Is the 300 wsm case somewhat magical?

[MagnumManiac]

I have never shot the 300 WM but I have a WSM. With H4350 I can get 3050 with 168 TTSX's and 3020 fps with 180 gr E-Tips. With Fed factory loads I get about 3000 fps with 180 SP's and 180 AB's which is 40 fps faster than publihed. This is out of a Sako 85 Finnlight with 24"bbl.

Fed publishes the same velocity for the WM and WSM in the 180 gr bullets. From everything that I've read the 300 WSM is very close and sometimes equal to the WM. I like the shorter cases and especially like no belts.

To say that shape of case and efficiency has no effect on velocity is IMO delusional.

All of the major ammo brands are publishing the same velocity for both cartridges because that is what they want you to believe, if you look back before the WSM came about, Winchester ammo was loaded to 3090fps with a 180gr bullet, it has since been downloaded to be no faster than the WSM, if this is not HYPE, I don't know what is.
Why is it delusional to believe that, grain for grain, the difference in velocity is proportional, my understanding is that a reduction of powder of 10% will have a 2% reduction in velocity, which I have tested to be true about 90% of the time, exactly where the 300WSM lies against the 300WM cartridge, there is no substitute for more cubic inches or more case capacity, physics doesn't lie.

I agree that the WSM cases are efficient, but not in a manner that makes them burn less powder and magically get higher velocities than a case that burns more powder. Who can prove that the 300WM is less efficient than the 300WSM when compared against case expansion ratio's?
It just simply isn't true, and cannot be proved in the real world.

There used to be a thing called "overbore capacity", this doesn't cut it anymore with the very slow powders that we have on offer, with the exception of the 7mm RUM.
Food for thought.
MagnumManiac.
gun)

 

[MontanaRifleman]

My barrel is 26", and why compare what a manual quotes, their barrels will shoot differently to every other barrel out there, just as mine and yours does.
I don't understand the mentallity that anyone must be wrong or bullshitting when they quote velocities that are higher than any one manual quotes, my chronograph doesn't lie, and my Nosler manual quotes 2972fps as their fastest load, my barrel is faster with all bullet weights when I use RE25.
Cheers.
MagnumManiac.
gun)

First, I used the manuals for a releative apples to apples comparison Quite true performance will vary rifle to rifle and load to load.

Next, I don't disbelieve you. I'll take you at your word, but you have an exceptional performer in your WM. I wouldn't consider it as represetative of the cartridge. I was just giving you a bit of a ribbing for your, "let's se you get that out of your WSM"

Last, There's a member here who reports getting 3351 fps with 168 TTSX's in a 24"bbl which IMO rivals your 3100 fps with 200 AB's.

Cheers,

Mark

 

[nheninge]

The substitute for case capacity IS cartridge design. Case capacity means nothing if it's design (i.e. the 100 mile long, 1 grain wide bullet with high capacity) sucks. I'm being facetious (???) here obviously, but belted mags have been quoted as an "archaeic design". I still shoot both in different situations. So much more to a gun than "chambering".

 

[MontanaRifleman]

All of the major ammo brands are publishing the same velocity for both cartridges because that is what they want you to believe, if you look back before the WSM came about, Winchester ammo was loaded to 3090fps with a 180gr bullet, it has since been downloaded to be no faster than the WSM, if this is not HYPE, I don't know what is.
Why is it delusional to believe that, grain for grain, the difference in velocity is proportional, my understanding is that a reduction of powder of 10% will have a 2% reduction in velocity, which I have tested to be true about 90% of the time, exactly where the 300WSM lies against the 300WM cartridge, there is no substitute for more cubic inches or more case capacity, physics doesn't lie.

I agree that the WSM cases are efficient, but not in a manner that makes them burn less powder and magically get higher velocities than a case that burns more powder. Who can prove that the 300WM is less efficient than the 300WSM when compared against case expansion ratio's?
It just simply isn't true, and cannot be proved in the real world.

There used to be a thing called "overbore capacity", this doesn't cut it anymore with the very slow powders that we have on offer, with the exception of the 7mm RUM.
Food for thought.
MagnumManiac.
gun)

You're right, physics doesn't lie. But there is more to the physics of internal ballistes than powder wiegth and volume. Case shape does play a factor.

I could believe Winchester possibly fudging their numbers to promote the WSM, but what does Fed have to gain???

It would be a very difficult thing to prove one way or another if the WSM was or was not equal or almost equal to the WM. You will get little debate on the fact that th WM can shoot larger bullets better. But the WSM has a lot of desirable characteristics which gives it an amount of popularity, besides just hype.

