P O Box 340
Grundy Center, IA 50638
1 319 824-2800
1 319 824-2900
MidMag@iowatelecom.net
Hours:
9:00 AM - 5:00 PM M-F
Till Noon Saturday
About Midwest Magnum
Midwest Magnum is a small shop specializing in hunting rifles and handguns. We carry very few shotguns. Despite its size, Midwest Magnum typically has an inventory of 400 to 500 rifles in a range of about 50 chamberings, and approximately 30 handguns from .44 Magnum through 475 Linebaugh. For insurance reasons, we do not carry an abundance of ammunition, powder, or primers, but these items can be acquired quickly from distributors.
Unlike most gun shops, we are not in this business to make a profit and financially support a number of people. Everything here is paid for — we do not have loans or bills to worry about. Consequently, we can do the things we want to do, which includes having quality firearms for hunters at prices that can save them a bundle. It also means that we can close the shop from time to time to go to Idaho or to a shooting or social event.
Email us here.
Choose from the links below to go directly to that topic - or just scroll to read the entire document.
Recoil | Satisfaction | New .22 Centerfire | Reader Input | Cartridge Talk
17 Remmington | 204 Ruger | 204 Ruger Update | 222 Remington | 223 Remington 222 Remington Magnum | 224 Weatherby | 22-250 Remington | 220 Swift
243 Winchester | 6mm (244) Remington | 243WSSM | 240 Weatherby Magnum
257 Roberts | 25 WSSM | 25-06 | 257 Weatherby Magnum | 260 Remington
264 Winchester Magnum | .270 Winchester | 270 Weatherby Magnum
.280 Remington 7mm Remington Magnum | 7mm Weatherby Magnum | 7mm STW | 7mm Remington Ultra Magnum | 300 Savage 308 Winchester | 30-06
300 Remington SAUM | 300 WSM | 300 H& H Magnum
300 Winchester Magnum | 300 Weatherby Magnum | 300 Remington Ultra Magnum
30-378 Weatherby Magnum | 8mm Mauser | 325 WSM | 8mm Remington Magnum 338 Winchester Magnum | 340 Weatherby Magnum | 338 Remington Ultra Magnum
338-378 Wheatherby Magnum | .350 Remington Magnum | .358 Norma Magnum
358 Shooting Times Alaskan | 375 Holland & Holland Magnum
375 Remington Magnum | 378 Weatherby Magnum 416 Remington Magnum
416 Rigby | 416 Weatherby Magnum | 45–70 | 458 Winchester Magnum | 458 Lott
Update — January 2004 | Why Not A 460? | Ramblings | Short Magnums
Action Length | Ammunition | Scopes
Answers To Selected Questions From Website Visitors | Hunting Handguns
Making Sense Of The Super-Short Magnums | “Assault” Weapons | Think 300
Recent Questions and Responses
This is an interesting subject. Rifle shooters who have determined that they are recoil shy at the 270 Winchester level can probably shoot express loads in their 12 ga. with no problem, but take that 12 ga. to the bench and it will kick harder than the 270. The problem is the bench, as approaching the butt of the gun with the shoulder presents varying flesh, muscle, and bone with different people. I’m at my best with the heavier rifles located a bit higher on the bench. To sight in some rifles, especially a 338 Magnum or larger, I usually position a one-inch-thick bag of silica sand, or some other type of pad, such as the “PAST” (brand name) recoil shield, between my shoulder and the rifle. Doing so requires a bit of adjustment to gracefully fire the rifle, but it sure makes things more pleasant.
Even better, I have constructed a bench that can be used in the standing position. The height can be adjusted, as the support for the platform is a four-inch-diameter steel pipe cemented into the ground. The platform is held in place by a large pin that goes through the sleeve that moves up or down the pipe. Holes are drilled through the pipe at 2-inch intervals.
This system is almost a must for cartridges such as the 375 Remington Ultra Mag, 378 Weatherby Magnum, and other big boys of this league and larger, if much shooting is to be done. Instead of leaning forward into the rifle as you do on a conventional bench with a seat, you are standing to flex and roll with the significant recoil of rifles for heavy and dangerous game. Obviously, it is of utmost importance to have such rifles sighted in properly, and for the user to realize that the recoil is often more manageable than they first thought.
Recoil is the single most feared factor when it comes to shooting. It is the reason that so many hunters are “undergunned” as they head out for big game. It is the reason that some hunters will argue that the 243 Winchester is perfectly adequate for mule deer at 300 yards, rather than use a 270. And it is the main reason that others will argue that the 270 Winchester is just fine for elk, because they’re reluctant to take the extra cuffing that a 300 Magnum or the 338 Winchester Magnum dishes out. Try not to worry so much about recoil. Instead, manage it by a method that works for you. Get the rifle you really need to handle the job. Don’t let fear of recoil keep you from making the right decision.
At Midwest Magnum we have various “demonstrator” rifles. The customer can actually experience the difference between a 243 and a 270, or a 30–06 and a 338 Winchester. It’s amazing how many times they will opt for a larger caliber than they originally thought they could handle. This way they can see for themselves, and make a decision based on more information than they will ever get from reading gun magazines.
Great personal satisfaction can be achieved by mastering a heavy rifle… say a 375 H&H Magnum or larger. Cloverleaf three-shot groups are the goal. I have done this from the bench (seated) many times with 458 Magnums, and can tell you that a 5/8-inch group with one of these Cape buffalo tools is far more impressive than a five-shot group measuring around a tenth of an inch from a 6mm PPC.
I have a friend who has undergone extensive heart surgery and is inconvenienced by greatly diminished heart and lung capacity, but he has a passion that keeps him going to the range with his 378 Weatherby. With groups that hover around half an inch, he figures he has a load. Anything larger just doesn’t fit his plans, which always include another African safari. Did I mention that his 378 was not fitted with the now-standard (for this caliber) Weatherby Accubrake? Did I mention that he also has a 460 Weatherby? A big fan of Elmer Keith, friend John simply doesn’t want to chase or track game, so he doesn’t. It goes down right near the point at which it was hit, because he has learned to manage recoil and place bullets in exactly the right spot at any reasonable distance.
That’s why Elmer liked big, powerful cartridges. A shot that failed to anchor the elk could mean that it will head over the next ridge (they seldom run toward you), and getting over that ridge could take the hunter several hours. Then getting the elk out that same day could be impossible, if it can be found. Having this happen just once can convince the hunter that learning to handle a little extra recoil is a small price to pay towards making a successful hunt.
There had been several magazine articles published over the past couple of years that suggested the need for a new 22 centerfire cartridge, especially to be used on the smaller deer as found in some area of Texas. The cartridge is simply a 6 mm Remington necked to 22 caliber (.224), and chambered in a barrel with about a one-in-nine-inch twist to stabilize spitzer bullets of about 75 grains in weight. I have some thoughts about this… First, the idea isn’t new. Not the concept, or the specifics. I built my first 22/244 (244 Remington was the original designation for the 6 mm Remington) in the mid-1960s, trying a one-in-eight-inch twist with Clark 80-grain bullets. It was a fine arrangement that served well during the 3000 (or so) rounds of barrel life. I followed the first barrel with a replacement that should have shot even better, but it didn’t. Subtile differences, I suppose.
The original efforts along these lines were made by Kenneth E. Clark of Madera, California, many years ago. My effort was a more economical and simpler way to achieve similar results. Clark didn’t envision his big 22 as a big-game cartridge, and neither did I, although Clark did offer a double-jacketed bullet for antelope and small deer. I later went on to build a 22/284 (22 on a 284 Winchester case), but it was just too much. It took 28 or more inches of barrel to gain much advantage over a 26-inch 220 Swift, and accurate barrel life was too limited to regard the cartridge practical for further experimentation.
Instead of the 6mm Remington case necked to .224, the shooting fraternity has now been “blessed” with the short and pudgy .223 WSSM (Winchester Super Short Magnum). I suspect there will be barrel life problems with this one, but we’ll have to be patient and see what the outcome will be. The case is, in my humble opinion, too fat in relation to its length. Wildcatters have messed with this kind of stuff in the past, and none of it stuck. I believe a much-better round would have been the 22–250 Improved with a 40° shoulder as prescribed by P.O. Ackley many decades ago. It equals or slightly surpasses the 220 Swift, and the cases don’t stretch as much. It falls somewhat short of the 224/6mm, but either would have been a better choice than the 223 WSSM, which I think is little more than a gimmick. Marketing could have done a better thing if they would have instead concentrated on quality improvements with existing rifles.
Shooters already had their chance to have a truly superior 22, and they blew it. Winchester introduced a remarkable new 22 centerfire in 1964 to replace the 220 Swift. They must have spent a fair amount of time developing and testing the 225 Winchester, because it shot like no other long-range varmint cartridge before or since. The 222 and similar rounds (222 Magnum, 223) could group a bit tighter on a still day, but not much. Combine its remarkable accuracy with its high performance (3650 fps with 55-grain bullet), along with very long barrel life and excellent cartridge case life, and you have my absolute favorite all-around 22.
I had built one of my 225s on a single-shot 40XB action using a top-quality 26-inch barrel with one-in-nine twist. With 68- and 69-grain match bullets and favorable or “readable” wind conditions, this is not the rifle to bet against at 300 to 600 yards. At nearly 5000 rounds I expect it to start to show signs of aging, so I’m planning on having a second rifle built soon, and will have the first one rebarreled when needed.
Today, except for a relatively small number of shooters who have experienced and won’t let go of the 225 Winchester, it is essentially a dead issue. I’m not trying to resurrect it, either. I regard it to be my own secret competitive edge over shooters with lesser cartridges, so I’m glad that I’m the only guy in my block with several thousand rounds of unfired 225 brass.
Readers of this website are welcome to join in with their opinions and experiences. That includes gun manufacturers, in case any are watching. We may have an opinion that offends someone, and it’s only fair that we provide a forum for response.
Responders need to let us know if they wish to be identified beyond their first name and the state or province, etc., in which they reside. For example: Dave, Texas.
Readers may also write to ask questions, to which we might have an occasional answer. You see, we won’t have an answer unless we have some personal or documented experience or knowledge. There’s enough misleading or dead-wrong information out there already, and we don’t much feel like adding to the pile.
To write to Midwest Magnum via email: midmag@iowatelecom.net
Since we’re on the subject, I’ve decided to add a new section where I’ll talk about centerfire rifle cartridges. Opinions from experience, mostly, as I’ve been shooting centerfires for over 50 years, and have owned a total of over 500.
The reader may not agree with my comments. In fact, many may strongly disagree.
I’ll start slow, and then add a cartridge or two each week, or as time permits.
I started seventeening it with a P.O. Ackley (who’s he?) -built 17-222 that shot 1/2-to 5/8-inch groups with regularity, and killed more crows and road boners (inland seals? – ground squirrels?) than you’d want to count. Never took it west to do the prairie dog thing, as its low report and “goes to dust” bullet made it an ideal Iowa rifle. Besides, intermittent shooting worked well with the frequent need to clean the barrel.
When the 17 Remington came out, my 17-222 was shot out. The new cartridge had more zip, but still, just as with the 17-222, I loaded it carefully with relatively low to moderate charges of good ‘ole IMR 3031. Dump the load from the measure to the scale pan, check all or often, and slowly pour the long powder into a tall drop tube to get it in the case without a problem.
The 17 Remington shoots well in Remington rifles, the 700BDL and 700LV-SF; but I mostly enjoy the Sakos, both Hunter and Varmint, as there will be that occasional 3/8-inch group that I haven’t gotten out of the Remingtons. On the other hand, the Sakos cost more. They quit chambering the 17 Remington a few years ago, so I quickly snapped up a few extras to run me several more years.
For 2007, Remington is introducing the 17 Fireball; a 17 on the 221 Fireball case. It will be a winner, if the barrels are straight and smooth, if the shooter understands the need to clean frequently, and if the handloader stays away from the easy-to-load (and usually much dirtier) ball powders. I’ll probably start with IMR 3031 again, or maybe even IMR 4198 with the 20-grain bullets. Think moderate. The barrel will last much longer, and the difference in bullet trajectory will be measured in 10ths of an inch from that primer-popping screamer load.
Hornady and Ruger have really come out with a dandy varmint round! Instead of going the short fat route, they have essentially resurrected the 222 Remington Magnum case and necked it down from .224 to .204 — a difference of just 20-thousandths of an inch. The shoulder of the 204 Ruger is moved forward slightly to prevent its inadvertent use in a rifle chambered for the 222 Remington Magnum, which gives it just a bit more powder capacity.
My opinion? It’s a winner. Advertised velocity for the new round is 4225-feet per second at the muzzle of a 26-inch barrel. That’s with a 32-grain Hornady V-max bullet. A 40-grain offering is said to hit 3800 fps. The round is chambered in the Ruger No. 1, both with the regular barrel and in the varmint rifle (the latter in stainless steel); as well as in Ruger’s Model 77 Bolt-Action Rifle series. The All-Weather Ultralight (stainless synthetic) will be offered with a velocity-robbing 20-inch barrel for those who want an outstanding carry rifle (coyotes, etc.). The regular 77 (blue/walnut) will be a popular version with its 24-inch barrel, but we will be focusing primarily on the 77 V/T with its 26-inch barrel, target gray stainless steel, laminated stock in varmint rifle dimensions, and excellent two-state, target-type trigger.
With a bit of tweaking — some forend bedding work — Ruger 77 Rifles usually shoot extremely well. At least they have for us. Of course, that isn’t needed with the free-floating 77 V/T. We would like to see wider use of Ruger’s fine target-type trigger, but it is they who have to deal with the issues of production costs, market acceptance, and the one-in-ten thousand who would sue because the trigger pull was too good (reasonably light and crisp). The 77 Varmint/Target Rifle isn’t intended to be a typical carry rifle, is meant to be fired from a rest, and is the ideal candidate for the fine two-stage target trigger.
The new 204 Ruger cartridge (think .20 caliber now, when talking cartridges — a new arena for all but a small number of “wildcatters” who have been playing around with .20s for many years) will be less fussy that the .17-caliber center-fire rifles, especially when it comes to cleaning the barrel. Dewel cleaning rods (why not own the best?) are already available in .20 caliber. The rifles will take awhile to fill the pipeline and reach your favorite gun shop, so be patient. While Hornady’s fine V-Max in 32 grains will be the initial loading, watch for other bullets to become available in the future.
I like the 222 Remington Magnum so much that I recently ordered and received yet another 40XB, this time a BR (bench rest) version, from Remington’s Custom Gun Shop. Except for the 223 Remington, I thought the case head size introduced by the .222 Remington was all but dead. My compliments to Hornady and Ruger for getting together to bring us this wonderful little cartridge. Maybe it will wake up the industry and slow down the short/fat trend. One thing for sure… It brings a fast, light bullet into the varminting picture, which is a good thing when you consider that this bullet will be less likely to bounce around or continue on after it has touched a varmint, the ground, or foliage.
Expect one other benefit from the 204; recoil in a heavy rifle, such as the 77 V/T, will likely be so mild that the shooter will be able to watch the bullet strike the target. This makes prairie dog control just that much more enjoyable.
Second thoughts on the 204 Ruger… There’s not much that can be said against this fine cartridge, providing it is used for practical purposes within its capabilities. Accurate and fun, it is sure to continue to gain in popularity over the next several years. Bullet weights are 32 to 40 grain, with a couple of specialty exceptions. Various handloads are appearing in gun magazines. Shooters respond to new developments, and the 204 Ruger is one of the best to come along in recent years. However, it is limited in scope. In fact, it is about as limited as the 17 Remington insofar as field performance is concerned. The 204 Ruger isn’t as fussy as the 17 Remington, in that more rounds can be fired between cleanings. That is, as long as relatively clean powders are selected. Some burn dirtier than others, in regard to residue. I’ve long been a fan of IMR 3031 in the 17/22 and the 17 Remington. It’s tougher to get it into the case, but I like the way the barrel looks after several shots. I also avoid full-house loads, as they do very little different at 150, 200, or 300 yards compared to loads that are, say, 200 fps slower at the muzzle.
Cleaning problems with the 17s? No, not as long as the effort is taken to clean every 10 to 15 rounds. Get into the routine — it doesn’t take that long.
Cleaning problems with the 204? No, as long as the shooter understands that some powders are dirtier than others, and they don’t mind backing off a bit from that 4000+ fps performance with 32-grain bullets.
Fewer cleaning problems with the centerfire 22s? Certainly. If the original standard was 5mm (20 caliber), and the new cartridge was a .224, shooters would be flocking to it. They’d be comparing the 40-grain .224s to the 32-grain .20s, and the 55-grain .224s to 40-grain .20s.
The best single thing that I believe the 204 Ruger offers is that the bullets are lighter than corresponding 224 bullets with similar ballistic coefficients, and that is likely to make them a little safer if a stray goes winging across the countryside. Lesser advantages include noticeably less recoil than even the 223, especially when using the typical 55-grain bullets; and accuracy as been quite good over a wide range of rifles. There’s probably a good reason for this, in that the factory loads have so far been excellent. By comparison, the market is flooded with utility and military loads for the 223.
I’ve had customers report back that they are very pleased with their new 204, whatever the rifle. About the only other cartridge that has had virtually 100-percent customer satisfaction is the 338 Winchester Magnum.
