Something of interest

[Pathfinder76]

I just plucked this from another site. As a non fan of the WSM family I was amused and found it interesting.

Terry Wieland’s On Shooting .... (written in the year 2006 - the 100th anniversary of the .30-06 Spr)

http://www.africansportinggazette.co.../shooting.html

Comparing profiles: The 300WSM (left) compared with the .30-06 (center) and .375 H&H. The latter two cartridges are renowned for their ease of feeding from the magazine, and reluctance to jam. The short, fat, 300WSM and others of the new "short magnum" family present difficulties in feeding, and many riflemakers are reluctant to chamber them.

Selling Short: Finally, the truth.

Over the past five years, the success of the so-called ‘short magnums’ (‘so-called’ for reasons we will get to in a moment) has been the wonder of the rifle business.

Winchester’s so-called creations (so-called, again, for reasons we will get to) took the shooting world by storm. Suddenly, you were nowheresville if you were not shooting a .300 WSM or .270 WSM. As gunmaker Darcy Echols wryly observed at the Safari Club International convention just past, “It’s a wonder any animals ever died, shot with inadequate cartridges like the .30-06 and .270 Winchester.”

This, of course, was the very same SCI convention during which it was announced that FN was closing down the old Winchester plant in New Haven, Connecticut, and discontinuing the iconic Winchester 94 lever- action as well as the Model 70 bolt-action rifle. In recent years, the Model 70’s lifeline has been the above-mentioned so-called short magnums, with new calibres appearing every year accompanied by the increasingly bizarre claims of the PR people.

So what happened?

Gather round, friends, and listen to a sorry tale of nefarious corporate America.

To begin with, the term ‘short magnum.’ Originally, this was appended to the .264, .338 and .458 Winchester (belted) magnums when they were introduced in the 1950s, to differentiate them from the ‘long’ .375 H&H-length cartridges. So even the term Winchester Short Magnum (WSM) was misleading. But I carp.

Fact is, they were not designed by Winchester at all – or by Olin-Winchester, the ammunition people, in cooperation with U.S. Repeating Arms, maker of ‘Winchester’ rifles, and Browning, its sister company. By the way, I apologize for the blizzard of quotation marks and parentheses that are flooding the page, but the situation is so weird and convoluted, it demands it. Please bear with me.

At any rate, none of the above companies designed any of the above new ‘short magnum’ cartridges. The concept belongs to one Rick Jamison, a rifle writer of considerable renown, who came up with the idea in the 1990s and took it to Winchester with an offer to allow them to produce the designs in return for putting his name on them. The companies declined with thanks. Six months later the first of the short magnums appeared with the sobriquet ‘WSM.’

What they had not counted on was the fact that Jamison, no fool, had patented his design. Not only that, he patented virtually every bore diameter (.338, .257, etc.) to which it might be adapted. When the first WSMs appeared, Rick sued. Six years later, Winchester settled, reportedly for about three million dollars. Within a month or two, U.S. Repeating Arms closed down its ancient New Haven plant. Whether there is a connection is still a matter of conjecture. Personally, I doubt it, but right now the Internet chat rooms are buzzing with speculation that Rick Jamison is personally responsible for the death of the Winchester 94.

Promptly, letters went out from Jamison’s lawyers to every riflemaker that might have chambered one of the short magnums in a rifle, demanding a retroactive royalty. Equally promptly, riflemakers fell over one another denouncing the short magnums as having a number of inherent flaws, and insisting they would not chamber them henceforth. Or, if a client insisted, they would add a premium to the price to cover Jamison’s royalty. Riflemakers like Darcy Echols, who have never chambered a short magnum and refuse to do so for a variety of sound ballistic reasons, are laughing.

So what are those sound ballistic reasons that, for some mysterious reason, never surfaced before all this legal turmoil came about? Why does everyone suddenly notice that the emperor is scantily clad indeed?

Not to brag, but in the 2004 Gun Digest, your obedient correspondent authored a piece entitled ‘Short Magnum Con,’ as part of a pro-and-con article in which Jon Sundra defended the short magnums and I attacked them. If I now continue the attack, it is not because I have suddenly seen the light.

