1:8" for 300WM: Is this too fast?

[Orange Dust]

Ok here is where i stand today. I feel 30 magnums are at their best with bullets of about 200 grains. If you need 160-175, shoot a 7mm. If you need 250 shoot a .338. This is for game not targets

 

[David Emerson]

Ok here is where i stand today. I feel 30 magnums are at their best with bullets of about 200 grains. If you need 160-175, shoot a 7mm. If you need 250 shoot a .338. This is for game not targets

I pretty much think the same. With monos you can go lighter as they lose so little weight.

 

[David Emerson]

That's why I worry. Today's schools are becoming very good at teaching children not to!

The socialist way. Dumb everyone down

 

[FEENIX]

It simply boils down to end-users' personal preferences and intended purpose.

 

[David Emerson]

There is another trade off. Increasing twist spins the buller faster. This requires energy. Some of the energy that was being used in the powder charge for velocity is used to increase spin. Enough to matter? Up to the owner.

That is an interesting topic. I asked Dan Lilja about it and he says no. Measurable? It makes sense to me that a fast twist would be harder to start than a slow twist

 

[Orange Dust]

That is an interesting topic. I asked Dan Lilja about it and he says no. Measurable? It makes sense to me that a fast twist would be harder to start than a slow twist

Could possibly just be difference in barrels, but the couple iv put together with faster than normal twists didnt like the max loads the slower ones did. They took a little less powder. Dan should know.

 

[WildRose]

You're quoting its military history as it was designed, not its initial introduction or availability for civilian use. They might be vastly superior to the rounds/rifles they replaced but sometimes the military changes things for a different purpose. For instance, the .30-06 (7.62x63mm) stayed in service for over 5 decades in their machine guns and was replaced by 7.62x51mm (1954).

Fads, trends, or craze are a matter of perspective and it is cyclical just like global warming (or whatever the social media calls it nowadays) that has been continuously evolving for thousands/millions of years, diets, fashion, etc ... heck, even movie remakes.

To the OP, my sincere apologies for being part of complicating your simple question unnecessarily. Moving right along ... I hope. Cheers!

They were both developed originally as military cartridges. Their popularity came from the servicemen that carried them while in service and stuck with them when they went home, many carrying their service rifles home after their wartime service.

They weren't fads, they were just vastly superior to what they replaced and continue serving people quite well today.

 

[FEENIX]

They were both developed originally as military cartridges. Their popularity came from the servicemen that carried them while in service and stuck with them when they went home, many carrying their service rifles home after their wartime service.

They weren't fads, they were just vastly superior to what they replaced and continue serving people quite well today.

Its military design and purpose have been established over a hundred years ago or how it gained popularity and no one is disputing that. Except for your claim that it was never a fad. Like it or not, anything new starts with a fad, because it is a social, generational, or cultural behavior and perception (individual or group), and human nature. Especially today, most people want the newest and greatest, until its novelty wears off. When the novelty wears off, it does not necessarily mean it goes away, it simply not the same as its peak, and the following varies throughout time.

Going back to the OP's question, 1:8" for 300WM: Is this too fast?

 

[Orange Dust]

If the Op wants to shoot bullets 180 or heavier, or monos he should buy the rifle if he wants it. Pretty much the bottom line, i think.

 

[David Emerson]

Could possibly just be difference in barrels, but the couple iv put together with faster than normal twists didnt like the max loads the slower ones did. They took a little less powder. Dan should know.

How much slower were the fast twist?

 

[Orange Dust]

How much slower were the fast twist?

They took less powder for accuracy, and peaked to max earlier. Guess, 50-100. Individual barrels can easily vary that much so i might not be being fair. Believe dan.

 

[FEENIX]

If the Op wants to shoot bullets 180 or heavier, or monos he should buy the rifle if he wants it. Pretty much the bottom line, i think.

Agreed!

 

[David Emerson]

They took less powder for accuracy, and peaked to max earlier. Guess, 50-100. Individual barrels can easily vary that much so i might not be being fair. Believe dan.

OK thanks for the response

 

[Gravel Road]

Its military design and purpose have been established over a hundred years ago or how it gained popularity and no one is disputing that. Except for your claim that it was never a fad. Like it or not, anything new starts with a fad, because it is a social, generational, or cultural behavior and perception (individual or group), and human nature. Especially today, most people want the newest and greatest, until its novelty wears off. When the novelty wears off, it does not necessarily when it goes away, it simply not the same as its peak, and the following varies throughout time.

Going back to the OP's question, 1:8" for 300WM: Is this too fast?

Sorry, but this is bugging the heck out of me I don't know why you again insist on this being a fad. As stated by several people, it was never a fad, and was in fact the exact opposite of a fad. It was a proven military round that people trusted their life with.

Also, just because something is new does not mean it is a fad.

Here's a definition of Fad: an intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, especially one that is short-lived and without basis in the object's qualities; a craze.