short magnums v. regular win magnums?

Question

1. My budy has owned both and says the short has the same ballistics for a lot less kick. Can anyone specifically confirm or deny this claim? And why?
2. Are the shorts a fad that I won't be able to easily purchase five to twenty years from now?
3. Ballistics, are they any better or not?

I gues the real question is why would I buy a short. What is so much better about it. As I see it the ballistics are slightly better. The gun is lighter and the barrel shorter. It kicks less, supposedly.The ammo is similarely priced. It holds one less round.And I'm not sure what the big deal is about how long the bolt throw is.

I gues I should have stated that I am looking specifically at the 300.

Answer 1

The original short magnums were introduced by Remington in 1967 and dropped by 1974. They were the 6.5 Remington Magnum and the .350 Remington Magnum. They were/are great rounds ahead of their time which failed due to abbreviated barrels in the only rifles they were chambered for (18" in the Remington 600 and 20" in the 660). Both are back chambered in rifles w/22" barrel and it looks promising.

Since you are specifically asking about the .300 Winchester Short Magnum here is the recoil index for both the .300 WSM and the .300 Win. Mag...

.300 WSM: 8.25 lb. rifle 180 grain bullet @ 2,970 fps 23.8 lbs. felt recoil;

.300 Win. Mag: 8.5 lb. rifle 180 grain bullet @ 2,960 fps 25.9 lbs. felt recoil.

So it looks true; the short mag has less recoil and emulates the ballistics of the full size mag.

Good luck.

H

Answer 2

The shorts won't handle the 220 grain bullets as well, but if you're using 180's for larger game like most everybody does, there's diddle for difference in either ballistics or recoil. I'm not big on the difference in action lengths, either, but if you're building a mountain rifle you're going to be hoofing around with a lot I suppose the ounces make a difference. Cartridge availability shouldn't matter much. You'll always be able to form cases even if the popularity goes away. WSM's can, after all, be thought of as shortened versions of the Dakota cartridges, and the parent 404 is still going to be there. I also have a minor personal bias against belts, so I like the new cartridges.

Answer 3

Read what H wrote and give him best answer. I have a Ruger model 77 in .300 Winchester Magnum that I bought new in 1993 and I love it, but the shorts have been designed to do a little better in every way. The people who designed the shorts had access to information the people who designed the older long magnums didn't have and after a bit of trial and error and computer enhancements they have achieved things I believe the original magnum designers would like to shoot.
When I get more gun money I'll probably buy a few...

Answer 4

Thou they have been around for a few years now, I have heard they may not be around much longer do to poor sales and high cost. So let me ask you this, for an example: a 7mm Rem Mag @2860fps and a ME of 3180 with a 175 SP Vs. a 7mm WSM @ 2915fps and 3020 ME with a 160gr. boat-tail. If short mags cost a few dollars more and you only get a few more fps or even a little more punch down range is it really worth the extra cost will make a big difference.

My Browning A-Bolt has never failed me on a Big Game Hunt chambered in the 7mm Rem Mag. Tried and tested year after year and has always put a smile on my face (including the Guides), andn as the old saing goes.."One Shot, One Kill".

Answer 5

Not according to Major General Julian Hatcher, I quote from "the NRA Firearms and Ammunition Handbook".
To calculate recoil velocity;
Take the bullet weight and add to it one and three quarters the weight of the powder charge( the extra 3/4 to compensate for the fact that the powder gases leave the muzzle faster than the bullet does) and multiply by the muzzle velocity. now divide the weight of the gun in pounds, and also by 7000 to compensate for the fact that the bullet weight and powder charge are in grains, not pounds. The result is the velocity in fps that the gun recoils.
The recoil energy is obtained with the formula; 1/2MV squared, where V is the recoil velocity and M is the mass of the rifle (mass being weight in pounds divided by the acceleration of gravity, 32.2). Square the velocity of the recoil, multiply it by the weight of the gun, and divide it by twice the acceleration of gravity, or 64.4. the result is the energy in ft/lbs with which the rifle comes to the rear.
Ergo, recoil is related to MV, bullet weight, weight of powder charge and the weight of the rifle.
Therefore any guns of the same weight, firing the same amount of powder, with the same bullet weight at the same velocity will have the same recoil energy.
Personally, I would go with the regular 300 Win mag, huge variety of bullet weights and types, available everywhere and usually cheaper.

Answer 6

The ballastics reports I have read say the short has better ballastics than the standard mag.
I am currently switching from a standard .300 mag to a .300 wsm, but mostly because I like the shorter action of the bolt, and the shorter shell (its easier to pack)

Answer 7

A gunsmith friend of mine who has seen many things come and go said he thought the short mags will have more throat erosion problems. For the typical hunter who shoots a box of shells a year I doubt that will cause much concern.