Anybody know the real timeline of the "short action magnum" cartridge? Maybe the .350 RemMag was the original as some say but perhaps it goes much further back than that? One thing is certain - this round was not "invented" by Winchester.

Could you say the 1st short action magnum was the 284win? I would think the short fat case with the rebated rim set the precident for all the current "magnum' cartridges.

The 300 Savage gets my vote.

30 Newton?

The original "short magnums" as most know them today (WSM's and SAUM's) are very similar to some wildcats made in the early 1950's by at least a couple of guys. Those rounds were made by turning the rims off .348 Winchester brass, then cutting an extractor groove. As I recall, both lines of wildcats were designed to fit in Remington 722 actions, the action that eventually became the "short" Remington 700. The case dimensions and powder capacity were both very similar to the WSM's.

Later on some other people produced similar wildcats and proprietary rounds on shortened .404 Jeffery brass, notably John Lazzeroni and Rick Jamison. But the .348-based cases came first.

Barring a few "wildcat" rounds (which follow no rules) the first of the "acceptable" short magnum rounds is probably the .284 Winchester. The .300 Savage, although pretty great (a .30-06 equivalent round in a shorter cartidge) was still a round trying to play "catch-up"....but not really inovative.

The .284 was the first attempt to add the same effective capasity of the .30-06 with a shorter cartridge. The "rebated" rim was kind of odd....but really did well with my own attempt at a "wildcat".....the .35-284....in perhaps 1975ish.


I don't count true "wildcats" as valid efforts in short magnums (it's just too easy when there are no rules)....the .284 is truely the right candidate.

Your logic is underwhelming.

The term "magnum" has never been applied to any .30-06 case, whether wildcat or commercial. The only possible exception (which would be a real stretch) is the .240 Weatherby, whose only feature that might qualify it as a magnum is a belted case.

In reality it's the exception that proves my point. The .25-06 has never been called any sort of magnum, even when it was a wildcat. Neither has the .270 Winchester, .280 Remington, .333-06 A-Square or .35 Whelen. This is because the .30-06 has never been considered a magnum cartridge.

Yet somehow the .284 is supposed to be a magnum, when it doesn't even quite match the powder capacity of the .30-06? Even Winchester, a company not exactly shy about hyping its products, never dreamed of calling the .284 a magnum. Not when only a few years before they'd introduced the .264, .338 and .458 Winchester Magnums.

I also can't follow why a cartridge being a wildcat prevents it from being a "real" magnum. That's how Roy Weatherby's first Magnums started out, and nobody ever questioned whether they were real magnums or not.

The original question was about the origins of the short-action magnums, not short-action cartridges that attempted to duplicate the ballistics or powder room of the .30-06.

Texas Rick - ? How can the 300 Savage be considered a "30-06 equivalent" cartridge?

That one ESCAPES me! ! Isn't the 250 Savage the same case w/a smaller dia. neck? If so, it's a LONG way from being equivalent to the 06 case.

Enlighten me if you can! !

Yup, Roy Gradle in the 50's with the Gradle Express cratridges, made like JB says on the blown out 348 case....case capcity was greater than the 06 based cases.

He was in California, too,along with Roy Weatherby..As I recall, even the shoulder of the 7mm Gradle Express(dead ringer for the 7mmWSM),had a radiused shoulder.

John Haviland did an article on the 7mm Gradle Express 2-3 years ago.

jwall,

Actually, the .300 Savage is NOT the .250 necked up, but more like a slightly shortened .308.

And yes, it was originally designed to approach the original pre-WWI .30-06 factory ballistics of a 150 at 2700 fps and a 180 at 2500 fps. But since the .30-06 was never a magnum, neither was the .300 Savage a "short-action magnum."

M D - Okay..I never compared the 250 Savage w/the 300 Savage. I guess I just ASSUMED. NOW LOOK>

Even so the antiquated loading might have come close to the 06, the case CAPACITY is not and was not the equivalent to the 06 THEN nor NOW.

I'm not arguing with you but pointing out to T R the real difference.

Thanks Again

How do you explain the 6.5 and 350 Rem Mags? About the same capacity as a 30-06 too.

"Explain" them?

