Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Custom Rifles & Wildcats Interesting thread on the short mags..........

Interesting thread on the short mags and feeding.......seems I am not alone in my thoughts....
http://www.serveroptions.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=005779
Charlie

It was an interesting post Charlie but I guess I just don't get it.....why do some have to cast aspersions on something just because they don't like it or because they think it isn't necessary. That's why they have different model cars and why brunettes can buy peroxide at the drug store.

People complained about the 308 because it wasn't a 30/06 and now they are pounding on the 300WSM and 300SAUM because they don't believe they are real magnums...maybe they named them wrong....what would the reaction be if they were named the "300 Efficient" or something similar?

And I'm not suprised that Darcy doesn't want to spend non-productive time figuring out how to make the "shorties" feed as he apparently has more than enough business without adding more potential "problems" (I don't especially like rebated rims either).

Of the recent shorties from Winchester & Remington, the one that makes the most sense to me is the 270 .... a noticable increase in performance over the 270 Winchester which was/is a great round.

Final thought ----- I'm not sure what the problem is with feeding. I have a Lazzeroni Patriot (.308) and Hellcat (.375) and both feed as well as any rifle I've owned. They are both built on McMillan MCRT actions.....one by Lazzeroni and another by a custom 'smith. Maybe it isn't the cartridges that are the problem but rather the actions they are building them on...or the 'smiths who are building them.

My thoughts very much differ,as does my action preferences.

I have rifles based upon all of the most hated designs of the CRF Fans. Those rifles are based upon the typical Ackley Improved design(minimal body taper and jaunty 40 degree shoulders),the 284Win hull,SAUM,WSM, and even the dreaded Ultra.

To the contrary,the only short mags(abbreviated H&H based chamberings),to fully yank my crank are the 257Wby and 7mmRemMags. Both exceptional.

The 300Winny is also a Good 'Un,but I'm happiest with more capacity,in that diameter,when toting an H&H full-lengthed action(30-8mmRemmag,my favorite far and away).

I eagerly anticipate weighing in with hands on testing,of both the 257WSM and 7mmWSM in direct comparisons,to the above mentioned H&H short mags.

Those chamberings scorned by Purists,simply work and very well. None of that speculation..................

I get it. It's the money! When your not sure of an answer then select "It's the money" until new facts change your mind.

The "custom" gunsmiths involved in this thread find it difficult to get short mags to feed in actions that were never made for them and are too long anyway. Every short magnum sold is a lost order for a gunsmith.

As to why a short magnum I feel that this thread expresses it best. www.serveroptions.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=007729

Now I am a customer and not a supplier or gunsmith. My voice carries more weight. I could not care less what some ivory tower Mr. Perfect gunsmith thinks about what cartridge is for me or not.

I don't blame those on top either. I would not expect Picasso to paint me an impressionist haystack.

I don't understand all the fuss. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> The gunsmith I use built a .300wsm for me last year on a Ruger 77 tang safety. He had to widen the box; but no other alterations needed to be made. Follower and feed rails are unchanged from factory. The rifle feeds perfectly, nary a bobble-ever! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Speaking of my gunsmith, he is re-boring a 20" .243 out to .358win. He told me last week that he was going to start re-boring barrels this week, so should be soon. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Don, I think I get it too. As Savage99 on the other forum, you don't get the answer you want so you post as Don on this forum, criticizing the gunsmith in the third person. One of the premier gunsmiths in the world offers his opinion, based on experience, yet you know better. He's spent the time to design and manufacture correctly designed mag boxes for the more suitable magnum cartridges, and doesn't see the point in the super short mags. For the record, I don't own one of Echol's rifles, but do recognize common sense when I see it.

It's not exactly rocket science that the super short mags will not, and never will, feed as reliably as the already established longer cartridges. It's REALLY simple physics, the wider the cartridge gets, and the shorter it gets, the more extreme the angles to get it to line up with the bore line. The more extreme the angles, the less reliable/smooth the feeding will be. The super short mags offer no advantage over the longer,already established cartridges.

RickF- I can only speak from my own personal experience, but I have had zero failures to feed, or any other failure for that matter, with my wsm, built on a Ruger action. You can't get any better than zero failures. Also had a 7mm Dakota built on a Ruger action. It is same diameter as the wsm, just a little longer. I have been using that rifle regularly for five years or so, again with zero problems. I don't understand what problem some gunsmiths have.

Acy, I agree some rifles will work fine, and am not saying they won't work. I will point out however, that your tang-safety Ruger rifles are push feeds, while D'Arcy Echols works exclusively with controlled feeds.