So, the sound ballistic reasons: First, look at the claims. According to the company flacks, most of whom would not know a chronograph if they tripped over one on the way to the salad bar, the WSMs (and the similar Remington designs) produce higher velocity with greater accuracy, out of shorter rifles with shorter barrels.

The greatest law of ballistic science ever articulated says flatly “There is no free lunch.” This is no less true of the short magnums than of any other cartridge, from the .38-40 to the .378 Weatherby.

The concept behind the short magnums is nothing more than scaling up the 6 PPC, the darling of the benchrest world since the 1980s, which delivers great accuracy and supposedly, with its shorter powder column (it is a short, fat cartridge) greater burning efficiency and consistency. I have no argument with this concept in the 6 PPC. At larger bore sizes, however, it does not necessarily translate into a superior cartridge.

Do the WSMs really deliver higher velocity per grain of powder? Not that I’ve seen. Are they any more accurate? Not that I’ve seen. Do they operate at pressures that I do not want mere inches from my one and only set of eyes? They certainly seem to, if the stiffness of the bolts after firing and the flatness of the primers are any indication.

Finally, it is indisputable that short, fat cases do not feed easily in a bolt-action rifle. Probably the slickest cartridge in history is the .375 H&H, and it is thus because it is long, narrow and tapered. It slides out of the magazine and into the chamber like butter. With a WSM, the axis is farther from the line of bore, and with their almost parallel sides, the point of the bullet is directed out to the side. They tend to rock fore and aft in the magazine, and generally enter the chamber kicking and squealing.

This is not a huge drawback hunting pronghorns in Wyoming, but it can be a significant problem if you are after leopards in the bundu.

To date, to their credit, none of these companies has tried to translate the short-magnum phenomenon into a .375 or larger cartridge. It would be nice to think this is due to a sense of responsibility on their part, but somehow I doubt it.

The pressure question is something else. Kenny Jarrett, who knows more about accuracy, pressure, barrel-making, and cartridges than anyone I know, says one reason pressure builds excessively in the short magnums is because the bullet extends down into the powder chamber. Ideally, the base of a bullet should be seated no deeper than the base of the cartridge neck, becoming in effect part of the cartridge wall. When it extends into the chamber, the rising gas pressure does not start to move the bullet gently forward. Instead, it sits there like a champagne cork until the pressure reaches a peak, and then pops.

Kenny’s argument makes sense. A couple of years ago, when Winchester announced the .25 WSSM (a short-short magnum), we went to the firing line at the SHOT Show to test it by sending a few rounds downrange. Accuracy was nothing to write home about. What everyone noticed, however, was the severe jolt, remarkable for a cartridge that size, and the difficulty in lifting the bolt handle. This was on a cool winter day in the Nevada desert, shooting from a shaded bench. What the pressures might be under the Transvaal sun, I shudder to think.

So, at long last, everyone is bad-mouthing the short magnums. With the Model 70 gone, at least temporarily, the WSMs have lost their major vehicle. Independent riflemakers are finally telling their clients they really should look at other cartridges, for a variety of reasons. The Remington offerings, which are not involved in the donnybrook, are on life support anyway, according to industry scuttlebutt.

Since this is the 100th anniversary of the .30-06, look for a ‘rediscovery’ of its virtues and those of its offspring. Or even the original ‘short magnums. The .358 Norma, anyone? Or the .264 Winchester? Why not? They are great cartridges both – with no smoke, mirrors, or salad-bar bull****.

[gitrdun]

A good read for sure. I'll admit to shooting a 270wsm myself. I purchased it not because I didn't think that a plain old .270 was inferior, admitedly only because of the "cool" factor. In it's defense though, mine is a 16FCSS with external mag. I've never experienced feeding problems or flattened primers nor a hard bolt lift. I do reload and ensure proper sizing and casing lenght. The only draw back is that the mag holds only two rounds and with one in chamber, that makes 3. I've never felt at a dissatvantage in that regard. Having said that, I'll also admit to not being entirely in disagreement with the article, but "my" wizzum has done well by me so far.