Don't know quite what you mean, but they both have belted cases with the same head-size as the .375 H&H. This was pretty much the definition of a magnum until the 1990's, and Remington's justification for calling them magnums.

Ballistically they're pretty much identical to the 6.5/06 (or 6.5/.284 with the bullets seated way out) and the .35 Whelen.
Both came along much later than the .348-based wildcats, which did hold more powder than the .30-06, and so exceeded .30-06 ballistics. So no, they weren't the inspiration for today's short-action, non-belted magnums, no matter how much some of their fans would like to believe so.

Which is one of the reasons I very consciously did NOT call my own wildcat on the same case, the 9.3 Barsness-Sisk, the .366 Short Magnum.

Wow...

I guess I threw out the 300 Savage, simply because as a concept it did what modern "short mags" were designed to do: give close to the same ballistics in lighter, handier rifles to their standard counterparts.

IMO, the "Magnum" is a pretty baseless term since even during the "magnum era" of the 1960's, there were "magnum" monikers for rifle cartridges sans belts and several were much smaller than the 30/06 or even the 300 Savage.

Hawk,
That's why I said the 284win. It was the first commercially produced cartridge that changed the rules. A Short fat case with a rebated rim just wasn't seen on the store shelves.

IMO, changing the rules on a commercial basis is what lead to the new beltless short action "magnum" cartridges. 284 got people thinking outside the box and willing to go to the pencil pushers with cartridge ideas that were out of the norm.

"made by turning the rims off .348 Winchester brass, then cutting an extractor groove."

Are you referring to the "7mm Gradle" and the "Wade Super Seven". I had a 7mm Gradle in the 1960's and thought it was OK, but making brasss was a headache (I tried it one time and then bought some more brass).

P.O. Ackley's books "Handbook for Shooters and Reloaders" lists a number of shortened cartridges based on the 348 Winchester.

MD, I didn't understand why the 350RM is a Magnum but the 284 with the same capacity and nearly the same diameter isn't. It's the belt thing! But then we have the 222 Magnum, no belt and much smaller capacity. So there is no logic-only marketing!

"Magnum" orignated as a Latin word meaning "big" or "great."
It's been applied to everything from books (a "magnum opus" is a great work) to wine bottles (a magnum holds 1.5 liters, twice as much as a standard bottle) to rifle cartridges.

In rifle cartridges magnum basically means "bigger than normal." Thus we even have the .22 Magnum rimfire case, plus the .222 Remington Magnum (a stretched version of the .222, but not nearly as large as the .22-250 or .220 Swift, neither called a magnum). It's also one reason the .240 Weatherby is called a magnum, since it's the largest-capacity commercial 6mm--aside from the .244 Holland & Holland Magnum.

But since the original cartridge called a "magnum" (the .375 H&H) had a belt to control headspace, and most commercial magnums after that also had belt, whether it was needed or not, the belt became another qualification, at least in some people's eyes. Hence the .350 Remington "Magnum."

But the original Latin word still means "bigger," which is why the .300 Savage and .284 Winchester don't qualify, even if they were designed for short actions. So no, the .284 did not start the path to the present array of short, beltless magnums. It came out at least a decade AFTER the rimless .348 wildcats, and nobody bothered bringing out any other commercial cartridges on that theme after the .284 (and the 6.5 and .350 Remingtons) appeared in the 1960's.

In fact, the .284 was designed for lever- and autoloading rifles, not as a short "magnum" for bolt actions. Eventuallt it mostly served as the inspiration for rifle loonies who get all excited about reproducing the ballistics of the .25-06, .280 and other .30-06-based rounds in short bolt actions, thereby saving an ounce or two. Of course the 6.5/.350 Remington case does the same thing, but these days many loonies regard belts on brass are useless if not actually evil.

The major inspiration for the recent short magnums was the resurge in popularity of some of the older British cartridges in the 1990's. New .404 Jeffery brass became available for the first time in many years, thus making it relatively easy for wildcatters to reproduce the .348-based wildcats of the early 1950's.

Pictured below are my 22-458 Short Lott Magnum, my 17-458 Short Lott, and my 22-44 magnum.

Do they qualify?
Butch

Irregardless of the "Belt" thing, According to various manuals the .284 Win. was design in 1963 to "approximate" or "replicate" the performance of the .270 Win or .280 Rem... in a short action... Specifically the Winchester M-88 and M-100.

