Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Again, Why The .325 WSM?

Score one for the marketing dept...... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

JimF

Yeah, beats everyone driving the same style and performing car around. Commies do that.

And, half the gunwriters would be without a job. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I like the idea of a 220 grain partition in a blr for calling bears and racking elk in the brush & timber, but how much better would it really be over a 358 win anyway? For long shooting, I don't see the real benifit of the 325. I do have my Great Granddads ol 32 win spl, that might be enough to get me interested in a 325 wsm anyway.

Now I think you forgot to mention the 200 grain Swift A Frame which definately qualifies as a premium bullet. I've used that bullet in 8mm rem mag and it is a killin son of a gun. I personally would use the 180 g triple shocks which would be an incredible bullet in round.

I don't understand why you would shoot a .338 when you can shoot a 340 Weatherby which has about the same recoil and hits a hell of a lot harder.

"...a 340 Weatherby which has about the same recoil and hits a hell of a lot harder"

I don't have a dog in this fight (never had a 338 or a 340 and don't think I ever will), but this sentence is not only counter intuitive, it defies they laws of Newtonian physics... it don't make sense to me.

The marketing department at Winchester, Olin, USRAC has convinced me to get cookin' on my newest project. It is going to be a 350 OSM (Original Short Magnum) AKA 350 Remington Magnum. I imagine it will let the air out of a critter. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

If the 325 WSM kicks like my .340 Weatherby, in a lighter yet rifle, I don't think to many are going to get past the bench sight in and into the field. Being that it's about 300fps behind the .340 I don't think the recoil is going to be comparable.

I'd say a .340 hits a hell of a lot harder on both ends.

I'm comparing the 338 to to 340 not the 325. As far as south texas goes some rounds just seem to be efficient killing machines (ex. 6.5x55) and the 340 happens to be one of them. I've owned both 338's and 340's and the recoil difference is negligable but for a few hundred feet a second faster the bullets sure seem to me to perform better. Recoil is a personal matter (those who can take it and those who can't)

Aim small, miss small!

Similar Sectional Densities between:

.308 cal 180gr .271
.323 cal 200gr .274
.338 cal 225gr .281
.358 cal 250gr .279

If this is used as an indicator of the penetrating abilities at typical speeds, and it is often, then I see there is more than one way to skin a cat!

I don't think anybody can argue those size/weight bullets are heavy game getters!

Mike

safeman:

no offense intended but I don't buy into the "magic cartridge" theory (except for the 257 Roberts, of course, which is in a class by itself <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />). Once the bullet leaves the barrel, I don't think the critter knows what caliber it came from.

And as to recoil, I realize that it is somewhat subjective, and stock fit, recoil pad, etc. can make a big difference.
But, as an old slide-rule trained engineer, I kinda bought into the action-reaction theory. So ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, same bullet at higher velocity equals more recoil.

If you chose to disagree, I'm ok with that...ain't America great.

Max loads listed from Hodgdon's website................

338 WM 9 lb. rifle.....250/71.5 gr 4831/2655/= 35 ft lb of recoil.
340 Wby 9 lb Rifle.....250/83.0 4831/2788/= 43 ft lb.of recoil

35 ft lb of recoil is not exactly a slap in the face with a feather duster. 43 ft lb??..........no thanks.

Hmmmm........Don't see any great advantage there. 130 fps faster. in trade for a 20% increase in recoil.......sounds like a bargain to some I guess.

JimF

Well South Texas,
You were about to go down on my sh** list until you made one of the most intelligent comments ever made on this site. The 257 Roberts is AWESOME!!! In fact if you want to see my gun it is here on the campfire. Some no good, cheatin, lyin gunwriter (Richard Mann) claims it is his in the front page article about Accubonds in Africa. But the truth be told that beautiful Stainless Tapered Octogon barreled Sako is mine built by Charlie Sisk. And let me tell you something you have to believe in the "magic cartridge theory" if you believe in the Roberts because that round defies all logic.

So i will consider you a fellow intellectual. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Jim,
Don't knock it till you try it <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
I get 2875 out of my 340 with a 24 in. barrel. I'm no "speed" addict either but 43 lbs of recoil isn't even in the the "rattle your teeth" on the richter scale. It is my experience that premium bullets ( i shot 225 X's) have spectacular results out of a 340.