[Stinky Coyote]

the 300 wsm didn't have an edge over the 300 win mag when i was comparing and i think it actually gave up a bit to the 300 win mag....the 270 wsm however had i want to say about 20% more....and one could get it in a nice lightweight short action for a mountain packing rig and still reach out well past regular 270 ranges.....all win win for the .270 short mag imo....or anyone looking for lightweight mountain rigs with short actions and lots of poke...

oh, and lots of guns nowadays straightline feed so doesn't matter what they go in and out like butter...old school guns tend to feed stuff they were designed for....old school (long/skinny/tapered) cartridges...

that article sounds like an old schooler stuck in a rut ranting to me......its 2010

[209x50]

I wonder what Terry thinks today, 4 years after his article? Winchester is back in business and the 300 and 270 wsm are hugely popular and chambered by almost every rifle builder out there. Goes to show how myopic his outlook was. Now that is amusing.

[Pathfinder76]

Well, lets see. They don't feed correctly (and they don't), they offer less case capacity that the cartridges the were designed to outperform, factory ammunition is overloaded (see point two and ask Charlie Sisk about that), they eat magazine space, they MIGHT offer accuracy advantages 99.9% of big game hunters could care less about, they are not chambered by every rifle builder out there (in fact some of the best won't touch them with a ten foot pole), but they do offer 3/8" less bolt throw. Myopic indeed.

[Skinnydipper]

Though I would agree that the WSM cartridges do not live up to any of the advertising hype that they were originally sold with, I own two myself and I don't see any significant drawbacks either. I'm keepin' mine

[209x50]

God Chuck I love how the short mags get your panties in a twist! LOL Face it they are successful and will be here for a long time to come. I don't doubt the 270wsm surpasses the 270 win in sales and popularity.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by 209x50

God Chuck I love how the short mags get your panties in a twist!

Umm OK.

[skidderman]

I have had a 300 mag with a measured 3100 fps in 180 grn, 300 wsm 2880 fps and 30-06 2740 fps all hopped up and measured with handloads. The 30-06 is still the darling that all the others are measured by. In reality they all make holes and and they all kick. I found that the wsm and 300 wm were both as accurate as a hunting rifle could be. Had two 06's and could never get them to shoot as well as I like but if one fiddles enough they are accurate as well. It comes down to the ford/chev/dodge theory. If you like what you have then it is the best. I like my wsm because it has a short barrel and is balanced nice but so was my 06. The argument of which is best will still be going on in heaven but really, does an animal know the difference of 100 fps from one to the other given the same bullet? I doubt it. The weird thing about owning a rifle is no matter what I have I still find myself dreaming about others because I love rifles and to me they all have their part in history.

[Wrongside]

I went from swearing I'd never own a 30-06, too boring, etc., to loving the round. My two main rifles are in '06 with another on the way.

Still can't shake the idea of a LH M70 in 7WSM built as the 'ultimate' mountain rifle either though. Action slabbed, EDGE, Kimber contour dupe, etc.

Must be something wrong with me... I like 'em all. Pluses and minuses for every cartridge, though IMO/E, they are all more alike than different.

[double gun]

I dont care why they were designed (profit, to compete with longer mags whatever) they offer some nice features. I have owned 5 short mags (some WSM's, some SAUM) all factory rifles - four Remingtons, one Sako. All feed aswell as any other factory rifle I have owned, infact a couple feed better than any belted mag I have owned. Sure the older classic calibers kill just aswell as any, but why should I shy away from a shorter, lighter rifle that out performs the longer heavier standard caliber version? Oh, and the model sevens are more than 3/8" shorter than the 700 longs, and Sako made a WSM specific action.

[ishootbambi]

if i ever get to go home form this stinkin job ill run a video of my bolt action 270WSM and you can decide just how poorly it feeds or how slow i shoot. lololol. another wrinkly old guy cryin about the past and everything newfangled sucks. lololol. if the world never accepted anything new and advanced we'd still be wearing animal skins, riding horses and living in tents. welcome to the modern world.

[Pathfinder76]

I didn't realize the WSM's signify "the modern world".

