What happened to the Winchester Short and Super Short Magnum series of cartridges that came out in the early 2000’s? I never find any brass for them at the range or see them used or even mentioned. Other than being suited to fit in “short actions” were they any better than the standard length cartridges they mirrored? I see the Winchester catalog still lists the 270, 300 and 325 WSM as available in their Model 70 but from the picture it looks like the action is standard length which I assume means the magazine length is blocked for the shorter cartridges. So, if I’m correct, where is the benefit if you don’t get a lighter, stiffer, more compact action? Better accuracy? Anybody had any experience with these Winchester cartridges, good or bad?

You probably inadvertently answered your own question here.

Generally speaking, when one has to question the use, value, or benefit of something, it doesn't sell very well and thusly fades into obscurity due to the lack of a tangible use or benefit.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

Fading into obscurity.....

Sounds right to me, especially with the 6.5 Creedmore taking over the world..............

__________________
Come and take it!!

Pursued to death by the Oxymoron Police.

__________________
Expect the unexpected

I never saw a need for those cartridges and thought they were only meant to sell more rifles. Just my jaded opinion.

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

They went the way of the Dodo bird. Extinction.

I like the 300 Win Shrt Mag. That is probably
because it is in the Family, and I can shoot
it and take care of it.

A circa '90's Browning Medallion Model Engraved
Receiver, Blued, Checkered Walnut Stock, a Long
Barrel with the Boss Muzzle Break Bullet tuner on it.

Got to shoot it recently with 5 Reloads I made
for it to Range Test. Wow, it was impressive
to me, and different, since I shoot Revolvers
mostly.

Before I Reloaded those 5 Cartridges, in my research,
they mirror the 300 Win Mag. One thing that stuck in
my mind the Win Shrt Mag was Smaller but more
efficent with Powder and the Power something to do
with the Cartridge Neck Angle.

Also, to me they are more for Someone that Reloads.
At the Stores I've looked at the 20 count box, and
they are not cheap.

The Best to you and your Endeavors.

Attached Images

WIN_20191010_15_01_17_Pro.jpg (90.6 KB, 125 views)

Theoretically, they offered benefits over the cartridges they were supposed to replace - short powder collum, short action, higher velocity, ect. The problem was they cost more, and even though there were some slight benefits, all the cartridges they bettered were already well established. Of the bunch, the .300 WSM was probably the most successful. Probably a very good choice if you want an ultralight rifle with some power, but then recoil becomes more than the average hunter wants. I don't think your average hunter is as accepting of new cartridges as the folks who are into cutting edge tactical, and the WSM series were marketed as hunting rounds. The WSSM series were even more of a flop, even though on paper they did sound good. Hunters are a conservative lot.

Larry

They were ignored to death by the shooters .

Concerning the short , super short and ultra short 30's , I read all the hoopla , heard the shouting and saw the arm waving but decided they weren't any better than my 30-06 , 308 and 30-30 .
Gary

__________________
Certified Cajun
NRA Member

My brother bought a 300 WSM gun, but doesn't shoot it a lot. Says it kills on one end and maims on the other. It does have a rather hard recoil.

I had a Tikka T3 in 300 WSM for a number of years. It does mimic a 300 Win Mag with less powder and less recoil. But it is no less expensive to shoot. I found that it didn’t kill deer any deader than my 243 Win so I sent it down the road. I am now drinking the 6.5 Creedmoor koolaid. Guess I will never learn.

I find the .300 WSM was more successful than the others. Especially those goofy WSSM cartridges (223 WSSM and 243 WSSM and didn’t they introduce a 25 WSSM?)

The 300 WSM deliveres near 300 Win Mag ballistics in a short action, which I can see could be a possible appeal.

__________________
Some Might Say.

I bought a 270 WSM mainly for a Model 70 in a caliber I did not have. Rarely use it as I see no real advantage over the several 270 Winchester I have. I suppose I am stuck with it now. I have shot all the WSM and WSSM cartridges in a friends rifles. IMO they are mostly unnecessary. I feel the same about the 6.5 Creedmore but I won't take the bait there.