You must remember that 50 yrs ago, Lever rifles were still hugely popular and Semi-Autos were a coming thing. A few years later, bolt rifles would really surge in popularity... (More than likely, largely because of the "Magnum" craze, I suspect...)

GH

One can argue that almost everything since the 7x57 is simply a modification of one or more of that round's characteristics. And it'd be a tough argument to counter.

Frankly, who did what first is less important than what the result can accomplish. What a given design achieves compared to what its designer (and/or its namer) had in mind is all that I consider when I look at a cartridge. These days, "magnum" is pretty much a useless advertising suffix appended to almost anything, justified or not. Witness the dinky little .256 Win Mag. It's short, and it is fatter than at least one other .25-cal equivalent round. It also has a very narrow "belt" known as a rim. But MAGNUM? uhhhh, no.

Butch, that applies to your odd little creations, IMO. I can't imagine what those rounds are intended to accomplish other than serve as conversation pieces, but the amount of case work necessary to form them makes my fingers hurt just thinking about it. I'll pass on those, thanks.

Damn RR,
What a huge letdown for me! Yes, it takes about 5 minutes to form the cases and trim to length for fireforming.
Just an exercise using my case forming dies.
Butch

It seems today that Magnum means about anything the cartridge designer/manufacturer wants it to mean.

Look at "Magnum" shot for shotgun shells. The word magnum would lead some people to believe that a Magnum 7 1/2 is larger than a normal 7 1/2, but the Magnum only refers to an additional amount of antimony added to the lead during shot manufacture, to make the shot harder.

I find it odd that the cartridge that started the magnum craze in 1912 was not called a magnum. It was called the .375 Belted Rimless Nitro Express.

In my opinion, the word "magnum" should be expunged. I like the .375 BCEI instead. (BCEI means Best Cartridge Ever Invented).

Here are some other more descriptive name suggestions:

.378 Weatherby = .375 Kicksalot

.375 RUM = .375 Useless

.370 Sako = .370 Useless Invention

.375 Ruger = .375 Itstheriflestupid

.25 WSSM = .25 Obsolete

Couldn't disagree more...

Short Magnum? You mean like a 7 RM, .264, .458 and .300 Win. Mags.?

The ones formed from the Jeffrey, .348 Winchester, and Westly Richards the ones that Rick Jameson invented fifty years after the fact should be called the fuglies.

I am starting to like the .270 fugly. But worry that it is because I am starting to resemble it more and more in shape as the years go by. Pointy head and expanding midriff.

The 17-458 looks to have several angles to the shoulder, I assume that hasn't been fireformed as shown?

Impressive on the 44 based case that the nickel seems to still be adhered to the brass and no stress lines seen.


Do you really have guns chambered for the 3 shown?

Allen

Photoshop?

More likely machine shop

MD, I know all that gack. Sorry I encouraged you to do all that typing. Thought you would come up with something clever rather than pedantic. I'm outta this.

I second that.

I'd like to see that. I love radiused shoulders.

Originally, the lovely little 300 Savage almost matched the velocity of the then-standard .30-06 load with a 150-grain bullet. The ought six soon was pushed well beyond its first specs, however. If you only compare today's numbers, the 300 isn't as close. Back when, they were.

But even then, the claims for the 300 were mostly to sell the Model 99 rifle. One might make the same observations about advertising exaggeration with regard to the 308, the 284, and several recent introductions: they almost match bigger and highly popular cartridges.

And the 300 Savage offered a 30 caliber cartridge in an excellent lever gun, with a definite step up in power from the million Model 94's out there at the time.. My grandfather considered it his ".30-30 Magnum".

MD-
A tiny nit to pick: The 6.7x60 Eichhorn Gamlakarleby Magnum is built on a 30-06 case. A belt is swaged onto the case, which may put it at the fringe of your category.

The cartridge is listed in Vol II of the Ackley handbooks. Eichhorn described the cartridge originally in the July 1964 issue of Gun World, p.34.

