Winchester's new .25 WSSM


PDA






Guntalk
November 6, 2003, 08:16 PM
Today, Winchester announced the newest cartridge in the super short magnum line.

It's the .25 WSSM (Winchester Super Short Magnum).

Very short (like the .223 and .243 WSSM rounds), with .25-06 velocities.

Winchester Firearms will chamber it in several rifles.

If you enjoyed reading about "Winchester's new .25 WSSM" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
litman252
November 6, 2003, 10:41 PM
This I need :)
Tony

dakotasin
November 6, 2003, 11:02 PM
winchester dropped the ball here... why not go w/ a 25 whizzum and really bring velocity up while utilizing a short action?

the 25 wssm does nothing for me... maybe remington will pick up on this and run w/ it and give us velocity in a s.a....

also, i am under the impression that the 25 wssm will equal 257 roberts ballistics. if this is the case, then the 25 wssm can stay out of my gun room. what does it bring, if it equals 257 roberts?

dakotasin
November 6, 2003, 11:08 PM
here's a 2-page thread on why and how the wssm isn't up to par: http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=203426&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1

if you take the time to go through it, you'll uncover some interesting things, and some of the people involved in the thread are respected members of the firearms community...

Art Eatman
November 6, 2003, 11:56 PM
I've read the various articles as these short and short-short magnums have come out.

From what is said, I see no reason to replace any of my rifles with one of these. If I didn't have a .308 or '06, I'd seriously consider the .300WSM. Same for the .243, etc.

And, for a handloader, they look like a Really Good Thing.

I like longer barrels, generally, on my rifles. So, with these shorter actions, one can still have a reasonably short and lighter-weight package without sacrificing barrel length.

Art

Mike Irwin
November 7, 2003, 02:12 AM
Yep, another big old protracted yawn...

Guntalk
November 7, 2003, 06:37 PM
Dakotasin said:

"also, i am under the impression that the 25 wssm will equal 257 roberts ballistics. if this is the case, then the 25 wssm can stay out of my gun room. what does it bring, if it equals 257 roberts?"

The velocities are the same as the .25-06, as I said in the original post.

As you know, that's much faster than the standard .257 Roberts (though the Roberts is one of my favorites).

They considered going to the Short Magnum and cranking up the velocities, but decided against it. They though the SSM was a better fit.

The WSM would have been pretty overbore, for sure. Like a .257 Weatherby. I don't know if that was a concern. I didn't ask.

Guntalk
November 7, 2003, 06:38 PM
Hey, Mike:

"Yep, another big old protracted yawn..."

You might want to get a bit more sleep.

Mike Irwin
November 7, 2003, 06:44 PM
No, the gun companies need to do something to excite me, not this recent bout of bogosity...

Guntalk
November 7, 2003, 07:45 PM
Well, if I wanted a super-light Mountain Rifle, this would be a cartridge I'd consider.

Certainly a niche, but since all the big holes have been filled, we are down to filling niches.

dakotasin
November 7, 2003, 09:24 PM
guntalk-
since i don't know, i'll assume you are right that it gets 25-06 velocity (i get 3400 f/s w/ 100's in mine), and it gets this velocity out of a short action... certainly is nice that it can do that in a short action, instead of the long action required by the 25-06... but, the super-short doesn't take full advantage of what is possible.

what would be the advantage of a super-short cartridge? it still gets chambered in short action rifles, thereby saving little or no weight over a short-mag. a short mag would also be chambered in a short action, but will get much more velocity. i don't see how the super-short fills any niche that wouldn't be better filled by a short-mag... (short, super-short... are we confused yet??? :) ) notice the proliferation of wildcat 25's that are velocity-based (like the 25-284).

perhaps barrel-life is a factor - though not many people who'd buy this cartridge are real concerned about barrel life (and is there an appreciable difference in barrel life between a wsm and a wssm?). there are people who, like me, prefer magnums because of the velocity - barrel life be damned. in that link i put up, john barseness claims that the reason for the super-short over a short had everything to do w/ money (browning wanted to get r&d costs out of the wssm), and nothing to do w/ anything else (like performance of wssm and wsm).

of course, this is just speculation coming from a rifle crank and nothing else. i still think winchester dropped the ball by offering only half a burrito, instead of a whole enchilada (25 wsm)... i think the manufacturer (rem in this case) who can give us 25-284 or 257 roy ballistics in a short action 25 cal wins this race. seeing how remington was burned so bad w/ their shamu line (coming to market late, ballistics inferior to the winchester), i guess i don't know if they'd be willing to chance a 25 shamu or not...

just to address something art said... the 300 wsm really shouldn't be compared to a 30-06 or 308. it is in a class entirely removed from those 2 - which does not negate those 2 by any stretch, it just isn't the same thing. i get 3100 f/s w/ 180 sierra gamekings in my 300 wsm - well above anything the 06 or 308 can do. it is true that the 300 whizzum won't kill a deer any deader than a 30-06 would, but the whizzum is no 30-06.

what does excite me, is that it seems i can get the wsm cartridges in a rem 700 now... available soon, anyway. that means i won't be stuck w/ winchesters when i get my next wsm... that, i lilke.

wanderinwalker
November 7, 2003, 10:59 PM
I personally see a different opportunity for the WSSM cartridges. Instead of getting tied up in using an extra-short action, why not use them in a regular-length short action and seat the bullets out further? Maybe make the case in-between the WSSM and WSM sizes? I know it's odd, but why do we insist on eating up powder space with bullet? There has got to be a better way.