[jaylow?]

im not the biggest fan of how my 300wsm cycles. but then again its a savage so who knows where the problem actually lies? lol

[Stinky Coyote]

chuck, we ALL know that you like the old more than proven stuff, the pre-64 that balances perfectly in a macmillan stock, no need for this new cheap plastic stuff or fance whiz bang cartridges etc. etc. anyone who's been a member here for more than a year will ALL KNOW where you stand on this gun stuff...you don't have to keep posting these little 'my way is the ultimate way' type post after post etc. your opening the door for people to tell you your right AND wrong...your right in that sure its good stuff....old news, well all know it already....but your wrong if you think its still the best and only game in town

we completely understand what you believe in, you can stop with these posts now

[Stinky Coyote]

your AO's version of David Petzl only you say less and have even more closed mind

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Stinky Coyote

chuck, we ALL know that you like the old more than proven stuff, the pre-64 that balances perfectly in a macmillan stock, no need for this new cheap plastic stuff or fance whiz bang cartridges etc. etc. anyone who's been a member here for more than a year will ALL KNOW where you stand on this gun stuff...you don't have to keep posting these little 'my way is the ultimate way' type post after post etc. your opening the door for people to tell you your right AND wrong...your right in that sure its good stuff....old news, well all know it already....but your wrong if you think its still the best and only game in town

we completely understand what you believe in, you can stop with these posts now

I don't own and never have owned a Pre-64 anything. I'm not sure McMillan stocks qualify as old (and at 33 neither am I), and I'm sure you have no clue what I believe. No where on here have I said I hate the WSM's or deplore the use of them. I'm not a fan. Don't read any more into it than that.

So I guess it's back to what bullet will kill a whitetail doe and will I need to carry a 338 whiz bang stoppem to hunt dear with in case I need to stop a charging Yeti.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Stinky Coyote

your AO's version of David Petzl only you say less and have even more closed mind

I figured personal insults and whining were your style. I'm hardly closed minded and have an opinion on things if only because I've used and experimented with them enough to form an opinion. Try it sometime.

[skidderman]

Hey guy's, some like em old some like em new. Some like both. Give him a break eh!!!! Does it really matter that much. Heck if I could afford it I would have every caliber known to man. Then my wife comes up with; well how many guns can you shoot at one time anyway? Gotta laugh about it!!!

[saskbooknut]

This thread is getting lost on personal insults. The first post put forward a valid and clearly stated opinion. You are entitled to disagree but it would be more believeable if there were some clearly stated facts to support a polite discussion.

The fact to remember in ballistics is "there ain't no free lunch" - period.
Secondly - there is damn little new under the sun in cartridge performance, except for bullet design. The shape of the bottle does not matter all that much. Let me say that again - "the shape of the bottle does not matter all that much"

Many wildcat cartridges have evolved into commercial products in the past. Once the manufacturer's ballistics laboratories get involved, providing accurate pressure and velocity data for these new commercial products it turns out that there is no magic. Bigger case capacity rules the roost as far as it relates to increasing velocity with acceptable pressures. Excessive cartridge pressures inevitably lead to someone having a bad day.

Every cartridge embodies some compromises. Case capacity, ballistic coefficient of the bullet, bullet weight, powder burning rate, etc.
As an earlier post suggested - a game animal is not going to respond differently to an extra 100 fps of velocity, given an adequately performing bullet.

Exotic new cartridges are designed to sell new rifles. There have been more than enough cartridges available to serve hunters adequately for many, many years.

That being said, if the latest greatest whiz-bang turns your crank - go for it. By doing so you are keeping the economy churning over and keeping the gun shops busy.

[Stinky Coyote]

finally got more than two sentences out of you, took extreme measures though, your right, no idea what you think, just keep posting links etc. on this oldschool stuff and i'll stop all this assuming thats what your always touting the merits on etc. if i offended i apologize, you actually going to talk about these things you post yourself though? or just keep posting info you find as if we haven't already found an read it ourselves...years ago?

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Stinky Coyote

finally got more than two sentences out of you, took extreme measures though, your right, no idea what you think, just keep posting links etc. on this oldschool stuff and i'll stop all this assuming thats what your always touting the merits on etc. if i offended i apologize, you actually going to talk about these things you post yourself though? or just keep posting info you find as if we haven't already found an read it ourselves...years ago?