Take Gentleman Rex the pharmacist, for example. He struggled with which 204 rifle, and finally took home a Remington 700 LV-SF (Light Varmint, Stainless Fluted). The local range is between here and his home, and he couldn’t wait to try it. With the scope set at 14x, his very first five-shot group with it measured .351. Now he’s chomping at the bit to better the factory ammo with an array of bullets and powders. In doing this, he’ll trim, turn, weigh, and separate cases; check primer pockets and flash holes; and weigh every charge to a millionth of a grain. To add to the uniformity, I’m sure he’d like to have a tunnel to shoot through; but instead he’s content with waiting for the non-windy days, a challenge in this part of Iowa.
Despite the generally excellent performance of the 204 Ruger, it probably won’t be winning any benchrest matches. Most of them are dominated by the 6mm PPC. It probably also won’t be competitive against the old .22 centerfire cartridges that used to be seen at the matches, such as the 222 Remington, the 222 Remington Magnum, and the variations thereof. On the other hand, the 204 Ruger makes a better varmint cartridge than the above-mentioned cartridges by virtue of its higher velocity and flatter trajectory. But don’t expect it to out-muscle most centerfire .22s — not even the 221 Fireball — within the acceptable ranges for each. Said differently, although I don’t personally have an interest in shooting coyotes, I have tended not to over-recommend the 204 to my customers with that goal. Rather, I suggest they consider something a bit heavier, such as the larger-cased 22s and the 243. Those who are reaching way out, and who understand safe long-range shooting and bullet performance, sometimes opt for the 25–06 and even larger cartridges. The 270 Winchester and 7mm-08 Remington have even been selected by a few of these specialists who intend to use bullets such as Speer’s TNT and Hornady’s V-Max.
Heading this direction in our one-sided conversation, I’d like to mention what I regard to be nothing short of a fantastic factory round…
Federal Cartridge Company has been loading the 55-grain Trophy Bonded Bear Claw as a Premium offering in the 22–250. For the individual preferring to carry a lighter and more compact rifle, such as the Remington Model 7, this round is excellent for tough varmints. Fact is, I have heard reports of it being quite effective on the smaller deer of arid southern regions, as well as on smaller African game. Don’t expect it to shoot quite as accurately a top-notch varmint bullet. I recently took my Remington Model 7 in stainless steel with the laminated stock (a version no longer offered) to the range with a box of these Federal rounds. the rifle is fitted with a “silver” VXIII in 2.5-8X and mounts to match, and I only had to make minor adjustments to sight it in 1-1/2 inches high at 100 yards. It had been sighted with Sierra’s 63-grain bullets and a moderate charge of IMR4895, typically printing three shots in 5/8th to 3/4ths of an inch, with occasional groups going under half-an-inch. Keep in mind, this is a very trim rifle. The 63 Sierra’s are capable of quarter-inch groups out of match-grade rifles. I’ve loved ’em for years, because they carry a good “thump” for a varmint bullet that stabilizes in barrels with a twist of 14 inches. However, these bullets are fairly “explosive,” although not so much so as the ultra-thin jacked Blitz, Hornday’s SX and V-Max, etc. Regardless, for a 35-pound coyote, it doesn’t hurt to dial up your level of respect. That’s where the Trophy Bonded bullet comes into play. In larger calibers, these bullets have demonstrated an ability to plow through tough muscle and break bones to provide quick kills. For example, Federal’s load of a moderately pointed 400-grain Trophy Bonded should be part of the regular supply for anyone using a 458 Winchester Magnum, as it retains considerable more energy for longer shots at very large, thin-skinned game than round-nose bullets. Trophy-Bonded solids are also produced for thick-skinned game, and are highly renowned by professionals for staying on course, holding together, and creating superior initial shock effect. Oh, and the 55-grain Trophy Bonded Bear Claw in the Federal 22-250 load?… Three 3-shot groups averaged .793. I was pleasantly surprised with this excellent performance from such a light and trim rifle. I won’t waste these rounds in a heavy varmint rifle, as I regard them to be ideal for a carry-about rifle.
The soft-pointed Trophy Bonded bullets retain about 90-percent of their original weight, based on the evidence of recovered bullets by hunters all over the world, and by the manufacturer’s own tests. It seems doubtful that their 55-grainer at 22–250 velocities would be able to duplicate the 90-percent retained weight, and I haven’t had the opportunity to check this out, but I have seen and heard the difference in their impact as compared to a varmint bullet. These loads are expensive, but probably worth every penny to the person who wants to get more from their 22-250 sporter. The bullets can be purchased separately to turn any strong .224 centerfire with a 1-in-14 or 1-in-12 twist into something beyond a typical varmint rifle.
What a fine little cartridge! For years, it won more bench rest matches than any other. Let’s dispense with its primary drawback right now…
The 222 can be a little fussy when it comes to load development, and I believe is even a bit fussy about the weather. Even so, it isn’t all that tough to develop an excellent load. When doing so, avoid the dirty powders. Try to do it with some of that clean-burning stick stuff. If IMR 4198 doesn’t work well in your rifle, keep looking. Use your loading manuals and chronograph to find two or three loads with very low deviation in velocity. When you do, you’ll have a cartridge that will shoot groups every bit as tight as the 22 PPC at 100 yards, in the tunnel. The PPC will have the upper hand outdoors because it has a velocity advantage.
Today, the 222 has all but been replaced by the 223 Remington, which shoots about as well in the tunnel and has a slight advantage in velocity. The 222 is fondly remembered by senior accuracy buffs, but will be all but forgotten in another decade or two.
Almost everybody knows more about the 223 Remington than me. This is probably the most-fired cartridge of recent years — sometimes by responsible shooters with nice bolt action, single shot, and even AR-15-type rifles; and sometimes by less-than-responsible shooters who have a cheap semi-auto that they wish was an M-16, and they go to the range, field, or desert to blast away with surplus rounds and FMJ bullets. The 223 is an excellent round, and I even tried to make it competitive in a classy benchrest rifle, but it fell a wee bit short. However, it makes an excellent varmint round, and I’ve had superb luck with Sierra’s 69-grain MatchKing in 1:9 twist rifles.
I think the 223 is at its best in the 1:9 twist bolt actions built by Savage (their regular twist) and Remington (their tactical twist), and in the upscale AR-15s that are carefully manufactured and tuned for competition or varmint hunting.
I am not sour about the 223 Remington cartridge. I am sour about the irresponsible shooters that have surfaced as a result of the proliferation of low-priced, poor-quality, semi-automatic rifles, and the seemingly endless supply of cheap and non-sporting military surplus ammunition. Over the coming years, I predict that most of the horrid multiple killings of the innocent by unfit-to-exist criminals, who believe they have a valid issue, will be via AR-15-type rifles or high-capacity 9mm semi-automatic pistols. Yet, the gun magazines continue to show these types of guns on their covers more than any other. These are the errors that will continue to provide the public and the politicians the energy to chip away at gun rights.
With just a wee bit more power than the 223 Remington, and with a longer neck that is an advantage in reloading, the 222 Remington Magnum is my second favorite 22 centerfire by a narrow margin. Only the 225 Winchester beats it, in my opinion. The 225 will handle heavier bullets at greater velocity, and when that is combined with a rifling twist of 9 inches you have a stellar performer on varmints out to about 500 yards. The 222 Remington Magnum with a fast twist does well out to perhaps 400, and pushes 300 yards with 50–55 grain bullets and a 14-inch twist.
But mostly, I like the 222 Magnum for its remarkable accuracy. I’ve had several 222 Remington Magnums over the years, and shot my best aggregate ever with one of them. That’s the average of five 5-shot groups, and it measured .086". Consistent groups the size of a shirt collar button. Sweet. Too bad the 223 killed it.
I never really got into this one. The little rifle that Weatherby built was pretty, and today they are a classic with continually increasing value, but there was too much competition for it to survive as a low volume, mass produced cartridge with a unique case head diameter.
They shoot just fine. A friend has had one since the very beginning, and it still puts three shots into a group about the size of a quarter, give or take a little.
Today it’s all but totally obsolete, even though Weatherby still includes it in their attractive lucite block cartridge display.
The 22-250 Remington started life as a “wildcat” cartridge, created by necking down 250 Savage brass to accept .224" bullets. Most 22-250s have a 1:14 twist. Savage rifles have a 1:12 twist, and are able to handle 60-grain V-max Bullets, a potential advantage to long-range p-doggers.
The 22-250 is a terrific cartridge; accurate with a wide range of loadings. We generally call this “flexible.” Over the years, I have done most of my 22-250 shooting out of Remington 700 rifles, and have settled on 55-grain bullets. I don’t like anything lighter than the 53-grain Sierra in this cartridge, and actually prefer the old-fashioned flat-base 55-grain Hornady SX at about 3500 fps. I’ve had the best all-around success with IMR 4895 (accuracy, clean barrel, barrel life), with IMR 4320 right behind. If you get equal or better accuracy from IMR 4320, use it instead, as barrel life will likely be even longer.
For those readers who prefer to steam their bullets out of a throbbing muzzle dripping with molten steel, I have no pity. I’d rather give up 250 fps for what I have found to be about double the barrel life, with essentially no loss of accuracy and a barely detectable change in trajectory. There are hot loads that work well in the 22-250, and one of them is even the best I’ve found for benchrest; but the 22-250 is not a competitive benchrest cartridge, so why waste the barrel on futile efforts?
The 22-250 (Ackley Improved) is another fine cartridge, and it also performs very well with moderate to hot loadings. Here again, I load this higher-capacity version of the regular 22-250 to relatively moderate velocity, and find that regular 55-grain Hornady and Sierra flat-base bullets work just fine. I don’t bother with the higher-priced poly-tip bullets because they just don’t shoot enough better to justify the additional cost. Shooting 55-grain in the AI at about 3700 fps is moderate, and will keep the barrel around longer.
In recent years, I’ve been shooting 75-and 80-grain bullets in 22-250s with a 1:8 twist. This makes a superb long-range performer out of the old cartridge, although these long loads will not generally fit in the magazine of a repeating rifle. Bullets lighter than 69 grains do not usually perform as well in these fast-twist rifles.
An all-time favorite, I like the Swift because of its high performance combined with long barrel life. Sounds strange? Here again, moderate loads, that still give excellent velocity, shoot extremely well in the Swift. I have settled on 53-to-55-grain bullets in rifles with a 1:14 twist, sometimes find success with the 60-grain V-Max in Savage rifles with the 1:12 twist, but prefer to sling heavy 80-grain Sierras and Noslers out of long, fat barrels with a 1:8 twist. I’ve gotten two Remington 40Xs — one KS and one laminated thumbhole — in the past year or so, and they perform very well. The 75-grain Hornady A-Max is an excellent alternate bullet choice, but my attention has so far been paid to the 80-grainers. The 77-grain bullets have a lower B.C. and are intended to feed through actions, as they can be seated deeper. I prefer the 80s in my single shots, but the 77s can serve as an alternate out to about 500 yards in the event that they are found to shoot better in a specific rifle. The 80s do very well even beyond that distance, able to shoot under three-inch groups at the 600-yard range.
This is one of those almost amazing cartridges that shoots way better than it probably should. In design it seems inferior to the 6mm Remington and, in fact, with all things being seemingly equal in custom-quality varmint rifles, a fussy handloader will typically be able to squeeze a bit more uniformity and accuracy out of the 6mm Remington. However, with factory rifles and factory ammunition or casual handloads, the 243 Winchester probably averages a bit better. With bullets up to 75 grains, most of them shoot well with IMR 4064. Above that, IMR 4350 becomes the classic powder. It’s easy to make a quality 243 Winchester shoot well.
Quite frankly, I don’t like the round. I don’t like that short neck — the result of squeezing the 308 Winchester clear down to 6mm. But I’ve owned a bunch of them over the years, long enough to shoot the barrels out of a few. In fact, it was a worn-out pre-64 that led me to what I regard as a much better cartridge for deer and similar game.
After putting about 3000 rounds through a pre-1964 Model 70 Varmint (no telling how much the previous owner had fired it), accuracy had permanently dropped off. I had already been through the stage of seating bullets out further.
Feeling that the rifle in 243 was neither fish nor fowl — as I had a 1-in-12 twist 244 Remington that outshot it for varmints (244 is the original name for the 6mm Remington) — and deciding that it was too light a cartridge for big game, I necked up my existing supply of selected 243 brass to .264 (6.5mm, if you prefer), had a set of chambering reamers made, and set about to rebarrel the rifle in 6.5/243 Winchester. I selected a 1-in-9 twist to stabilize 140-grain bullets, but this rifle much preferred 120- and 129-grain bullets. It became my favorite lay-down-and-wait rifle for pronghorn, happy as could be with a Weaver K-10.
I was particularly pleased when efforts by Jim Carmichel led to making it a commercial round. In 1977, Remington Arms introduced the 260 Remington and offered it in several rifles. Many of the rifles, including the fine Model 700 Varmint with laminated stock, have since been discontinued in this chambering, but not before I got my share (which is typically greedy). Despite its name, the 260 shoots regular 6.5mm (.264) diameter bullets, as it is simply the 243 necked up or 308 necked down.
Despite the original designation of this cartridge, which confused some shooters years ago, it uses bullets of .243" diameter. Compare its case to the 7mm Mauser (7x57mm) and 257 Roberts and you’ll see where it came from.
The 6mm Remington is a superior cartridge to the to the 243 Winchester, but it has been rendered virtually obsolete by a confused public who didn’t understand the basics of good cartridge design; shoulder angle, neck length, etc. The 6mm Remington clearly outpowers the 243 Winchester and, in my experience, I have found that 6mm Remington cartridge cases and rifle barrels last longer. Also, even though the 243 Winchester tends to shoot a little better (group size) with a wide variety of loads, the 6mm Remington will shoot better when the best loads are found for both cartridges.
Remington will still be happy to supply savvy shooters with a 6mm in a variety of twist choices. I have two personal 40XB single shots with the old 1:12 twist, and they shoot a variety of 70-to 75-grain bullets into shirt-button sized five-shot groups. This is not good for p-dogs, as the 6mm bullets at varmint speed do a lot more than 22 caliber bullets, and are more reliable beyond 300 yards.
This cartridge is the oddest of the WSSM trio, as it offers no ballistic advantage over the 6mm Remington, and is difficult to load to moderate (read “sensible”) pressures because of its overly thick neck. Why? Simply because the neck is too tough to readily expand and seal off the blast of gas that wants to work its way backward along the outside of the cartridge case. Not good.
The WSSM cases were made to withstand very high pressures, but this made them inflexible to accepting mild to moderate loads. And, blasting every round out of the barrel at high velocity and pressure would quickly erode the throat, so Winchester and Browning solved the problem with a high-quality chrome plating of the bore.
Okay for them, but what about the guy who wants to build his own rifle in either 223 WSSM or 243 WSSM? No chrome plating equals a quick burnout. Besides, the 243 WSSM rifles have a 1:10 twist, which means nothing special or unusual can be shot by them (such as the VLD {very low drag} bullets for extreme range, needing a 1:8 twist). Besides, with long bullets the purpose of the super short action is defeated.
I have 243 WSSM rifles in light and heavy Winchesters and Brownings, and find that the sweetest of them is the little Winchester 70 Classic Ultimate Shadow with a 2.5-8X Leupold. I load it with 100-grain hunting bullets, and am happy with three-shot groups that occasionally measure just under an inch.
Over the years, I’ve had a few Weatherby rifles chambered for the 240, but none with the little action. I like that big, beefy Mark V Action, so have kept one drop-dead beautiful Classic Mark among my personal rifles. The 240s seem to shoot quite well, and the cartridge puts out the most power of any of the commercial 6mms. My Classic Mark will remain unfired with a dummy cartridge nearby to show what it’s all about.
This truly fine cartridge is at its best with 100-grain bullets, period. I have never had one that did not shoot well, so even had Remington build me a 40X-BR in 257. Wow! I also have older Remingtons, including a 700 Mountain Rifle, and a lightweight Ruger 77 chambered for the Roberts, and they are all a pleasure to shoot. The cartridge comes and goes, as far as offerings from manufacturers are concerned, but every American should try to own at least one of these mild but very effective rifles somewhere along the way.
This cartridge is the best of the WSSM trio, not needing the chrome plating in the barrel, and putting near 25-06 performance into a couple of rifles that are extremely handy to carry — the best of them being the now-gone Model 70 Classic Ultimate Shadow. Factory rounds hover around an inch for three-shot groups, which make the rifle quite effective out to 300 yards with 115-to 120-grain bullets.
I snapped up several of the little Winchesters as the supply was dwindling, and plan to shoot out at least one or two before re-barreling to a necked-up WSSM case of 30 caliber. Should get busy on that someday.
This cartridge is one of my absolute favorites. It actually does what some people think the 243 Winchester and 6mm Remington are supposed to do. It humanely kills deer and similar game, and doesn’t kick much. The 25–06 Remington spans the varmint/deer range, and overlaps into the lower end of 30–06 duties. An intelligent hunter with a 25–06 and a 30–06 will do just fine in North America. The 270 Winchester and 280 Remington fall between, but neither can handle the low or high end of the hunting range as well as needed to stand alone as a single choice. There is no single-rifle choice! The gun writer who says otherwise is wrong, or is sometimes over- or under-gunned.
I have a close friend in Idaho who has taken many freezers full of elk, swiftly and cleanly, with a 25–06. Does he think it’s an elk rifle? Nope. Not for the typical marksman. But Joe can repeatedly hammer that 6-inch steel gong offhand, hanging by a chain on the jack fence 133 yards away. With iron sights — and a handgun! His Ruger Blackhawk 44 Magnum. You see, with a rifle he’s really good. Pick out a rock on the slope at 200 yards or so. He’ll smack it almost instantly. He shot the elk in the neck. It’s a case of “don’t try this at home,” unless you’re as good a shot as he. A retired guide, Joe usually recommends at least a 300 Magnum with good bullets for the rest of the populace.