In a push feed action, the feeding is controlled by the configuration of the feed rails. Providing the shell pops out of the magzine at the correct point in the bolt's forward travel, they will feed fine as the shell is simply pushed into the chamber. If the cartridge comes out too soon it is likely to pop right on out of the rifle. On the other hand, in a CRF action the cartridge is captured by the bolt, hence the feeding cycle is much more dependent on the correct mag/feed rail/bolt face/extractor/extractor cut configuration.

I guess my only complaint with the shorties is the misrepresentation by the factories and some writers, that their performance is every bit that of their longer conterparts. This is not exactly an accurate statement when seating the longer and heavier projectiles which eat powder capacity. Handloaded, a 7mm Rem Mag will smoke a 7mmWSM or 7mm RUSM with 150-175 grain bullets. This to some probably means very little if you shoot the 120-150 grain class 7mm bullets, but it is a misnomer to say that either runs neck-and-neck with the original "seven mag" when pushing the longer heavier stuff.

The same can be said when comparing the short mag .30s to the 300 Win in the 190-220 grain bullet class. While the 220 grain is seldom used, it still may be desired along with the 200 grain bullets. The 300 Win can spit these big projectiles out much faster than their squatty counterparts.

In the quarter bore class, I would not expect to see a real difference in performance when comparing the 257 Wby and .25WSM. I believe either with 87-115 class bullets would be a holy terror on their receipients. Perhaps the shorty would give better accuracy and be a little easier on barrels.

Actually, "seating the bullets deeply" doesn't make a darn bit of difference in the short mags. If you do the math, subtracting bullet length from standard factory OAL, to see how far a 200 Partition pokes down in the powder space, you'll find that it pokes just as far into a .300 Winchester or .300 Weatherby as it does in a .300 WSM or SAUM.

Its also mostly a myth about deep-seated bullets not allowing as much velocity. The little extra space they take up isn't enough to change powder room significantly. Muzzle energy is a good way to check this. Look at the latest manuals. Nosler lists the 200 Partition at over 2800 in the .300 SAUM and 2900 in the .300 WSM. Each of these loads provides as much (or more) muzzle energy as any lighter-bullet load in the same calibers.

The reason the short mags don't match older cartridges with more case capacity is exactly that: they don't have as much case capacity. Which is why my own Sisk custom rifle on the tang-safety Ruger 77 is chambered for the .300 Winchester Magnum, not the .300 WSM.

This whole deal about deep-seated bullets hurting velocity has been written about for decades. It may have had some validity back when all our powders were huge-grained, bulky numbers like IMR4350 and the original H4831, but with today's powders you'll hardly ever see any drop-off in performance--unless you're shooting a relatively small-capacity case with a bullet almost as big around as the case itself, such as .358 Winchester or .458 Winchester Magnum.

The thing that upsets me most about the "short mags" especially the 300WSM is the words "designed to meet and often exceed win mag velocities in a short action". Or this one "this new wonder mag has noticably less recoil than my 300 win mag, it must be some freak of nature as I just can't explain it". Of course I'm embelishing a little bit, but you get my point. In my opinion these statements are crap, but everyone seems to be on the bandwagon. Granted, performance difference between the 300WSM and 300 win mag is moot <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />(sorry John,couldn't resist, but attach whatever definition you will <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />). And as to the recoil, the freak of nature is between our ears and is somewhat greyish/pink in color. I personally can't tell the difference. It really makes me wonder sometimes how much thought and research actually goes into writing an article for X magazine. Maybe I'm just sick of hearing about it, but for me I will be shooting cartridges with a belt for a long time. John, I appreciate your candor.

Chuck

Mule Deer,

I will kindly disagree in part and point to the facts on the development of the 7mm RUSM, which is held to around 2.8" COL in a Remington SA (Rugers allow longer COL). Rem needed a new bullet designed especially to take into account the seating depth of the 160 grain offering (the Ultra Core-Lokt). The reason for the design was solely to try and boost the velocity to come close to the 7 Rem Mag with 160 grain bullets. And it will with the UCL bullet. The reasons are quite simple, the bullet is shortened with a reduced ogive taper unlike the longer, sleeker 160 grain Speer, Barnes, or Nosler, it does not penetrate into the powder column as deeply.

Remington new they could not offer a standard bullet from a main manufacturer and still make a proper comparison to the old 7 mag.

It gets much worse if you try and load the long 175s, you would cut into the powder column much more drastically to hold to a 2.8" COL in a Rem SA than you would in any 7 Mag LA. If you were going to shoot the short mags and wanted the highest performance achievable, you would be better served shooting the Ruger action, which allows a 2.9" COL or a Win, which allows a solid 3" COL. Can't do that with a Rem. They developed the special UCL bullet because of seating depth to powder capacity aspects, and its well documented.

