This argument is as silly as the debate over 9mm vs. 45 auto. Short magnums don't do anything a standard caliber hasn't done or even done better ballistically for years.


This picture is evident of that. The two rifles don't have the same barrel length, so you can't say that you are saving in weight due to the shorter action. Look at the actions and you can see less than 1 inch in length difference.

The weight save in a short action is in the middle of the action where the least amount of steel is removed. The difference in case length between a 300 Winchester short mag (2.1 inch) VS. a 300 Weatherby Mag.(2.815 inch) is a whopping .715 inches.

In terms of weight, when you take .715 inches of steel out of the center of the action (because the overall action in front and rear needs the same steel for bolt and lugs) you are only talking a couple of ounces of weight.

Now if you can tell the difference in the weight for that couple of ounces of steel and the stock (as you have added stock material to handle that extra .715 inches of action), fine, you are welcome to that.

Most of the people comparing short magnum rifles to standard rifles are using the concept of a "Mountain Rifle" which has been cut down in weight for carrying in the mountains and needs to be light. The same can be done in weight savings on a standard caliber and the only difference comes down to the .715 inches. That is all you are saving.

If you happen to like all that load of marketing crap to sell new ideas on an old and proven caliber/rifle, so be it, go and get one. When it comes to preferring a peanut butter and jelly sandwich over Ham and Cheese, that is personal preference, just the same as a short magnum preferred over a standard.

[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]