This cartridge is purely fun. It’s fun to shoot, because varmint-weight bullets seem to reach their target at the instant the firing pin strikes the primer, and the impact on the target is violent when compared to, say, a 22–250.
Weatherby rifle stocks are well designed insofar as being easy on the shooter during recoil. The 257 Weatherby doesn’t recoil much anyway, which adds to the pleasure. It has quite a “crack” when it’s touched off, but that’s kinda fun too. Nothing wimpy about it.
It has a reputation for being a bit hard on barrels, but is really no worse than several other cartridges that aren’t nearly as much fun.
With 100- or 115/117-grain bullets, it is possibly the best pronghorn cartridge in existence. A well-hit critter goes down as if it was struck by lightening. Mule deer are tougher, but no match for the 257 Weatherby with the heaver bullets placed properly.
If you plan on never buying a Weatherby chambered for this hot rod, at least seek out a happy owner who will give or sell you a cartridge. You can put it on your mantle so your guests will know that you have great taste when it comes to excellence in design.
Refer to the notes on the 243 Winchester. The 260 Remington seems to virtually equal the 6.5/284 in velocity, using a few grains less powder, and producing less velocity deviation, so I continue to fail to understand the fuss over the 6.5/284. I had a custom rifle with 27+inch barrel made up in 260, and it shoots superbly with 120-grain Sierras. I’ll be trying various 140-grain match bullets soon, and expect excellent results. Now there’s a new and slightly heavier match bullet, so I’ll soon be trying them. I had a rifle built that uses the 6mm Remington case necked to 264. Twist is 1:9. It, too, shoots exceptionally well.
There are some excellent 6.5mm bullets available. Somebody, or even a few people, started the 6.5/284 craze by winning a match that had little to do with the cartridge. It was their marksmanship and good equipment that did the job. But, the onlookers of the world took note, and now many are on the 6.5/284 kick without even looking elsewhere. I’ve looked, and the 260 Remington and 6.5/6mm are absolutely as accurate, or better. That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it until proven wrong.
The 264 Winchester Magnum made a big impression on this 16-year-old kid when it was announced in 1958. I wanted to shoot 100-grain bullets at 3700 fps, and maybe even some 140 grainers at 3200 fps.
Then came the bad press, and I was glad I hadn’t spent my imaginary money on one. Today, I have several. Over the years, I’ve learned that the 264 Winchester is an okay way to move 139-, 140-, and 142-grain bullets a bit faster than other 6.5s. It takes a little time to find the best load for each rifle, but it’s worth it.
This past year, Remington decided to bring the 264 back in their fine 700 Sendero SF II. With the wide range of powders available today, this fat-barreled but reasonable-to-carry rifle is capable of doing some impressive work at very long ranges in the western plains. Gun writers don’t like ‘em, but I do appreciate and enjoy this somewhat specialized cartridge.
I like this fine cartridge almost as much as did Jack O’Connor. For any big game up through the size of large deer or sheep, it’s tough to beat. Rifles typically hold four in the magazine, plus one in the chamber (with the safety on). The 270 WSM (Winchester Short Magnum) rifles hold one less in the magazine, and in several side-by-side comparisons I haven’t found that the 270 WSM can match the 270 Winchester for accuracy. There’s more…
Modern loadings are available that offer significantly increased performance for the 270 Winchester. Hornady has their Light Magnum load, Federal their High Energy. When using these, the ballistic gap between the 270 Winchester and the 270 WSM is very slight.
I’ve had 270s for decades. My first was a Model 70 manufactured in the mid-50s. I think most of the later rifles regularly outshoot those of a half-century ago. Remington 700s, Winchester 70s, Ruger 77s, and others, are capable of neat little groups and excellent, practical field performance. My most recent 270 Winchester is in the form of a Remington 700 Titanium, and it’s a dandy. Extremely lightweight, tough as nails, and superbly accurate right out of the box with factory ammunition. Most any better-quality load puts three shots into an inch, and the best of them have made 5/8-inch. Truly impressive performance.
Bottom line? Every serious big-game hunter in the United States ought to own at least one 270. Want to really look classy? Get two, and make sure one of them is a Ruger No. 1.
For years, this was the “rich man’s 270,” and, for that reason, did not become as popular as it should have. Besides, it shot the garden variety of 270 bullets enough faster than the 270 Winchester to cause them to expand too rapidly upon impact at closer ranges. Consequently, in the early days (1940s through 1960s), hunters using the 270 Weatherby tended to rely on its shock effect rather than a good penetration into the vitals.
In recent years, the 270 Weatherby Magnum has become an extremely effective big-game cartridge, but I do not include elk for most hunters in all areas. The new era of better bullets has made it among the best for mule deer, and Ruger even offered it in their classy No. 1-B. Life doesn’t get much better.
This is my absolute favorite cartridge for big game up to and including monster whitetails. I think it falls just shy of being able to be recommended as an elk cartridge, only because of the variables in elk hunting across the country. It is notably harder-hitting than the wonderful 270 Winchester, and with the added velocity and energy of some modern loads it’s right on the heels of the 7mm magnums.
Accurate, moderate recoil, and not nearly as popular as it should be. Not many rifles are chambered for the 280 Remington anymore. I have a dozen or so, and continue to add another from time to time.
If you have a big budget, have a top riflemaker build you a custom job. I’m betting it will be your favorite in this power range.
One more thing… Even though bullet weights run clear up to 175 grains, I have found that 150- to 160-grain bullets work best at a wider range of distances. But, if you’re doing the black bear thing, the 175 might be a better choice.
Meet the instant classic of the early 1960s, still going strong, still absolutely effective, and one of the most popular big game cartridges to ever be developed. As it is, the 7mm is just 20 thousandths fatter than a 6.5, but that’s enough to move top bullet weights to 175 grains, opposed to about 140 grains for the 6.5. That difference puts the round into elk hunting for many regions and, indeed, it is the favored cartridge for many hunters, even though there is a tendency to hover in the 150-to160-grain range for most of them. As a much more competent elk round than, say, a 270 Winchester, it keeps the dream alive even for deer hunters who are unlikely to ever go on an elk hunt.
The 7mm Remington Magnum (and others in its class) is right at home in Africa, too, handling most plains game shy of the greater kudu. Accuracy is good for the longer shots, as it shoots flat enough to allow imperfect range estimation, as long as the hunter stays within reason.
With twists usually in the 9.25-to 9.5:1 range, I’ve found that they perform best with 150-grain bullets and up. Because you don’t always know at what distance the shot will be taken, I recommend premium bullets for most situations. However, if it is known that the shot will be at extended range, the Hornady SSTs can be depended upon to shoot flat and expand well even after the distance has shed a fair portion of the velocity.
The 7mm Remington Magnum has even had some success in matches, myself included some three decades ago. As with virtually all hunting rounds, I tend to stay off the top when reloading. Small sacrifices in muzzle velocity can pay big dividends in accuracy, barrel life, and safety.
Credit due. It’s due to Roy Weatherby. He designed the 7mm Weatherby Magnum in the mid-1940s, years before Remington all but copied it, and years before Winchester “thought up” that first group of short magnums like the 264.
Roy did it. And he had help by starting with the 300 Holland & Holland Magnum cartridge case. You see, it has a belt. The belt serves as a rim moved a bit forward, adds material to the case head, and offers much better headspace control than is possible with mass manufacturing tolerances headspacing off the shoulder. Today there is a lot of talk about belts being a bad thing. Pure crap. Sales gimmicks. There is no greater challenge in shooting sports than 1000-yard benchrest shooting. Last time I looked, almost all of the cartridges turning in top performances had belts.
The 7mm Weatherby Magnum just slightly whups the Remington version, and is just shy of the less-efficient 7mm STW. Two years ago I ordered a Weatherby Mark V Crown Custom for myself, complete with a gold bighorn sheep on the floorplate. Engraved action and barrel, inlaid stock. I wanted one of those kinda gaudy Weatherbys like so many celebrities ordered in the 1950s and 1960s. I had a choice of Weatherby cartridges, and picked the 7mm for this rifle because it’s a classic. The three-shot test group that accompanied this Weatherby Custom Shop showpiece measures a scant .248 of an inch. Come see it.
I bought a 7mm Weatherby Accumark for myself a few years ago. It looks heavier than the 8-1/2 pounds it weights (without scope), so is reasonable to take to the field for long shots on plains game, but the best part is the out-of-box accuracy it provides. I took it to a range where I could sail 162 Sierra Matchkings 600 yards, sighted in at that distance with a 4.5–14x Leupold Vari-XIII, and proceeded to shoot 20 straight rounds well inside the border of the 6-inch X-ring. In fact, the overall group measured just 4.392 inches. That’s less than 3/4 MOA at 600 yards with a factory production rifle! Needless to say, it caught the attention of several competitive shooters who had never owned or fired a Weatherby, but were probably already convinced that they weren’t much good. Expertise without experience — preconception borne by ego — opinions cast as if they are fact — damage done.
My advice… Find out for yourself. Don’t take the word of the gun writers (or me) without a questioning attitude. Why is it that virtually every new product is written about so favorably? Of course, that isn’t always the case, but just look at the trend. The whole lineup of short magnums, for example, have received praise that I just can’t totally agree with, and my opinion is based on the actual performances I have experienced. I don’t need to kill game with these rifles. I know I can do that within their class just fine with well-placed bullets, and I don’t believe in taking game for the sake of a field test. The performance of the cartridge and rifle can be proven on the shooting range. Does it feed okay consistently? Does velocity measure up to advertised specifications? Can factory rounds be duplicated with powders regularly available to the reloader? Does the standard deviation of velocity compare well with that of the round it is meant to replace? Is the new round as accurate? Do you suspicion anything phony about the advertising or gun-writer hype? Do you suspect that there might be a downside that isn’t being brought out? Are you hearing negative reports that don’t seem to making the press?
As you may be guessing by now, I’m clearly not a tag-along fan of the lineup of short magnums. Briefly, however, I believe the 7mm and 300 Remington Short Action Ultra Mags are superior to their Winchester counterparts. The Remington Model 7 in either cartridge has consistently outperformed the Winchester Model 70 on the range for me in everything but velocity, and I think that little rifle is a much better match to the concept of having a very short “magnum” cartridge.
Perhaps you will get different results. Remington doesn’t have a 270 SAUM, so the Winchester 270 WSM stands alone in the .277 bullet diameter. But I don’t think it’s needed. It has little velocity advantage over the old 270 Winchester with the modern high energy loads, and hold one less round — the one you might need.
In this gun shop we tell it like we see it, and we tell why we see things the way we do. That sometimes costs sales. We don’t care. The buyer almost always has less experience than we do, because we are surrounded by hundreds of guns, make sales regularly, and often go to the range with the owner to sight-in the new rifle and scope. We learn a lot right there.
Take the full-length belted case and neck it to 7mm (.284). The STW (Shooting Times Westerner) was essentially created by necking the 8mm Remington Magnum down to 7mm. It works okay, and has about a hundred feet per second across the board over the 7mm Remington Magnum, but there’s really no significant advantage in any direction. The additional powder does, however, help to spoil the barrel quicker, and ups the recoil about half a notch. It still shoots those same 7mm bullets as the other 7mm Magnums, so nothing gained there, either.
A 7mm Remington Magnum owner would be ill-advised to make the trade. And now, the buying public is making the decision easier, as most rifle makers no longer list the STW among their available chamberings.
The biggest “7” is this dandy… an accurate barrel-burner with great potential only with the heavier bullets and slowest powders. For closer-range hunting, it is unnecessary, as any of the 7mm magnums can fling one of those long 175-grain bullets just fine and the game won’t know the difference. The big 7mm Ultra Mag, however, is more specialized. It’s capable of shooting the more streamlined bullets across vast stretches of country flatter than any other 7mm, thereby retaining enough energy to do the job at greater distances. Some of the feedback from the western states and Africa on the “big 7” would have you thinking that it’s a wonder cartridge. Perhaps it is, as accuracy with some loads has been terrific. Just be prepared to see some throat wear much sooner than would be apparent with Remington 7mm Magnum of four-plus decades ago; as for more shooters, the tradeoff isn’t worth the difference in velocity.
This very attractive cartridge was introduced by Savage Arms back in 1920. It had a surprisingly sharp 30° shoulder, and a neck shorter than any other cartridge of its time. The round performed well in the firm’s excellent Model 99 Lever Action Rifle, producing performance just shy of the 30–06 loadings of that time. Its efficiency attracted the attention of the military, concerned with the cost of producing the large 30–60 cartridge, as well as the space and weight as related to shipping and personal carry. Thirty caliber was in, with no real consideration of anything smaller, but a smaller cartridge was certainly worth considering. The Russians and the Germans had both developed ”short” .30s, but the velocity and range of these cartridges fell far short of what the United States deemed adequate. After all, we had more than a few excellent marksmen in the armed forces who could put a round to good use at 500 yards — and beyond. “Let’s not inhibit them,” was a factor in the decision.
So, in 1944, the government small arms experts began experimenting with, you guessed it, the 300 Savage. Power was certainly adequate, as there was little gap between it and the 30–06. But the case design, that sharp shoulder and relatively short neck, was the source of production concerns. And, would the sharp shoulder cause feeding problems at the high cyclic rate of fire of machine guns? No chances would be taken. The shoulder would be put at 20° instead of 30°, and the neck would be lengthened slightly. A tweak here and there, and the cartridge that would later come to be known as the 7.62 Nato and 308 Winchester was the final result.
Today, the reputation of the 308 Winchester shines, while the 300 Savage (.300 being the bore diameter, .308 the groove [and bullet] diameter) is become less known with each passing year. Happily, Remington decided to chamber the 300 Savage (ya gotta love the name!) in their handsome Model 700 Classic a couple years ago. I grabbed one from stock immediately, and dusted off an old set of RCBS dies to load some 150- and 165-grain flat-based bullets. The short neck of the 300 Savage prefers flat-based bullets, which is just fine with me because I think too many armchair ballistics experts fall for the marginal boattail “improvements” shown in the tables. In practical application, hunting rifle after hunting rifle, flat-based bullets usually product tighter groups. Match rifles are often (not always) able to realize a slight accuracy advantage with boattails, and need the ballistic advantage of the boattail at long range matches. Nonetheless, it’s easier for most bullet manufacturers to produce hunting bullets with a flat base that show better accuracy from hunting rifles than is seen with boattail bullets. Attend a benchrest match and see what the fuzz cleaners are using. (Fuzz cleaners are the shooters that keep shooting through the same hole, enlarging it only a little while cleaning out the fuzzy edges.)
Back to the Remington 700 Classic in 300 Savage… After adjusting the trigger and tweaking the bedding, including “splitting” the up-pressure band in the stock at the forend tip — so there were two pads at 60°, and no contact with BDC, the rifle shot five different bullet choices to .75" or less with three shots at 100 yards. Happily, the most accurate bullets in the rifle were “standard” grade bullets rather than the more expensive “premium” grade. The fluke (tightest) group measured .471, so 15 more of this combination were loaded. The largest group measured .791;, the smallest of the five went into .437". The .471 incher wasn’t a fluke.
If you have a chance to add a Remington 700 Classic to your hunting rifle ensemble, don’t pass it up. The predicted modest interest level probably kept production down, and this is likely the last commercial rifle that will ever be chambered for this excellent, compact, accurate, and effective cartridge. Too many of our best cartridges are dying, only to be replaced by the latest fad. Encourage the gun makers to concentrate on manufacturing quality and improved accuracy rather than waste their research and development dollars on the inferior products borne by emotional rather than solid thinking.
To do the testing, a 36X benchrest scope was in place. Since then, it has been replaced by a Burris Fullfield in a straight 2-1/2x with 3P#4 (German) reticle. This reticle, a long-time favorite, provides three “bars” — one from each side and another from the bottom — that fall just short of touching. A crosswire connects them, and continues to the top without fattening. It’ sort of like a three-post plex, but I find it better than having that fat upper post of the plex. When you get used to it, the 3P#4 and similar reticles are fast on the target! Such hunting-type reticles are typically an option at an additional $50 or so. To me, they’re worth every penny.
The 308 Winchester has been an excellent military round, and is pretty darn good for a wide variety of game, from prairie dogs to elk. It has somewhat less power than the 30-06, but enough to get the job done. The improved bullets and power of recent years actually make the 308 more effective than the 30-06 was several years ago. And then there’s the accuracy factor…
This little cartridge is about as well balanced as can be. With twists that range from 15 to 10, it does well with bullets from 110 grains through about 190 grains. I have one 40X with a 1:10 twist that is at its best with 200-grain Sierra MatchKings, but does quite well with weights as low as 155 grains. Therein lies some of the beauty of this extremely flexible cartridge. On the other end, I have a custom rifle with 1:14 twist that shoots 110-through 168-grain bullets with amazing consistency, including five-shot groups in that magical 1/8th-inch range. Hunting rifles often do three shots inside of an inch, which is more than can be said of almost any other cartridge above 25 caliber. Exceptional skinny-barreled rifles sometimes do the three in a half an inch.
The limit of the 308 is probably its effective range, being overshadowed by quite a number of flatter-shooting rounds. Even so, the cartridge comes highly recommended by this writer, as shots of over 300 yards on anything but varmints seldom make good sense. Those T.V. programs and videos that depict ultra-long shots are doing a disservice to those who would dream of duplicating such feats, some of which are fabricated. Yet, the 308 has delivered some remarkable scores in competition at 600 yards, even for me. Would I use one to shoot prairie dogs at 500 yards? Yup, done that. Would I use one for deer at 400? Nope, but the Hornady SSTs sure would make 300, or even a little more, quite doable for a competent hunter.
