338 WSM? - 01/26/14
Why did Winchester come out with a 325 WSM over a 338 WSM? On Chuck Hawks website describing brief histories and applications for the various short action magnums, Hawks writes that the 338 WSM was the original plan:
"In the same class as the .300 short magnums is the .325 WSM. This cartridge came about as the result of a failed attempt to create a .338 WSM. The .325 WSM is intentionally misnamed to make it sound bigger than it is. It actually has a .315" bore diameter and should have been named the .315 WSM. It is an 8mm cartridge and its performance is nearly identical to that of the .300 WSM. The most important difference between this cartridge and the .300 WSM is the relative scarcity of 8mm bullets for reloading..."
So, why has the 325 WSM become more popular than the 7mm WSM? Has Winchester marketed it better/harder? What does it truly offer over the 300 WSM? And most importantly, what caused the 338 to be a no go altogether?
"In the same class as the .300 short magnums is the .325 WSM. This cartridge came about as the result of a failed attempt to create a .338 WSM. The .325 WSM is intentionally misnamed to make it sound bigger than it is. It actually has a .315" bore diameter and should have been named the .315 WSM. It is an 8mm cartridge and its performance is nearly identical to that of the .300 WSM. The most important difference between this cartridge and the .300 WSM is the relative scarcity of 8mm bullets for reloading..."
So, why has the 325 WSM become more popular than the 7mm WSM? Has Winchester marketed it better/harder? What does it truly offer over the 300 WSM? And most importantly, what caused the 338 to be a no go altogether?