Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Calibers you just don't like.

Well I know nothing about this experiment other than what you said about it, but it sounds fudged to achieve a specific result. Why cut the barrel shorter for the .300 WSM, for starters? Barrel shank weight still counts. Measuring the barrel from the case head seems eminently fair, unless your goal is specifically to help long cartridges.

Also, a quick check of the reloading data contradicts you. I took a quick look at the powdereds Hodgdon has for both .300 WSM and .300 H&H in 180gr jacketed and they've got two powdered listed for both: IMR 4831 and IMR 4350.
For IMR 4831 the .300 H&H takes 10.1% more powder and gets only a 3.7% increase in energy. For 4350 the H&H takes 6.1% more powder and has no energy increase at all.

They used 24" barrels for everything.

That's consistent with what we'd expect between two cartridges both with almost exactly the same case capacity, but one having a modern efficient design and one having a very old design design. The modern cartridge is about 6% more efficient. It's not a BIG deal, but the effect is there like you'd expect it to be.

The shank needed to be shortened so the WSM chamber would clean up the H&H chamber. For ballistic efficiency as you defined it, it's barrel length from case mouth to muzzle that counts, that being the part where the expanding gas acts on the base of the bullet for propulsion, and the test as performed made that equal. For barrels of the same overall length as you want to use, the test would be biased in favor of the WSM in terms of ballistic efficiency as defined.

I italicized the part about both cartridge tests being done in the same barrel. You are dismissing the effect of barrel to barrel variation, and that accounts for a lot more than you're considering. You should also consider that the Hodgdon tests for the two cartridges were conducted at different times on different test apparatus. This can easily account for small variations. (Clue: check the units of pressure for the two data sets)

That's all well and good, but in the real world where people take the gun into the field, extra shank length for a longer cartridge is just extra weight.

And if you want to argue Hodgdon's data with them, their phone number is on the website. Give them a call...

I'm not arguing with Hodgdon's data. My point is you're not interpreting it correctly.

I really dislike recoil brakes on any caliber rifle.

These cause permanent hearing loss to any person, or animal that happens to be around or behind the shooter.

30-30. I own one that is about as accurate as a sling shot. To get mine to shoot 4 MOA at 100 yards it took over 2 boxes of ammo. With factory iron sights, I could not even find the target. I do reload, but will not bother doing so for this rifle. I'd sell it but would hate strap an unsuspecting buyer with such a crappy rifle. I have shot two other rifles in this caliber that were nearly as bad.

I know, some have 30-30's that shoot clover leafs at 150 yards. If I could find one, I might change my mind!

Damn, I'm good!

The point being, almost all variables being eliminated other than chamber geometry (which Hodgdon or anyone else's data doesn't do), the 300 WSM isn't/wasn't more "efficient", didnt product any more or less recoil energy and shot pretty much identical groups in the test, with the same powder charges.

Eliminating the variables eliminates any real or perceived notions of "efficiency".
I think the HH Hodgdon data is 30-40 years old anyway...

And yet, it shows the WSM gets more velocity for less powder in the same length barrel. It's amazing how y'all like to rail against the facts...

Hmm, just looked at the Western powder guide. They have 180gr data for both .300H&H and .300WSM with AA4350. It's all in PSI. And they show .300 H&H takes 6.9% more powder and only has 2.9% more muzzle energy. Efficiency rears its head again. And that even with them loading .300WSM to a lower than SAAMi max pressure (low pressure reduces efficiency).

It's funny - all the reloading data shows you jokers have no clue, yet you persist... at some point the clowns around here will figure out what Sebert's factor is, but I'm not holding my breath it will be any time soon.

No contrariness on my part re the WSM series, just a distaste for a company stealing a person's work product.

I've been reloading the 7mm RM since 1982 so I have a bit of a clue. The belt "issue", wh1le an anachronistic throwback to earlier designs, has never, ever been a problem for me.

The 7mm RM has 84g water capacity compared to 81 for the WSM. Given similar pressures with other factors equal, the 7mm RM wins the velocity race. Case in point using Hornady data with 24" barrels and 160g bullets with IMR4831, the 7mm RM powder or my choice for a couple decades:
2851fps = 7mm RM, 61.0g, 58,400 PSI
2906fps = 7 WSM, 61.4g, 62,100 PSI
Granted the WSM shows higher velocity, but it requires a bit more powder and l6.3% higher pressure (2700 PSI) to get there.

The promise of the WSM's "short action" is a lighter rifle. Do the research and you'll find this is often not the case.

There are no royalties to Rick Jamison on the 7mm RM rifles, brass and ammo, hence they tend to be more available and less expensive. Case in point, midwayusa.com currently offers 7mm RM brass from 6 vendors, all with availability while offering only 1 vendor's brass for the 7 WSM - with no stock on hand. For ammo, midway has 68 offerings for the 7mm RM, starting at $22.49 per box. Compare that to only 10 offerings for 7 WSM, starting at $33.79. To put it another way, the 7 WSM is 50% LESS efficient when it comes to the non-handloader's wallet.

In terms of manufacturer support, the WSM cartridges have never had the support the their non-WSM counterparts have had. If you go shopping for a WSM rifle your options will be much more limited and you will generally pay more.

If "powder efficiency" is the primary yardstick for choosing a hunting cartridge, the holder of the yardstick is akin to a fool. A wiser person would balance velocity, accuracy, ammo availability, firearm options and other factors when making their selection. In any case, when comparing "powder efficiency" between the 7mm RM and the WSM, it is ephemeral at best.

The fact is there is little reason to choose a 7 WSM over a 7mm RM and lots of reasons not to do so. Want a lighter rifle? Ditch the walnut and get synthetic. Want more firearm options? Look at 7mmRM rifles. Lowest ammo costs and highest ammo availability for non-handloaders? The 7mm RM wins by a landslide.

I easily push 160g bullets over 3000fps using my 24" 7mm RM but the truth is there isn't a nickel's worth of difference in velocity between the 7mm RM and 7 WSM if using equal pressures and barrel lengths. If you want "powder efficiency", get a 7mm-08 Rem - it is up to 41% more "powder efficient" than the 7 WSM or 7mm RM.

What part of "two different barrels" do you not understand? Was the powder lot the same?

You can get the same variance in 300 WSM data (or variance in data for most any cartridge), which is why using any load data with so many variables on the table is a poor example to illustrate "efficiency".

Charlie Sisk (who used to post here) and John Barsness (Mule Deer) conducted and documented the test. If you ask him or read the article, you might find an actual unbiased test puts flies in the oinment.

The shorter actions of the SMs obviously are beneficial in the field.

I see the 7mm WSM is so popular Winchester currently offers it in all of their rifles.

My mistake - make that "none" of their rifles.

Depends on the rifle and the barrel length. I find 22" more handy than 24" in bolt rifles. My ..308 Ruger Scout at 16.1" is handier yet, as are my 20" barreled levers.

Most WSMs I've seen have 24-26" barrels.

I don't like........

.223 rem
7mm 08
.45 colt
.45-70

However, my dad is .45-70 and .45 Colt crazy.

Exactly. Thats thats precisely why I only said actions!
The comparison here would be 308 actions versus 30/06 up to magnum actions or the WSSM action to a 308 SA.

The WSMs tried to compete with cartridges that traditionally have 24-26" barrels. They obviously didnt offer enough.