I have been shooting for a long while now. I have seen a lot of cartridges come and go and guess it makes money for some people. When the WSMs came out, I was pretty sure they would go the way of 350 Remington Magnum, 6.5 Winchester...the list is long. A lot of people have figured out that an appropriate load in a .30/06 or .270 Winchester kills the **** out of 90% big game most people shoot. Furthermore you can pick up ammo almost anywhere. I am a 66 year old who mainly hunts whitetail. I have had younger shooters advise me that I needed a 6.5 Creedmore or .338 Lapua. Huh? If I am to believe what I see at the range, most people do not need to take shots longer than 200 yards. You really don't need a $5000 rifle or the latest super duper rifle round to get the job done at 200 yards.

Pawn shops here in Montana are chuck full of them, some won't even take them anymore.
Was pretty short lived for sure. Not dead by any means, as I see Short mag boxes in the trash (no brass however) when I am RO' ing, so there must be some still in use.
I seldom see any of the Ultra Mag cartridges either.
Randy

Randy

What happened to the Winchester short magnums? They came up short. (Mea culpa! Mea culpa! Just couldn't resist!) Sincerely. bruce

__________________
<><

Same will happen to the much ballyhooed 350 legend. Just invented to sell rifles. Nothing more . Nothing less.

__________________
S&W Accumulator

Well, my opinion is considerably different than most here. I feel the "hunting" public really missed the boat on the WSM cartridges. But first, a bit of my "history".

I am right handed but shoot long guns left handed (left eye dominant). I grew up in the 50s/60s and always wanted a Winchester Model 70. When they started making left hand versions in the 90s (I think), I kept telling myself to get one. I procrastinated until Winchester announced they were closing shop. After much thought and self-discussion, I settled on a left hand Featherweight in .270 WSM. Best decision I ever made.

It has the most butter smooth short action bolt I have ever fired. My other rifles in the standard long action are all clunky and rough in comparison. The .270 WSM gives me a near clone to the .270 Weatherby, with far less felt recoil than my .30-06 Rem 700 BDL.

To me, the Featherweight was a win, the short action was a win, and the .270 WSM was a win.

__________________
SWCA 3297 SWHF 583

Good to hear the responses. My old .270 Winchester and 30:06 will continue to serve me.

At least it can be shot in an AR platform.

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

Cartridges that fixed a problem that never existed.

If I still wanted a big game rifle I'd probably have one of the WSM's.

I was always into custom guns and part of the appeal was to have a "sleeper" cartridge ... something that was recognized by the gurus as having virtue that was overlooked or unappreciated by the marketplace. I had several wildcats long before they were standardized.

Last century, long before the WSM's came to the marketplace, the .284 Win was the darling of custom rifle makers. Introduced in 1963, it was pretty much a marketplace flop. Ahead of its time, it was essentially a .280 Remington or 7mm/06 that was short and fat and would fit in a medium action.

I built one on a Sako medium action and it served me wonderfully, with no regrets, until I decided to sell it. The WSM's had just hit the market and I thought I now had a white elephant on my hands. Not so. Quality endures and the little 22" ultralight .284Win with the Turkish walnut stock sold for 3X what I had in it.

At one time I owned 16 centerfire rifles, but not one 30/06, .223 or .22LR.

Beware the man with one gun ... he'll probably bore you to death in other ways, too.

__________________
Carry.."hope" isn't a strategy

Just because various military go out and buy millions upon millions of automatic rifles for line infantry and see the reduction of OAL and receiver length in these millions of combat rifles as a potential plus DOES NOT mean that hunters and bolt action shooters have much to gain or even care about someone shortening the action by half an inch. The industry tried to apply the logic the military applies to assault/battle rifles and then suddenly though they would introduce a "revolution" beloved by all and setting forth a new paradigm in cartridge design. They must have been shocked that decades of this applied logic have failed on hunters who never had problems with long magnum actions.

That and as I've written before, and others state in this thread as well, they are gimmicks to sell rifles. Buy the NEW rifle and new cartridge so you have an excuse to buy a new rifle. The shooting sports are adopting tactics form other industries, make new stuff to push new products, especially in an industry where the products are durable to last generations.