Arguably the world’s most versatile cartridge, it certainly is effective for as wide a range of big game as any. Not bad for a cartridge designed for military use a century ago. The ’06 part of its name refers to a design tweaking that finalized the dimensions of the cartridge case in 1906.
Bullets weights ranging from 100 through 250 grains are available. Some rifles will shoot some 110- to 125-grain bullets okay, but the 308 Winchester generally does much better here. The 30–06 is at its best with 150- to 220-grain bullets. The sweet zone for long-range game are 150- to 180-grain pointed bullets, while the round-nose 220 grainer does an effective smacking bigger game at closer ranges.
I like 165- to 180-grain bullets in the 30–06. Some premium bullets are more intended for the higher velocity of .30 caliber magnums, whereas the 30–06 often works very well with the regular line. An excellent bullet for the ’06, as testified by many hunters, is the regular old-style 180 grain Hornady.
If you’re not familiar with 220-grain round-nose bullets, try the Sierra or Hornady. You might be amazed at the accuracy, the big smack it makes on the backstop, and the penetration. They don’t shoot as flat as pointed bullets, but at ranges of up to 200 or 250 yards, you’re likely to be impressed. Set your scope accordingly. I set mine so the bullets hit two inches low at 200 yards, and then shoot groups at 50, 100, and 150 yards to record where they’re hitting at those distances.
The 220-grainers generally do less meat damage, and you might not have to wait until that critter offers a better position for your shot. These tough bullets have a better chance of driving through from flank to vitals.
The 30–06 is elk and moose capable, at reasonable distance. As with several cartridges, modern loadings are available that close the gap between the 30–06 and the 300 magnums. Most certainly, the 300 WSM and 300 SAUM have very little power advantage over such loads in the 30–06, and the ’06 holds one more round. The hunter who carries one is usually pretty savvy, and hasn’t been taken in by short-magnum hype.
The 300 SAUM (Short Action Ultra Magnum) is a much better cartridge than the 300 WSM, but the shooting public has mostly ignored it. The configuration of the cartridge is excellent. It has a 7mm counterpart, but the basic case can be necked up or down from 416 to 264 without a hitch. Every cartridge derived from it will work just fine. As a 30-caliber target round, preliminary findings look very promising.
This was the “short magnum” that started it all, and is possibly the best of the litter. I don’t like it. The design leaves the shoulder and neck in an awkward position for proper seating of many bullets. This becomes more apparent with the 325 WSM. I’d rather have a 30-06.
The 300 Holland & Holland Magnum is the perfect cartridge to defy the current hype of short, stubby, fat cases without belts. It is as beautiful and graceful as it is accurate. It feeds slick as goose grease through bolt action rifles of either push-or controlled-round design. Now over 80 years old, it’s as good and modern as the gun writers and manufacturers will let it be. Craig Boddington is apparently one of the few who know what a wonderful cartridge it is.
This excellent cartridge has had about a four-decade run, which may be drawing to a close. The new big deal is the beltless magnums, long or short, that are supposedly better than the 300 Winchester Magnum. They aren’t. Their pressures are higher, I have not seen accuracy to consistently match that of the 300 Winchester Magnum with 180- and 190-grain bullets, and their fatter cases do something that nobody seems to have noticed. The magnums based on the big .404 Jeffery case leave thinner metal around the chamber. Maybe that doesn’t matter.
I like the 300 Winchester Magnum, and strongly recommend it to hunters who want a real edge over the 30–06. The short magnums do not equal the performance of the 300 Winchester Magnum, despite the ads. The large .30-caliber magnums such as the 300 Weatherby Magnum and the 300 Remington Ultra Magnum do outrun the 300 Winchester Magnum, but the 300 Remington Ultra Magnum does so at a price. Compared to the 300 Winchester Magnum, I think it’s a bit tough on barrels. Even so, I appreciate them all and own some of each. I simply prefer the 300 Winchester Magnum over all but the 300 Weatherby Magnum, which I regard to be is the best big .30 in the world. Enhanced commercial loads for the 300 Winchester Magnum have closed the gap between it and the Weatherby, and distanced its lead over the short magnum.
It’s just the 300 Holland & Holland Magnum blown out straighter, and given a double-radius shoulder, but Roy Weatherby got it right way back in the mid-1940s. The cartridge is very accurate and very powerful. When chambered in a fat, match-grade barrel screwed to a good action, it will do amazing things at extended ranges. Part of that is due to exceptionally uniform muzzle exit velocities with appropriate loads. Barrel life is relatively good, especially when compared to the 300 Remington Ultra Magnum and Weatherby’s impractical 30–378. The hunter who selects a 300 Weatherby Magnum in Weatherby’s fine Mark V rifle can go just about anywhere. It’s too much power at too great a velocity to take deer without a lot of meat damage, unless premium bullets are used. Then those same bullets can be used with considerable success on larger game. Premium bullets generally don’t expand as rapidly, and they usually punch through smaller game without such extensive tissue disruption.
The 300 Weatherby has been chambered in guns other than those made by Weatherby. I own Ruger No. 1S in this caliber, and Winchester Model 70s. One of the Winchesters is stainless steel, synthetic stocked, and has a 24-inch barrel with boss. The barrel looked exceptionally good, so I kept the rifle to use on large game out to 225–250 yards. I worked up a heavy load using 220-grain Sierra round-nose bullets, and after rebedding the action the rifle smashes three rounds into 3/4 of an inch. The big, heavy bullets, moving at high speed, will surprise the uninitiated with their terrific wallop and their effectiveness on big game. All of that massive energy is used up in an instant when the bullet hits, and game often just crumples under the impact. Some hunters worry too much about “paper ballistics,” and need to spend more thought on stalking, positioning, and being within reasonable range.
The 300 Weatherby is generally at its best with a 26-inch barrel (for hunting, 28 inches or so for long-range target shooting). My personally owned favorite is a beautiful Weatherby Mark V Euromark, because it’s an attention grabber with its understated elegance; but the classic way to go is with the Mark V Deluxe — the shiny stock with the 1950s California look, and the deep-polished blue metal. The people who don’t love ’em are just jealous ’cause they don’t have one.
Good wood is getting scarce, so Weatherby has been selling plenty of synthetic-stocked Mark V rifles. They work just fine, and they put the great Weatherby within reach of more hunters.
This big 30 is at the practical limit (barely), considering the use of very heavy bullets and slow powders. Some years back, it would have been too big to be practical. Today, with the proper choice of powder and bullet for specific applications, its additional capacity over the great 300 Weatherby Magnum can actually be put to some use by adding a little velocity with 26-inch or greater length barrels.
I decided I wasn’t going to like the 300 Ultra Mag when it was just introduced. I didn’t like the chest-beating approach of it being more powerful than the 300 Weatherby. All the companies do it. Cartridge politics, I guess. Brag by comparison, often unfair and misleading. But the 300 Ultra Mag is a good cartridge that has demonstrated excellent accuracy. It’s not as hard on barrels as the smallest member of the family (the 7mm Ultra Mag), but it is pretty much on the opposite end from the 308 Winchester.
If all you’re planning to do is shoot paper at 300 yards, this is not your best choice. If you wish to keep the dream of hunting African plains game at extended ranges, you’d be hard pressed to find a better choice.
Too much Weatherby. I still have one of these rifles, an SB-prefix serial number in an Accumark. It’s still unfired, and will probably stay that way, as it is an example of excess without return. The 300 Remington Ultra Mag will do everything the 30-378 Weatherby does, with considerably less powder, and with noticeably less blast.
The Weatherby 30-378 hunting rifles have 26-inch barrels, and this cartridge fares better with a 28. Barrel life is short; too short to make the cartridge practical for the vast majority of shooters. For those who like to play, and have access to the money or machinery to do so, the biggest commercial 30 can be plenty of fun with a fat 30-inch barrel of 1:9 twist, slinging 240-grain Sierra MatchKings a thousand yards or more. Even so, flight time and wind judgements play their parts in long-range competition, making any advantages the 30-378 might have over, say, the old 300 Weatherby or Remington’s 300 Ultra Mag with 210-or 220-grain MatchKings, marginal at best.
When rifles go “pow” instead of “ka-boom”, and recoil with a shove instead of a punch, and take game with undeniable effectiveness, you’re on the right track down efficiency road. The old 8mm Mauser is known to most Americans through the countless military Mausers that were imported in the years following World War II, but relatively few were used for hunting without first being converted to, most often, 30-06. That’s because it was quickly discovered (and word got around) that the FMJ military loads just shot through game without doing a lot of damage. Extensive tracking was too often the end result.
Wonderful bullets are available today, and the 8mm Mauser is an excellent cartridge. I find its trajectory to be extremely predictable, and there’s just something about it that transmits comfortable feedback to the shooter. A few years ago, Remington chambered the 8mm in their 700 Classic, but the public didn’t snap them up. There was a wave or two that followed with discounted prices, as distributors tried to clear them out of their warehouses. Some of these rifles were still sitting around at bargain prices, and I’d wager that only a small fraction of all those sold have been fired.
The .323 diameter hunting bullets for the 8mm, typically best in the 170 or so grain range, cause more trauma than similar weight bullets at similar impact velocity than 30 caliber, 7mm, 270 caliber, or smaller bullets. Frontal area speaks volumes when it comes to upsetting a game animal.
I loaded a variety of rounds for one of the 700 Classics, after first making a few simple adjustments on the rifle, including tweaking the bedding. Some three-shot groups were in that 3/4-to 1-inch range, while most others ran from one inch to about 1-3/8 inches. I concentrated on tuning those of the smaller range, and ended up with two loads that are consistent at 3/4-inch; one using a Barnes bullet, with which I would not hesitate to use on elk or moose within reasonable range.
Recommendation: Don’t walk away from a good deal on a Remington 700 in 8mm Mauser. The cartridge is likely to become one of your favorites.
The fourth of the quartet of WSMs to be introduced, the 325 WSM is the second-best balanced but most efficient of the lot. The “325” serves only as numerical designation to avoid .323 or 8mm, but that’s what this is. Winchester couldn’t go to the much anticipated .338 diameter because the ogive (the tapering nose) of the bullets started a bit below the leading edge of the cartridge neck, leaving a ring of gap between the neck and the bullet. Consequently, 8mm is as large as the basic WSM case can handle, whereas Remington’s superior SAUM design can handle anything from 6.5 through .416.
The 325 WSM hunting rifles by Winchester and Browning are relatively compact and handle very well when the going gets tough. My favorite has been the stainless/synthetic Browning, which shoots Nosler Accubonds to about one inch. No other bullet has performed as well in this particular rifle.
At this stage, we clearly separate the men from the boys. The capacity of the full-length belted case, upon which the 8mm Remington Magnum is based, provides plenty of power capacity to blast 220-grain bullets out of the muzzle and across the countryside. When it first came out, this 8mm was blasted by gun writers (at least some of those less durable than Boddington) because of its considerable recoil. Wanting to punish myself, I rushed out to buy one, but was disappointed that it didn’t seem to be all that much more than a 300 Winchester Magnum at the back end. On the business end, however, it’s a whole lot more, and is the ideal “second gun” choice for Africa. There are plenty of good bullets; my two rifles in this chambering are exceptionally accurate (I’m cheating here, as one of them is a Remington Custom Shop rifle, and they always seem to shoot very well), and it can take you right through all but perhaps the eland insofar as plains game is concerned. Then switch to your dangerous game rifle and complete your Safari.
Part of a late-1950s trio that included the 264 Winchester Magnum and 458 Winchester Magnum, the 338 is quite possibly the best bigger game cartridge ever introduced for North America. It provides the correct amount of wallop for elk, moose, and other large game, with recoil that is manageable by the hunter willing to try, and smart enough to not go to the range in the summer wearing nothing more to protect his shoulder than a t-shirt.
The 338 Winchester Magnum is also excellent for African plains game, but not for lion or Cape buffalo. I have used it, as have many others, on pronghorn to sharpen skills for a later elk hunt, and found that it tends to destroy less meat than a 270. The bullets are constructed heavier and open slower.
For the person who can handle it well, the beautifully accurate 338 Winchester Magnum could easily serve as the one gun for all North American big game. For those with the budget for two guns, the 338 pairs up nicely with another in the 270 Winchester, 280 Remington, 7mm Remington Magnum range. In fact, the 7mm Remington Magnum is nothing less than the 338 necked down.
The 338 handles bullets ranging from 200 grain through 275 grain very well, and often will place various weights at or quite near the same point of impact. I like the 275-grain Swift bullet for heavier game, and something in a sleek-design 225 grainer for longer shots.
It takes a magnum-length action to stroke a 340 Weatherby into the chamber, but when you close the bolt on this baby you can handle all but the Cape buffalo among generally huntable game. (Notice how I didn’t mention elephant, on account of I’m being politically sensitive to groups trying to protect them, and to the fact that almost nobody can afford the license and trophy fee anymore.)
The 340 Weatherby Magnum does everything the wonderful 338 Winchester Magnum does, and then some. It drives the same bullets faster, or the next step heavier bullet just as fast, creating a whole bunch of knock-down power.
The rifle kicks a bit, but the Weatherby stock design helps to minimize the discomfort. While the ideal all-around bullet in the 300 Weatherby Magnum is probably the 180 grain, I believe the ideal in the 340 is the 250 grainer. See more… recoil.
Some situations call for heaver bullets. That’s where the fantastic 275-grain Swift A-Frame is called for, since Speer no longer makes their great elk, moose, and bear bullet in that weight. (When I found out they quit, I bought up every last box of Speer .275s I could find.)
For the man (or woman) who can handle this bad boy, the 340 Weatherby will reward them with remarkable performance and efficiency. I believe it is a better cartridge than the 338 Remington Ultra Magnum, even though the latter has slightly more power. It is also better than the specialized 338/.378 Weatherby, which is best left to 28+ inch barrels in custom target rifles at long-range matches with Sierra’s 250- and 300-grain Matchking bullets. The 338 Lapua has an edge in power, but no rifle nearly as nice as the selection of Weatherbys is available for it. (The synthetic-stocked Sako 75 kicks hard as hell without a muzzle brake.) The 340 Weatherby is pure class, and most experienced big game hunters will be able to learn to handle the cartridge.
This section is being written after that covering the 340 Weatherby Magnum (above) and I’d like to correct an error. Additional work with this cartridge has proven to me that it is at least equal to the 340 Weatherby. With limited experience, I thought that my old friend 340 was clearly superior; but, in working up loads for the 338 UM, I have found it to be splendidly accurate.
The only rifle I had available previously was a Remington 700 BDL, and I now think that the stock was at its limit through the action area. I since ordered and received a 40XB-KS in 338 UM, and have thoroughly wrung out a 700 XCR. As Dorothy said, “Oh my!” Quite simply, the 338 UM in a 700 XCR should well serve the serious hunter (who can handle a fair amount of recoil) anywhere on Planet Earth, for all but the thick-skinned dangerous game.
Whadda cartridge! Without the grossly overbore problems of the 30-338, the 338-378 WM stands ready to launch 300-grain Sierra MatchKings across the vast spaces to 1500-meter targets. A mere 1000 yards is no big deal for this whopper.
We discovered that by testing a pair of AccuMarks over a few shooting seasons. Seemed that the only thing lacking was a heavier and larger barrel, so I ordered a Number 4 (Weatherby’s system for a fatty), 28-inch cut Krieger match barrel on a custom tactical rifle. It shot .60" right out of the box during break-in, with handloads using the 300-grain Sierra. At 200 yards, group size opened up only to .80", so now we were dealing with a .4 M.O.A. rifle. Testing will resume when the weather gets better. It’s January as I write this.
This cartridge made its appearance back in 1965, initially chambered in the unconventional Model 600 bolt-action rifle, followed by the Model 660. In recent years, it has been resurrected in the new Remington Model 673, a bolt-action rifle vaguely similar in appearance to the old 600 (wide stock laminations of contrasting wood, barrel rib, etc.). While I don’t get too excited about the rifle, I have experienced good performance from the cartridge. I have two Remington Custom Gun Shop Model 7 rifles chambered for the 350. One is a very light weight and compact stainless rifle with a Kavilar stock, the other a full-length (Manlicher-style) laminated stock with blued metal.
The 350 Remington Magnum has about the same power as the old .35 Whelen (30–06 necked up to accept .35 caliber bullets), but does it with a short action and shortened belted magnum case. The cartridge has been chambered in a scattering of rifles, including a short run in the Remington 700. Now it is showing up in the Ruger Model 77, which is an excellent rifle at a very reasonable price. The 77 is quite responsive to a bit of “tuning” for fine accuracy. Unfortunately, Ruger discontinued the 77s with sights about a year ago. They need to bring back sights for at least a few of the chamberings, and the 350 Remington Magnum is one of them. Short of that, pair the 77 clean barrel up with the Leupold FX-11 straight 2.5x Scope.
Like the 225 Winchester, this absolutely fabulous cartridge is all but obsolete — but not to those of us who know how well it shoots and how hard it hits. Occasional custom rifles are still being made for fussy customers, and I’m among them.
The cartridge is just about what a 338 Winchester Magnum would be if it was necked up to 358. While 0.020 (20 thousandths) of an inch may not sound like much, the greater frontal area displaces more mass and impact. The 358 Norma is big medicine for elk, moose, and mean bears.