--Bob

To the ones that replied to my pictures. Up until a month ago I sold case forming dies. www.shadetreeea.com These were just to show what you could do with the dies. You could form a cartridge as short as .750 long and as small as 14 cal. They were not fireformed or photoshopped. I don't even know how to do that.
Butch

Didn`t C.I.L. have a line of short magnums back in the late 60`s early 70`s? I seem to recall seeing ads in the various gun rags advertizing them.
then again I seem to recall lots of things....

It was also offered in "short action" bolt rifles, and I think the guns as well were part of the idea.

The only time I've ever heard of the .284 Winchester being referred to as a Magnum was in the Hodgdon's Reloading Data Manual #19 but in #20 it was just .284 Winchester.

Check out the article in this month's American Rifleman on the .300 Savage!
whelennut

Not original....but.....................

I remember seeing back in the 90's something about a cartridge off the 348 Win that was altered in some fashion by a fellow named Jim Busha, of HEAVY EXPRESS, INC.

I've never heard of it since...


Scott

After reading all this I must conclude that Norma made a big mistake by calling the 6.5x284 Norma Magnum. Guess they didn't read these posts.

When did they do that? It's called the 6,5-284 on their website.

So Children what I have learned here today is that a Magnum cartridge is called Magnum because it is larger or maybe not.It has a Belt or maybe not.It has a larger powder capacity,or maybe not and it makes bullets go faster or maybe not!!!!!!

Correct on all points!

or maybe not!!

"magnum" is as meaningless as "long range shooting".

You are correct it's not Norma that called it a magnum it's Savage that labels the 12F as a 6.5x284 Norma Mag probably so it doesn't get mistaken for the 6.5

Maybe so!!!!

I talked to Jim Busha back in the day when his Heavy Express, Inc. was still in business. He had two lines of cartridges based on the .348 Win case (rim turned down and converted to rimless). I was working on an article for African Hunter on .450s, and I thought his .450 HE Short Action Magnum would be cool. The case had an OAL of 2.06" and a 46 degree shoulder. The rifle he sent was a Ruger M77 short action with a recoil system installed. Shortly thereafter Winchester introduced the .300 WSM and Jim's sales vanished, so he shut HE down.

As I recall the .348 descended from the .50-110 black powder case itself.

I remember the shops in Ventura County where Ray Gradle worked, and everyone should read how he formed cases by a hydraulic process -- just to know you don't want to do that.

jim

If you can swage belts into cases, can you fire-form the belts off? I.e. form the brass in front of the belt to the same diameter as the belt?

Then you would have a rebated rim.

Which is humorous in that essentially the same case in beltless guise was called the 350 Rigby magnum, and it predated the 375 H&H by I believe 4 years, some sources claim it being introduced in 1908.

Not really. The case head extends somewhat past the belt, so if you fire formed a case to the full dia of the belt, the resulting case would likely look like it had a second extractor groove in front of the case head. It would also more than likely have a cirumfrential failure at that spot, aka case head seperation.

458 Lott - + 2 on case head seperation.

Playing w/explosives can be dangerous.

My vote/guess for the first short magnum and first belted cartridge is the .375 Veloplex of around 1910. It was a dismal failure but prompted the .375 H&H.

When did the .30 Super become the H&H magnum?

My votes goes to the 6.5 RM and the 350 RM

IndyCA35 - Re - the 375 Belted Rimless Nitro Express.

In Europe (Britain) EXPRESS has the same connotation as Magnum in the US.

That's why Rem. dropped express from the 7 mm back to 280 Rem.

Just passing on info

Tejano - I might be wrong but I went thru this thread & didn't see any
mention of the 30 Super.

If I did miss it, I didn't bring it up. Also I don't know the answer to your
question.

edited to supply a mising word.

Royce - I don't know you, but you seem like a guy I'd like to know and hunt with.

I have a different point of view than yours about magnum being a meaningless term.

'magnum' or 'express' means bigger, larger, or stronger. It seems to me that many of the 'magnum' cartridges are just that compared to their counterparts.

I.E. 7mm RM compared to 7X57, 280 Rem. etc.

Also 300 MagnumS compared to 300 Savage, 30-30, 308, 3006, etc.

Think of all we would NOT have w/o the 'magnums', + the cartridges wildcated from the BIGGER cases.

Food For Thot ! !

Just curious.