The old "short" cartridges for bolt actions were much ado of nothing, the old belted magnums aren't dead, 30-06 didn't keel over and roll into the grave because of 308. The old "short actions" failed before, so Winchester tried them again, and even tried shortening it again. Claims of saving, what, a quarter inch, an ounce of gun steel?

They also sit and brag about how the cartridge is so great because they can be barreled into any action, being so short. But the problem with the vaunted short actions is the OPPOSITE, I can barrel a long magnum action into anything I damned well choose but a short or super short action can't! Get a super short action and when you can't find brass or ammunition you can rebarrel it to.... another obsolescent cartridge! Nobody wanted to rebarrel a regular or long action gun to a SM or SSM (there is actually no benefit beyond being short in all reality), and the short actions are painting yourself into a corner.

From what I've read and heard, in the end the old long and standard cartridges tend to be more flexible, i.e. will handle reduced loads and cast bullets better in general. I think I heard Krieger saying that shapes of cartridges can affect throat erosion, the more aggressive the shoulder the worse the effect. Old Mauser family and belted magnums are thin enough to stack well in a magazine, while super stubbies are grotesquely huge and take up space in a magazine in additional height, all to trim a little bit front and back.

Shortening cartridges and barrels makes a great deal of sense for a lot of guns and purposes, but not all. The WSSM was the "jumping the shark" of the industry's push for shorter cartridges.

None of the WSMs had anything on many of the old standards such as the .270 Win and the .30-'06, plus a few others such as the .308 and 7mm Mauser. The case size and shape (given comparable case capacity) have no practical effect on how well a cartridge kills whatever it is you are hunting. Does anyone remember the strange Remington cartridges with electric primers? They sure went obsolete quickly, mainly because they were very expensive and offered no practical advantages to the user over conventional cartridges. Pure gimmicks for the foolish.

"Last century, long before the WSM's came to the marketplace, the .284 Win was the darling of custom rifle makers. Introduced in 1963, it was pretty much a marketplace flop. Ahead of its time, it was essentially a .280 Remington or 7mm/06 that was short and fat and would fit in a medium action."

To me, the main benefit of the .284 was that the cases could be very easily formed to make 7.5x55 Swiss brass. I had (and still have) several nice Swiss straight pull military rifles in that caliber. One pass of a .284 case through the 7.5 FL die did the trick, and despite the rebated rim of the .284, they functioned OK in my rifles.

I don't think it is a coincidence that we quit seeing new hunting rifle cartridges when the AWB expired. While it was in place long gun sales were in a slump and all the new cartridges were an attempt to breath some life into a stagnant market. After the ban expired new tactical style guns and cartridges became a much more effective way to sell more rifles.

They were not designed to replace the common existing cartridges. They were created to give those of use that already own bolt action rifles an excuse to buy another. Half the firearms in the US are owned by those of us that own 7+ and gun makers are heavily dependent on us. A lot of the new guns and cartridges are aimed at us, not the big majority of gun owners that own a few and have a practical reason for each of them.

I never tried one of the WSMs, but they looked like they would be neat cartridges to work up loads for. There are many fad followers and gadget oriented folks in the various shooting/hunting/handloading endeavors. Some of us fall deeper into the traps than others.

The last "new" cartridge I tried, a couple of years ago, was the .260 Remington. Lost interest in it quickly, seeing the light and wondering why it was even developed. Some other now trendy 6.5 rifle cartridges will likely die an uncelebrated death in a few years and won't be missed.

There's a current thread on this forum about the .40 caliber handgun cartridge. It's apparently fallen out of favor, but surprisingly, a re-invention of the wheel like this one lasted a good while.

There's no real explanation for the wants and needs of serious gun people, but it's great to have so many choices. I see no practical in-the-field difference between my Remington Sendero 7mm Remington Magnum and my New Ultra Light Arms 7x61 Sharpe & Hart, but I "know" the 7x61 has a mystique the bland Remington cartridge lacks.

Us hard core gun folks will continue to try new stuff, but that's seldom a guarantee the new stuff will last long and "practical use" has nothing to do with any of this.

