Discussion in 'General Rifle' started by seagullslayer1, Dec 21, 2005.
which is beter in acuracy the bullet and the rifle
iver been thinking of geting a winchester model 70 super shadow .223 wssm at wally world for 400 bucks but i didnt know if the rem was beter or not in terms of acuracy
Winchester currently produces 3 different rounds for the .223 WSSM
Ballistic Silvertip 55grain, Pointed Soft Point 55 grain, and Power Point 62 grain.
Comparing to the .223 Remington at similar bullet weights and types the WSSM has an average drop 33 inches at 500 yards for a rifle zeroed at 200. While the .223 Remington has an average drop 52 inches at 500 yards for a rifle zeroed at 200.
Also the WSSM is pushing close to 4000 fps in muzzle velocity compared to 3200 of .223 Remington
If you can get a shadow $400.00 then jump on it. I own a Model 70 Shadow 7mm Win Magnum, and Model 70 Stealth II .243 WSSM. I would put the WSSM up against my magnum any day what we hunt around here. But I also like the .223 Remington for price. Plus I haven’t found an auto loader chambered for the .223 WSSM. Have you looked the Model 70 Stealth II? It has a 26” heavy barrel with target crown. It also is chambered for all of the WSSM calibers and then some.
If you get 223 Rem, the options are as broad as can be. If you get 223 WSSM, you're limited to Winchester and Browning. Nothing against them, but the names in accuracy are the Savage, Remington, and Weatherby, usually in that order. That will make more of a difference than which round you pick. The 223 WSSM ammo is drastically more expensive and will wear out the barrels drastically faster due to a wide columns of pressure forced through a tiny hole in a process called throttling and causing wear called throat erosion. Not as efficient either.
That said, purely subjectively, another forum member has had good results with his Winchester in 223 WSSM. However he uses it for hunting only, so you might still find an accuracy improvement in 223 simply on account of rifle and ammo availability in more accurate varieties.
i heard of wssm burnin out pretty easy
WSSM barrels last 750 to 1000 rounds at the most. i had a mini 14 that had over 10,000 rounds through it. No brainer.
I think you would be able to get more than 750 shots out of a wssm. Under that theory, a 22-250 would last what, 1200 shots? And as far as accuracy goes, most rifles are more accurate than the people behind them, so dont worry about all this brand accuracy. I never saw tikka mentioned on the "accuracy" list, and as far as I know, they carry the best accuracy guarantee.
you get 10,000 rnds out of a mini 14, because they are extremely innacurate to start with, so how do you tell when the barrel is shot. now when a barrel is shot out depends on the users requirements. peak accuracy from a .223 is gone in about 3000rnds, but many still get useable accuracy well after that. the more powder you burn, the faster the thraot will erode. i think you'll find barrel life of a .223wssm somewhere between the 22-250 and the 220 swift.
They won't even last that long. In the Sept. 2004 Guns & Ammo, Craig Boddington did an article on the .223 WSSM and said that the rifle Hornady used in testing had throat erosion after only 350 rounds. The shape of the cartridge itself is going to lend itself to feeding issues. I think a lot of these short fat wonders are going to fade away. The Remington SAUM's are all but dead now. These cartridges don't bring anything new to the table except being avaliable in a short action, which in itself offers zero advantage. Some will fill a nitche, but most will go away in time. Too many new calibers introduced too quickly. The gun market can only absorb just so much. Bill T.
boddington also believes bullets melt in flight. dont take everything gun writers write as law. not saying he's wrong, but am also not saying he is right. a sample of 1 barrel is not good evidence. as a general rule of thumb, the higher the pressure of the cartridge, the faster it will erode the barrels throat, and if you rapid fire it will exaggerate the effects. now if you consider that serious benchrest competitors throw barrels away after 1500rnds +/-. outside of prarie dog shooters, most hunters never put a 1000rnds through a rifle in a lifetime- for most the fact that its a hot cartridge will never matter. myself, i like the WSM's, but not the WSSM's. one of my WSM's is a varmint rifle, and if i shoot the barrel out in 1500rnds, who cares . new barrels cost far less than a 1000rnds of good quality ammunition. i think some people worry too much over issues like throat erosion. shoot 'em , wear the barrels out, and replace them- its all part of the game.
There are a couple of WSM`s that are extremely popular, the 270 WSM springs to mind.
WSSM`s? As a guide, in my country most Winchester model 70s START at $1200, one shop is selling Super Shadow 223 and 243 WSSM`s for 605 bucks, thats under half price.
Probably a case of ` giving a dog a bad name `.. They just sold very poorly here.. I`ve personally encountered a couple guys with either and they seem happy, but put me in the ` why try to re-invent the wheel ` camp.
Some sound advice above this post, the fact you are tied to 2 brands buying a WSSM, unless you rechamber something. Personally, the day my 223 won`t do what I want it too, I`ll buy a 22-250.
You forgot Mosin Nagant owners... with ammo as cheap as 880 rounds for $114, shipped, it's pretty easy to blow through 1000 in a year. One would only need to use 40 rounds each week for 40 weeks (52 weeks in a year) and you're already at 1600 rounds; and that's with the 7.62x54R.
I agree with lefty. It sounds like this guy wants a hunting rifle, which he probably wont run boxes of shells through every week. I love my short mag, and don't think they were created to replace anything. A lot of people didn't like the marketing that winchester did, which kind of gave them a bad name from the start. I don't hate the .308 because it is similar to the 30-06 in numbers, yet shorter in length. That being said, I would go with a regular .223, unless you are shooting over 400 yards.
i dont think were talking shooting surplus guns or ammo here, thats pretty much a different discussion.
Brownings barrels were chromed, Winchesters werent.
If your going to hunt with a .223, your most likely going to be hunting varmints. Varmint hunters can burn up hundreds of rounds in an afternoon working a hot dog town, as opposed to big game hunters that may fire one or two rounds on a weeks trip. A .223 WSSM is going to cook off a barrel in a very short time in that type of senario. Not to mention it's going to do it without much, if any improvement over a guy exploding dogs with a standard .223 next to him. A lot of dedicated varmint shooters reload on progressive machines because they go thru so much ammo. Bill T.
.223 Rem, more common, and will flat get the job done when it comes to varmints.
Personally, I don't see the point of the WSSM's other than $$$. If 3\8" of bolt travel and 200 fps means that much to you, then by all means, go buy that new rifle. Remember though, a 300 yd 'yote will be just as dead when shot with a .223 as he will when shot with a .223 WSSM, the main differences will be cost of ammo, bullet drop, barrel wear and magazine capacity. I see more negatives than positives but then I'm an old-school kind of guy. I can drive a nail just as deep with my old 20 oz.Estwing framing hammer as anyone can with one of the new $40+ "super hammers". No matter the subject, knowing how to use the tool at hand is the biggest equalizer. BTW, I haven't seen a single one of the WSM or WSSM's in the record books at Camp Perry or any where else, maybe Tubbs hasn't heard about them yet?
Good point. They've been around long enough to establish themselves in that regard if they offered any improvement. Bill T.
the WSM's are being used in 1000yd bench rest. will they set a record? who knows- these records dont get broken everyday.
Separate names with a comma.