I hear two distinct sides to the question of whether the new short mags are merely a stunt or they actually offer any advantages. I don't own one, but I'm certainly looking.

I'm leaning toward viewing them as an advancement analagous to smokeless powder, belted magnums, improved bullet design, laminated and synthetic stocks, advances in metalurgy, improved powder technology and better engineering. Nothing stays the same, and technologically it should not.

It appears that they achieve essentially the same performance as the longer cartridges with a smaller powder charge, more inherent accuracy, a smaller, lighter platform and less recoil. Ammunition is pretty spendy but, for these kinds of rifles, if they work well, who cares? We don't shoot them like .22's anyway.

What sort of thoughts do others have?

jackG

Well this is an interesting question. Is it technology for technologys sake alone or do these "in-between" cartridges really do what the advertisers say.

I just sighted in my friends new 300 Winchester short magnum. It's on a Winchester platform and he was using Federal 180 grain factory ammo. I believe he was getting about 2870 or so. I can't remember the exact number, but under 2900 fps.

Now I have to agree that this is a boost over an 06, but not a boost or even the same as a 300 Winchester Magnum and certianly well under the weatherby or the ultra-mag.

Recoil wise, in this light Winchester I could not tell the difference between it and the standard 300 Winchester magnum we were shooting at the same time.

If you don't own a rifle now the short magnums offer performance levels above the standard cartridges like the 06, 270 and 280 remington. I think the 270 short magnum probably offers the most punch for the money over a standard 270.

Personnaly I wouldn't buy one. I would either go a standard cartridge or one of the longer magnum cases with it's massive increase in performance. I've never been a proponent of the one gun theory for a hunting rifle so have several options for different kinds of hunting.

The two calibres I find most interesting is the Win 270 short mag and the new 8mm offering the 325. Both offer to fill a nitch not really taken by anything else. I've always thought the 270 weatherby magnum was a really good round, just didn't like the package it came in.

Except for the two cartridges I mentioned I don't see it achieving the same performance as the standard rounds. I certianly do see a lot of advertising hype going on.

My advice if your going to buy a new gun get the Win Short 270 or 325. Other than that stick with standard or the big belted magnums.

You would be a good candiadate for theose new rounds, those who already ahve the "old" long cases rounds would be hard pressed to find enough difference to warrent trading one in for the new rounds.

Do belive that they are a more efficient package. Have read some posts that complain of brass life and others that complain of extraction difficulty....both may be brass problems rather than design problems. They may not be the best platforms for launching the heaviest weight bullets of their caliber.


They don't appeal to me personally as they offer solutions to problems I've never voiced but I can't deny that they do seem to the job well with less length and weight.

I'm for 'um!!!! :D

Keeps the sporting industry's wheels turning and more gun writers fed. Means more folk read the hype and can't wait to run down and plunk the money on the counter for the firearm and ammo.

Also, means lots of those old mossy-backed and obsolete chamberings will be on the used gun racks with good discounted prices for those who feel they're still more than adequate for hunting/paper punching needs.

If I were still a young buck and looking for a first hunting rifle, would probably give serious consideration to the "new" short and ultra mags. Smaller actions equate into faster, stiffer ones and the advancement of propellents plus bullets have been put together for some amazing ballistics from the stubby cartridges.

Ribbonstone has a very valid point to consider, namely that of feeding problems and sticky extraction. Only bad comments I've heard at the local gunrange I work at. Also, seems the .300 WSM has had some accuracy problems as compared to the older .300 WM.

I load for 14 different calibers. Also shoot a couple more that I don't have dies for. I'll bet that's pretty normal for the crowd in this forum. If I had to justify that many, I couldn't do it. My simple explanation is, I wanted them. I bought a .223 WSSM for no other reason than " I wanted one".

If the short mag offers any real advantage over the conventional calibers, it's offset by the headaches these little guys can cause, at least in the case of the .223 that is. If you want a challenge, buy one. Even though mine shoots pretty good, a good old fashioned non mag .223 will beat it to death in the accuracy department with less trouble.