"The last "new" cartridge I tried, a couple of years ago, was the .260 Remington. Lost interest in it quickly, seeing the light and wondering why it was even developed. Some other now trendy 6.5 rifle cartridges will likely die an uncelebrated death in a few years and won't be missed."

And the finest (and one of the oldest) 6.5mm cartridge, the 6.5x55mm Swede, is still largely ignored. A shame, as it is versatile with a wide range of bullet weights, and will do nearly everything any hunter or shooter needs, from varmints to the largest of medium game. and is capable of superb grouping performance. At one time, I even shot benchrest with it (custom Mauser with a Douglas barrel). It seems Americans just don't appreciate the 6.5 as a caliber as the Scandinavians do.

It took me over 20 years to finally find a commercial 6.5x55....I had a M96 that was nearly 100 years old and did NOT want to sporterize it.

Found a Remington 700 that was part of the 1994 Classics Series with a Burris 3x9 scope on it for $500.

The factory Norma ammo is still my most accurate, however some hand loads are nipping on it's heels.

I can now routinely clang the 4x4 inch gong we have at our local range that is at 300 yards. What a rifle and what a cartridge...not bad at all for a cartridge that was designed in 1894 I believe......

If the Scandahuvians can effectively use it on elk, moose, bear, caribou, etc. I can certainly do the same on this continent!!

Randy

The 6.5mm x 55mm Swedish Mauser intrigued me in my younger days as a great cartridge.
Bullet weights from 87 up to the large 140gr bullets for big game made it a good weapon with mild recoil.

The only draw back was that the older Krag actions were set up for about 45,000 PSI. so loads had to be kept in the ball park.

I did not need a "Short Mag" since I also had a .22, 30-30, 270 and 30-06.
However my brother has a 375 H&H that I bought for him........
I think he still has the original first box of ammo.

I agree with all of you on the 6.5x55. I've had three, including a Model 70 Fwt. I realize there are all sorts of reasons and theories why other, more modern 6.5 cartridges exist, but the 6.5 Swede remains a good one.

So can dozens of other cartridges. My fav. 30 for the AR is the 7.62x39. but I don't advertise it as something it isn't.......Such as the legend......Why didn't they just reintroduce the 351 WSL?...........CUZ marketing and gimmicks sells guns.

__________________
S&W Accumulator

Or, even better, the .401 WSL. Not very popular at the time, and not many rifles were made for it by Winchester, but it has great ballistics (2000 ft-lbs). Reportedly, it was effective even on fairly large game (even African) at closer ranges. I think it would be a great addition to the AR caliber lineup - or maybe as a chambering for other rifles, especially for use in those states where deer hunters can use only straight-cased cartridges. I always wanted a Winchester Model 1910 rifle, have seen only one of them for sale that I can remember, around 10 years ago. I should have bought it as it was priced within my means.

A fellow was shooting a 300 WSM next to me at the range Friday. Lord! What a muzzle blast! Definitely made me jump.

Sales & marketing, the second incarnation of prostitution. If sales are down, invent / manufacture something different. A 'need' is not required, just make it new and improved.

Speed is king, a near miss will drop the animal where it stands, groups are 0.015" smaller than ________ . You fill in the blank. The only victims are the buyers of these 'snake-oil' rifles.

__________________
S&WHF 366

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the Other major factor here . The simultaneous introduction of the RSAUM line of ctgs. The total market for short fat belted ctgs turned out to be smaller than Rem or USRA projected , and couldn't support Two families of similar ctgs .

Yes , there are theoretical advantages to short fat ctgs, but they fall into a narrow niche of advanced handloaders and wildcatters . The average , pragmatic hunters continued to do well enough with the half dozen or so popular , usual suspects .

I think that Winchester was much like some of Remington’s cartridge failures....introduced a cartridge that was not needed, marketed properly, or prohibitively expensive or “all of the above”! And then there was the Remington rifle with “electronic ignition”! memtb

.30-06 One and done.

That's all I have to say.