The bullet selection for 35-caliber rifles is much smaller than for 338 and 375 rifles, and the reloader needs to understand that a magnum-quality bullet must be used. The lighter construction of bullets intended for cartridges in the 35 Remington and 358 Winchester will fail when used in the 358 Norma Magnum.
The 358 Norma handles 250-grain bullets just fine, and I think they are the starting point. At the high end is the major-league 280-grain Swift.
Most readers will never see a 358 Norma Magnum in action, let alone with the 280 Swift bullet, so you’re missing a great opportunity to have your jaw drop. The compact cartridge probably does as much for its size as any in existence.
Clearly appreciating the whack of a .35-caliber bullet moving right along, I also appreciate the big 358 Shooting Time Alaskan. The cartridge comes back at you noticeably harder than the 358 Norma Magnum, and offers about another 100 feet-per-second with a 250-grain bullet. That may not sound like much, but it takes a bit of doing to make the jump from 2800 fps to 2900 fps with so large a bullet.
The power of the 358 STA is in the league of the 375 H&H Magnum, although the latter is really kind of in a league of its own. The 358 STA was created from the 8mm Remington Magnum case, which is all but dead today despite its superb performance on elk at extended ranges. The 416 Remington Magnum and 7mm Shooting Times Westerner are other offspring. I like all four of them.
Don’t get a 358 STA unless you’re a knowledgeable reloader. It’s unlikely that you’ll run into the cartridges you need at a remote hardware store while you’re on a moose hunt.
This is it. The one cartridge I choose above all others. Ninety-one years old, as fresh as a daisy, and as beautiful as an art nouveau vase. A work of art fit for a museum.
I occasionally test myself. If we were only allowed to have one rifle, what would it be? It is always the 375 H&H. If the rifle was only allowed to be a single shot, it would be the Ruger No. 1-H (although I do have a single shot Remington 40-X that the good folks at the Remington Custom Gun Shop built for me a few years ago).
The great 375 H&H is at its best in a bolt-action sporting rifle of high quality. It seems at home in the now-expired Winchester Model 70 African Express, which is a large enough rifle to help diminish recoil.
I like this cartridge much better than the 375 Weatherby Magnum (which I have not been able to get to shoot as accurately), and the 375 Remington Ultra Magnum (which kicks like a horse in those light rifles with hockey puck recoil pads), and the 378 Weatherby Magnum. My second choice in the .375 bullet diameter, however, is the 378 Weatherby Magnum, just because it’s so damn nasty.
Here’s another instance where I was (kinda) wrong about an Ultra Mag cartridge. Over the past couple of years, I’ve learned that the 375 UM shoots every bit as accurately as the 375 H&H, and does so at greater velocity and energy for those who can manage the considerable recoil. For long shots, there’s the excellent 260-grain Nosler Accubond. For up close and personal heavy work, I’ve become a huge fan of the round-nose Woodleigh 350-grain soft point. No need to load the 375 UM to the hilt; the Woodleighs perform just fine at moderate velocity, and that keeps the pressure down when you’re using a Remington action (without a claw extractor) in Africa during the hot season. More on this later…
The 378 Weatherby Magnum has plenty of recoil, just as many gun writers have already claimed, but I don’t regard it to be the monster some would lead you to believe. I have one without a muzzle brake (standard equipment today), and simply prefer not to shoot factory rounds in it. Rather, I take what I believe to be a sensible approach. Instead of crabbing about that huge Weatherby case, I take advantage of the volume and load down to moderation. For those occasions where you want to launch a streamlined bullet on its way in a 500-yard path of destruction, have the common sense to be wearing a padded shooting vest or jacket, or have a half-inch Past Recoil Shield in place. For the rest of the 378’s duties, use 350-grain Woodleys of the proper construction for the game, and burp them out at a comfortable 2400 fps.
Wildcat cartridges similar to the 416 Remington Magnum had been developed using the full-length belted magnum case (generally by necking up and blowing out the 375 H&H), so it was only a matter of time for a major manufacturer to follow with a commercial offering. The 416 Remington is not at its best with the maximum loads shown in most reloading manuals, at least not for hunting in Africa during the hot season. Problem is, to reach the 2400 fps goal with 400-grain bullets, pressure runs on the high side. Backing off just a few grains of powder, choosing the appropriate Hodgdon Extreme Powder, and being satisfied with something closer to 2300 fps will do wonders for extraction in 100-degree weather.
The Hornady 400-grain Interbond is among the best of the bullets available for this cartridge, along with a selection of Barnes bullets for longer shots at something less than a Cape buffalo. I like the cartridge, except for the pressures needed to drive the heaviest bullets at unreasonable velocity. It has shown itself to be very accurate in a number of rifles.
This fine old cartridge provides the ideal delivery of a 400-grain bullet at 2400 fps at moderate pressure. It produces a bit more recoil than the 416 Remington, because its large case uses more powder. Some handloads take advantage of the large case by adding more powder and getting more velocity, but that’s not what the 416 Rigby is all about. It’s about being easy-going and extremely effective. The best rifle at reasonable cost is clearly the Ruger 77 Magnum. Those wanting to save money can opt for the Ruger No. 1. Great proficiency with a single shot can net a skilled hunter just as much Africa game as any double rifle or bolt-action repeater.
I suppose we can get into Weatherby-bashing here, like so many have done, but that’s not a direction I’ll take. We could crab about the belted case and say it causes problems feeding, but that would be pure bunk. We could point to the extractor and say it’s too small to do the job, but in 40-plus years of using Mark Vs I’ve never had a hint of a problem. Fact is, the only problem I’ve seen is that people load the big Weatherbys too hot — far beyond need — to wring out that last foot-per-second of velocity. Don’t do it when dangerous game is the object. Rather, load 400-grain Hornady Interbonds at 2550 fps or so instead of 2700; or choose the 450-grain Woodleighs and load them at 2400 fps. This cartridge is the king of the 416s, made even more effective by moderation.
When you’re talking about a cartridge over 130 years old, you’re talking about something obsolete — unless it’s the 45–70 Government. I’m not going to talk about history. We’re going to fast forward to current day, and marvel at how popular this cartridge still is.
The old trap-door Springfield doesn’t have the strength to load the 45–70 up to its full potential. That’s where the Marlin lever action comes in. The Model 1895, in all its versions, has plenty of strength to handle much more effective loads. Whereas the major old-line ammo makers generally stick with loadings that will work in the trap door and other not-so-strong rifles, other ammo makers have come out with heavier loads for strong rifles such as the Marlin 1895, and even heavier loads for the enormously strong Ruger No. 1. Buffalo Bore and COR-BON are two such ammo makers. Anyone owning and/or planning to shot any 45–70 needs to be familiar with what ammo can safely be shot in any specific rifle!
I’ve had several 45–70s for many years. My favorites have been the Ruger No. 1 and the Browning 1885. Of the two, I tended to prefer the Ruger because of its compact dimensions, and because I just plain like the No. 1 action. The Browning was a bit too flashy, with its glossy stock and deep blueing, but it performed very well. It took a bit of turning to get the Ruger to shoot the 1-1/2-inch groups that the Browning readily displayed.
In 1999, Ruger made 1500 No. 1 rifles to commemorate 50 years of the company. With some nice engraving, touches of gold, and Circassian walnut stock with extremely fine checking, they are my favorite. I had even daydreamed about taking one to Africa to shoot a Cape buffalo, and worked up several loads that I thought would be effective on a variety of game. Just think… taking a Cape buffalo with that old cartridge!
Well, I received my March 2004 issue of Rifle magazine, and see that Brian Pearce already did it. He used a 1970s vintage Marlin 1895 lever action, a rather scuffed-up old rifle, and loaded it with COR-BON 405-grain FP PEN ammunition. That means flat point, penetrating. Brian is a fine gun writer and reporter, and an accomplished hunter. The COR–BON rounds performed beautifully on the old bull, with complete penetration and a quick and humane kill. Brian’s older rifle has a 22-inch barrel, as does the current Marlin 1895, but the 1895 G (Guide Gun) and 1895 GS (Stainless Guide Gun) have 18-1/8-inch barrels and are just 37-inches long. Marlin also makes an 1895 Cowboy, which has a 26-inch tapered octagon barrel. It only weights a half-pound more (eight pounds), but lays in the hand very well for long, offhand shots. I would be reluctant to mount a scope on the Cowboy rifle, considering that’s not what they’re for, but would mount a low-power scope, with mounts that would make it easy to remove and re-install, on any other 1895 Marlin that I was going to use when hunting dangerous game.
I hope you have had the opportunity to read Brian’s article, and were as amazed a I was. Incidentally, I quickly picked up the phone and ordered all of the COR-BON .45–70 FP PEN ammo that my distributor had available.
This classic American cartridge was introduced by Winchester in 1956 for hunting the largest and most dangerous game in Africa. it is compact (when compared to the big British cartridges), and it is fantastic.
The 458 couldn’t exist without its belt, as there is no shoulder (or rim) to provide control of position (headspace) in the chamber. The cartridge was introduced with 500-grain round-nose bullets in soft nose or full-metal jacket, and that is how most people think of it today. In recent years, however, Speer introduced a shorter 500-grain bullet in .458. It has a heavier-than-lead tungsten core, and is slightly shorter as a result. The shorter portion is that which protrudes into the cartridge case, allowing a bit more room for powder. It’s just enough to get velocity into the 2100+ fps range with a variety of powders, in turn allowing the rifleman to work up the best custom load for his rifle.
I’m not including the ladies in this group, because I believe very few would ever choose to shoot a 458 Winchester Magnum twice. In fact, I don’t recommend that anyone shoot a rifle in this class without making sure that they are in good physical condition, and without having had a reasonable amount of experience with heavier recoiling rifles. Said another way, it would be totally improper to have someone inexperienced shoot such a gun. Enough of us were “broken-in” by the uncle who had us shoot a 12-gauge, break-action single shot when we were nine-years old. Rifles like the 458 Winchester Magnum, the 378 Weatherby without muzzle brake, and others, can physically hurt an unsuspecting grown man.
It’s time to take a new look at the 458 Winchester Magnum. While I like the Hornady and Speer and other bullets with their heavy cores, I equally dislike the 500-grain monolithic bullets that are copper-alloy slugs turned out on automatic screw machines, or whatever. They’re longer, and they take up too much room in the case that could be better utilized for powder. But there are lighter and shorter monos that work just fine, just as there are lighter and more streamlined lead-core bullets that enhance the ballistic performance of the 458 when used on other than dangerous African game that need that 500-grain round nose to be stopped.
My favorite of all of ballistically improved bullets for the 458 is the 450-grain Swift A-Frame Semi-Spitzer. With several loads listed in the Swift Reloading Manual — Volume One, this bullet exits the muzzle at velocities approaching 2300 fps. It shoot relatively flat, is quite accurate, and should serve the African hunter and Alaskan hunter well. However, this is probably not a bullet suited to the very thick-skinned dangerous African game. I have no experience with it on game. I can only tell you that it is impressive on solid-packed clay. There are other well-constructed bullets available for the 458 Winchester Magnum that can broaden its appeal and widen its horizons. The 350-grain Hornady Round Nose performs well on large, non-dangerous, thin-skinned game, as does the 350-grain Speer Hot-Cor Flat Point. Velocities over 2500 fps are easily attainable with either (refer to loading manuals).
While my favorite 458 is the Winchester Model 70 Safari Express (they just seem to go together), I also very much liked the Ruger No. 1-H in this caliber. Either rifle was priced within the budget range of many hunters who wished to add such a classic to their lineup, especially at Midwest Magnum prices. These rifles were also available in the wonderful 375 H&H Magnum, and the excellent 416 Remington Magnum. The Ruger No. 1 went a step further, in that it is additionally available in 416 Rigby and 458 Lott. For 2007, the 458 Winchester has been dropped from the Ruger No. 1 lineup.
This is a most interesting cartridge, considering its widespread acceptance over just the past few years. This at a time when we are all supposed to be infatuated with the “superior short beltless magnums.” Remember?
The story goes that African hunter Jack Lott became disgusted with the 458 Winchester after a bad experience that got him in trouble with an ill-tempered Cape buffalo. Whatever. There were already several versions of a full-length belted magnum case (2.80"–2.82") loaded to .45 caliber. None of them provide any particularly significant advantage over the 458 Winchester Magnum with its 2.5" case. The 458 Winchester Magnum is quite capable of burping some 500-grain bullets out of 22-to 24-inch barrels at over 2100 fps. I’ve been doing it for years, and never had a dud, misfire, or poopy round. The 458 Lott (and others of its size) struggles to reach 2300 fps. For speed-per-grain-of-powder efficiency, the 458 Winchester Magnum kicks its butt. Hornady loads both cartridges. Their “Heavy Magnum” 458 Winchester Magnum load drives their wonderful 500-bullets at 2260 fps. Their 458 Lott loading hits 2300 fps.
Quite frankly, I really enjoy both cartridges. I don’t know of another way to say it. The length of the Lott cartridge is impressive, especially when you display a handful of them to the novice onlooker. “What the hell are they for?” they ask. “Cape buffalo,” I reply, as it’s best not to talk about shooting an elephant in most circles these days.
The 458 Winchester Magnum cartridge can be fired in a 458 Lott rifle — it’s just three-tenths of an inch shorter. Kind of like firing a 38 Special round in a 357 Magnum, or a 44 Special in a 44 Magnum. But the 458 Winchester Magnum cartridge doesn’t look as impressive as the Lott. Stubbier looking than you’d expect, considering it isn’t all that much shorter when laid next to a ruler.
Forget the bunk about 458 Winchester Magnum dud rounds. There are probably still 30-plus-year-old cartridges banging about under the seats of Range Rovers and Toyotas, and some of them might well be a bit crappy by now. I’d guess that’s where the source of a few complaints probably started, and then the rumors took off. Some say to avoid using ball powders in either cartridge. Probably not a bad suggestion.
I own five rifles chambered for the 458 Lott, and six for the 458 Winchester Magnum. Both cartridges are fantastic, and more fun than you can describe. The big .45s are like those five-inch salutes at the best 4th of July fireworks displays. They shake you up and give you something to remember.
We received another Weatherby Dangerous Game Rifle (DGR) in 458 Lott that has the factory test group measuring just 0.881 (three shots, 100 yards, Hornady 500-grain ammunition). It sure is gratifying to see such fine rifles shooting so very well (under one M.O.A.) in calibers this large. This is in the neighborhood for the more typical groups from 458 Winchester Magnum rifles I have owned (now and then there was that under 1/2-inch “cloverleaf” group), which shows that Weatherby really has a handle on the quality of these rifles. This DGR has the snow camo stock. We turned right around and ordered another DGR in 458 Lott, this one in Timber Camo.
Looking for quality rifles that aren’t typically seen in other gunshops? Try Midwest Magnum.
There are many, many excellent sporting rifles on the market today. More models and calibers to chose from than ever before. Stainless steel, synthetic stocks, fluted barrels. Cartridges specially created for accuracy, for long-range shooting, for efficiency. There’s something to answer virtually every need.
One of today’s major advancements in rifles isn’t exactly new, even though most firearm enthusiasts have never had the pleasure of shooting, holding, or even seeing one. It doesn’t seem possible, but it was almost five decades ago that Roy Weatherby introduced the largest of his family of high-performance cartridges — the 460 Weatherby Magnum.
It was created in response to new laws in some regions of Africa, for some of the largest and most dangerous game, that required the use of at least .40 caliber. Until that time, Weatherby’s enormous 378 Magnum (which fires a .375-inch, 300-grain bullet some 300 to 400 feet-per-second faster than the classic 375 Holland & Holland Magnum — and develops an astonishing 5700 to 6000 foot-pounds of game-crumpling energy) was certainly sufficient for anything short of a T-Rex — with the possible exception of a pissed-off Cape buffalo.
In the range of .40-plus caliber, the 458 Winchester Magnum has served well since 1956, despite a few rumors and complaints that have been geared at tarnishing its reputation. I shortened one of my 458 rifles to a twenty-inch barrel and 13-inch pull for Alaskan hunting, it has delivered three-shot, cloverleaf, 100-yard groups with the Hornday 500-grain round nose and a near maximum charge of IMR 4198. The Leupold 1.5–5 power Vari-XIII sits atop, in quick release bases so the iron sights can be brought into use in just seconds. I also highly recommend the 458 Winchester in the Ruger No. 1, which is already a short rifle because of the length of the action. Replace the rear sight insert with an express-type V-notch. The No. 1 makes a great entry rifle into the realm of the big, dangerous game rifle territory because of its relatively low cost. Besides, it’s a beautiful and extremely strong and reliable rifle. The drawback is that some hunters do not trust their ability to reload a single-shot rifle fast enough. Here’s how I do it…
I keep a row of cartridges in the left breast pocket of my shooting vest or hunting jacket. The pocket is reinforced with additional fabric, and gusseted to flop open slightly when I raise the flap. The flap has velcro on both sides, with one mating surface to hold it closed, and another higher up to hold it open when necessary. The opening process is almost instantaneous, as is the acquisition of each cartridge when needed. My firing and opening the action is done without thought because I have practiced so much. By the time I have recovered from the recoil and have the sights back on the target, another round has been chambered. Practice, practice, practice. You will gain confidence with the Ruger, and get your rounds off about as quick as an experienced bolt-action user.