Bottom line, decided to be happy with mine, turned into a keeper but I wouldn't buy another one.....gonna be shopping with Kdub in the used gun racks.

I am a fan of the short mags. I have three of them so far, and if Winchester or Remington would come out with a 25 WSM or 25 SAUM, I'd probably be first in line to order one of those too.

I don't have a chronograph, so I can't tell you what the actual velocities of the various loads are, and I haven't gotten into reloading for them yet either. For this reason my experiences have only been with factory ammo so far.

I have a Winchester M70 Coyote in 243 WSSM. With the factory 55 grain BST's, this is the most accurate rifle I have. Period. And this is in comparison to other rifles I have such as a Kimber 84M Varmint in 22-250.

I have a Browning A-Bolt Stainless Stalker in 270 WSM. It's light, handly, and well balanced. With the factory 150 grain ammo, it pretty consistently shoots under MOA. That's good enough for me.

I also have a Winchester M70 Featherweight in 300 WSM. With the 180 grain factory ammo, if I do my part, it will usually shoot at or slightly over MOA. Once I get into handloading for it, I think it will probably do better, but that's O.K. with me for now too.

i think there great but dont think they will replace the magnums or standard cartdridges, when i start looking for elk, moose gun im gonna seriously look at th 325 wsm of course i have to be able to hunt these first :(

I should be able to let you know shortly if they offer any real advantages. I have a Winchester 1885 High Wall Hunter on order in .270 WSM that should be here this week. I'm a real fan of the .270, and I probably wouldn't have gone to the WSM version (since I already own two .270's) except for two reasons: it was the only .270 option available in the rifle I wanted, and with the 28 inch barrel I'm hoping to get 3800 fps out of my 90 grain varmint loads (I'm currently getting 3500 fps with 90 grain bullets out of my Ruger #1A .270). My dealer has his "Jackson Days" sale going on right now (any new gun $20 over cost for July and August - Jackson's picture is on the face of a $20 bill, hence the name), so I couldn't pass up the opportunity, and the price savings more than makes up for the cost of new brass and dies for another caliber. Plus, it's an opportunity to see for myself what the real story is. Readying through my reloading data, it looks like the .270 WSM gives a roughly 200 - 300 fps gain over the .270 Winchester across 90 - 130 grain bullet weights, but at the cost of more powder and higher pressures. I'm curious to see if the PPC-style cases offer any accuracy advantages. Feeding and extraction should be no problem in a single-shot rifle.

Red Pepper, will be interesting to hear of your results with the between your 270 Win and your new 270 WSM. I personally have hunted with a 270 for about 20 years and am a strong supporter of it. I really don't have a need for any of the short mags for what I hunt (other than an excuse to get a new gun). But I also have nothing against them and if you like them jackg and don't have one of the standards, get it if it peaks your interest. I do wish that Winchester built the 25 WSSM on the WSM case, that would have been something I would have been interested in. Other than that I really like the 325 WSM and if I had an Alaskan or Canada hunt in the works, I would really consider this round.

Kdub,

I'm with you.... if it shakes loose any good old, now obsolete guns onto the used market, well so much the better!

Now, who here is willing to go buy one of these super-duper short mags so that I can trade them out of their .35 Whelen? :confused:

I'm still looking for a Ruger M77RS in .35 Whelen, so if these new fat super-zappers shake one loose on the used market I'm all for it!

God bless,

Won't happen, Marshall. Those .35 Whelen shooters know better :D

Short magnum in a Winchester High Wall??? Who'da thunk it.....

I have a Browning 1885 in what I call the "45-70 Short Mag", or.454 Casull, so I thought I needed to balance out the spectrum with something in a small diameter, fast "magnum". That way I can relate to either camp - the high-arcing, slow, fat bullet "the only real hunt is a close hunt" group, and the flat shooting, fast, small-diameter bullet "sniper school" magnum group. Of course, that may only make me despised by both... :-)