The Belted Rimless Nitro Express was to differentiate it from the black powder cartridges. They hit like a freight train but it was too long a name.

Veloplex just didn't make it but somewhere the 30 super became the 300 H&H magnum. So I guess the 350 Rigby was the first to use the term magnum.

Tejano - 10/4, Remember that in Britain - Express - means the same as Magnum in the U S.

Todays short action magnums especially the Winchester case can DNA themselves back to the 425 Westly Richards.

""1964 Gun Digest page 299.
American Bulleted Cartridges by Kenneth L. Waters

284 Winchester

"An entirely new short-cased cartridge designed to give short action rifles ballistics fully equal to the longer 270 Winchester and 280 Remington rounds.

Case Length of the new round is 1/2-inch less than a 270, but a larger body diameter with decreased taper and sharper shoulder provided the same powder capacity. (same concept for the wsm)

This increase in body diameter introduced somewhat of a problem; it was necessary to keep rim diameter the the "standard" size (common to such caliber as the 308, 270, and 30-06) in order to permit use of the 284 with the existing bolt-face dimensions.
This sub-diameter rim is founded on the 425 Westley Richards cartridge, and was also used in the past in various German calibers."

I received a bunch of 600NE yesterday. Would it be a magnum?
Butch

I did a little reading on this subject a few years ago. Here is what I remember from all the articles and books that I read.
The term express began in the black powder era in the British Empire. It was used to describe a lighter bullet load with more velocity to get flatter trajectory. Kind of like our current trend to high velocity light bullets. The express cartridges developed a poor reputation in the bush. They tended to give shallow, less than lethal wounds. The hunters of the time were doing the same things we are doing these days, stretching the capability of cartriges. When express cartridges were used on big game (read that dangerous game) the client often suffered as much as the game. When smokeless powder came along the Nitro Express cartridges came into being. These cartidges used cordite which required a large capacity case. They achieved high velocity with higher preassures. So while many of the cartidges were the same size as their BP predessors, the guns needed to be stronger, so they added the Nitro Express to denote the need for a nitro proof gun. The magnums from this era on through to WWII were limited to big cases. It wasn't until the powder and primer developments in WWII that the progressive burning characteristics and their ignition could be accomplished consistantly without periodic strange pressure excusions. These developments coupled with the postwar economic boom. The result was the wild west wildcating of the fifties. This was the spawning bed for our current crop of commercial cartridges. As MuleDeer said, the guys that did the work on the modified 348 cases were the first short magnums. The 6.5 and the 350 were the first who got serious commercial marketing. The 300 savage was developed for military application as a shortened 30/06, when the 99 and the 300 did not get selected, there was a great promotional campaign to sell the rifle cartridge combination. There have been some well researched articles witten on that campaign, but none that I have read included the words short magnum. That does not mean it wasn't used, just that in my readings, I didn't see it. The term Magnum really became a big marketing tool in the hands of folks like Roy Weatherby. The typical magnum had large case capacity and a belt. There were exceptions, but, at the time, it meant more, lots more, power. In reality, it was just marketing. By the sixties, it sold rifles like the word 'tactical' does now. Remington had the first big commercial marketing campaign to introduc the 'Short Magnum's 350 and 6.5 to introduce their 600 series rifles.
That is what I gleaned from a bunch of reading. I could be all wet, but that's what I remember.
Bfly

Blackfly 1 - Not being an expert nor authority, I'd say that is a good SUMMATION and description of the development of the N E and into Magnum here in the U S.

+ 1

Jerry

Naw those are wimpy it has to be the .60x50 BMG or 700 Nitro Express to be a magnum.

A more relevant question might be "Who knows the real point of the short action magnum?"

TC

TopCat - from ALL I've read & heard the point of a short action magnum is;

to SAVE 1/2 INCH in overall gun length & SAVE no more than FOUR OUNCES
in gun weight. All the while TRYING to equal the L A magnum or GET CLOSE.

Doesn't seem worth the effort for 1/2" & 4 oz.

