WSSM gone?

[kenscot]

i believe its price , you say the .25 most can't justify same performance at twice the cost . had the 25 say sent a 100 gr. bullet out at 3800 fps. then it would have been different !

I believe twice the price might be a little bit of an apples vs oranges comparison. Unfortunately most stores that stock wssm ammo only stock the Winchester supreme ammo which is just as pricey in any other cartridge produced. The regular power point ammo is much closer in price to the comparable 2506 ammo on most store shelves.

[nomosendero]

i believe its price , you say the .25 most can't justify same performance at twice the cost . had the 25 say sent a 100 gr. bullet out at 3800 fps. then it would have been different !

I believe twice the price might be a little bit of an apples vs oranges comparison. Unfortunately most stores that stock wssm ammo only stock the Winchester supreme ammo which is just as pricey in any other cartridge produced. The regular power point ammo is much closer in price to the comparable 2506 ammo on most store shelves.

But the current price is a moot point anyway unless you want to stock up because the quantity will start to get less & less & as that happens the price will certainly go up alot.

[Dee]

Dee now that was a mouth full !

Yea, now that ya mention it, I don't see how I'm gonna get all that stamped on the barrel. I'd hate for someone to put one of those new 17 mack 20s in the tube and blow themselves up. I'll work some more on the cartridge designation.

[kenscot]

i believe its price , you say the .25 most can't justify same performance at twice the cost . had the 25 say sent a 100 gr. bullet out at 3800 fps. then it would have been different !

I believe twice the price might be a little bit of an apples vs oranges comparison. Unfortunately most stores that stock wssm ammo only stock the Winchester supreme ammo which is just as pricey in any other cartridge produced. The regular power point ammo is much closer in price to the comparable 2506 ammo on most store shelves.

But the current price is a moot point anyway unless you want to stock up because the quantity will start to get less & less & as that happens the price will certainly go up alot.

Moot.... Perhaps, but still an inaccurate belief held by fans and detractors alike and relevant to what I believe has been part of the demise of these cartridges. Maybe if retailers had stocked more of less expensive ammo they would have fared better.

[Dee]

As a former business owner I used to get countless suggestions from folks whom had either never ran a business, or had never ran one like mine. I listened to each one, and had long since stopped trying to make them see the actual facts concerning their suggestions. Most all fell in the same two categories. Availability of the item, and MOST IMPORTANTLY. MONEY!
They were full of suggestions, but alas, know one was willing to write that check. They wanted me to spend MY money on THEIR suggestion. Hmmmmmmmmmmm
The short magnums proved one thing. FADS come and go, AND the short magnums would not do any better, than what was already being done.

[kenscot]

As a former business owner I used to get countless suggestions from folks whom had either never ran a business, or had never ran one like mine. I listened to each one, and had long since stopped trying to make them see the actual facts concerning their suggestions. Most all fell in the same two categories. Availability of the item, and MOST IMPORTANTLY. MONEY!
They were full of suggestions, but alas, know one was willing to write that check. They wanted me to spend MY money on THEIR suggestion.

I am not quite sure what all of this has to do with the topic or my post which is more observation than suggestion

[Dee]

Your suggestion of stocking less expensive ammo for the short magnums brought the observation in. It is not a criticism just an observation that out of the thousands (make that millions) of rifles out there, the gun shops by virtue had to "stock what sells". There are many people that have never even heard of these short magnums, and in a group of 20 gun owner picked at random I doubt you would find one.
I don't believe the stores had any thing to do with the demise of these short magnums, I believe it was the obvious. They were a short lived fad, that did not do any thing that was not already being done in the rifle world. The few that bought them, quite possibly are prone to buying the latest thing in rifles any way. These few are the minority in gun owners I think. JMO

[kenscot]

Well I was certainly not trying to lay blame with the retailers, especially the regular gun shop. I really wonder if they sell enough ammo in comparison to large chain stores like walmart to have a say in much of anything. I was just trying to point out that the wssm ammo is NOT double the price of the standard cartridges when comparing apples to apples and that this myth was PART of the reason for there failure, for this I do find fault with the manufacturers who heavily marketed the premium ammo and was all you saw in stores, but hardly the only reason for failure. I however believe that there is place for these short cartridges as they have proven to work well in the bench rest world. As for me yes I am one of the minority 25 wssm owner, no I do not buy the first thing that comes out but this filled a nice niche in my safe. It is my model 7 that was never available to me being a lefty. I kind of like 2506 ballistics in this light short package when still hunting deer all day in my neck of the woods. Yes I could use my 30-30 but I do prefer a bolt gun.
 

