Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters JB/MD - .284 Win and 7WSM

John:

I looks like, from the recent SA, that Ron Spomer is challenging you for King of the 7x57! Nah, he just appreciates that old cartridge and, if I understand correctly, is having Park West build him one. I've seen a picture of the wood: nice!

Anyway, I was looking through the Gack books and noticed that you didn't write anything about either the .284 Winchester or 7mm WSM. Any reason?

Thanks, as always.

Mike

Hi Mike,

Have never owned a 7mm WSM, though have owned and hunted with multiple .270 and .300 WSMs--mostly because I had a Remington 700 BDL stainless/synthetic 7mm SAUM for several years, taking a dozen animals with it from Texas to Quebec. Eventually decided most short/fat/beltless magnums didn't actually "duplicate" the velocities of belted magnums, as claimed--and apparently many other hunters did as well.

The 7mm SAUM, for instance, has just about the same powder capacity as the .280 Remington Ackley Improved, which means the standard .280 loaded to the same presssure as the .280 AI is very close as well. (Same deal the with Ruger Compact Magnums.) Eventually only the .300 WSM remained commonly available, though even its ammo and brass are tougher to find these days.

The .284 was designed to essentially duplicate .270 Winchester ballistics in Winchester's Model 88 lever-action and Model 100 autoloader. Have owned two over the years, a Savage 99 and a Ruger 77--which was a rechambered 7mm-08. Never could see that either offered any advantage over, say, a 99 in .308 Winchester or a bolt-action .270 Winchester. Published articles on both, but didn't bother putting them into in the GG books.

I do find it "interesting" that so many newer cartridges have been designed to essentially duplicate the .270 Winchester--which is why I also don't have a .280 or .280 AI anymore, after owning a hunting with several of both over the years. (My .270 is an Ultra Light Arms Model 24, which Eileen hunted with for many years before the recoil got to be too much for her.)

This is an overall trend I've been following for a while now--sticking to readily available cartridges, rather than those which have been increasingly difficult to deal with given the increasing trend toward "shortages" in ammo and components.

Plus, like quite a few folks who've hunted quite a bit, have seen less and less difference in field performance between cartridges in the same basic class then some hunters like to imagine. With my semi-retirement, most of my hunting rifles that aren't heirlooms--or otherwise personally special--are chambered for readily available cartridges. In fact my only remaining 7mm is a 7mm Remington Magnum.

Will also comment that my old friend Ron apparently needs to keep finding different subjects to cover, especially for podcasts. I'm not into being that busy anymore!

John

John, do you still hunt with a .257 Roberts?

Yep! So does Eileen. Dunno how many big game animals we've taken with them, but they include pronghorns, whitetail and mule deer, and elk.

Though will also add that we have quite a few rifles, chambered for a wide variety of cartridges. The .257 is one among many, and after looking at my hunting notes found that the last animal I took with my .257 (the Remington 722 that my paternal grandmother was given new by her husband in 1953) was a doe pronghorn in 2016. Eileen's last one taken with her Ultra Light Arms Model 20 was a whitetail doe in 2019.

She took her first several big game animals with the Remington 722, but eventually wanted a lighter-weight rifle, so ordered the ULA in 2002. The Barnes TSX appeared a couple year later, and then the Tipped TSX in 2007. We've stuck to that bullet since then, handloaded to around 3150 fps, which has taken all of the animals mentioned above.

The 150 grain Winchester 284 factory load duplicates their 150 grain 308 factory load, making the 284 little more than an expensive to buy and feed 308 for the guy who doesn't load his own. But the 284 does have a cool factory that the 308 can't touch.

I've owned quite a few 284s and still have 8 of them because the rifles are collectable; 2 of each of the following, 99DE, 99PE, 88 rifle, and 88 carbine. The 2 88 carbines are the only ones that I've ever seen in 284.

Agree 100% Mule Deer!

My favorite cartridges are all boringly reliably and available everywhere. Despite our personal feelings or whatever perceived niche advantages, there isn’t much a .30-06 or .270 can’t do just as well in the hunting field.

These shortages we have seen ebb and flow but not dissipate in the last 15 years are going to continue in my opinion. Why not consolidate your gun collection to make ammunition and components as easy to find as possible?