Good question TopCat. A WSM in a short action Remington will not allow a bullet seated out far enough to feed from the magazine. I know I'll get all kinds of screams about this, but you have to seat the bullet past the neck to make it work. Probably some exceptions as I have some 118Grain 30 cal and 112 grain 30 cal on 1" jackets that might work.
Butch

Topcat, if I recall all the hoopla correctly (from writers like Sundra and Boddington, etc) the reason for the short magnum was to take advantage of the accuracy advantages purported to shorter PPC like cartridges (stiffer actions, etc), more efficient powder burn (short fat column), slightly shorter rifle length, and slightly less rifle weight. So... "magnum performance in a shorter, lighter, instrinsically more accurate platform" or something like that. And of course, the bullet companies had to choose their components carefully to get that magnum performance... the 180 at 2960 fps. Some hit it (300WSM) and some missed it by a small margin (300 RSAUM).

I drank the koolaid and bought a 300 RSAUM and I like it, just because so many people choose not to like it. Being a contrarian sure is fun.

Dogger,
I built 2 300SAUMs. Both are excellent shooters. They are shorter than the WSM and will work in the SA Remington. My oldest Son still has his and loves it.
Butch

Amen!

I am so contrary that I went with the .300 RCM.

jim

nasqam - THANKS !

I'd like to add that for all the criticism & complaints about the belted mags;

I've NEVER had one SINGLE problem associated w/belted cases. Also I like getting ALL the velocity not just CLOSE.

Ignorant statement of the month. Do you put on your camo and then go sit it a box 20' up waiting for a deer to hit on your feeder?

Or, do you backpack mountains a good distance to get into an area?

Also, what good does that belt and an extra 1/2 of length and extra ounces do for you?




Butche, you above all people should know better than that.

Different strokes but SA cartridges do nothing for me either.

Then I like 24" barrels too.

SU35 - If 1/2" of lenght & 4 oz of gun weight kept or hindered me from hunting, stalking, whatever, I'd take up knitting.

The belt on the case DOES NOT hinder or hurt and the SAMs that don't have the belt or case lenght DO NOT EQUAL the REAL magnums.

As nasqam said, "different strokes", what I stated is FACT and no one said ANYBODY had to agree or like it. And I don't need your approval and could care less.

To repeat the trend the 300 Savage did, only with "magnum" capacity cases

Is it true that Rick Jamison receives a royalty for every WSM chambered gun sold and also every box of WSM ammo sold?

Just heard this recently.

I think the "point" of short magnums is that they provide options not previously available.

I don't think the following applies to a lot of factory rifles,as I have picked up a good many off the shelf rifles chambered for WSM's that were truly no lighter,and less handy, than stuff I have been building and hunting with, for years.As with anything, this sort of varies across the board.

But if a guy chooses his action, barrel,stock and sights carefully, matches them up properly,he will end up with a lighter rifle,and very little sacrifice in ballistics over a similar chambering in a longer action.

There are limits to this,though. Years back, I wanted a lighter 300 Win mag,and built one on a M70 action that weighed 7.5 pounds scoped....for me it was a disaster. Burning 76-78 gr of powder, and pushing a 180 gr bullet at 3100 fps,it kicked like a demon,and was one of the most unsuitable rifles I have ever owned. I tore it apart and rebuilt it into something reasonable.

Today, you can use a 300 WSM,a shorter action; the cartridge burns less powder,does not go quite as fast but still faster than a 30/06,and while still no toy,kicks less than a 300 Win Mag. It will fit into a 7.5 pound format and still be reasonable....and using lighter bullets of more modern construction, likely does about as well as my old 300 Win mag with bullets available then.

Personally, I like long,leggy actions and cartridges,am content with a 270 on a M70 action weighing a bit under 7 pounds,and a full length magnum 7 weighing a bit under 8 pounds.I find an 8 pound 375 a piece of cake, too....

But for some guys,ounces are important;for them a carefully planned short action magnum makes sense.

If the WSM weighs the same as the full length action cartridge and rifle, nothing was gained, because I do not see any magic in WSM's;by now we all know they come close to larger cases in velocity only by using more pressure.

From an accuracy standpoint I think the alleged advantages are BS in sporter weight rifles.

But they do offer an option in a properly built rifle.

BobinNH - Very Accurate Summation.

Not to be critical of ANYONE, the S A Mags offer little advantage and give up some doing it.

They are/were marketing tools to sell more firearms and raise some people's interest AND that's not a bad thing.