Good grief man. If you have no idea what I think why did you take the opportunity to post about it then? Your at it again claiming that links to articles written in 2006 are "oldschool". Please tell me all about my "oldschool" thinking. What it really says is you haven't enough experience of your own to back up a single thing you say. Now before you start telling me all about your long range WSM turret experience know that some of us "oldschool" crowd were giving you advice on starting to use them not to very long ago.

Can you please help me out with all these old school links to articles you've previously read that I've supposedly posted?

[Stinky Coyote]

oh my bad, okay, very polite i ask, 'what are your thoughts on this particular article you posted chuck?'

[Stinky Coyote]

Originally Posted by chuck

Good grief man. If you have no idea what I think why did you take the opportunity to post about it then? Your at it again claiming that links to articles written in 2006 are "oldschool". Please tell me all about my "oldschool" thinking. What it really says is you haven't enough experience of your own to back up a single thing you say. Now before you start telling me all about your long range WSM turret experience know that some of us "oldschool" crowd were giving you advice on starting to use them not to very long ago.

Can you please help me out with all these old school links to articles you've previously read that I've supposedly posted?

No idea what you think? (you missed my sarcasm when i said i had no idea what you thought) You think i study you for a hobby or something...no, your comments and posts are all very much the same thing as i've read over a long while and just absorbed and when i see a chuck post i know exactly what to expect, it will be short, likely gun related and possibly a snobbish comment, you stand out as having a very singular frame of mind when it comes to firearms and have no problem touting the virtues of the one you do like....the model 70....and no problem pointing out the non-virtues of other makes/actions/stocks/features etc. that wouldn't match up to the mighty custom macmillan stocked model 70, your very fussy about how a rifle and all its parts should look and will comment on rings and anything else that doesn't make your grade. You may be young but you have some oldschool thoughts on what makes the ultimate rifles and cartridges...and hey...whatever floats your boat.

I'm just calling you out as a bit of a gun snob (is that a bad thing?), i shoot a new school gun with plastic on it in one of those whiz bang cartridges....two things you apparently don't like. And maybe if i shot the same thing all the time i would have near to you experience levels but its hard to have such a diverse range of experiences with different gear if you never try anything new lol as i'm very new school and try all sorts of new stuff with very open minded approach to all my gear/tools etc........so when it comes to killing stuff with win model 70's in non whiz bang cartridges and reloading etc. then i will honest to god come seek you out for any advice should i have a question if it isn't already searchable here.....but you are our resident win model 70 purist...and model 70 taken to perfection as in your eyes, with right stock, barrel contours, bottom metals, rings etc. etc. etc. right down to larger ring screw holes and the tiniest of details you have not researched or learned to death what makes a perfect rifle.....if your not old school then i don't know what is, my bad.

I'm all over the map, new school non american rifle, old school with scope choice and oddball in that i shoot factory ammo of all things and choose to avoid reloading almost on principle of trying not to be any bigger of a hunting nerd than i already am.

One search through your posts and its very clear, the model 70 is where the buck stops, macmillan also, leupold also.....someone brings up zeiss rapid z or custom matched reticles and your all over the leupold....all very american and what my opinion is of 'old school'. Maybe your taking 'old school' as in insult or something? My posts in response to you are trying to do what you do....and tout the 'new school' stuff....which you don't seem to like. There is a whole nother side out there, i'd like people to know they too can have very good equipment for lifetime use and top accuracy without even getting into reloading etc....they don't just need to listen to chuck and build a custom win model 70 in standard cartridges and reload etc.

And this 'new'-ish article you posted is old school....from an old school guy or old school thinking...whatever, its old school. And not that that is bad...it is what it is but its not where the buck stops.

Lets go over some quotes in case i somehow really didn't know what you thought on this gun stuff. Oh, and i forgot to grab the one where you mentioned something about plastic on the action regarding tikka/sako and some comment as to you wouldn't own either......with that lets see if i'm wrong.....