Be cool, go WSM

 

[3006savage]

Magnum Maniac is the right handle for you. That is about 4300 LBS/KE from a 300 WM. That is on par with factory 375 H&H loads! You are on the razors edge with that load for sure.

 

[MagnumManiac]

Magnum Maniac is the right handle for you. That is about 4300 LBS/KE from a 300 WM. That is on par with factory 375 H&H loads! You are on the razors edge with that load for sure.

I do all of my load work with a recoil sensing pressure device, and I work up to MY safe maximum loads for MY rifle and BRASS.
I use a similar formula to what Nosler has for their load development work; Feet per second divided by grains of powder = Burn Rate for a particular cartridge. This is played out by expansion ratio comparison.
I have found it quite difficult to obtain load data with RE25 for the 300WM and 180/200gr bullets, which my formula states to be the most efficient powder for these bullet combinations, in fact, my projected maximum is around 4gr's above what other loading programs dished out.
I am not 'running right on the razors edge' in any way shape or form with this load, in fact, it shows no case head expansion, and pressures are less than 60,000psi.

How does Kinetic Energy equate to a load being either overloaded or underloaded? Energy figures are meaningless, it's Sectional Density and wound channel size causing blood loss that kills animals. Push any bullet fast, and the KE figures rise sharply, this has no bearing on bullet flight, or it's ability to be accurate, or hold together for bone crunching power.
The 338WM will surpass 375H+H KE figures with certain loads, does that mean that it's overloaded to any degree.
The 375 is underloaded by all major ammo makers, in deference to all the older rifles still in use today, as are many other rounds, in particular, the 30-06 and 257 Roberts.

This is why we handload our own ammunition, to get the best possible performance from our rifles with the best possible components, that we can make as accurate as possible.

Reloading manuals are GUIDES, and they don't always steer us in the right direction, their 'most accurate' powder they list for each bullet combo may be downright terrible in my or your rifle, and when they have 5 different bullets listed for that same data, which bullet was the most accurate with that powder, they don't tell us that in the text, so why bother putting it in the text in the first place?
Too much emphasis is placed on reloading manuals being GOSPEL, when they simply aren't, they are merely GUIDES.
Cheers.
MagnumManiac.
gun)

 

[ejones338]

Case design will only take you so far, otherwise the WSM would equal the RUM as well, and it can't compare. I hear talk of custom chambers etc. giving the edge to the WSM, but after EXTENSIVE research and collaboration with others, two very good experienced rifleman friends of mine both decided on 300 win. custom chambered rifles for their $6000.00 projects.

Myself, I at one time had both, and the 300 win. always had the edge. I have since sold both and have a 300 RUM in the works. I can't wait.

 

[Festus]

Ever notice how some dogs look like their owners? Maybe it's just the short, fat people that think the WSMs are magical.

Possibly a marketing ploy? Lower the listed velocity on ammo for the .300 WM slightly, say 50 fps, and list velocity for the newer .300 WSM at it's full potential (or maybe a bit optimistic) and viola, they are close to the same in performance. Everyone rushes out to buy the mystical new short fatty while all the veterans with .300 WMs already know what their rifles will do. Seems like it might be effective at getting new rifles in the hands of the multitudes. Not saying they would actually do that tho.

Festus

 

[RockyMtnMT]

I do all of my load work with a recoil sensing pressure device, and I work up to MY safe maximum loads for MY rifle and BRASS.
I use a similar formula to what Nosler has for their load development work; Feet per second divided by grains of powder = Burn Rate for a particular cartridge. This is played out by expansion ratio comparison.
I have found it quite difficult to obtain load data with RE25 for the 300WM and 180/200gr bullets, which my formula states to be the most efficient powder for these bullet combinations, in fact, my projected maximum is around 4gr's above what other loading programs dished out.
I am not 'running right on the razors edge' in any way shape or form with this load, in fact, it shows no case head expansion, and pressures are less than 60,000psi.

How does Kinetic Energy equate to a load being either overloaded or underloaded? Energy figures are meaningless, it's Sectional Density and wound channel size causing blood loss that kills animals. Push any bullet fast, and the KE figures rise sharply, this has no bearing on bullet flight, or it's ability to be accurate, or hold together for bone crunching power.
The 338WM will surpass 375H+H KE figures with certain loads, does that mean that it's overloaded to any degree.
The 375 is underloaded by all major ammo makers, in deference to all the older rifles still in use today, as are many other rounds, in particular, the 30-06 and 257 Roberts.

