53 replies [Last post]
Offline
Location: Missouri/Arkansas
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 891
WSM performance comparisons:

One other thing, how about Silver-tip and Fail Safe? Apparently, ballistic coefficients weren't much better for them, well, something has to account for their overall failure to beat the 7 RM ''out yonder.'' A pretty good suggestion would be to go to that one link I posted, the one for Chuck Hawks's site, and check out those ballistics charts, and/or, find this year's Shooters' Bible, and take a look at theirs.

[ This Message was edited by: Captain_Obvious on 2004-03-07 09:25 ]

Offline
Location: Wisconsin
Joined: 12/08/2003
Posts: 134
WSM performance comparisons:

Silvertip and Failsafe? How about this:
7mm, 140 grain Winchester Fail Safe has a BC of .324. Their Ballistic Silvertip (same weight, diameter)has a BC of .485.
I won't quote actual velocities here, but according to Winchester ballistics using a .280 Remington in a 24" barrel, both 140 grain bullets...the Ballistic tip starts 10 fps SLOWER, and ends (500 yards) 379 fps FASTER. In fact, the BT is 86 fps FASTER at 100 yards. According to your reasoning...the .280 must be a better round than...the OTHER .280! There are thousands of examples that prove that Ballistic Coefficient is the deciding factor in a bullet's ability to retain velocity.
Chuck has a good site and most of his info is reliable. However he is also comparing apples to oranges. I didn't feel like spending money since I see he now charges for that info. I don't really care what you or Chuck THINK. I have the laws of physics on my side, and they are not flexible. (This is only referring to the Ballistic Coefficent thing...meaning if the bullets are not identical, it is NOT a valid test).
Oh, and by the way...another glance at factory loadings from 7mm WSM and 7mm Rem Mag show that in two identical bullets, the WSM has a muzzle velocity advantage of 125 fps for 140 grain BTs and has a muzzle velocity advantage of 110 fps for 150 grain PP. Guess what? After 500 yards...the 7mm RM has NOT caught up. Imagine that...once you use identical bullets (which is obvious to me why you don't, if you did, you'd just find out I'm right), the results FAVOR the WSM. And then, just to be a pain...remove 50 fps from the WSM for that missing 1" of barrel that you threw back in my face...and IT STILL WINS. Oh yeah...and Federal also has four new WSM loads, and they're even hotter than the Winchester ones, and they aren't High Energy, either. One comparison shows 160 gr nosler partitions (AGAIN, SAME bullet) out of the WSM having the muzzle velocity advantage of 210 fps OVER the 7mm Rem Mag...and the Rem mag does not catch up. In fact, the WSM is still 120 fps faster at 500 yards.
You can ignore the facts all you want, I don't care. I just hope if others read this they will have some understanding of the facts and come to their own conclusion, not your opinion and manipulated results.

Offline
Location: Missouri/Arkansas
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 891
WSM performance comparisons:

You know, it looks to me like you're fumbling away here at this: You won't accept any comparison EXCEPT the one that produces the results YOU want. Honestly, none of this new stuff really means anything, since I will still find loads for the 7mm Remington Magnum that exceed them. Plus, it can be handloaded hotter. In fact, it can be handloaded to 7mm Weatherby Magnum velocities, as Hornady's reloading Manuel's text illustrates, as does Sam Fadala's book Rifle Guide. Basically, it's what I said, there are always loads for the 7mm Remington Magnum and 300 Winchester Magnum that exceed the WSMs. And as for that guy in the Cabelas article that said a 300 WSM approaches a 300 Weatherby Magnum, that's not even funny.

Offline
Location: Wisconsin
Joined: 12/08/2003
Posts: 134
WSM performance comparisons:

Captain wrote:
"You know, it looks to me like you're fumbling away here at this: You won't accept any comparison EXCEPT the one that produces the results YOU want"

1.)PLEASE explain to me how using equal components favors me as opposed to you. It favors no one.