Were it me starting over I would pick up a new Winchester Model 70 Extreme Weather chambered for the 30-06. I would order a D'Arcy Echols pattern McMillan in graphite and have one of three guys in Western Canada install it. I would put a set of Leupold Dual Dovetail low rings on it and stick a Leupold FX II 6X36 with the LRD reticle in them. That rifle will easily take anything that walks this province out to 400 yds and beyond and it will literally last a lifetime.

I’ve built rifles on a few Model 70’s and getting that rifle under 7lbs scoped is going to be pretty tough to do. Especially with that bolt face. I would begin and end the cartridge discussion with the 7 MM Remington Magnum. I would go with a graphite (EDGE) McMillan and would use D’Arcy Echols’ pattern. I would also be looking for original Winchester Fwt. Aluminium bottom metal, and would go no larger than 0.575 muzzle diameter on the barrel and be VERY careful on the contour including consideration of shank length. I would use Leupold DD’s or Talley LW’s and use a fixed power Leupold.

If they'd put a McMillan on them they'd have something.

on the thread posted by the guy who just showing off his fancy new weatherby

Man oh man stock design is sure a personal thing.

So what is the attraction to Weatherby? For all you fans, I'm curious to hear why the premium price is worth what you get.

Elite in a Fiero sort of way.

I like model 70's for their classic lines, dual locking lugs, smooth positive controlled round feeding, integral recoil lug, flat bottomed receiver, properly placed ring screws, 3 position safety that blocks the striker, field strippable bolt, coned breach (for positive feeding), three guards screws if I want them, arguable the best hunting trigger on any firearm, availability of aftermarket classic stocks, steel follower, claw extractor, fixed blade ejector, and they will handle a vast assortment of cartridges.

The "best" hunting trigger is the original Model 70 trigger of course.

OK I'll stay on track. The A-Bolt sucks, the X-Bolt can't be much better and I prefer non belted cases.

So aside from not grabbing the tikka/sako plastic jab quote and that you wouldn't own either comments, i think i've got it down....alot of the common brands people may ask about or can afford to shoot you seem to have problems with and are a bit snobby about.

Oh yeah, forgot to grab the savage comments from the custom thread....you were telling people they can have their savages and e.r.shaws and meant for each other....so in my quick search i found comments that said you were not fond or just plain snobbish remarks about tikka/sako/savage/weatherby and brownings....and a ton of pro model 70 stuff.

I knew i wasn't losing my mind when i posted so i had to go back and read to make sure...nope, i got it right....i do know what you think on this gun stuff.

So as much as you like to post you opinions on your chosen riflery/cartridges/reloading etc. i like to even it out a bit and try to keep options/minds open etc. as you get get some pretty top kit out there these days. And that not everything 'new' is bad. End of day you have given and continue to give lots of good advice, probably to me too, and i laugh at lots of your little jabs here and there at anything non-'chuck'.

I didn't come here to bragg about my anything, i just came to try and bring some balance to bias and even out the information flow.

One last quote of yours i liked

If I wanted touchy fealy I'd post on knit Alberta.

[honda450]

As I stated before Chuck and Whitetail Junkie are brothers. hehe. Nuff said.

[gitrdun]

Originally Posted by honda450

As I stated before Chuck and Whitetail Junkie are brothers. hehe. Nuff said.

OUCH.....

[BrownBear416]

Stinky Coyote is officially on the "to much time on his hands list"

[Stinky Coyote]

Originally Posted by BrownBear416

Stinky Coyote is officially on the "to much time on his hands list"

trying to show up sheepguide but thats like taking on everest

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Stinky Coyote

No idea what you think? (you missed my sarcasm when i said i had no idea what you thought) You think i study you for a hobby or something...no, your comments and posts are all very much the same thing as i've read over a long while and just absorbed and when i see a chuck post i know exactly what to expect, it will be short, likely gun related and possibly a snobbish comment, you stand out as having a very singular frame of mind when it comes to firearms and have no problem touting the virtues of the one you do like....the model 70....and no problem pointing out the non-virtues of other makes/actions/stocks/features etc. that wouldn't match up to the mighty custom macmillan stocked model 70, your very fussy about how a rifle and all its parts should look and will comment on rings and anything else that doesn't make your grade. You may be young but you have some oldschool thoughts on what makes the ultimate rifles and cartridges...and hey...whatever floats your boat.

