Howdy Ken Howell

A year ago I finished my project rifle in 220 Howell. Based on a Ruger No1 with a 28" Kriger barrel, it has been a pleasure to build and wonderful to use in the field on coyotes and a few bobcats. It truly reaches out and touches them.

With the advent of the 223 and 243 WSSM cartridges, I began thinking about necking down the 243 WSSM to 224 and follow a similar path. It seems to have some interesting potentials, albeit, I am still in conflict as to whether the "short and fat" argument will stand the test of time and whether the hoopla is simply a ruse to get me to trade off my now obsolete M70s chambered in 270 and 06 and 338. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Having valued your comments on a range of subjects, would you care to pontificate regarding the reasonable wildcat potential of the WSM and WSSMs?

Thanks.

You're right to wonder "whether the "short and fat" argument will stand the test of time and whether the hoopla is simply a ruse to get me to trade off my now obsolete M70s chambered in 270 and 06 and 338." It may well stand the test of time, but even if it doesn't, it's still a move to make you want something (specific) that you don't have.

Theoretically at least, the shorter and fatter case has something going for it. The Law of the Inverse Square applies to how efficiently the primer ignites the powder, but the real-world value of that improvement may be too slight to make the cost of a new project worth bearing. My favorite line on this came from my friend the late Homer Powley, a remark agreeing with something I'd said about how often we know that a factor has some effect but tests show that the effect is negligible.

"Yes!" Homer said, "The moon affects the trajectory but not enough to worry about."