Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Custom Rifles & Wildcats .284 Wins and .338 WSM's ... musings

These two calibers have been rolling around my noggin lately.

The .284 intrigues me as the basis for a 21"-barreled sheep rifle built on a PGW Titanium action that I've been promised by the end of the month. With a 3" box, it will let me seat 140 XLC's out to where QuickLoad says I'll get 3000 fps with at least three different powders.

PGW M15 Ti
Jewell trigger
21" Featherweight or #1 contour
Probably a Bansner or maybe a Bell and Carlson stock (for the weight savings)
1/2" Decelerator
Talley Lightweights
Leupie 2.5-8x36 with a turret

I'm at the accepting-all-commentary stage on this one.


I also have a Montana Rifle Company short action coming. Right now I have ordered it in WSM configuration, but the point was made that a .338 WSM on a MRC would likely be heavier than a .338 Win on a M700. While the .338 WSM/MRC would be a short action, the .338 Win/M700 would have oodles of factory ammo available and would pose zero potential feeding issues, plus the .338 WSM is still a wildcat.

I have a superb .30-06 Ackley, so a .300 WSM would be highly redundant. Maybe a carry .257 WSM? Or maybe call Rod and keep the bolktface at .473 and open up another can of worms.

Again, all commentary is now roundly cussed and pondered.

Rick

Rick,

Since you're pondering (or cussing), I'll put my 2.5 pesos into the fray.

The .284 has never really turned my crank except for a basis for something else (think .25/284), so I'll reserve judgement on that one.

As for the .338 WSM, I say go for it. If the only reason to build a rifle is because it has lots of factory ammo available, or it is a factory round, or...... etc....... then why build a .284, or any other generally unavailable cartridge? For the same reason a dog licks his balls, because he can! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

I think the .338 WSM makes a lot of sense in a properly set up rifle. If the feeding issues are worked out in the MRC action then it would make a dandy, efficient cartridge with terrific BC bullets available up the wazoo and in a short cartidge. There are lots of ways to reduce weight if that is the issue also. On top of that, you would have something different. If it works out for you, half the board here will probably be building one soon- we just need a guinea pig! Ya' feel lucky?- <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />- Bob

Rick:

You clearly need more duties as chief Bit-Banger (administrator) there ... you have waaaaay too much free time to spend day-dreaming about building some new Ultra-light to fill every niche/need ... (LOL)

Cough-cough !!

As soon as I get some of these Kevlar fibers out of my lungs ...

Cough - cough - cough ...

I've been working on finishing a Brown Precision "Pounder Blank" (16-oz Kevlar) for a SS Win-70 Ultralight ... Cough- cough ...
Davidson Aluminum bases, Kelby aluminum rings ... Zeiss scope ... Cough-cough ..

What laundry detergent will get fine Kevlar fibers out of clothing ???

... Silver Bullet

I think the 21" barrel would be better suited to a 7mm-08, instead of a .284 Win (better use of fuel). I would have to let the .284 breath with a 24 inch barrel, then you wouldn't have to worry about "reaching" 3,000 fps with the 140 XLC. It really is splitting hairs. The .25-284 will club ANY sheep with a 100 grain XLC at 3400+ fps. As far as the WSM's go, I would opt for one in .375 and give the .300's an .338's a miss. You already have those bases covered very well. I am not sold on the case feeding yet, but they are kinda fun to think about. All the XLC offerings in .375 really make it one VERY versitile round. Flinch

There is a dilema pointed out above that the WSM's don't seem to go with featherweight barrels.

I have a SS M70 Classic in 7mm WSM and with it's 24" barrel, Leu 2X7/ Weavers and factory 31 oz stock it weighed 8 lbs 4 oz. Not really a lightweight but just barely acceptable for a woods or carry rifle. I am fine with eight pound rifles.

But there is nothing wrong with wanting lighter. A Bansner stock might take off a half pound and the 21" barrel a quarter. Thus it might be a 7.5 lb rifle in 7 mm WSM for instance. Not bad and not the lightest.

Where I would not go to save weight is the 700. Whatever you save in weight is lost in necessary/desireable features. I would rather have a Montana and shave some weight from it. For instance making a blind magazine would work and save a lot of weight and with the Montana's three position safety it would be a safe rifle.