2.) While you're at it, PLEASE tell me why in the ballistic tests you shared, that your round, the orignal magnum, always had the higher BC bullet. If you gave the WSM the better bullet the results would be VERY different. If you don't believe me, try it and see. It's just as easy to skew the results in my favor by switching the bullets around. By making them equal, NEITHER of us benefit from it, and a truer result is achieved.

I want to know why a test using equal components is unfair for you, and...
Why, if it doesn't matter as long as the bullets are of the same "general" shape, in all the ballistic examples you listed, did all of your rounds have bullets of high BC and the WSMs all had low ones?

[ This Message was edited by: mister_venison on 2004-03-08 02:15 ]

Offline
Location: Missouri/Arkansas
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 891
WSM performance comparisons:

Actually, I did not specifically pick those bullets out, I just rattled off some names I remember. What I am saying, what I have basically been saying one way or another for the entire lifespan of this thread, which is intended specifically for intelligent debate, as opposed to the name calling and personal bashing that happens in so many others, is that I looked at some ballisics charts and read some articles. Each caliber listed has most of popular cartridges listed, and the ballistics of each are listed beside these. In this case, I examined the numbers for every bullet listed for the 7mm WSM and compared these to the 7mm Remington Magnum, in a sense, chasing down what most of the ads and glowing claims are stating, that these rounds are vastly superior no matter what. If you take the time to peruse some magazines and what-not, you'll see it. In fact, it's painstakingly difficult to miss it! One after another, so many promises, such extreme performance edges, etc etc. For cartridges using bullets in the 150 grain class, the 154 grain bullet excluded, the one with the best ballistics in the WSMs court is exceeded by a number of cartridges for the 7mm Remington Magnum, thus defying the glowing claims, showing that bullets for the latter cartidges that exceed the ballistic performance of the WSM are available, in fact, most of them of very popular, Remington Core-Lokt, very fine ammo, Scirocco Bonded and Accu-Tip, also from Remington, some loads from Federal, Hornady, and Winchester. Not all of them exceeded, but a significant number did. There are cartridges loaded with 150 grain bullets that outperform 150 grain bullets fired from the WSM. You won't find this in the magazines, I promise. Same thing again with the 160-grain bullet, from either round, this being the better choice for elk and larger. Some did, some did not. Worth noting too, isn't it odd that there's no bullets larger than 160-grain class loaded into the WSM commercially? From what I understand, this demonstrates a (probably unprecedented) efficiency-type of situation. As you surely know, they get longer as they get heavier. If you've ever seen a .284 caliber, 175 grain bullet, it's quite long. With the short case of the WSM, and perhaps the SAUM as well, this cuts into the case capacity. It may well be because of this that Remington's 7mm Magnum seems to work better with the 160 grain class and up, as the difference between the 150 grain bullets, although noticeable on ballistic charts, are nowhere near great enough to be factors to someone buying ammo that's intended for CXP-2 class game. It's a bit different for 160 grain bullets. They are not what one should hunt deer with. They are meant, designed, to penetrate with controlled expansion, allowing them to reach the vitals on the big, tough animals, such as elk, moose, and big bears. From what I've seen, people by 7mm Magnums for bigger-than-deer game. This usually means they're shooting bullets that don't work out so well in the 280 Remington and 7mm-08. A 160-175 grain bullet will usually provide even greater punch than a 180 grain bullet fired from a 30-06. In sum, the 7mm WSM and 300 WSM are redundant, with a few loads, they do a little better, but the fact of the matter is, even where they do better, it's very little, and a lot of the time, they don't, especially with the larger bullet weights. The issue of accuracy is far less complicated. Good bullets from good barrels. It's a proven that the 7mm Remington Magnum and 300 Winchester Magnum can produce sub-MOA accuracy. Assuming that there really is some edge in accuracy in the new short magnums, it is insignificant. It probably will never be proven either, since different rifles and shooters using different ammunition almost always yield different results. One guy with a 7mm WSM might place a couple of three shot groups inside 1-1/2 inch at 100 yards, and then announces that to the shooting world as some kind of superior accuracy, but he probably will keep forever hidden the fact that he also shot a few two, three, and four-inch groups that same day, and can't quite remember exactly what he did to steady those crosshairs for the tighter groups. I've shot better than this with my 7mm Rem Mag, and I've shot a hell of a lot worse. It's easy to state that a round is super-accurate, but it is another thing entirely to actually go out and shoot it super-accurately. It's my belief and experience that just about any modern hunting rifle in a modern caliber, the 6mms, 25s, 264s, 277s, 284s, 308s, and up, are all capable of shooting extremely tight groups. Besides, who hunts deer with an M40A1 tactical Marine Sniper Rifle with a scope that's got night-vision and infrared?