I completely agree. I don't see any need for a new cartridge that "essentially duplicates" the performance of a .243, .25-06, .270, .308, .30-30, .30-06, or 7mm Rem Mag. And while I know that each cartridge has a different range of applications and each can specialize better in a given role, I regard .25-06, .270, .308, and .30-06 as being essentially interchangeable for most hunters. Obviously, you won't find a 180-grain or 220-grain .25-06 or .270, but with the right bullet, they can be essentially the same cartridge at under 400 yards on North American ungulates. Don't get me wrong, I have some uncommon and/or obsolete cartridges (e.g., 8x57JR, .257 Roberts), for which I am entirely dependent on reloads or special ordered ammo, but I could get ammo for most of my hunting rifles at Thompson Valley Grocery.

Most of the new stuff is certainly not needed hunting in the Appalachians, where woods shots are usually well under 200 yards. And even shooting as far as one could safely shoot (know your target and what lies beyond it) across our family's 550-acre farm, I'm not going to have more than a 600-yard maximum range shot. And even in that scenario, I could easily read the wind and use the folds in the terrain to stalk closer. I killed my last twenty deer with a .257 Roberts (1), .25-06 (15), .270 (2), or .30-06 (2). All but four of them could have easily been taken with a .30-30 using factory ammo. And none of them could tell the difference between the bullets that killed him.

Things are different out West, from what I hear and see, but even there, I am willing to bet that an old classic like the .300 Win Mag or 7mm Rem Mag does just as well as any similar cartridge introduced in the last 40 years.

These cartridges exist as a means to sell more rifles. And that's fine. That was once true of a lot of venerable old cartridges. But I personally won't go chasing the new hotness.

These statements are why I bought a 270 several years back. I've owned a pile of rifles in cartridges on either side of the 270 and am again back to the 270. I had a 270 in the 1980s and was seduced by magnumitis and lighter rifles. Cartridges bigger than the 270 recoil to much - at least to me - in light rifles, and I don't want to carry a 9 lb rifle.

And I found through the years, the 270 with a good 150 gr bullet kills well. We could argue minutia, flatter shooting, high BC bullets, 'long range', 'down right there', blah, blah. Plain fact is the 270 covers 90+% of what I do. I have other tools for specific applications if need be but the good ol' 270 and 308 get the nod almost all the time. Plus the Kimber platform isn't hard to like.

This is exactly what my brother tells me every time I show him a neat [new to me] rifle on GunBroker. I picked up a beautiful Sako .243 a couple of weeks ago and he said, "Why did you do that? You already have a .257 Roberts and a .25-06 and a .270 and a .30-06... What does it do that the others don't?" All I could say was, "Yes, but isn't it beautiful!? And feel how it handles? If I look this good when I am 50, I'll be able to date super models. I bet it shoots like a champ!" I suppose I could argue that having a few rifles in common cartridges gives me more insurance in the long run, but it rings a bit hollow. If I approach my rifle collection from the point of view of "needs", I haven't needed another rifle since I got the .25-06 when I was 15. Between that and a .22 LR, I am covered for life.

My philosophy regarding the purchase of anything that you want is that if you can afford it without going into debt or withholding any of the necessities of life from yourself and your family, buy it if you want it.

I fully agree. And my gun safe reflects that philosophy. But I have to respect my brother's philosophy as well. And the excellent perspective from MD and others in this thread.

I agree with MD. After 40 years of chasing the "new and improved" offerings I'm back to the good old 270 Winchester! I still use the 6.5 X 55 Swed just to bother the hair bun guys, but the old 270 is all I need or want!

Here here!

I agree as well! Which is why one of my .30-06s is a Griffin & Howe 1903, in excellent shape with the fanciest piece of walnut I've seen on a G&H 1903--and I've looked at a bunch. Also have a 6.5-.284 NULA, which doesn't do anything my custom-stocked and barreled FN Mauser 6.5x55 and custom Sisk 6.5 PRC won't do.

But that's not my point, which is there's far less difference in "field performance" than many hunters prefer to believe, which is even "more true" when talking about +/- 100-200 fps in muzzle velocity with the same bullets--which is often what's argued about here.