284 titanium. very nice! definitely vote for a 22" or a 23" #1. extra 2 or 3 ounces maybe. plus it would handle a bit better. everything else seems perfect! enjoy.
as far as the montana action goes, why not build a nice varmint/deer rifle.
your 257 wsm with a light contour 26" tube would be really nice. picka real nice peice of walnut and you would have a fine lookin' rig......
woofer

Rick, I think the .284 is a great idea. On a recent trip to the range, I Chronoed 139 grain Hornadys at 3000 f.p.s. This from a stock M77 with a 22" barrel. My only comment is go with a 22 or 23" barrel as I don't feel the extra 1 or 2" will change handling that much, and only make 3000 f.p.s. more easily attainable (at least in theory). Good luck....

Rick,
The sheep rifle sounds great. I'd opt for a 7-08 myself especially in a short 21" barrel. But the 284 would work also, just a little more pop. Plenty of sheep have been taken with both cartridges. I'd go Bansner stock with one of your trick paint jobs probably in the grey so she would be at home in the granite! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Sounds like a winner either way.

On the MRC short action, I would seriously consider the 350 Rem Mag. No feeding problems, the barrel will weigh less due to the larger bore size. Or consider having Charly build one of his Scout rifle configurations in 450 Marlin and have a mini - DGR! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> Then you could provide back-up for all the campfire members who get into trouble with their......................................... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

MtnHtr

Rick

As one who is also planning a 338 WSM I say GO FOR IT!! As for the MRC action being heavier than a M700, you didn't say you were going to use the 338 for sheep!!!! My thinking on my 338 WSM is a little more weight is a good thing. From what I have found out so far, that round is close enough to the Win mag as not to make any difference. And the 338 Win Mag is known to kick a little. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Here's how mine will look:

M1999 short action
Lilja SS #6 fluted barrel finished at 22"
Bansner High Tech stock w/ Decelorator Pad
Vias brake
Leupie 3.5-10x50 Ill reticle scope in Talleys

It should be right at 8.5 pounds. Not bad for a 338...

There's two versions of the 338 WSM under consideration... I wouldn't do a thing until Olin finalizes their decision.

Rick:

You know my opinion on the .284. Your rifle will be very similar to mine in outcome although the components will differ. I can't imagine a better mountain gun. FWIW, I chose the 284 primarily because the Wyatt stretched magazine box was too wide for a 7-08.

The dies and cases and bullets got here yesterday, the scopes are due from premier tomorrow, and the rings and base from Brownells probably Monday. There was a hitch in the finishing process, but Carbonman found a solution (different process) and the rifle should be back to me by next Friday. The pad will go on and the bedding done, then it'll be on the way to you for paint.

Re: the other project.........I also think that the 1999 would be heavier than a long action 700 in 338. Hence the appeal for a 338 WSM on that platform is somewhat limited. My taste would go for about 7.5 lbs for a 338. That would be easy on a 700 but might be a stretch on a 1999.

Jim

Count me in on adding a couple of inches to the barrel for a .284, or using the 7-08. After almost 30 years of experience with the 7X57, and some significant experience with the .280, I can assure you the .284's advantages are only minimal.
I would not go for the Jewell trigger. Celt feels they don't hold up well under tough field conditions nearly as well as a Shilien. I always go for the toughest trouble free rig I can build, as long as it meets my needs.
Nix on the Bell & Carlson stock. They are light because they have a weaker action area. That means they compress over time. That has meant I had to rezero every 8-15 rds. No good in my book. Other light stocks save weight in the skin. No as bad, but still not my choice. I much like a trim McMillian, and saving weight elsewhere, such as the action. Which you are doing. But, whatever you do, make sure it balances well. I suspect you will have no problem with that action.
I'd go for the Pac-Nor Lt. Mtn contour over the #1, or the Fwt. Have the smith cut some of the shoulder off as well. I'd bet money you would still have a well balanced rig, even at 21 inches.
I would go for a 4X33, or a 6X36 w/o the elevation turret. They are vulnerable to damage, and both the elevation knob and scope are unnecessarily heavy. Add a line for close shots, like JJ does, and use an appropriate reitcle for ranging and holding over. They work fine to 300 plus yards.
I don't beleive you can have a really good over 300 yd. rifle in a really light weight package. The weight itself is very important for those under stress long shots. Believe me I've tried. If I really think the shooting will be over 300 yds., such as on Pronghorn, the 7-7.5 lb. rifles stay home. If I'm climbing mountains at altitude, the over 7.5 lb. guns stay home. And the shooting is limited to 300, or maybe 400 yds. under really ideal conditions. E