[Dee]

As I said kenscot, I am not criticizing you, but pondering just like you. When these new cartridges came out, the ammo manufacturers had to "tool up" to build the new cartridges. This must have in itself cost a fortune, and the cost was passed on to the consumer.
Being a hunter for over fifty years, I too have used the 2506 extensively, and like the cartridge, but after loading several thousand rounds of this cartridge over the years (since 1971) I didn't see the advantage of the shorter action in the field. On the bench perhaps, as a shorter action has less "flex" on cartridge ignition, but then again, it would depend on how tight the bolt locks up, as to whether even this would matter. The 2506 "as is" when tuned properly and with the right loads can hold it's own in any organized shooting sport off or on the bench.
I believe the manufacturers ALSO made a judgement call (evidently a bad one), that believed any one whom would buy a "new cartridge" rifle, would also want the latest in "new cartridge" technology.
My opinions on failure are just that. My opinions. Short light rifles built on standard rifle actions such as the 2506 have been around for years, and one is not gambling on a new cartridge making it or not. Another opinion. I'm a boring guy. I only bet on sure things. New cartridges have came and went over the last 100 years. And these went. For what ever reasons, the demand was too small, and just reason some are called wildcats, but some continue to hold on to them.

[SHOOTALL]

AMMO !
ok ever thing else the same , why pay half again more for brass to get same performance ?
If someone just said cause I can and want to it would make more sense !
that's why i got a 327 fed mag ! and it might end up like the short mags !

[SHOOTALL]

and one other thing - super short actions can't be re chambered or barreled to much else !

[kenscot]

AMMO !
ok ever thing else the same , why pay half again more for brass to get same performance ?
If someone just said cause I can and want to it would make more sense !
that's why i got a 327 fed mag ! and it might end up like the short mags !

Shootall
midway prices   25 wssm    winchester 23.99
                      25-06 rem  winchester 19.99
                      257 Rob    winchester  20.49

 More expensive yes but HARDLY half again! It also shows that nothing 25 is cheap. I do believe I addressed the "I can and want to" by stating in my last post that for me the rifle is my model 7(with 25-06 ballistics) that is not available to lefties.

[PartsMan]

I saw some 243 wssm power points today for $21.99.

If a little shorter action doesn't matter then why did the US military switch from 30-06 to 308.
Not to mention countless hunters and target shooters.

[Dee]

Well let's see. Less steel to manufacture receivers (not really much of an issue on a bolt action), less powder and less brass in ammo manufacture (once again inconsequential in a hunting arm), less weight for soldier to carry (there have been ultra light hunting rifles out for years so that one won't work), a detachable 20 round box magazine, rather than a slower to load 10 round stripper clip, which also enabled the common foot soldier to carry more ammo, readily available in each magazine (doubt if this magazine style issue fits either). I doubt any of this criteria actually relates, to a hunting rifle. In fact, once you reach the 165 grain bullets, the 3006 "surpasses" the 308 again in efficiency. It handles the heavier bullets much better than the 308.
Of course then they came up with the M16, and replaced the M14 with it, for the very same reasons.
I say if you like these wssm rifles, you should go out and buy one, or maybe three or four.
The fact is, that whether any one thinks they should have made it, or is mad about them not making it, doesn't seem to matter to the manufacturers does it?

[SHOOTALL]

M-1 TO M-14 ,they were looking for a round that functioned better in a semi auto , hardly important  to a bolt gun !
and they accomplished it with out the loss of round count !
with regard to civilian use , lets face facts cheap surplus military ammo is reason enough !
consider that any new rifle/ cart. cost tons of money to bring to market , consider that this money must be recooped !
so any failure has to be made up with sales of existing successful products thus elevating the cost of these products .
So unless there is a marked improvement over existing products it only cost the shooting public with out benifit !

[nomosendero]

Oh, there was a benefit. It caused this thread. 

[PartsMan]

Why do all our favorite rifle manufactures offer short action bolt guns if it's not important.
Why do they make rifles with 16 and 18 inch barrels.

I'll tell you why.
We the American consumer want our cake and eat it too.
A short easy to carry rifle that will shoot as far as we can see and more.

I think it was a good idea and It's to bad that they didn't catch on.

[kevthebassman]

I think that the problem is that they were not that ground-breaking.  Sure, they have superior ballistics to the short action rounds.  But not far superior.  And yes, they are shorter than the short actions.  But not by much.

They just never caught on because they didn't bring enough to the table to set themselves apart from other rounds that are already out there and well established in the marketplace. 

If you think it's a good idea, did you buy one?  Why, or why not?

[nomosendero]

I think that the problem is that they were not that ground-breaking.  Sure, they have superior ballistics to the short action rounds.  But not far superior.  And yes, they are shorter than the short actions.  But not by much.

They just never caught on because they didn't bring enough to the table to set themselves apart from other rounds that are already out there and well established in the marketplace. 

If you think it's a good idea, did you buy one?  Why, or why not?

Amen to all of that.