I think if you chose one or two rifles based on common sense ballistics (243 and 270) the fun would soon leave the sport. When both rifles are sighted in with their loads what do you do then? Apart from taking them hunting. Pondering over different cartridges deciding on the next one is fun. Chasing dies and components and then inspecting the first cases when you get some. Reading loading manuals deciding on powders and then handloading the first rounds. Setting your new rifle up and sighting it in whilst checking groups and velocities. And then taking it hunting for the first time. That's all good fun. It adds much more to the sport/hobby/obsession than pulling the 243 out of the safe once or twice a year.

I'm going through the same issue with fly rods at the moment. I had a break for about 20 something years but got back into it February last year. It's been great fun but my wallet has certainly got lighter.

So we may as well make hay while the sun shines as they say. For when the sun stops shining it will go dark for a very long time. No points having regrets then.

Laughing at myself.

Recently I got interested in the Weatherby MkV Backcountry 2.0 rifles. I bought one in 6.5RPM but before it was fired I had a new barrel installed chambered for 270W. It is very accurate with the various monolithic bullets I have been testing. It weighs 5# 14oz with my favorite hunting scope a Leupold 3x9 UL with the Wide Duplex. It has pretty stout mounts. I could decrease the weight by going to lighter rings and bases.

I just couldn’t force myself to purchase the dies cases and bullets to load for the 6.5RPM which duplicates the old 270W.

More on 270W.

I like the 270W because it works very well with powders that are readily available. I use IMR4831, H4831sc, R17, etc.

There are 129-136 grain bullets that will work for every BG animal that doesn’t require 375 class performance.

I latched on to the 284 Win back in 1983. I rebarreled a M77 that had a worn out 6mm Rem barrel. That rifle has had several upgrades with a timney and a McMillan Ultralight stock as well as a lengthened mag box. It is my oldest rifle. While it doesn't get many opportunities to hunt big game like coues wt or elk, it did so in the beginning as it was my only rifle. Currently setup with 120 NBT at screaming velocities. Works well for coyotes.

John wrote a great article on the 284 Win in Handloader magazine in the Feb/March 2022 issue. Titled "The Phoenix of rifle cartridges".

John,

Interesting point, and I will suggest that the exception to this is exactly the 7 WSM. With essentially identical case capacity to the 7 RM, the 7 WSM is the only short magnum that actually duplicates the speed performance of its classical magnum counterpart. Despite being, IMO, the best of the WSMs, I suspect that the very reason that it was the first to disappear from popularity is exactly because, in most hunters’ minds, it merely duplicated what the 7 RM could do, which they already owned, offering little value if they didn’t care about the shorter action or other size and weight characteristics of the rifle, with much less prevalent ammo options.

In the case of the 7 WSM, duplicating the speeds of the 7 RM wasn’t its problem, but rather that it did exactly that and didn’t offer enough new value over the average guy’s 7 RM to convince him to retire it for the shiny new cartridge.

I have been developing handloads professionally for decades with a wide variety of rifles, many specifically purchased for such experimentation, which for several years meant firing at least 8000 rounds a year. In my ongoing semi-retirement which started a couple years ago I've sold quite a few of those rifles--but also have bought a few others. Right now my wife and I (she's apparently also a rifle loony, since she owns several she bought but still hasn't even fired) have enough of 'em to shoot anything in our part of the world from ground squirrels to moose without having to repeat ourselves for several years.

In an average year we generally fill up a quart jar with rimfire empties shot at various animals--and those are just the empties we found, with a bunch of others left in the field that we couldn't find, or couldn't be bothered to since we were in the middle of shooting. I like that, instead of having to reload them all, after having spent so many years at the loading bench. In fact I'm planning an article on why I like buying more rimfire ammo instead of refilling small centerfires....

In the process of doing that article may add up all the centerfire chamberings we've used over the decades that I've handloaded, but part of what occurred is I discovered that generally there are combinations of powder and bullet that tend to work very well in various rifles chambered for the same round. This is exactly the subject my latest Gun Gack book, published in the fall of 2022, subtitled The Little Book of Rifle Loads That Work--which contains loads for 50 different rounds from the .17 Hornady Hornet to the .45-70.

But if you're still having fun, why not?