Montana Rifle Co, Shoot2Hunt, and Rokslide Rifle

[Stocky]

That’s not what was being discussed.

Isn't it? The quote I replied to was in reply to a comment saying that the 300wsm might be more efficient in a shorter barrel.

It was mentioned the 300WSM could be more efficient in a short barrel which the above would all contribute.

Efficient meaning "achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense."

Powder and recoil being the expense.

I would say the extra powder in the 300WM giving very marginal gains would make the argument its more efficient by definition as is the case with many smaller cases ie 6ARC vs 6GT vs 6Creed vs 6UM representing modest improvements via significant powder additions.

Running the 300WSM vs 300WM with a 215 Berger in GRT at 18" with the bullet seated with the boattail at the shoulder junction in each (3.144" for the WSM and 3.7" for the Win Mag) and a load of Retumbo giving 65kPSI (76.3grains for the WSM and 82.6grains for the Win Mag) represent muzzle velocities of 2688fps and 2694fps respectively. Reference at 16" it has the WSM ahead by 4 fps and at 20" it has the Win Mag ahead by 14fps and 25fps at 24"

I would say that using 8% less powder for 0.2% less velocity makes it more efficient.

Anyway maybe its a skew as in NZ the 300WSM is far more popular in new rifles than 300win mag here which is effectively dead as people will just by a 300prc or the 300wsm instead of dealing with a belt. I'm not saying make a 300WSM instead but a 300WM seems pointless as a sku if 300PRC is available as i cant see a FUDD chambering being popular in a rifle as "progressive" for lack of a better word as and MRC in a Rokstok. Same reason they have said they aren't doing a 375h&h in the rokstok model.

I would struggle in anyway to say the 300 Win mag is in anyway better than a 300 WSM. But in all honesty I dont care as after reading all your evidence and the others on here I've been running a 223. As it confirmed what shooting Kimber's taught me which is that recoils not your friend and that small calibers still kill great at reasonable hunting ranges.

Just a discussion and happy to be wrong but from what I have seen in running a lot of short rifles which are super common in NZ from 12" and up since suppressors are so easy and cheap to get. I have 100% seen there is a point at which you simply get very minimal return without large increases in powder. GRT and Quickload backup that experience. I've not shot as much as you but I have run a lot of rifles with 16 and shorter barrels.

 

[Formidilosus]

Isn't it? The quote I replied to was in reply to a comment saying that the 300wsm might be more efficient in a shorter barrel.

It was mentioned the 300WSM could be more efficient in a short barrel which the above would all contribute.

Efficient meaning "achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense."

Powder and recoil being the expense.

I would say the extra powder in the 300WM giving very marginal gains would make the argument its more efficient by definition as is the case with many smaller cases ie 6ARC vs 6GT vs 6Creed vs 6UM representing modest improvements via significant powder additions.

If that is what you meant, or that poster meant- ok. But that is across the board- a 308 is more “efficient” than the 300wsm. A 300 blackout is more “efficient” than the 308. Etc, etc. By that logic, the 22LR is more “efficient” than all of them.


But that is not what is generally meant when having this discussion. What people generally mean and believe is something akin to- there is a 100fps MV difference between a 300wsm and a 300wm in 26” barrels. However in 20” barrels there is only a 50fps difference in MV- I.E., the 300wsm is more “efficient” in shorter barrels. That is a myth. The 300wm maintains its on average 100fps higher MV over the 300wsm at all practical barrel lengths.

 

[Stocky]

If that is what you meant, or that poster meant- ok. But that is across the board- a 308 is more “efficient” than the 300wsm. A 300 blackout is more “efficient” than the 308. Etc, etc. By that logic, the 22LR is more “efficient” than all of them.


But that is not what is generally meant when having this discussion. What people generally mean and believe is something akin to- there is a 100fps MV difference between a 300wsm and a 300wm in 26” barrels. However in 20” barrels there is only a 50fps difference in MV- I.E., the 300wsm is more “efficient” in shorter barrels. That is a myth. The 300wm maintains its on average 100fps higher MV over the 300wsm at all practical barrel lengths.

Well you are right about smaller cases being more efficient with that logic. I dont think thats an unreasonable statement but obviously there's a minimum required performance that makes a cut of somewhere. Which you have I think opened the eyes of many being able to be much lower than many would realize with the correct projectiles etc.

As a side note is a 20" barrel really considered short in the states? Over here you would struggle to call anything over 16" a short barrel unless its chambered in a magnum sized case in which shorts usually 18". 16" with a 4" forward suppressor is a super common option here we even get tikkas that come from the store like this.

I guess the last part could partially be where we are going a miss in that id consider a common practical barrel length being 16-20" (maybe 22' on a bigger magnum) here in NZ and I have minimal experience with anything much longer than 20" most of my rifles are 18" or down and the ones I've shot at multiple lengths trend down from there. I guess I'm working closer to the point where things start to change a bit more aggressively (still mostly insignificant like you say). I guess i dont think its a myth but the effects are greatly exaggerated just like people thinking they need an uber magnum with "stopping power" to kill anything.

On a side note the myth that short barrels work better with faster powders and with lighter projectiles is absolutely a myth. I've never found a single powder that didn't provide the best velocity before it got trimmed that wasn't still the best when trimmed. I've confirmed that on multiple rifles that ive routinely trimmed to shorten of change barrel thread. And I've found almost without fail I lose less fps per inch with heavier for caliber loads. I have however found some of the slower powders launch a pretty nasty fireball in short barrels and light loads and that adding powder sometimes reduces the fireball. The 12" Grendel would launch a pretty big fireball without the can with light loads of 2206h until it was running pretty warm I'm guessing the powder burns better at a higher pressure.

 

[DJL2]

I would say that, yes, anything 20 inches or less is short for typical center fired chamberings. 16-20 inches being carbine (or short) length, and anything less than 16 inches being an SBR - a literal "short barreled rifle." For a long time, 24" was consider "standard" length and 26" was a typical "magnum" length, with 22" (or sometimes 20") being a compact or woods length. The current move towards 18-20" barrels is certainly short by those standards.

 

[Stocky]

I would say that, yes, anything 20 inches or less is short for typical center fired chamberings. 16-20 inches being carbine (or short) length, and anything less than 16 inches being an SBR - a literal "short barreled rifle." For a long time, 24" was consider "standard" length and 26" was a typical "magnum" length, with 22" (or sometimes 20") being a compact or woods length. The current move towards 18-20" barrels is certainly short by those standards.

I guess since we only have an total firearm length rule not a barrel length law and the fact we can go down the shop and buy a suppressor for around $200USD and have been able too for a long time has changed the landscape similar to what's happening stateside now suppressors are becoming so popular. Sucks most of our other rules suck.