Offline
Location: Wisconsin
Joined: 12/08/2003
Posts: 134
WSM performance comparisons:

You're right about repeating the same things throughout the thread. I have also. Basically we have been stating and restating our points in an effort to show the other why our stance is better. The problem is that I don't accept your ballistic comparisons, and you don't accept mine. If we can't agree on the method of testing and the sources of info, there's no way either of us can be persuaded by the results!
Since neither of us will accept the validity of the other's position, it makes no sense to keep arguing back and forth, does it? If we haven't convinced each other by now, we're not going to.
Whaddya think?

Offline
Location: Missouri/Arkansas
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 891
WSM performance comparisons:

No.... no, probably not.

Offline
Location: hanover, pa
Joined: 01/27/2004
Posts: 70
WSM performance comparisons:

my take on the wsm's are in the bullets-if you stay in the middle range and lower of weights, you will be fine, but it's when you get into the heavier bullets, that is when the wsm's start to lose. this is do to the fact that heavier bullets need to be longer, thus taking up powder space in the case, which means you have less space for powder, so less powder equals less performance.

Location: Western states
Joined: 03/10/2004
Posts: 4
WSM performance comparisons:

Mister-Venison, I agree with you 100% as for the Captain he seems not to know much if anyting about the B.C.'s of different bullets.

The higher the the BC the flatter they shoot, it makes a big difference even at 300yds and I have tested different loads with diff BC's in both the 300 Win WSM and the 300 Rem SAUM .

What I realy like about the short mags is that they can be had in lighter handier rifle's, have less recoil and and use less powder.

I took a 5x5 mule deer @ 265yds and a 6x6 bull elk @ 575yds last fall with the Rem 300 SAUM, both lasered.

The load was the factory 165gr REM C/L with a fairly low B.C. I now handload a much higher BC bullet in both the Rem and Win short mags and what a differance it makes.

Some people read every thing about this and that and don't compare them in the real world them self's.

I'm not saying the wsm or saum out run anything but they are a heck of a good round and are close anuff with good bullets that it donen't matter a rats rear end to me if they are a few fps slower the the big boys.

By the way my light weight 300wsm shoots 2inch groups or less at 300yds and that good anuff for a light weight hunting carry rifle.

They are all good rounds and what ever you want to shoot, just do it. Thanks Outlaw

[ This Message was edited by: outlaw from Idaho on 2004-03-11 10:43 ]

Offline
Location: Wisconsin
Joined: 12/08/2003
Posts: 134
WSM performance comparisons:

I think their greatest benefit is the smaller-sized rifle. That's the whole idea behind them. The only real downsides are that you lose one round of magazine capacity, and factory selection is low, but getting better. I can also see having trouble finding ammo in the remote areas. For me, the fit and feel of the smaller rifles outweighs these problems. I had a .300 WSM in an A-Bolt but had to sell it. It shot great right out of the box. Hopefully I'll get another, but this time it may be a BAR in 7mm WSM!

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
Why the skepticism for short roundfuzzybear308/01/2007 12:57 pm
Sub MOA @ 100, but not so @ 200CVC909/10/2007 18:58 pm
Performance of my first reloadsCVC305/21/2007 17:40 pm
Caliber comparisonsandythejerk208/29/2005 20:23 pm
500 Smith and Wesson in a RifleAlphaMan212/30/2005 21:49 pm