But this isn’t where we started. It’s the 460 Weatherby, if you really want to explode those 500-grain bullets out of the muzzle in a hurry. The glossy wood-stocked Weatherby Deluxe is King. With the standard factory muzzle brake (use hearing protection!) it kicks about like a 375 Holland & Holland Magnum, and carries like a dream even with its 28 inches of barrel (with brake). No other rifle is quite like it, and the price is surprisingly reasonable.
Handloaders: You’ll enjoy the 460 Weatherby more if you back off on the velocity. The 500-grain bullets at 2450–2500 fps, and 550-grain Woodleighs at 2300 fps, is a great plenty. I like the 600-grain Barnes Originals a 2250, but they’re no longer made and I won’t sell any of my hoarded stock.
If you really like rifles, plan to own at least one Weatherby. If you will only own one, and your budget can stand it, consider making it a 460. That is, if you want to impress your friends and neighbors. They’ll pooh-pooh it, but none will sleep well after they see it. Generally, all I have to do here at the shop to sell one is pull it out of the box in front of a financially qualified customer. Midwest Magnum typically has several in stock, and others on order. While the 416 Weatherby is probably somewhat more practical and nearly as effective on dangerous game, it simply does not have the prestige or appearance of the big 460 — which is best described as “Wow!" With nearly half again the energy of the 458 Winchester Magnum, what else can be said?
From time to time, comments are made that are intended to clarify what type of physical attributes are necessary for someone to be a “good shooter.” I’ve heard plenty over the years. Things like, “Someone with blue eyes will generally outshoot someone with brown eyes, but find yourself a green-eyed rifleman and you’ve got the best.” Then there’s the, “People with short necks are the best shots,” and other equally ridiculous statements. You can chalk up any similar statements as total bunk. Good shooters come in all shapes, sizes, and colors. The mental attributes are certainly important, as frame of mind, desire, understanding, and training make up some of the necessary ingredients. And, of course, physical fitness and the basic physical capability to conform to various shooting positions are certainly required, but narrowing down the physical package by including eye color is utterly stupid. What’s more, given the freedom of position and style allowed outside of competitive events, and adaptability becomes a key factor.
The good hunter does not take a 300 Magnum on a pronghorn hunt, unless he owns only that rifle and cannot afford to buy one more suited to the job. The 300 makes him “overgunned” for the game. Likewise, a good hunter will choose something more powerful than a 270 Winchester for elk hunting in challenging mountains during snowy conditions. The shot may be long, and the elk may be providing only a going-away shot. The 270 will probably deliver a fatal wound, but the hunter is likely to never see this for himself. By the time he reaches the spot where the elk was hit, it will be long gone. After the first three hours of tracking, sliding on shale, and falling on his ass, the hunter will give up — cold and hurting. Anchor the mountain elk with at least a 300 Magnum. I prefer a 338 Winchester or a 340 Weatherby. The elk hunter on flatter ground or in valleys might swear by his 7mm Magnum. In mountains, the 270 Winchester leaves the hunter “undergunned” for elk.
Think, and choose the right gun for your hunt. On the upper end, recoil increases. Recoil frightens some people. Those that are frightened should avoid hunting the larger game, and stick with a capable .25 to .27-caliber rifle for deer.
A customer recently took a trip and stopped at several of the stores in each of two huge sporting goods operations. When he returned, he stopped in to tell us that in this one small shop we have more fine quality rifles than either of them. And, he reported that our rifles are in perfect condition, while many of theirs had nicks and dings.
It pays to shop where the owner is a shooter, not just an employee. Midwest Magnum focuses on getting fine products into the customer’s hands as near to our gross cost as possible. We truly don’t care about profit.
You can kill a trophy-class Cape buffalo quickly and humanely with one shot, but to do so is unlikely. So what do you do? Considered by many professional hunters to be the most dangerous game on the planet, ticking off a large bull as the result of incorrect bullet placement, improper bullet construction, or the use of a gun too light for the task is a hazard to you and other members of the hunting party, or even to local residents should the wounded animal escape. Correct bullet placement is essential for the humane hunting of any game animal. Absolutely essential.
It was Townsend Whelan that determined that killing power was the result of but a single factor, the size of the wound channel. With all due respect, allow me to add what I’m sure that Townsend assumed you already realized — and that is that the wound should be in an area conducive to a quick and humane kill — and that the wound should not be so cosmetically devastating that it would significantly damage the trophy.
Take the time to think though Whelan’s statement. First of all, it makes total sense, and has never been disproved. Any competent pathologist would tell you that it is basically correct.
Within the framework of existing laws, personal ownership of firearms is a matter of choice. Individuals who prefer to own firearms should not be directly or indirectly harassed or have that right threatened or revoked by those who prefer to not own firearms.
There’s been a lot of publicity over the past several of years regarding “short” magnums. Magazine articles have reported exceptional accuracy and efficiency. Let’s get to the facts…
Magnum cartridges (named after the oversize “magnum” bottle of champaign) used to be somewhat longer than “standard” cartridges such as the 30–06. With a case length of about 2.8 inches, and loaded length of about 3.6 inches, the original magnums that gained considerable notarity were the 375 Holland & Holland Magnum (introduced in 1912) and the 300 Holland & Holland Magnum (introduced in 1925). Long, tapered, and proportionately slender, and with sloping shoulders, they are simply beautiful to look at. Accuracy of either is astounding in a quality rifle.
Roy Weatherby began a series of experiments in the 1940s, using the 300 H&H case as his base. He shortened the 300 H&H, straightened out its tapered body by fire-forming (using that wonderful belt to assure controlled headspace), and necked it to .257, .277, and .284. Thus were born the 257, 270, and 7mm Weatherby Magnums. Short magnums. Almost 60 years ago! They still perform beautifully today. Every true rifleman should acquire at least one Weatherby Rifle, in a Weatherby chambering, sometime during his life.
Weatherby didn’t shorten the 300 H&H to create the 300 Weatherby Magnum. The Weatherby cartridge was created by simply firing the 300 H&H in the Weatherby chamber, dual radius shoulder and all, extracting the fire-formed case, and loading it to Weatherby specifications. Again, bless that wonderful belt. The 340 Weatherby is simply the 300 Weatherby case necked up to accept .338-inch diameter bullets.
Now, some manufacturers have decided to introduce a new lineup of short, fat “magnum” cartridges that fit in the same shorter length action that accepts the 308 Winchester and other similar-sized cartridges. Is there an advantage in using a short rather than a standard-length action? Not that we have determined. There may be a savings of an ounce or two in weight and a half-inch or so in length, but we have been unable to realize any meaningful difference in the speed of functioning of one length of action over the other.
When it comes to accuracy, after the bullet leaves the barrel the rifle’s job is done. The bullet doesn’t know from diddles where it came from. It is simply engaged in free flight. At this point the accuracy factor is tied directly to the uniformity of velocity. We see no differences between the range of velocity for a range of loads with the short magnums versus the “old” magnums.
It is said that there is less “felt” recoil with the short magnums. Their slightly smaller capacity case does hold a slightly smaller amount of powder, so there would be slightly less recoil, all other factors being the same (weight of rifle, weight of bullet, velocity, etc.). That’s because the weight of the powder charge does figure into the formula of physical factors that determine recoil. Could we tell the difference? Not really. The difference boils down mathematically to a couple percent less recoil, and our shoulders apparently weren’t sensitive enough to notice it.
The advertised specifications of the short magnums have been carefully orchestrated. There are improper comparisons made, probably in the hope that most readers won’t notice the fine print.
Velocity of the short magnums holds up fairly well against the specifications, when fired in a barrel of the specified length. But so do the regular magnums. We tested plenty of rifles and fired hundreds of rounds through the chonograph. Here’s what we learned…
• The new short magnums seem to be loaded to higher pressure than the “old” magnums.
• It is difficult to achieve factory ballistics with some of the short magnums when reloading to appropriate pressure levels. This is not generally true with the older magnums.
• Despite their short, fat case, the short magnums feed as well as the older magnums.
• The “belt” on the older magnum causes absolutely no problem with feeding.
• Many of the older magnums are chambered in rifles that have 26-inch barrels, and the short magnums (typically 23- and 24-inch barrels) cannot equal their velocity.
• Many of the older magnums are now offered in higher velocity loadings (Hornady, Federal), and they simply beat the stuffings out of the short magnums.
• Many conventional (non-magnum) cartridges are also offered in higher velocity loadings, and they closely approach the velocity of the short magnums. They also hold an additional round in the magazine. Considering the powder capacity of these standard-length cartridges (30–06, 270 Winchester, 280 Remington) versus the velocity produced, they look mighty efficient in comparison to the short magnums.
• And then there’s the matter of powder ignition. The short magnum reportedly offers an advantage in that the primer flash can reach the powder better. It’s baloney. Good primers totally engulf the interior of the cartridge case with powerful flame ignition, including cases much larger than any of them. anyone contesting this should be required to explain how flame ignites the powder along the sides of the fat magnum. There is no valid argument either way.
Does Midwest Magnum sell short magnums? Absolutely, but first we explain to customers that they are not magic. Their performance is nearly equalled by conventional non-magnum cartridges in modern loadings, and is frequently overshadowed by the older magnums they are supposed to replace.
One final note: Belted magnum cartridge cases control headspace off of the front of the belt. They act very much like the rim of a cartridge simply moved forward about .220 of an inch. Very slick idea. The accurate and minimal headspace tolerance helps to keep cases from stretching and thinning out in the “head” regions, unlike the “new” magnums that headspace off the shoulder of the case. This is not a major consideration unless repeatedly full-length sizing while reloading ammunition, which can lead to head separation. In thousands of rounds of reloading belted magnum cases, I have never experienced a single instance of head separation. The Hornady Manual on cartridge reloading perhaps best explains and illustrates case stretching in the head region. Hornady also offers a video tape on reloading, which I consider to be a classic despite of (and because of) its age. It begins with a brief glimpse of Elmer Keith rolling a Cape buffalo.
Pondering the latest arguments on what’s best… With so many years — decades, actually — of having the lineup of Weatherby cartridges being in the lead in velocity and energy in each of no fewer than nine bore diameters (from .243 to .458), other manufacturers decided to attempt to conquer at least a few of the champions. So, at the risk of resurfacing the old criticism of “overbore case capacity,” in recent years we have seen the introduction of new, whopper-sized magnums in 7mm, .30, .338, and .375. These new cartridges are without “belts,” of course, because some of the gun-writing press has said that belts are bad. What they don’t mention is that without the belt on the old 375 and 300 Holland & Holland Magnums, the wide variety of their high-capacity cartridge offspring would not exist.
We believe in reloading, if the shooter fires over two boxes (of 20 rounds) a year in any particular rifle. Reloading saves a bundle of money over the long haul, and can result in greater accuracy as various loads are tailored for the rifle.
We recommend the purchase and study of several books on reloading. In other words, the person reloading should study several. You learn more that way.
Do not exceed the loads in the books, and do not change components without following the recommendations in the books. For example, if you are loading a specific 180-grain bullet in a 30–06, substituting a different 180-grain bullet might change the pressure significantly.
Perhaps the greatest common danger in reloading is the use of too little of some slow-burning powders in large-capacity cases. This is not the way to come up with a “light” load! Again, read and study proper reloading in several manuals before proceeding.
Factory ammunition has gotten much better in recent years. I personally like several of the premium loads by Federal, and recommend them to many hunters for specific applications. Other manufacturers also have excellent ammunition available. If you start with factory ammo, save the fired brass and return it to its original box when reasonably convenient to do so. That doesn’t mean digging through a foot of snow to try to retrieve a cartridge case extracted while hunting elk. Some reloaders become obsessed with trying to recover every case.
Everybody has their own opinion regarding rifle scopes. Ours at Midwest Magnum is kind of narrow. We like several of the very upscale premium models, but few truly fit in the mainstream and are widely available. Therefore, we choose the Leupold VX-III as being the best value. We keep many in stock at all times, as well as the Leupold Mark 4. Our alternate choice is the Zeiss Conquest. Suberb scopes at relatively reasonable prices.
Answers To Selected Questions From Website Visitors
Note: Most questions or comments are responded to personally. However, some questions or comments are of a theme that has been presented, in one form or another, by several readers. Therefore, such items of apparent widespread interest will be answered on this website.
I want to purchase a big game rifle, which will be my first. Whitetail deer hunts are definitely in my future, and I hope elk will be too. What kind of rifle (semi-auto, bolt, pump, etc.) do you recommend, and what caliber? Brad, Ohio
Hoping for elk adds another dimension to your requirements. I prefer bolt-action rifles for myself, and typically recommend them to people who want a strong, accurate repeater. You didn’t mention your size, age, or whether you have any physical impairments. Therefore, I’d suggest a caliber that can do most anything, and can be had in a wide variety of bolt-action rifles.
Strongly consider a 30–06. The 150-grain bullets will do just fine on deer, and the 180-grain have efficiently dropped plenty of elk. Learn the rifle well, mount a good quality variable scope that is in the 1.5–5x (minimum) to 3–9 (maximum) range.
I have two personal favorite 30–06 rifles that I prefer over the nine others that I own. One is a Ruger 77 Express with 2.5–8x Leupold, the other is a Remington 700 Synthetic with a compact fixed-power 2.5x Leupold. The Ruger Express is no longer made. It shoots several loads under an inch, and is beautiful in all respects.
The Remington is a low-priced special with camo stock and black matte metal finish. I bought some for the shop, and liked the way it looked. I’ve always been a 700 ADL (no floorplace) fan. Well, I loaded up some 220-grain Hornady and Sierra bullets, hoping to make this a heavy-hitter out to about 250 yards. both shot equally well with 100-yard, three-shot groups the size of a quarter. It’s tricky to do that with a 2-1/2-power scope… Bring the crosshairs in to the edge of a large black square on the target. I like this rifle because it is inexpensive, rugged, and good looking. In all honesty, I prefer it, for practicality, over several much more expensive 30–06 rifles that I own, for exactly the reasons mentioned.
I did “tune” the Remington a bit, even before I shot it. This consisted of adjusting the trigger, installing ever so slight of an amount of Steel Bed in the action area to correct the bedding (just a skiff in one area — probably wasn’t necessary), and fiddled with the front “up-pressure” zone to make it a “Vee” block with somewhat equal pressure on both sides. This took a few minutes of material removal, and a little attention with Steel Bed over the course of three days (about five minutes each day, followed by reassembly, curing, disassembly, and checking).
I need to mention a regular favorite that I recommend to prospective buyers. The Remington Model 700 Mountain Rifle is excellent. It’s pretty, shoots (from a cold barrel) as well as most any hunting rifle, and is easy to carry. It is available in 30–06 and other chamberings. The barrels of the Mountain Rifles are slender and graceful to keep weight down, and this can show up in the form of somewhat larger groups when heating up the barrel with repeated shooting from the bench. In practical use, however, they are splendid. I shot my stainless-laminated 30–06 ten shots at 300 yards, waiting about ten minutes between shots while alternating to other rifles, testing several guns for cold-barrel accuracy at the shooting range at Salmon, Idaho, sitting at Elmer Keith’s bench. The shots measured an extreme spread of 4.32", with eight of them under 3.5". That’s almost minute-of-angle accuracy at extended range, while dealing with a light but switching breeze.
The Remington Mountain Rifle isn’t cheap, but can usually be purchased at a discount from retail. The thing you need to know is that they are not a high-production item, so they are relatively scarce. Handle one in your favorite gun shop and you’ll likely be impressed. Don’t mount too much scope on one, as a heavy scope will mess up that sweet balance. A quality 2–7x variable should be just fine, or even fixed-power Leupold in 4x or 6x. I have a 6x on mine, and on several other personal rifles.
A lot of people (most) will probably disagree with my views on handguns for hunting. Varmint shooting is one thing. I don’t mind the weird-looking, long-barreled stuff for this application, as there is not the same level of concern regarding humane shots at critters such as prairie dogs as there is for, say, pronghorn or mule deer. However, I do not have much interest in shooting big game when a rifle could be used instead. Cargridge for cartridge, the longer barrel of the rifle will add considerably to the energy of the bullet. And, as recoil goes up with the larger cartridges, the handgun becomes a “hands” gun. If you need both hands, use a rifle. We could argue the humanity, energy, and accuracy factors on and on, but I won’t cave in. We can review all of those great and successful handgun hunts, but I’ll continue to wonder about the wounded game that crawled off to lie by the creek and die a horrible death. To me, the hunting handgun is a revolver. It is a sidearm — a finishing gun — to add to the humanity of a hunt. Or, it is a revolver that is used by a skilled hunter to take a whitetail or other game at relatively close range.
I have little use for revolvers with extra-long barrels. I always thought the 8-3/8-inch Smith and Wessons were too long, and was pleased when Ruger again began to produce their .44 Magnum with barrels of less than 7-1/2 inches.
I usually avoid maximum loads, because loads that are almost as effective can plunge pressures, often increase accuracy, and make shooting a more pleasant experience.
Since I am not an advocate of hunting with a handgun, I believe that a backup handgun can be reasonably simple and inexpensive. A particular favorite is the Ruger Blackhawk in .41 Magnum with either the 4-5/8-inch or 6-1/2-inch barrel, using well-developed handloads or the superb Federal Cast Core 250-grain hunting loads. If your handgun needs extend to intentional hunting, go with the longer barrel. If you are carrying the revolver for backup, the 4-5/8 should be just fine, and be a lot more comfortable to carry.
The key to handgun hunting isn’t the length of the barrel, although that is somewhat important. The key is also not the sighting equipment, although that is also important. The key is being able to shoot the handgun well — accurately and promptly. To shoot a handgun well requires an understanding of the basic principles of handgun marksmanship, and plenty of practice. Practice without the principles, and you’ll never be much good at it. Grip, sight picture, trigger control, etc. Learn it with one hand. The two-handed shooters are about impressive to me as the latest weird movie stunt of holding a pistol horizontally. Yawn.