I'm just calling you out as a bit of a gun snob (is that a bad thing?), i shoot a new school gun with plastic on it in one of those whiz bang cartridges....two things you apparently don't like. And maybe if i shot the same thing all the time i would have near to you experience levels but its hard to have such a diverse range of experiences with different gear if you never try anything new lol as i'm very new school and try all sorts of new stuff with very open minded approach to all my gear/tools etc........so when it comes to killing stuff with win model 70's in non whiz bang cartridges and reloading etc. then i will honest to god come seek you out for any advice should i have a question if it isn't already searchable here.....but you are our resident win model 70 purist...and model 70 taken to perfection as in your eyes, with right stock, barrel contours, bottom metals, rings etc. etc. etc. right down to larger ring screw holes and the tiniest of details you have not researched or learned to death what makes a perfect rifle.....if your not old school then i don't know what is, my bad.

I'm all over the map, new school non american rifle, old school with scope choice and oddball in that i shoot factory ammo of all things and choose to avoid reloading almost on principle of trying not to be any bigger of a hunting nerd than i already am.

One search through your posts and its very clear, the model 70 is where the buck stops, macmillan also, leupold also.....someone brings up zeiss rapid z or custom matched reticles and your all over the leupold....all very american and what my opinion is of 'old school'. Maybe your taking 'old school' as in insult or something? My posts in response to you are trying to do what you do....and tout the 'new school' stuff....which you don't seem to like. There is a whole nother side out there, i'd like people to know they too can have very good equipment for lifetime use and top accuracy without even getting into reloading etc....they don't just need to listen to chuck and build a custom win model 70 in standard cartridges and reload etc.

And this 'new'-ish article you posted is old school....from an old school guy or old school thinking...whatever, its old school. And not that that is bad...it is what it is but its not where the buck stops.

Lets go over some quotes in case i somehow really didn't know what you thought on this gun stuff. Oh, and i forgot to grab the one where you mentioned something about plastic on the action regarding tikka/sako and some comment as to you wouldn't own either......with that lets see if i'm wrong.....







on the thread posted by the guy who just showing off his fancy new weatherby










So aside from not grabbing the tikka/sako plastic jab quote and that you wouldn't own either comments, i think i've got it down....alot of the common brands people may ask about or can afford to shoot you seem to have problems with and are a bit snobby about.

Oh yeah, forgot to grab the savage comments from the custom thread....you were telling people they can have their savages and e.r.shaws and meant for each other....so in my quick search i found comments that said you were not fond or just plain snobbish remarks about tikka/sako/savage/weatherby and brownings....and a ton of pro model 70 stuff.

I knew i wasn't losing my mind when i posted so i had to go back and read to make sure...nope, i got it right....i do know what you think on this gun stuff.

So as much as you like to post you opinions on your chosen riflery/cartridges/reloading etc. i like to even it out a bit and try to keep options/minds open etc. as you get get some pretty top kit out there these days. And that not everything 'new' is bad. End of day you have given and continue to give lots of good advice, probably to me too, and i laugh at lots of your little jabs here and there at anything non-'chuck'.

I didn't come here to bragg about my anything, i just came to try and bring some balance to bias and even out the information flow.

One last quote of yours i liked

So what exactly does a handful of my post stating a direct preference for a particular rifle have anything to do with the WSM's? Or even "oldschool" for that matter? Bottom line is your little slanderous rant was nothing more than a spoiled temper tantrum and if you had looked at my second post on this thread you would see my stance on the subject.

Right now my safe has representations from Savage, Ruger, Remington, Henry, and Winchester. My opinions on same are based on use and experience. Like I said before try it sometime. Just for you, here are a couple of photos of me with an A-Bolt, Leupold STD rings and bases, and a Bushnell/Baush and Lomb scope. The next is of a Remington 700 with Webernick rings and a Bushnell/Baush and Lomb scope. Oh I will even throw one in of a savage. I have more where they came from.

[209x50]

Nice critters Chuck. You gonna get blasted about the direction of your muzzle in a couple of the pics. Been there.