Hell I can chuck a rock faster than a .338 <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I DID try it (but wised up before my fillings fell out)

It was however, too late to save my brains which were rattled for weeks (or was it months....... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />)

"Magnums are like the flu...eventually you get over them"

JimF

Slowhand
I sent all that data to Rick Bin. He should have it up before long. Rattle his chain a little..... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Charlie

Safeman--

Built my .338 on an FN Mauser action long ago, which will not handle the .340's length. No, the .340 doesn't kick "about like a .338," but I don't mind it in the right rifle--just could never see the advantage.

My FN weighs 7-9 with scope, which I like when running around the elk mountain all day, or sneaking through the lodgepoles with the rifle in my hand. When I first built it, most experts said a .338 had to weigh 9 pounds, so that's what I built. Took about 1-/2 seasons to learn better. Put on a lighter barrel and stock and I liked carrying it a lot better. It does come back some with 250's, but not enough to worry a brass-shouldered idiot like me or you.

The .340 does NOT get "several hundred fps" more than the .338, anyway you cut it. Loaded to the same pressure in the same length barrel the difference is about 100 fps, give or take. This is about as much velocity as the average 250-grain spitzer loses in less than 50 yards from the muzzle. So I never did bother with the .340, figuring an extra 43 yards or whatever wasn't worth the hassle.

If I want something that really hits harder than a .338 or .340 I take a .375 or .416. And no, don't argue with me about how much flatter a .340 shoots than a .375. You can easily get 2800 fps from a 260-grain Accubond in a .375, which shoots within an inch of the 250 from your .340 at 400 yards....

Also, as noted in my earlier post, have used my old .338 a lot in many places. Even the biggest game (Alaskan moose and eland) went down pronto. How much faster would a .340 do them in?

MD

Mule Deer,
I did not say "several hundred feet" I said a few meaning I get about 200 fps faster out of my 340 over my 338. I to have shot Eland, Kudo, Zebra, and Gemsbok with my 340 all of them dramatic 1 shot kills using 225 X bullets. You see my feeling is a 338 is like eating bread and water it gets the job done but a good steak does it with more flavor.

I'm a big fan of the 375 but anything my 375 H&H or 375 Weatherby can do my 340 can do YES a LITTLE flatter.

Anyway my original post was about you missing the A Frame as a Premium 8 mm bullet. I think the 200 grain Swift A Frame is a great bullet. I'm not a fan of A Frames on thick skin animals but I wouldn't use an 8mm on one anyways. I am taking the 325 WSM to the North West Territory in August using 200 grain Accubonds. I'll see you there and we can see how it compares to a 338 on Caribou.

MD--

In my experience with three rifles owned by myself and a couple of aquaintances in both .338 and .340 I have found I can usually get about 200 fps more with equal bullet weights in the .340 than in the .338s and my .340 is to my mind the "gentlest" of the three to shoot. Again, not all other factors are equal here as stock conformations are different as are weights although not dramatically; these are not feather weight .338s nor is my .340 extra heavy at 8.5 lbs ready to go and as to velocity, my .340 has only 24" pipe. Regarding the recoil issue, this experience has led me to believe that although the .340's has to be heavier that's only true if all else in equal which is rarely the case. There is not that much difference that weight differences, stock drop and shape can't mitigate it almost completely and.... my .340 is fairly fast mailing a 250-gr at 2900 with H4831 without heavy lifting.

I know this is nothing new to you but If nothing else this may just show again how subjective rating and relating recoil is most of the time.

George

I won't argue about relative trajectories or that the .340 will knock 'em down or kill better than the .338. I'm sure it's not true and If there were a difference, I wouldn't know because I'll never kill enough game with either to see a difference and if I did to know it was a significant one. Most of this stuff is just "straining at gnats" but it's what we do and ain't if fun?

George

what I had meant to say above but don't think I did very clearly is that in this very small sample of two .338s and one .340, the vel difference is 150-200 fps in favor of the .340 with the same bullet and while the recoil of the .340 is significant, I believe a blindfolded participant would only guess which cartridge he touched off maybe half the time.

George