There will be those who holler back… “You can’t shoot a 475 Linebaugh with one hand!” I do. If it’s too much, reduce the load somewhat. And there are those who will just make their friendly blanket statement… “You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about!” I suppose not. They’re just my opinions. Nobody needs to agree. But there is one curious thing that I’ve observed about quite a number of handgunners. The recoil and boom of a big-bore handgun somehow makes them think that it’s a real cannon. Because it hurts them a little, or twists the wrist, that heavily loaded 44 Magnum must surely be more powerful than a rifle chambered for the ancient 30–30. And the 480 Ruger, with half again the power of a 44 Magnum, it ought to be adequate for grizzly. Maybe even a charging lion. Fact is, the 480 Ruger has only about one-third the energy of a 30–06 at 100 yards, and I wouldn’t select the ’06 as the ideal rifle for either grizzly or African lion. I’d go bigger because I can handle the stout recoil of rifles in the 375 H&H category quite well, and because I prefer not be be scratched to death by animals with an attitude.
It takes the full bag of clubs to play golf like a professional, and the selection of the proper firearms to hunt like a professional. The showoff might be able to shoot in the low 90s with just a driver, a 5 iron, and a putter. Hunting is no place to show off. Responsible behavior will help us to retain privileges and pleasures afield, and responsible behavior starts with the selection of a firearm that reduces the odds of “chance” and increases the likelihood of success.
I was planning to buy a 270 Winchester Model 70 Featherweight, but wondered if it will be obsolete in the future. Should I get a 270 Winchester Short Magnum instead? It is also available in the Featherweight.
Stick to your original plan. The 270 Winchester is, in my opinion, a better cartridge. And, the Model 70 in that chambering is truly a lightweight rifle. In 270 WSM, the rifle gets longer and heavier. It is no longer a “featherweight,” and it holds one less cartridge. Besides, 270 Winchester ammunition is easily found across the continent. The 270 WSM has still to hit the shelves of many stores. A more reasonable alternative, if you want one, is the 7mm–08 Remington. It is very accurate, very efficient, and is finally catching on in a big way. It’s shorter than the 270 Winchester, so uses the shorter action, which some perceive to be an advantage. It will shorten the rifle about a half-inch, and reduce weight a few ounces. Compare the great 270 Winchester cartridge with the excellent 7mm–08 Remington. My recommendation is to chose one or the other for your pretty Model 70 Featherweight.
You obviously like the 338 Winchester Magnum and the 340 Weatherby Magnum. Why? From the number of manufacturers dropping the 338, and with only Weatherby offering the 340, it looks like you’re in the minority. What can they do that the 300 Magnums can’t do?
I like the extra wallop they provide, and believe they offer an edge for heavy game. I am a devoted fan of the belted .30 Magnums with 180- to 200-grain bullets, but 250-grainers from the 33-caliber magnums are a different world. Quit paying so much attention to ballistic tables, and think about the muscle and bone that bullet has to overcome if your target isn’t standing in that picture-perfect pose that offers you a clean side view.
You like Ruger No. 1 rifles. I have heard much about them not shooting well. However, I am starting to appreciate their looks, and would like to have one in my collection of sporting rifles. Help me choose.
Oh boy! There is so much from which to choose! I have virtually everything from the 22 Hornet through the 458 Lott. Why not go as classic as you can, and get a No. 1-A in 30–06? Or perhaps a No. 1-RSI in 7x57 mm? You don’t see many No. 1s with the full-length (RSI) stock, and people flock around for a closer look when I pull one out of its case at the local range. As for accuracy, No. 1s that have been tuned up a bit (not a huge job — usually just takes a little forend tinkering) shoot right alongside a bolt action. Some do so right out of the box.
Incidentally, keep the scope small — preferably a straight tube (no bell) — and mount it using the double offset rings, which Ruger will send to you to replace those in the box. I have mounted a mess of Leupold VX-III scopes in 1.5–5x on Number 1, because they look and perform great. I prefer the matte black finish, as it doesn’t overpower the stunning beauty of the rifle. Ruger rings are well constructed, and return to zero very well if the scope is removed to use the rifle’s iron sights. I carry a Brownell’s Magna-Tip Stubby screwdriver, and the special tip for removing and installing Ruger rings, when in the field or at the range. A couple of other tips in the miscellaneous pocket of your vest will handle other jobs, so get a Brownells catalog, browse through it, and plan ahead.
It’s easy to perfect the bedding of the forend of the No. 1 with various bedding components, which has worked well for me in tightening groups. Other methods include installing a Hicks Accurizer (see the Brownell’s catalog).
The 30–06 has more power than the 308, but the 308 is more accurate. Which do you recommend?
You’re probably taking for granted that we’re talking bolt-action rifles, as the 30–06 is a bit limited when it comes to being chambered in pump, lever, and semi-automatic rifles. The 308 Winchester is very accurate with a wide range of loads. The 30–06 is very accurate with a smaller range of loads. I doubt that well-developed hunting loads for the 30–06 are any less accurate out to 200 yards than well-developed hunting loads for the 308. Beyond that, the 30–06 may get the edge because of its greater power. The 308 is good. No doubt about it. But working with the 30–06 will yield superb loads that can give a significant edge over the 308. Hardly anyone is selecting the 30–06 as a match rifle these days, because it is no longer the official military round. I’ll bet this… Have H-S Precision or some other top-notch rifle maker build a 30–06 match rifle, and it will be phenomenal. Technology has improved, bullets have improved, we have more powder choices. The 30–06 is just waiting to be a new sensation for the 21st Century, just as it was in the early days of the 20th Century.
I have found that a 7mm Magnum is the perfect single hunting rifle for me. I have taken a good elk in Montana, and plenty of deer. I wish it did a little less damage on the deer, but none have been lost as I once had happen when using a 243. Now my wife wants to go on a deer hunt. She read what you had on your website about women being included.
I had her shoot the 7mm Magnum, and the recoil was too much. I know I don’t want to get her a 243. What do you recommend between the two that won’t bother her so much with recoil?
First, I’d like to recommend a heavier bullet choice for your 7mm Magnum when hunting deer. Your observation of more meat damage than you would like is common with the 270 Winchester, 7mm Magnums, and others in this high-speed, medium-caliber range. Whereas many use 7mm loadings of 150-grain bullets or thereabouts, I prefer 175 grainers of sturdy construction. They produce less hydraulic shock, and typically provide complete penetration even on raking (angular) shots. For this reason, do not shoot at deer with another directly behind it. As a general rule for big game, I tend to choose a heavy bullet for any higher velocity cartridge.
Now — on to a few recommendations for your wife. First, determine how large a rifle she will be able to readily handle. I think most commercial rifle makers provide too long a “pull,” which is the distance in inches from the trigger to the center of the butt of the stock. Folks from about 5' 8" to 5' 9" and shorter often fit with a compact rifle with a pull shorter than 13-1/2". One of the best of these was Winchester’s Model 70 Compact. The 7mm–08 would be a dandy choice. When shooting from the bench for sighting the scope, you do the preliminary work. Have her try several shots, but make sure she has sufficient shoulder protection to keep it from discouraging her.
Other cartridges in this general power range include the excellent 260 Remington, and even the 257 Roberts. The Roberts is available in the Ruger 77 RL Ultra Light, and would be an excellent choice at the lower end of the recoil concern. The rifle is trim and easy to carry. The cartridge is extremely effective with 100-grain Barnes XFB Bullets, and will handle even the largest whitetail or mule deer just fine. If the stock is too long, have a top-notch stockmaker reduce it the right amount to have it ready to go with a new and effective recoil pad in place. The regular Ruger pad is about as forgiving as a hockey puck.
You obviously are not “sold” on the new Winchester Super Short Magnums (223, 243, 25), but I need something beyond my 22–250 for long shots on varmints in windy conditions. I had been waiting for the 243 WSSM, and am concerned that if I get one of the old standards; it won’t hold its value. I prefer a heavy barrel, as I hope to include prairie dogs in the future.
Hmm. Prairie dogs. Lots-o-shots. Be prepared to do some eventual re-barreling if you get serious about it, because lots-o-guns are washed out with this exercise. Plan to take as many as three or four rifles to keep rotating for cooling and cleaning. I typically use a 17 Remington, a 222 Magnum, a 220 Swift, and a 6mm Remington or 243 Winchester. Both of the latter two handle wind better than the 22s, and are excellent for 300-yard-plus shots when the others are blowing around too much. There are far more selections available with the 243 Winchester, but the 6mm Remington is available in the reasonably priced Remington 700 VLS (Varmint, Laminated Stock). With some bedding touchup and trigger adjustment, these guns usually shoot on a nickel. Don’t worry about the 243 or 6mm becoming obsolete. The 6mm Remington has sort of been that way for years, but that doesn’t mean it’s any less excellent (neck length advantage). Handload. Get a healthy supply of brass (500–1000 pieces). Forget abut the direction the fads are blowing.
Did the first remarks cause concern? The part about barrel life? Actually, the 243 Winchester and 6mm Remington are real decent. I have over 4000 rounds on a 6mm Remington 700 VLS (chrome moly barre; stainless would be better yet, but isn’t available in this rifle), that is doing just fine for accuracy. My handloads have been moderate, as I am well aware that maximum loads offer little velocity gain (typically three to six percent) and are usually less accurate than those a couple of grains (power weight) from the top. I also use what I believe to be cleaner burning stick powder, rather than ball powder, whenever it is possible to equal a certain performance goal with sticks. Consult your loading manuals.
Remington has two absolutely marvelous cartridges in their 6mm and 280, but both are weak in sales. A darn shame. They have done much better with their 22–250 and 25–06, both established as wildcats prior to becoming commercial offerings. The 7mm Remington Magnum has been phenomenal. Their 8mm Remington Magnum is becoming virtually obsolete, despite its excellent performance. Amazingly, the 416 Remington Magnum has been a relative hit. On the other end, the 222, 223, and 222 Mag are all excellent, but the 223 is the only survivor. The 17 Remington will probably fade away as the 204 Hornady becomes popular, but those who shoot the 17 regularly know how much fun it is. It’s also quite safe, as the little 20- to 25-grain bullets generally break up quite well when they touch down. In other words, they aren’t much of a ricochet risk. Three shots on a dime at 100 yards with a good rifle. Dewey cleaning rods will help keep ’em clean. Same with the .20 caliber. And anything else, for that matter.
In the mid-range are the 260 Remington and 7mm–08 Remington — both excellent for deer-sized game. The 260 is superbly accurate, and hangs right in there with the sensational wildcat 6mm/.284. If Remington would promote the 260’s talents at extreme range with 140-grain Sierra Matchkings and a 1 in 8" twist, probably nothing would happen — so I’ll tell you. It’s a dandy. The 7mm–08 smacks noticeably harder so it has the makings of a fine hunting cartridge, and has the advantage of not kicking as hard as anything else that performs so well.
Remington needs to get serious about promoting the 6mm. It is virtually as high in velocity as the 243 WSSM, at lower pressure. If it sold better, there would be more varmint rifles offered — and with the fat barrels they should consider offering the original old 1-in-12" twist of the 244 Remington. The skinny barrels are fine with the 1 in 9".
Hope this helps answer your question. I’ll be a little more wordy next time.
Making Sense Of The Super-Short Magnums
Anyone visiting with me about the Short Magnums leaves with a clear understanding of how I feel about them. The “short-fat” case argument is that the short column ignites better, resulting in better uniformity of velocity. I not only thought this was a lot of bunk, I proved it to myself. Shooting factory ammo in a rifle chambered for the 300 WSM (Winchester Short Magnum), and comparing it to another completely stock and similar rifle chambered for the 300 Winchester Magnum, the “‘old” 300 Winchester Magnum won on every account. These were “as received” rifles, right out of the box. So, I did it again. This time with the 7mm WSM in the Model “70” Featherweight (in appearance only), versus the real Featherweight in 280 Remington. The 280 was right on the heels of the 7mm WSM in performance, shot tighter than the 7mm WSM (even though it has a much-lighter and two-inch shorter barrel), and holds four in the magazine instead of three. A Remington 700 BDL in 7mm Remington Magnum, with 24-inch barrel (like the 7mm WSM), outperformed the short magnum in every category. Then, testing a 270 WSM against a 270 Weatherby Magnum revealed that the old (mid-1940s) Weatherby edged out the newcomer.
I don’t know what others have experienced insofar as handloading the short magnums is concerned, but I believe these new cartridges work well in a much smaller range than the older belted magnums. The cartridge cases are thick and tough, and when chasing a load that will deliver a combination of top velocity and accuracy, you can run into pressure problems quickly and unexpectedly.
It may sound as if I’m dead-set against the short magnums. Not so. Just don’t try to sell me on the basis of their being “better.” I’d prefer to look at them as being “different,” and possibly offering some advantage with some load combination that has yet to be discovered — at least by me. Currently, I’m working on developing a load for a 270 WSM in a Browning Eclipse 1000 with 26-inch barrel. I’m using the 135-grain Sierra Matchking as the only bullet choice, as it is a wonderful bullet that shoots under an inch at 200 yards in my 270 Weatherby Accumark. Will the 270 WSM do as well as the free-bored Weatherby?
It better. The Weatherby is a long-range hunting rifle. The Browning Eclipse is supposed to lean more towards an informal target rifle. The bullet is unquestioned. Incidentally, the Weatherby shoots very well with several hunting bullets, clearly preferring the standard variety over the premium type. I suspect that jacket uniformity is somewhat better on standard bullets. I haven’t yet tried Nosler’s .270 Caliber (.277) Accubond Bullet, but their .30 Caliber in 200 grain delivered five-shot, 300-yard sub-two-inch groups out of my aging Remington 40 XB in 30–338.
Not convinced that we really have anything new (other than shape and loading challenges) with the Winchester Short Magnums, I took a hard look at the Short Action Ultra Magnums by Remington. A bit shorter than the Winchester Versions, to fit in the Model 7 action, the Remington shorties look a little better to me. They offer a little less performance than their Winchester counterparts, but really do seem to serve a purpose. They bring the Model 7 to true Magnum status. They aren’t out there to kill any of the older and proven cartridges — they’re out there to make a sweet-handling little rifle even more versatile. I think Remington overdid it with their 7mm Ultramag and 300 Ultramag. The hard-kicking 338 Ultramag is a dandy, but will likely see limited popularity because of its recoil. The 375 Ultramag is very impressive, and it shoots very accurately. The Ultramag sales have slowed down, as hunters around here still ask for the 300 Winchester Magnum more than any other.
Remington only produces their Short Action Ultramag in 7mm and 300. Don’t confuse the Winchester Short Magnums (WSM) with the Remington Short Action Ultra Magnums (SAUM)! SAFETY!!
The Remington shorties seem to load to accurate performance (for me) easier than the Winchester. I like the behavior of the case neck and shoulder better, as seen when examining fired cases. And, both the Remington 7mm and 300 SAUM rifles have delivered very good out-of-box accuracy with factory loads — something very important to the regular hunter. I ordered a custom-built 7mm SAUM from Remington’s Custom Shop, and it shoots so well that I intend to use it sparingly for the rest of my life.
Well, we’ve reviewed the field of short, fat magnums once again, this time on our way to the Winchester Super Short Magnums. At first, I thought these extremely stubby cartridges had no place to go at all except to early obsolesce. The 223 WSSM (Winchester Super Short Magnum) offers ballistics similar to the old 220 Swift at somewhat higher pressure. The 243 WSSM is about a ballistic copy of the 6mm Remington, again at higher pressure. The 25 WSSM falls between the 257 Roberts and 25-06 Remington in actual ballistic performance. The short action being a faster action to function is pure baloney. Several shooting friends and I have timed this, and there is no difference between long, medium, or short. Likewise, we have not been able to discern a speed difference between 54°, 60°, and 90° bolt lift. It seems that there may be a difference (improvement) when dealing with a larger bolt handle, as offered on some Savage bolt guns and a very few other rifles. We have timed the movement from firing to firing, with the bolt operating hand leaving the grip, procuring the bolt handle (knob), lifting, pulling back, pushing forward, pulling down, regripping stock, relocating trigger, and firing. The additional 5/8 inch or full inch of backward/forward motion is not key to quick operation of the bolt, and was not able to be discerned in actual human testing of a group of darn good rifle shooters, including one woman.
So then, is the advantage in weight? Well, it could be, if all the other components of the rifle were engineered to the same advantage. Overall rifle length is generally less with the short magnums, because they have 22- to 24-inch barrels instead of 24 to 26 inch. When the barrel length is the same, the savings is 5/8th of an inch and about three ounces. Certainly, it is not significant.
The babble about accuracy has yet to be proven. The theory seems to hold water, as the 22 and 6mm PPC Cartridges are short and squatty; but there are many other factors that combine to make these cartridges super accurate, primer intensity and flash hole size among them, along with compliant case metallurgy and wall thickness. The outcry about the ”bad belt” on the Holland & Holland-based magnums is hyper bull. Have a fine match rifle built in 300 H&H — that long, slope-shouldered case with a belt — and amaze yourself as to the consistency of velocity and astounding accuracy. I have an H-S Precision rifle in this caliber that was delivered with a five-shot group measuring under a quarter inch. At six years of age, it still rips tiny one-hole groups. My most accurate .30 caliber, except for an occasional better group out of a tactical 40-XB custom rifle that has delivered some groups in the 1/8-inch range, including the original test groups aggregate of .130. Keep in mind, the 308 also isn’t a squatty case with a sharp shoulder.