Chuck....there's more than one short-30 and it will certainly run past 99% of the 300 WinMags I've been around (similar barrel lengths of course) and that's the Lazzeroni Patriot.

Mine has a 24" barrel and I can easily pass the velocities of the Winchester, either regularfactory, special high-energy or reloads and I don't need to use undersized and specially lubed bullets to do it. I load it with 165gr and 180gr bullets.....if I want more bullet weight I just step up to the same case necked up to .375. Mine has a 23" barrel and will do 2600 fps with a 300gr Nosler Partition but I typically load it to about 2540 fps 'cuz I don't like the recoil at 2600 fps....it's only 200 ftlbs difference in muzzle energy but a lot lighter on the shoulder.......by the way, the case-head size is 0.578" and they both feed perfectly.

Where did you get the info about the UCL? It sounds good but doesn't hold up. There simply isn't enough difference in the length of those 160-grain bullets to make any difference at all. You're talking maybe 2 grains of of powder capacity at most.

Plus, Remington does indeed load the 160 Partition in the 7mm SAUM, at velocities very comparable to the 7mm Remington Magnum. The reason they can do this is that the 7mm Remington Magnum has been somewhat downloaded over the years, because ballisticians found it was one of the touchiest cartridges around. Pressures commonly jump 8000 psi or more--with the same bullet and powder charge. So they had to ease it back to keep the "spikes" under SAAMI max.

As for the 175 taking up more powder space in the 7mm SAUM than in longer magnums, let's to do the math. I just measured a 175 Partition the other day and recall it was around 1.35" long. Let's seat one to maximum factory OAL in a 7mm SAUM and a 7mm Remington Magnum:

OAL Length to base of neck Bullet intrusion

7mm SAUM 2.825 1.724 .249
7mm Rem. 3.29 2.229 .289

So you see the 175 Partition takes up somewhat MORE room in the 7mm Remington Magnum than the 7mm SAUM.

Nosler's latest manual lists the fastest load with the 7mm SAUM at 2851 fps with the 175 Partition. This is 9 fps below the standard SAAMI max with the 175-grain bullet in the "regular" 7mm Remington Magnum. It doesn't look like the short mag suffers too much from all the bullet inside it's case.

Sorry to go on at such length, but I just did a bunch of research on this subject. Among other things, I found that maximum velocities with 175 spitzers in the .284 Winchester always hover right around 2600 fps with bullet seated to SAAMI OAL, no matter whether it's a "short" 175 Hornady Interlock or an extremely long Barnes X.

The reason for all this is that velocity only increases (or decreases) at 1/4 the rate of case capacity. Seating a 7mm bullet even .25" inch further out only gains about 6% in case capacity in a 7mm SAUM. This amounts to about 1.5% in extra velocity, or about 45 fps in a typical 3000-fps load. Seating a bullet .10" further out result in about 20 fps.

We've been believing this "seating-depth" myth for so many years we've forgotten to ask if it's true.

DB Bill, with the Lazzeroni magnums, we're talking a whole new animal. I don't disagree with what you are saying, but the Lazz's that best 300 win mag velocities have greater powder capacity. But to say that the 300WSM will meet or exceed 300 win mag performance using less powder is in my opinion pure folly and misleading if not an outrite lie.

Chuck

Comparing apples to apples, I believe Mule Deer is saying that the "case" capacity of the 300 WM is larger than the "case" capacity of the 300 WSM and the 300 SAUM and with the "same" bullets and all else being equal, it will out perform them because of the larger "case" capacity. I believe that, too, but I still want a 300 WSM and a 300 RSAUM to play with. They will kick slightly less in rifles of equal weight but, also yield accordingly slightly less velocity because of the lesser "case" capacity in equal barrels. I do not expect them to equal the performance of my 300 WM. The differences are about 5 grains less in the 300 WSM and about 7.5 grains less in the 300 RSAUM. I think they enhance the sport and allow for more choices which is part of what American consumerism is about. I think the 300 RSAUM is middle ground between the 06 and 300 WM and can be had in a more compact package, but it may not make it commercially. The 300 WSM probably will.

I think you are missing my point while making my point at the same time. I also say do not expect a discernable difference in recoil.

Chuck

I know what you are saying. I just WANT one, an excuse to buy an additional and different rifle.

Good enough for me

Chuck

Boss,


I'd be careful with that "want" thing if I were you. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> That can get out of control if you don't keep a tight rein on it. Look at me - I am a case in point <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> ! Cheers - the9.3Guy