This is why we handload our own ammunition, to get the best possible performance from our rifles with the best possible components, that we can make as accurate as possible.

Reloading manuals are GUIDES, and they don't always steer us in the right direction, their 'most accurate' powder they list for each bullet combo may be downright terrible in my or your rifle, and when they have 5 different bullets listed for that same data, which bullet was the most accurate with that powder, they don't tell us that in the text, so why bother putting it in the text in the first place?
Too much emphasis is placed on reloading manuals being GOSPEL, when they simply aren't, they are merely GUIDES.
Cheers.
MagnumManiac.


gun)

This is a great discussion. I don't shoot either one so I have no personal opinion, other than a guy likes which ever one he likes. No wrong decision.

I have one question. How can load psi be measured with out tapping the chamber and using a measuring device? I reload to all the normal pressure signs, back off a bit, and tune for accuracy. I have always wondered where I am as far as the actual pressure, and what the action can actually take. Seems to me that in modern actions, the brass and the chamber are the limiting factors.

Thanks, Steve

 

[MagnumManiac]

This is a great discussion. I don't shoot either one so I have no personal opinion, other than a guy likes which ever one he likes. No wrong decision.

I have one question. How can load psi be measured with out tapping the chamber and using a measuring device? I reload to all the normal pressure signs, back off a bit, and tune for accuracy. I have always wondered where I am as far as the actual pressure, and what the action can actually take. Seems to me that in modern actions, the brass and the chamber are the limiting factors.

Thanks, Steve

Steve,
The device I use does not record absolute pressure in the same way that a piezoelectric transducer does, it utilizes the 'pulse' generated by recoil to mathematically deduct an average pressure, it is a complicated mathematical equation/program that I only partially understand, that's all I know at this point.

I agree that there is no wrong decision in whichever a person likes, but, to think that one is superior to the other because of HYPE and unfounded data is just wrong.

I agree also that brass is the limiting factor to any cartridge, but the chamber has little to do with it, and rifles are far stronger than any brass made, so when the brass lets go, so does the rifle, some worse than others.
Even I do not know where I am with absolute pressure using this device, that's why I still measure case head expansion before and after, soft brass will expand at lower pressure than harder brass, so the actual pressure is of little concern, as long as it is SAFE at the pressure level we are using.
I experiment with a number of calibres, and I require an approximate pressure level to be safe, working with untested powders in certain cartridges can be very dangerous, so I use a buffer, as in my device, to be safe.
Cheers.
MagnumManiac.
gun)

 

[TOM H]

My barrel is 26", and why compare what a manual quotes, their barrels will shoot differently to every other barrel out there, just as mine and yours does.
I don't understand the mentallity that anyone must be wrong or bullshitting when they quote velocities that are higher than any one manual quotes, my chronograph doesn't lie, and my Nosler manual quotes 2972fps as their fastest load, my barrel is faster with all bullet weights when I use RE25.
Cheers.
MagnumManiac.
gun)

I understand reloading manual are a guide and they have barrels with different rifling that can effect pressure/velcoity and I have what is call some fast barrels that gives over published velocity using a max load out of some reloading manual. Since there is data for the 300WSM with 200gr bullets at 2900fps if someone had a 26" barrel assuming you used a max load out of the manuals then the 300WSM might get the same velocity. I have the Alliant reloader's guide and with R-25 @ 75gr they have velocity at 2857fps with a 200gr bullet and 79.5gr/R-25 with 180gr bullet @ 3050fps. What kind of velocity are you getting with 180gr bullet?

 

[MagnumManiac]

I understand reloading manual are a guide and they have barrels with different rifling that can effect pressure/velcoity and I have what is call some fast barrels that gives over published velocity using a max load out of some reloading manual. Since there is data for the 300WSM with 200gr bullets at 2900fps if someone had a 26" barrel assuming you used a max load out of the manuals then the 300WSM might get the same velocity. I have the Alliant reloader's guide and with R-25 @ 75gr they have velocity at 2857fps with a 200gr bullet and 79.5gr/R-25 with 180gr bullet @ 3050fps. What kind of velocity are you getting with 180gr bullet?