An advantage in design and marketing may exist with the three WSSM cartridges. I have tested two 25 WSSM Brownings; a Varmint Stalker, and a Medallion. The Medallion is about as light as it should be, is very attractive (if you like less flash, get the Hunter), and really does shoot quite well. The Winchester factory 115-grain Ballistic Tip loads shot three shots in five groups that measured .68 (smallest) to 1.18 (largest), and the only group measuring over an inch). This is a real fine rifle, that I think would not be as interesting as a 25-06. The Varmint Stalker shoots even better (heavier, stiffer barrel), but is still light enough to use as a dandy Western Plains rifle. I like it.
The 243 WSSM has somewhat less practical use, and is a danger to itself with the temptation to use the 55-grain Ballistic Tip load and scream the barrel to an early death. It has more smack than the time-tested 243 Winchester, but is on a par with the poorly marketed 6mm Remington that I believe is a better cartridge in virtually every respect. Nonetheless, the .243 WSSM does have a place in the middle of the three-cartridge lineup.
And then there’s the 223 WSSM. It’s a love/hate relationship for me, because in the 21st Century we have a new cartridge that I believe was introduced primarily as a gimmick. The 6mm Remington necked to 224 would have been a much better choice. The 204 Ruger is vastly superior for most small varmint use. The 220 Swift and 22-250 are highly accurate and speedy enough. The effort to break the speed record of the old 220 Swift left us with the impractical 223 WSSM. Perhaps the best choice for a new 22 centerfire would have been the 22-250 AI (Ackley Improved), which is the 22-250 as we know it, but with nearly no body taper and a sharper (40°) shoulder. My experience with this cartridge shows it to have essentially no vices, although it might be argued that a slightly longer neck might be of some advantage with the longer .224-diameter bullets. P.O. Ackley should be honored somewhere along the lines with a cartridge bearing his name, and this could be done with commercializing the 22-250 AI in conjunction with a one-in-8-inch twist.
You see, that’s really what was needed. We don’t really need to drive the lighter .22-caliber bullets at over 4000 fps. No matter what is done with, say, 40- to 50-grain 22 bullets when fired from a 14-inch twist barrel, they’re essentially exhausted at 300 to 400 yards (think prairie dogs or other small varmints here). If you increase the size of the varmint (woodchuck, coyote, etc.), then you’re running out of steam for a humane kill. The 14-inch twist stabilizes 55-grain pointed bullets, and tends to “over-stabilize” lighter bullets to often bring out the worst in them… problems that range from blowing up in mid air, to showing poor accuracy at longer ranges because of jacket imperfections. Besides, the lower ballistic cooeficient of the lighter bullets results in them losing velocity at a greater rate.
What I’m suggesting here is that what was needed was a large-capacity 22 centerfire that had a tighter twist to stabilize heavier bullets. A one-in-9-inch twist would have been just fine for more applications, handling pointed varmint and hunting bullets up to about 75 grains. A one-in-8-inch twist would have provided insurance for 80-grain bullets — probably even out to 1000 yards. The one-in-9-inch twist has become somewhat popular in the 223 Remington, which had usually been seen with a one-in-12-inch twist in commercial rifles. Winchester, however, began using one-in-9-inch twist barrels some years ago, and all but the heaviest bullets are nicely stabilized. Remington tactical 223s get the one-in-9 barrel, as do Savage 223s.
Getting back to the 223 WSSM, these rifles have a one-in-10-inch twist. This makes them capable of handling bullets of about 70 grains, depending on bullet shape, but that’s about it. Sierra has answered the call with a 65-grain boattail hunting bullet capable of taking pronghorn and small deer (skilled hunters only, please). Winchester loads a 64-grain hunting bullet for the 223 WSSM, which has been successfully used on small big game (a strange term).
And that’s the breakthrough that has been provided by the 223 WSSM. It is our first very powerful 22 centerfire with a “fast” twist. I would have given it a nine-incher, but Winchester was apparently compromising so it could shoot lighter bullets and break speed records (yawn). The short-action hype was obviously part of the marketing formula, reduced even further to “super short” proportions.
The cartridge case dimensions have been established. The general shooting public has a limit of how much they’ll spend on ammo, but the “stiff” upper wall, shoulder, and neck of the Winchester WSSM trio seem to me to be candidates for a bit of annealing.
What about barrel life? We’ve all heard stories about the dramatic barrel wear rate of the 223 WSSM. I didn’t want to duplicate what has already been done, so I bought a bunch of Sierra’s 65-grain Prohunter bullets, developed a moderate load for a Browning Varmint Stalker, and have now fired over 400 rounds into nice, tight groups at ranges of 100, 200, and 300 yards, as well as shot random targets (read “rocks”) at much greater ranges. I’m sure that this rifle, and its sporter Browning brother, and the Winchester varmint and sporter rifles, are thoroughly capable of downing (small) big game with appropriate bullets. That puts this commercial cartridge, and the rifles for which it is chambered, in a class by itself. Now, let’s see more hunting and varmint bullets, from additional bullet makers, designed especially for this cartridge and its 10-inch twist. At the same time, pulling away from the hell-bent-for-leather (ultra velocity) varmint loads will do wonders for its reputation. To that end, I can now recommend the 223 WSSM with a clear conscience. Handloaders; use reliable published data, and consider carefully if that last 100 to 200 fps is absolutely necessary for you, and worth the tradeoff in potentially rapid barrel wear, and possibly missing out on splendidly accurate moderate loads.
Readers with stories of their experiences with the WSM, WSSM, and SAUM cartridges are welcome to write. Those of general interest may be selected for publication on this website.
And what of the 243 WSSM? Is it neither fish nor fowl? Does it really have a place, with the 243 Winchester being so popular and the 6mm Remington being so darn good? Perhaps it does. While it won’t be the best pick as a varmint rifle — heavy-barrel resting type or field-carry type — it can be a good hunting rifle. Of all the current offerings, I like the Browning A-Bolt sporters, Hunter, and Medallion, for your choice of subdued or flashy. And I like the Sierra 85-grain Hollow Point Game King, although I have yet to try to work up loads for the 243 WSSM.
It has taken me a couple of years to come to terms with the WSSM cartridges — to find a niche that fit the workings of my opinionated mind. The 243 WSSM in the little Browning — or in the Winchester Featherweight, if that trim and pretty rifle better suits your fancy — makes for a potentially excellent, sweet handling, friendly to carry hunting rifle for game appropriate for bullets of 80 to 100 grains. Premium bullets in .243 diameter have broadened the range of efficiency for hunting certain game, and this cartridge now probably extends into former 25-06 territory, while the 25 WSSM may be about as effective as the 270 Winchester during the days of Jack O’Connor.
The case of the 243 WSSM is as tough as the 223 WSSM in the neck, shoulder, and upper body. I’d like to see Winchester work on the metallurgy and/or heat treading to make these cartridges more compliant under firing, and thus more adaptable to reloading a notch down from their current high-pressure preference. A bit of annealing will raise the price of brass, but getting rid of the useless nickel plating on “premium” cases in the WSSM lineup can be part of the tradeoff.
I find it difficult to have a clear position on the subject of assault weapons. Most of the democratic politicians seem to not understand (or wish to mislead their constituents) that true automatic firearms are already under extensive controls, and that special licensing is required for ownership and transfer. We keep hearing “AK-47”, “M16”, and “UZI” references, as if everyone will now have the opportunity to carry fully automatic versions, and will therefore become an instant threat to civilized mankind. I see this mostly as efforts to prejudice those who don’t know any better against gun ownership, and that taking the rhetoric to extremes will provide momentum in that direction. Doing so is dishonest, so try to single out the politicians who engage in the dishonesty. If they lie and mislead on this subject, they probably will on other subjects. Remove them from office at election time. Expose their dishonesty. If they really don’t understand the facts of assault weapons, then they’re clearly too stupid to be an elected official. Expose their stupidity. Quit trying to argue the subject, because that only serves to polarize those on either side of the issue. Learn what you can about the lying and/or stupid politicians in your area. How are they being funded? With whom are they sleeping? Expose their behavioral misdeeds, their dishonesty, or their stupidity. They make your guns an issue — so make their behavior an issue. Concentrate on them, and leave their family out of it. Family members of politicians are not “fair game.”
Regarding the appearance of assault-type weapons, I have concerns. A huge part of the populous is bothered to one degree or another by the “look” of military (and some law enforcement) firearms. Even black sporting rifles (synthetic stock, blued or black metalwork) are misunderstood by some people. Semi-automatic handguns regularly grace the covers of many gun magazines that are on display in magazine racks at all kinds of places, including grocery stores and airports. The headlines on some magazines suggest defense or offense to a degree that tests good taste. Some publishers need to extract their head from their butt, and think about the message they’re sending to the innocent walk-by public who might not understand or appreciate firearms.
I’ve been at every level of membership in the NRA, and am now a Benefactor. The NRA is our voice, and increased membership makes it heard more clearly. There are times that I think they could be a little less resistant, as I think the stubborn stance hurts more than helps, and that sometimes compromises should at least be examined; but I’m on the outside and don’t know the fine details, so I leave them to the business they know best.
One thing seems clear… Private gun ownership (which is legal only by law-abiding citizens with long-term clean records) adds immeasurable defensive strength to our country. Those wishing to weaken that freedom and that free defense need a second look cast their way. What is their motive? Are they simply reacting to a misdeed by someone with a gun? That’s understandable, if that’s the case. Their logic is simply that a gun was involved, and if the gun wasn’t present it couldn’t have happened. If the airplane wasn’t there, there wouldn’t have been the crash. If people didn’t have cars, there would be no car wrecks. We could go on.
When I was a kid (I’m 65), every friend I had was good with a .22. Most of us had our own by the time we were ten. Never a problem.
I don’t remember going to school without having a pocket knife. Still carry one every day. (Haven’t flown commercially for years!) It’s a changing world, but don’t capitulate when it comes to gun ownership. The “public outcry” against gun ownership is clearly due to the media, and the powerful members of the media live in big cities. They have every right to their opinion, but they don’t have any right to mine.
I think there’s a clear picture forming of what needs to happen:
• We need to maintain the rules of private gun ownership as restricted to responsible, law-abiding citizens.
• Each such adult should “cast their vote” as to whether or not they think private gun ownership is okay.
• Persons voting against gun ownership should not be allowed to own guns.
• Persons voting for gun ownership should be allowed to own guns.
• Persons of either group harassing those of the other group should be held legally accountable for said harassment, whether by criminal or civil action.
Is it more complicated than that? I don’t think so. If you disagree, let me know.
We’re talking distance. Yards. The maximum distance to shoot at big game.
There are exceptions, of course, but most of them are shorter, not longer. Few hunters would consider a 300-yard shot at Cape buffalo, but most varmint hunters have taken longer shots, as have pronhorn and mule deer hunters on the high plains. It’s the game in between, like deer with available cover, and elk. In most instances, 300 yards should be the limit.
There are boasts of longer shots… the 500-plus shots that drop the elk in its tracks. I hear this stuff on a regular basis, and usually figure that it’s an exaggeration or a case of a hunter either too lazy or too unskilled to get a closer shot. I like the stories that tell about the perfect elk that was 400 yards away, so the hunter moved up to within 200 yards for the shot.
I understand the problem. Too little time, large amounts of money spent of the hunt, don’t want to return empty-handed. This is where a qualified guide makes a big difference. Talk over the plan, and his rules, before you make the contract. Some guides will discourage shots taken at extended ranges.
Some will say that the new, modern, extra-powerful cartridges can extend the range. What they really do is smack harder at any given distance. Besides, none of the new stuff has any real advantage over the lineup of Weatherby cartridges that have been around for decades.
Be responsible. Practice at 300 yards. Don’t figure on shooting groups at 100 yards and then reading ballistic tables to get you ready for 300 yards. It doesn’t work that way. A gallon milk jug is about the size of the vitals of many game arrivals. Can you hit one consistently at 300 yards? If not, cut your personal range to something less.
If you can hit it consistently at 300, or even beyond, still consider 300 to be max for a humane kill. Help end the days of the long-shot stores, and hand a new era of more responsible hunting to the next generation.
Recent Questions and Responses
I am reading that the .416 Remington Magnum factory load is too hot for the Remington Model 700 action, causing stuck cases, broken extractors, etc. My understanding is that the .416 factory load is a compressed powder load that causes pressure problems in the African heat, sometimes preventing a follow-up shot on dangerous game. Please give me your evaluation of this reported problem if you can.
Every now and then I'm asked a really good question, and you're mighty timely on this one; I've been working on two 416 Remingtons this week, both Ruger No. 1s (no longer available in that chambering), and both simply for tuning to wring out peak accuracy. Right at an inch at 100 yards is typical, even with thick-jacketed 400-grain bullets.
There is widespread tendency for hunters to look at muzzle energy, wanting the most available to attain a quick kill on Cape buffalo. Most other African game is easier to kill. The buffalo's will to live comes on very quickly, being resolved in three or four seconds after that first impact unless the shot is perfectly placed, and even then a follow-up shot is wise, but often much more difficult to deliver in a moving target. The almighty first shot is the key to success.
The 416 Remington is, I think, at its best loaded at 2200 - 2300 fps with 400-grain bullets. This provides much more energy than the 450/400 with 400-grain bullets at about 2050 fps, and the 450/400 is a buffalo-killing legend. The reason for its success is that it has that fat 40-caliber-plus bullet and not much recoil. Bullets can be placed right on the money, even by a younger hunter or a determined woman. When the 416 Remington is loaded down a bit the pressure drops, the recoil drops, and extraction is a breeze. Fact is, I've never experienced any extraction problem whatsoever with the 416 Remington in either of my personal Remington 700 Custom Shop rifles (even with full-tilt loads in hot summer weather), in either of two Winchester 70s, or in three Ruger No. 1s, and I think the No. 1s have less extraction power the Remington 700.
The sectional density of 400-grain bullets is adequate to deliver deep penetration at modest velocity. I'd rather have a 416 Remington at 2250 than a 416 Weatherby at 2700 fps, but I do appreciate the Weatherby at 2350 with 450-grain Woodleighs, and at 2500 fps with 400-grain bullets.
Learn exactly where to place shots. Kevin Robertson is at the top of the heap here. The Perfect Shot. Safari Press. Book and/or DVD.
Learn to trust your 416 Remington in the 700. It's a wonderful combination, and one of my very top-tier choices. I can always depend on the cartridge slamming right into the chamber and the extractor snapping onto the groove. The injector tosses the spent case aside with vigor. It has never failed me, but put one max (factory) loaded, garped up, dirty cartridge in a dirty chamber in 110? humid weather, have an extraction problem, and everybody on the planet will hear about it. I've seen a dirty 458 Lott case stuck in a custom Winchester 70 Express so tight that a small portion of the inside surface of the extraction groove ironed out of the case, and the heavy claw extractor slipped right off. We had to rap out the cartridge case with about six bounces using a cleaning rod. Pressure was normal; the problem was poor housekeeping.
Remington factory loads probably use IMR power (not sure), and you might want to consider Hodgdon Extreme H4350 if you have pressure concerns. I'd expect that at 2250 fps, pressure will not be much above about 45,000 psi and spent cases will practically fall out.
Above all, follow the loading books. My remarks are estimates from experience, and may not be suitable for your intentions or equipment.
There’s a lot of publicity and advertising about premium bullets. They are expensive compared to the bullets I’ve been loading for years. Are they worth it?
Most premium bullets have the feature of retaining more weight after impact, and tend to penetrate deeper. One plus they offer is the ability to step down in caliber or cartridge size and still produce effective performance on game. For example, a good job of loading premium bullets in a 30-06 can result in performance that clearly rivals that of a 300 Magnum loaded with standard bullets. But, there’s a limit… The 300 Magnum will shoot flatter. So let’s look at another avenue. A 270 Winchester loaded with premiums may shoot somewhat flatter than the 30-06, and even rival the trajectory of a 300 Magnum. The premium 270 bullet may do better on larger game (such as elk) than the standard bullet, but it still won’t hit like a 300 Magnum. There are no miracles with any of this. The laws of physics override the hype of gun writers and manufacturers. Standard bullets work fine, and have for decades. My experience is that most standard hunting bullets tend to shoot tighter groups than most premium hunting bullets.
Whatever the game, use a rifle powerful enough to manage a humane kill. If the game is larger than the arena of appropriate rifles than can be handled effectively by a hunter, than that hunter should forego the hunt.
Most game is not as plentiful as it was even a few decades a go. The hunt:success ratio continues to decline, shots tend to be longer. Not everyone can afford a top guide with choice territory. You’ll read about successful elk hunts with the lighter calibers typically associated with deer hunts. When it comes time for the shot at elk, hunters with lighter (270-class) rifles often wish they had a more powerful rifle in their hands at that moment. That 275-yard shot at an elk quartering away is simply made much more effectively with 180-grains whistling out the barrel of a 300 Winchester Magnum than a 130-grainer out of a 270 Winchester. My choice? Probably a 338 Winchester or 340 Weatherby with a darn good bullet of 225 to 250 grains. I don’t like taking chances — especially when considering the cost of the hunt.
In summary, I want the adequate rifle and a premium bullet.
Midwest Magnum
1504 9th Street
P O Box 340
Grundy Center, IA 50638
1 319 824-2800/1 319 824-2900
Hours:
9:00 AM - 5:00 PM M-F
Till Noon Saturday