I bought a lightly used Remington 700 SPS in 270WSM from a local kid who bought it wanting a 270 and then discovered it was a WSM and he could not afford to shoot it (or didn't know the difference and couldn't get a .270 cartridge into it!)! For the price it was a good deal for me, $280. I replaced the cheap scope he had on it with a Vortex and that rifle is an excellent shooter, flat and accurate with no recoil issues. I do not reload but ammo is readily available and when on sale is about 1-1/2 times what regular .270 is with a bit more performance. I am happy to have it.

Like a lot of “new and improved” superwhamajama stuff, it was probably a solution looking for a problem.

Not only am I a 30-06 fan I'm also a fan of the 25-06 and 338-06. It's just a great cartridge. I'm surprised John Browning didn't create it lol.

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

I had a Browning .223 WSSM for awhile, it shot good and I was lucky to find someone who wanted it more me, my only regret is that I didn't keep one of the rounds for my collection, they are wild looking.

And very hard to find and expensive now!

I think the 270wsm was the only one with much traction. I had one and sold it. But shot a dall sheep and mt caribou with it.
Brother has a 300 WSM and has killed elk.
Whether they are needed can be said about almost every cartridge in existence, there is lots of over lap and duplication.

One of my family members has the same opinion.
I handloaded some of his cartridges to 30-06 power, and he loved them.

__________________
Science plus Art

I have a M70 in .243 WSSM and a Kimber in .325 WSM and love both . I reload so ammo is no problem .

__________________
Grumpy Old Man With a Gun

I shoot 30-06 very well. I don't desire a magnum. I did shoot a 300WSM one time at a range. A 165g some kind of plastic point bullet. I always thought 30 cal magnums were for 180g, or 200g bullets. Come to think of it, 30-06 too. And I'm a young guy, 69.

__________________
"Don't Give Up the Ship"

I personally am a big fan of the 270 WSM...It numbers fall between the 270 Win. and the Weatherby 270 mag....Manageable recoil and great performance...

I'm a big game hunter. Big game cartridges are personal preference.

Hunters will cause me to experience massive synapses short circuitry when they try to convince me that a .300 Mega Magnum will kill big game deader than the '06. It won't. Put a bullet from any suitable big game cartridge into the oxygenated blood pumping apparatus of any big game animal, and it'll have seconds of hoof time remaining. No big game animal lives beyond seconds without topside oxygenated blood flow.

After many years chasing big game all over the Rockies, I've come to the conclusion that I could become very, very happy with a .308 Win carbine. But I ain't buying another big game rifle. From here on out, I'll use my much lighter .270 Win. My 7MM Rem Mag is a phenomenal big game rifle/cartridge combo. It will kill massive bull elk very, very dead. But it won't kill elk any deader than a .270 Win.

The reality is there was no need for another North American big game cartridge after the US Army came out with its version of what we know as the '06. It's been filling big game tags for over a century and will continue to fill big game tags long after Mega Magnums requiems.

I'm good with any suitable big game cartridge other hunters use. But from my experience, I'm long past done carrying heavy rifles up-and-down high ridges of the Rockies. I can kill every big game animal in North America with my extremely accurate 22" barreled .270 Win. All I have to do in match bullet to hunted animal. There is no doubt in my mind that a bonded .270 Win bullet will break shoulders of a polar bear and drop huge bull elk. A 130 grain .270 Win bullet will drop Rocky Mountain mule deer in their tracks.

BTW, I also could become very, very happy with a 6.5x55 Swede in a lightweight carbine configuration.

Heavy hunting rifles and me have experienced a permanent dissolution.

In addition to it being a solution looking for a problem (as are most cartridges invented after 1960, some would argue earlier), you lost magazine capacity with the short, fat cartridges. Moreover, I think the market was super saturated with new wonder cartridges, e.g., WSM, WSSM, UM and so on. There’s not much you can’t kill with a .243, .22-250, 270 Win, 30-06, 300 WM, .338 WM, or .375 H&H and myriad other cartridges that were invented long before 1960.

__________________
213th FBINA

It really is just marketing. Same as cars and trucks. Make something new and different to sell something new and different.
I have no problem with the scheme. I don’t play since the ones I already have work just fine so there is no need.
More is usually better for everyone.

__________________
“Look life in its iron face”