Tom,
I am getting 3188fps with Nosler 180gr Accubonds, and 3177fps with Woodleigh 180gr PP's. Only 2 bullets used in this rifle of that weight.
I have loaded well past Alliant's recommended maximums, with complete safety, and my loads are 180gr bullets RE25/81gr's, and 200gr bullets RE25/79gr's, neither load is maximum in my rifle, in fact I worked up another 3 grains with both loads, and case heads were just starting to expand. MY chamber is 'match grade', I do not need to turn necks, I have .001" play with the brass I use.
I don't see how the WSM would get 2900fps, even with max loads, because the bullet takes up too much of the powder space, if Alliant are saying 2857fps in a 300WM, surely the WSM would be slower, even in the same length barrel.
When we compare velocity from a machine rest pressure barrel to a hunting/target rifle barrel, there are considerations that must be taken into account, most test barrels have far tighter tolerances than even a match grade barrel, which will generally give higher pressures and velocities than a match barrel or hunting barrel, and do we know if the publisher is 'fudging' their velocity readings.
All of my loads have been chron'd on my chrono and 2 other chrono's to be sure that there isn't a misnomer at play.
Cheers.
MagnumManiac.
gun)

 

[johnnyk]

For what it's worth, I'm getting an average of 3154fps out of my .300WinMag using the 180gn Nosler Ballistic Tip and 71.0gn's of H4350. This is near "book" max I'm guessing. Nosler's reloading manual doesn't list H4350 for the 180's. I worked up in to this load and my rifle doesn't show any pressure signs and is shooting pretty good (1.7" @ 300yds). It's a stock Savage 112BVSS. JohnnyK.

 

[TOM H]

All of the major ammo brands are publishing the same velocity for both cartridges because that is what they want you to believe, if you look back before the WSM came about, Winchester ammo was loaded to 3090fps with a 180gr bullet, it has since been downloaded to be no faster than the WSM, if this is not HYPE, I don't know what is.
Why is it delusional to believe that, grain for grain, the difference in velocity is proportional, my understanding is that a reduction of powder of 10% will have a 2% reduction in velocity, which I have tested to be true about 90% of the time, exactly where the 300WSM lies against the 300WM cartridge, there is no substitute for more cubic inches or more case capacity, physics doesn't lie.

I agree that the WSM cases are efficient, but not in a manner that makes them burn less powder and magically get higher velocities than a case that burns more powder. Who can prove that the 300WM is less efficient than the 300WSM when compared against case expansion ratio's?
It just simply isn't true, and cannot be proved in the real world.

There used to be a thing called "overbore capacity", this doesn't cut it anymore with the very slow powders that we have on offer, with the exception of the 7mm RUM.
Food for thought.
MagnumManiac.
gun)

I'd like to thank you for answering my other post.

Long before the internet that made some so called experts NRA published the factory data for most caliber including the 300mag Fed 300mag with 180gr bullets @ 3000fps,Win 180gr bullet @2960fps and Rem 180 bullet @ 2960fps I pulled up Hornady data with a 180gr bullet @2960fps their heavy mag load with 180gr bullet was @3 3100fps. I might add the NRA data came out in 1986 and in their loading data they had many load in the 3100fps with 180gr bullets. There use to be a good old load with 82.3gr/R-25 with 180gr bullet @3112fps out of a 24" barrel. Sierra has data for the 180gr bullet over 3100fps and one loaf over 3000fps with a 200gr bullet in the 300mag.

Sierra had data for the 300WSM out of a factory model 70 rifle with a 24" 180gr bullet 3000fps and 200gr @2850/.2900fps.

I build a 300mag with a 26" Lilja 1/11 twist barrel I sure don't have any problems with that rifle getting over 3100fps with a 180gr bullet using some of that old reloading data that is still considered a max load today.

Let me answer your statement
"I don't see how the WSM would get 2900fps, even with max loads, because the bullet takes up too much of the powder space". Do you have any idea how long the magazine box is on a Win short mag action? Have you ever heard of throathing a bullet out to take advanatage of some extra case capacity but still have the loaded round feed in the magazine"?

I remember all the hype about the 300mag and the short neck it had all the gun writers figure it wouldn't last and what a big mistake not taking the 30-338mag case instead in fact Rem made the 40x in 30-338mag .

I've seen cases come and go in almost 45yrs of reloading and really maybe it the internet but I've never heard so much bad mouthing again a case because of something they read or is that just an excuse to prove the gun writers wrong. It's on every site mention the WSM here come the boogy man. I've got a custom 300WSM with a 24" barrel, 270WSM with a 25 1/5" barrel and a factory Tikka T-3 in 300WSM I think the WSM is a good case my custom 300WSM weigth 9lb. I learned along time ago if you get locked into my caliber is the best it's a very narrow tunnel your looking through.