I haven't seen anyone question the usefulness of short actions & we already have great short action rounds, I have a few myself. These are super short actions & the folks have spoken on the need for those. I am like the previous poster, if you like them, no need to fuss, go get one.
They are still around for now, get some brass or ammo & have fun. 

[SHOOTALL]

benift of putting profit in gun companies pockets ! fer sure .

[saltydog]

If 1/2" of action length made no difference  to rifle buyers - there wouldn't be the plethora of ultralight rifles available today.  Apparently they sell well, or there wouldn't be any.  And rifle makers are in the business to sell what the public will buy - it's the American way.

Other than the ability to be chambered in short actions, the WSM and the RSAUM cartridges are of dubious value over extablished cartridges.  There are a few real advantages to the short/fat design - Speer notes that the .300 WSM showed remarkably uniform performance with varmint-weight bullets, all the way down to 110s.  Your .300 WinMag won't do that.  But is that of any real value?  It would be interesting to build a slow twist .300 WSM to shoot light bullets real fast (110s@3800 fps), but my .257 Weatherbys will do about as well downrange......


.

lonestar - if the WSSM's actions related to lightness made a big difference they would not have gone the way of the dodo bird. As you point out, light weight rifles in full or mag length caliber rifles are relatively easy to find without resorting to a finicky feeding cartridge. The concept of increased fps at lower powder consumption was the selling feature to me.

[jasonprox700]

The .404 Jeffery-based cartridges won't work in standard AR-15 sized rifles, there isn't room for all that diameter with safety and the pressures are likely too high.  In an AR-10 package, perhaps.

Actually, there are a few companies that are making WSSM AR-15's.

http://www.accuracysystemsinc.com/ar15_conversion.php
http://www.dtechsuperstore.com
http://www.olyarms.com/index.php?page=shop.browse&category_id=12&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=37

I am hoping to get a .243 WSSM upper from Dtech in the next year or so.  If the wssm's become obsolete, I will stock up on brass.

[charles p]

Misplaced post.  Sorry.

As for the WSSM, I predict there days are numbered.  I think the 300WSM will survive but I'm not sure about the other WSMs.  Just an opinion, and you know what they are worth!

[myronman3]

i almost hate to ask, but  what does that have to do with this thread?

[SHOOTALL]

Really

[nomosendero]

i almost hate to ask, but  what does that have to do with this thread?

But I am so glad you did ask.   

[kenscot]

I 'd venture to just another missed place post   

[SHOOTALL]

Although a few seem to take to the short mags. the market place for what ever reason has not responded in a positive manner . This doesn't mean those that chose one made a bad decision , just that most could not see an advantage over lower costing existing rounds witch would serve the same purpose !

[Coyote Hunter]

Why do all our favorite rifle manufactures offer short action bolt guns if it's not important.
Why do they make rifles with 16 and 18 inch barrels.

I'll tell you why.
We the American consumer want our cake and eat it too.
A short easy to carry rifle that will shoot as far as we can see and more.

I think it was a good idea and It's to bad that they didn't catch on.

Yesterday I had a chance to zero my new short-action rifle at 100 yards and take it out to the longer range CMP High Power range at the club where I proceeded to shoot a steel gong at 500 yards.  The rifle barrel is only 20” long, making for a pretty handy weapon. 

The rifle is a 1957 Columbian Mauser rebarreled to .308 Winchester. It cost me $150 at a gun show a week ago.  Quality hunting and target ammo is readily available and is relatively inexpensive when compared to many other cartridges.  Plinking ammo is available in bulk for even less.

No rifle can “shoot as far as we can see”, let alone more, and no WSSM would have enabled me to hit the gong any better or more often than the .308 Winchester.

The WSSM’s have a theoretical advantage in accuracy due to their short, fat powder column.  In reality this advantage is extremely small at best.  At the end of the day rifle design and quality of manufacture, the particular load being used and the skill of the shooter outweigh the WSSM’s theoretical advantage by a wide margin. 

The WSSM’s were not without their problems, particularly in the early days.  Rumors of feeding problems with the short, fat cases were rampant, and ammo costs were very high compared to standard ammo.  More importantly, however, the velocity gains and firearm size and weight advantages of the super shorts were minor.

Speaking for myself, I have never been a fan of the Winchester or Remington super shorts.  It didn’t bother me that they were offered or that they had their proponents, they just failed to excite me in any way.  In my case my rifles are all hunting rifles and the super shorts provided no compelling advantage over existing cartridges.  It seems a significant portion of the public came to a similar conclusion and the super shorts, with a couple notable exceptions, are a dying breed. 

[james]

Remington tried the 6.5 Rem. Mag and 350 Rem mag as  short action magnums.  The demand for them now is what the WSSMs and RUMs will be in 10 years.  A few will like them but most shooters won't.