I welcomed the SA magnums. My pet peave with the magnums I had was the weakened expansion webs and insipiant head separatons caused by the belts some had. The belt on cases that can headspace on their shoulders is a waste of time and money.

Also when the Kimber 8400 WSM's came around It was a chance to get a SS rifle with a good stock that had other features that I like.

While I don't like the look of the rebated rims on the WSM's they work well otherwise in the rifles that I have.

Just as Fox news claims to be... fair and balanced.

Good summation, Bob.

su88e, I measured a couple SA mag boxes. They are approx. 2.935". A 300WSM with a 180 Partition seated to the bottom of the neck measures 3.050". Push it back .115" puts it in the shoulder area. You are reducing powder capacity and unless you custom ordered your reamer, you might not be able to get the bullet far enough into the throat. You might also know that the SA loading port is approx 2.600". On extraction even though the bolt will move about .150 beyond the rear of the port, how do you extract a loaded round?
Butch

Seems you didn't measure the magazine box on a Kimber 8400 7mm WSM! Or if you did you did it wrong! The magazine box on that Kimber measures 3.045"!

Thats .110" more than what you measured!

Not only that but the action opening measures 2.880"!

What are you measuring with? A ruler? A scale?
Another thing: So what if some bullet base goes below a cartridge neck? Other rounds do!

jwall/efw: Thanks...if I were in the market for a 300 magnum today,the 300 WSM gets a real hard look..

Just where did you get the notion that Butch was talking about the Kimber 8400?
His original statement referred to the SA Remington specifically.
There are a WHOLE lot more SA Rems out there than there are Kimbers of any stripe.

Oh I knew he didn't know about the Kimber WSM's and had said that the ones he measured were short in some way.

Lambert is just trying to bad mouth WSM's and ruin the thread with his silly pictures of tiny rounds. So what! I will put him on ignore.

Mr Savage 99,
I have no opinions either way on the WSMs. Just stating the dimensions on the SA Remington. I'm sorry that I didn't say Remington. I think I need to read all my post to see where I bashed Kimber. I don't know a thing about them and don't really have a need for one at the minute. If I ever get a Kimber in my hands, I will PM my experience to you.
Butch

BobNH - there are two resasons I wouldn't look at the 7 or 300 SAM.

I've been set w/ 7RM & 300WM &8RM for many yrs. I already have dies &

brass for the calibers. To change would require 1. new dies 2. new brass.

Otherwise I might consider a/any SAM.

However 1/2" & 4 oz wouldn't weigh heavy in the selection. The rifles
themselves & price would get MORE consideration

edited for spelling

jwall,

What I like most about the .300 RCM is the M77 Hawkeye rifle it comes in...jim

Jim - 10/4 there are some NICE rifles chambered in the SAM & RCM.

But being stocked up on magnums I don't need any more or different.

If I NEEDED a/another magnum I'd certainly look at the RIFLES and go from there.

The thing that has always mystified me re the SAs is that most factory chambered rifles, as Bob has mentioned, offered nothing over a comparable long action, failing tto take advantage of appropriately matched components to bring a lighter, handier rifle than the longs to the market. Even the actions themselves are some times over sized for the cartridges they chamber. This has allowed Melvin Forbes, Lex Weberneck, and others to buy groceries and pay their bills, and generally be gainfully employed.

What a coincidence. There aren't many who have earned it, but you just got the "ignore" status from me.

Seriously... don't take this stupid crap personally and chill out. There are a lot better reasons to freak than the dimensions of some stupid rifle magazine... and by that I don't mean your stupid rifle magazine of choice, but anyone's so no, I'm not attacking you.

Right. Let's get back to the original question in the thread, which was not what's wrong or right with short magnums and whether we like them or not but where they came from.



John, I believe the Lazzeroni rounds were built on an obsolete Bell Brass case with a .580 base. Mast sold the Bell Brass works and I've always suspected that Lazzeroni bought the operation but I have no proof of that. Can anybody confirm this or any other details about the sale?

But isn't the object of the short action magnums to duplicate the longer action magnums? So wouldn't the 284win arguement/point of view have merit? It "magnumized" the short action when compared to the '06 sized cases just like the WSM and RSUM did when compared to the 7MM rem and 300win magnum?