BTW, I'd like a 6.5mm for XTC competition on an AR platform. May have to make one myself someday I guess.

Edited to add that I also prefer relatively heavy-for-caliber bullets in the rifles I shoot. (140gr in a .260 Rem, the standard 69gr SMK in my AR, 300gr HardCast in a .44 Mag Handi-Rifle.)

Mike Irwin
November 7, 2003, 11:01 PM
We've been down to filling niches since about 1910.

CB900F
November 8, 2003, 12:22 AM
Fella's;

What I wanted was the .257WSM. I also wanted it with 140 grain bullets. Think about it, the .257 has only a .007 smaller diameter than the 6.5 cartridges that offer up to 160 grain bullets. Surely 140 is possible in the .257 bore, with outstanding B/C's & freight train penetration.

I don't know what a 140 could safely be launched at velocity wise, but surely above 3000 fps I'd think. After all, the .264 Winchester Magnum shows a 140 at over 3100 fps in the current Speer manual. With a pressure limit of 53,000 cup. Considering that the Weatherby cartridges operate with an upper limit of 65,000 psi, building a .257WSM with 140 grain ammo doesn't seem to even be high tech to me.

I wish I had access to a good ballistics program. I'd like to see what a 140 with a B/C of .589 would do with a muzzle velocity of 3200 fps. Drool.

On the other hand, 25WSSM, YAWN.

900F

WonderNine
November 8, 2003, 01:03 AM
I hear bad things about all these new WSSM's not being very efficient because the bullet protrudes into the case. Anyone else? What's that all about? Also they're fatter, aren't they? That translates into less rounds in the magazine.

JShirley
November 8, 2003, 10:49 AM
Wasn't able to find factory info yet, but my thinking is this:

I have wanted a .25 for a while.
I do not have a .25.
The .25-06 is too powerful for a .25.
The .250 Savage is just a tad weaker than I might like.

When I see factory info, I'll be able to make a little better decision, but given sufficient funds- and the fact I do not own a .25- I'll at least consider a round like this.

John
PS- Tom, even if the response from many here is protracted and vitriolic yawn, thank you for the info.

uglygun
November 8, 2003, 03:06 PM
I personally see a different opportunity for the WSSM cartridges. Instead of getting tied up in using an extra-short action, why not use them in a regular-length short action and seat the bullets out further? Maybe make the case in-between the WSSM and WSM sizes? I know it's odd, but why do we insist on eating up powder space with bullet? There has got to be a better way.


Agreed.

Mike Irwin
November 8, 2003, 04:37 PM
I'd rather use an action much shorter than the short action, and set the bullets MUCH deeper, perhaps back by the primer pocket... :)

454c
November 8, 2003, 04:49 PM
No thanks.I've wanted a 25-06 for years and thats still what I'll get.IMHO we didn't need all these new cartridges thats come out lately.One thing that worries me is that ammo manufactures will drop some of the older cartridges to supply this new stuff.It's already hard to find good factory ammo for some rifles.(i.e. the 260).Instead of new cartridges,I wished they would have gave us more options for what was already in use and improved the rifles out of the box.

uglygun
November 8, 2003, 06:05 PM
I'd rather use an action much shorter than the short action, and set the bullets MUCH deeper, perhaps back by the primer pocket...

Been done, case telescoping ammo. Lot like that which was used in the design of that 4.7mm caseless round the HK G11 used.


I'd hate to see how long it took the bullet to engage the rifling after a rather long "jump" into the lands.


That or maybe a scaled up whisper? Seat that 220grn bullet WAY down into the case :)

Art Eatman
November 9, 2003, 12:49 AM
454c, I think you're unduly worried. These new cartridges will have limited sales among those already happy with what they have, IMO. They will appeal more to those who lack a rifle in that particular power range.

Ammo manufacture is a function of sales volume, so other than those with no appeal, most cartridges will be around for a heckuva long time.

Just another reason for reloading, though. Think of all the wildcatters for whom there is NO factory ammo...

:), Art

454c
November 9, 2003, 05:07 AM
Art ,I hope you're right.I like what I see about the 260.I don't want to have to find a good reloader when I find the gun I want chambered in 260.

wanderinwalker
November 9, 2003, 10:34 AM
454c,

The .260 is an EXCELLENT cartridge, but I am slightly opinionated on that! Sadly, the only factory load readily availible, in my experience, is the 140gr CoreLokt from Remington. Not that this is a bad thing, as the CoreLokt has an excellent reputation and tends to be accurate enough for most uses.

BTW, the Remington 700 Mountain Rifle is a good launching platform, as is the Model 7. Ruger also makes the M-77 in this chambering. In my area, it actually seems as though there are more .260 rifles on the shelves now than there were when I was looking for mine. My only grievance is that the 125gr Partition loaded by Remington has been discontinued.

seeker_two
November 9, 2003, 03:05 PM
They considered going to the Short Magnum and cranking up the velocities, but decided against it. They though the SSM was a better fit.

The WSM would have been pretty overbore, for sure. Like a .257 Weatherby. I don't know if that was a concern. I didn't ask.

http://www-pub.naz.edu:9000/~cxearng/homer.gif

{drooling Homer Simpson} Ummmm......short-action .257 Weatherby....{/drooling Homer Simpson}

454c
November 9, 2003, 03:27 PM
The gun manufacturers sure try to push those SM's and SSM's.I notice Remington is offering rebates if you buy a gun chambered in one.Now if they'd offer a rebate on the 700 Ti chambered in 260 it would be tempting.:D

If you enjoyed reading about "Winchester's new .25 WSSM" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!