Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Mule Deer and "Case Shape"

Mule Deer,

What a delightful article you have written for the most recent issue of HANDLOADER MAGAZINE. When I consider all the hype with which we have been bombarded over the past few years concerning the "short-mag" concept, I do have one minor criticism. A more fitting title for this selection would have been "Much Ado About Nothing!"

By the way, I also much enjoyed the article "Boutique Bullets." Please keep up the good work!

M. Bell

I liked the article too Mule Deer. It was very informative and as usual, very well written.

Of course, after the smoke and mirrors clear on the case shape efficiency bandwagon, we are still left with some mighty nice short action magnums that work well. The shortness of the action is probably their lasting contribution.

I also thought it was a great article. Two radically different cartridges with the same case capacity - performing the same!

Did time allow for the testing of 200 grain bullets, or did they intrude too far to make the comparison unequal?

I really like the classic design of the 300 H&H cartridge. It has such a sleek look to it. I was thinking of having one made up specifically for 200 grain bullets. Does it function OK in a Rem 700 action? Are there any special modifications that need to be made?

". . . we are still left with some mighty nice short action magnums that work well. "
I wonder how many .25 Remingtons we could fit into one of those magazines?

DakotaDeer,

Perhaps I'm just a bit slow, but I have trouble understanding why a short action magnum would be any "nicer" to work with than any anything else. Also, I have a hard time comprehending how, in the real world of shooting and big game hunting, these short action magnums will ever make any contribution that is REALLY significant. Would you be so kind as to explain these things to me?

Thank you,
M. Bell

P.S. Perhaps at least part of this explanation might be referred to in the quotation found below! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

1

For an interesting, well documented, counter example see McPherson's article in the current "Varminthunter". Data from the Norma lab, using the same barrel, same transducers, etc. IIRC, case shape was responsible for a 5% increase in velocity, using the same powder, at the same pressure level. Of course, Mic has a dog in the fight, but the data collection process seems well done. FWIW, Dutch.

I can't speak for Dakota, but for me personally, I like the feel of the short actions better. If I had a "need" for 300 H&H performance, and could have that in a SA, I'd be all for it.
That's not saying one is better than the other though.

Another excellent article by MD!

"Much ado about nothing" is very fitting, but could also be applied to most of what we discuss here! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Kevin,

".....could also be applied to most of what we discuss here!"

You have really got this right! In spades!!

M. Bell

Regarding the short mags. BTDT. I just can't tell a difference in a SA and LA on weight or handling. Heck I just finished a MKV 270WBY that came with a Fluted barrel. Bedded it into a Bansner, installed a Leupy. Shoots 130's at 3400 into an inch and weighs 8lbs 3oz all up. If I would've used a 700 I would be a pound or so lighter yet...
The more I used this new stuff at max pressure the more I like the old cartridges.
If I want light I pick up the used NULA in 270win. 6.5lbs all up and does an easy 3150 with 130's and will do 3200 if I push it.
Different strokes and such...
Flame suit fitted..... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Dave

"I have a hard time comprehending how, in the real world of shooting and big game hunting, these short action magnums will ever make any contribution that is REALLY significant. "


No doubt they said the same thing back in 19ought3................"what the hell is this new fangled Sprinfield cartrdidge gonna do that we can't do with a 30/30 , 30/40 Krag or 45/90"(grin)

I believe some people cannot tell any difference, but for those of us who can tell, you may as well be saying you can't tell any difference in handling between a Corvette and a SUV.

I won't get into a full blown discussion on Corvettes and SUV's as I raced circle track long enough to know. But if you can feel 2-3 oz of weight, good on you. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Balance is much more important....
Dave

The subtle differences can only be quantified by personal preference which is usually based more on "warm-fuzzies" than anything practical.
I used nothing but short actions for my first 20 years of shooting / hunting, so I lean towards them.

I agree, balance and fit are most important. These two change with each individual.

My .338-06 balances and fits me so well, I don't even notice it's a long action.

Anyway, here's to thread drift! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

No argument there, I agree balance is much more important, that is why I like my short action 700. For the way it feels and handles. It is only a bonus that it is faster than an 06.

Of course, when the 3-/06 was introduced, it wasn't a new cartridge which drove the same bullets at the same velocities as those which came before it. The rimless design also offered some advantage as far as function was concerned. With the short mags we have new cartridges which do exactly the same thing as their predecessors while offering no functional advantage. GD

The shortmags are just like the short barrel craze and the magnum craze of the 60's. It will die out and some new craze will take its place.

I am 110% for the fact that the correct gun, cartridge, bullet size, etc. is the one that you are comfortable with and have confidence with......even if you prefer to shoot a pumpkin thrower (12ga) over a high powered rifle.

Now lets put the subjective factors aside.

I recently read an article my ML McPherson called "Cartridge Efficiency: Why case shape matters" in the March/April 2006 RifleShooter magazine. It sure seems that the article is based on facts and not opinions and that the facts point to the case shape being a factor in performance and efficiency.

I have a 7mm WSM and have killed my share of animals with it as well as a Rem 700 30-06, 12ga sabots through a rifled bore, 12ga slugs through a smooth bore, even 20ga slugs through a smooth bore, pistols, compounds, recurves, blah blah blah

All of the animals died as dead as the first and ended up on my kitchen table.
So I by no means feel that everyone should jump on the "Short Mag Bandwagon", but facts are facts...physics is physics (i'm a mechanical engineer)....not smoke and mirrors.

You can call me a fool.

Either way, I will continue to kill animals with my short mag and if I get the itch I may just grab the smooth bored 20ga Remington 1100.

I do and can believe case shape can effect and/or improve efficiency.
I have a pretty extensive background in circle racing engines (drove as a sideline).
Years ago 13:1 was a magic number that you couldn't exceed without looking for trouble. When swirl combustion technology evolved the compression numbers moved up and so did horsepower or you could make more power with less compression. This is still in use today in our street vehicles only we see it as more HP and a MPG increase. Efficiency....

Back to cartridges - I don't know how much improvement there is in a short fat powder column but it is probably somewhat less than some believe and a hair more than others believe.
Dave