325 WSM?

Coastalfisherman · 10-31-2005, 07:11 PM

Anybody shot this new round? Supposed to have better ballistics and hard hitting then the 338. I plan on buying one soon and wanted any first hand experience.

Washington Hunter · 10-31-2005, 07:37 PM

I don't believe it's any better ballistically than the 338 Win. Mag. That is just impossible, considering the 338 is a larger case and has more powder capacity. But, it's not far behind the 338, and a deer/elk would not know the difference if hit by a bullet from either cartridge. If I was looking for an elk cartridge, I would consider the 325, also. I just think everyone should be clear that it isn't superior to the 338 Mag.

oregonoutdoors · 10-31-2005, 08:33 PM

It was built to bridge the gap between the 300 and 338 win mags.

Ni! · 10-31-2005, 09:16 PM

My understanding is that the Winchester engineers were trying to duplicate the .338 Win Mag but couldn't quite match the velocity, so they dropped down to 8mm and were able to duplicate the 338's performance with a 200 grain bullet. However, with the heavier bullets up to 250 grains, the 338 will still be faster. (In fact, I don't think there's a readily available 250 grain bullet in 8mm. I could be wrong though.)

With that said, the 8mm 200 grain bullet has a better BC than the 200 grainer from a .338, so trajectory from the .325 should be a little better at long range.

Not really a big deal in my mind. They'll both do the job very well, but if you want to shoot the heavier bullets, the .338 is still the choice.

Ni!

ICHTHYDEMON · 11-01-2005, 07:25 AM

Quote:

I don't believe it's any better ballistically than the 338 Win. Mag. That is just impossible, considering the 338 is a larger case and has more powder capacity. But, it's not far behind the 338, and a deer/elk would not know the difference if hit by a bullet from either cartridge. If I was looking for an elk cartridge, I would consider the 325, also. I just think everyone should be clear that it isn't superior to the 338 Mag.

I'm not so sure about that. According to Winchesters site the .325 is superior to the .338. I checked out the ballistics for both calibers and using a 200gr Accubond for the .325 and a 200gr Ballistic tip for the .338 the WSM comes out ahead on velocity and energy,and trajectory.

Chesapeake · 11-01-2005, 08:00 AM

If you are buying it just to buy it than go for it. If you are looking for a viable hunting round I would get the 300win or 338. The 325 rounds are going to be more expensive and hard to find. The only place you would have a use for such a gun is Alaska and ammo for it would be even harder to find up there. There isnt going to be a good selection of rifles chambered for the round so you are again limmited on choice.

These new Short Mags are just an advertising gimmick to sell new rifles. They dont offer anything usefull to the hunter and very little to the match shooter.

Pros:
Short action= stiffer reciever for better accuracy(a hunter will never notice and most hunting rifles arent capable of benefiting from this).

Short fat powder columb= More efficient burn for better accuracy(see above comment) and less recoil.

Less recoil= Test instruments show this but most hunters cant feel it.

Cons:
Small selection of rifles chambered for rounds
More expensive ammo
Less choices in ammo
Ammo is less available
Magazines typically hold less rounds

All that said the only short mag I feel is usefull would be the 270 wsm. It offers enough of a velocity and trajectory gain over the 270win to be usefull. BUT Weatherby still has it beat with thier 270 chambering so it still offers very little if anything new to the common hunter.

Washington Hunter · 11-01-2005, 08:25 AM

Quote:

I don't believe it's any better ballistically than the 338 Win. Mag. That is just impossible, considering the 338 is a larger case and has more powder capacity. But, it's not far behind the 338, and a deer/elk would not know the difference if hit by a bullet from either cartridge. If I was looking for an elk cartridge, I would consider the 325, also. I just think everyone should be clear that it isn't superior to the 338 Mag.

I'm not so sure about that. According to Winchesters site the .325 is superior to the .338. I checked out the ballistics for both calibers and using a 200gr Accubond for the .325 and a 200gr Ballistic tip for the .338 the WSM comes out ahead on velocity and energy,and trajectory.

Well, sounds like the marketing folks at Winchester have got you duped! (along with a lot of other people)
There is nothing really "wrong" with the 325 WSM. But, it's just an impossibility for it to be "better" than the 338 Winchester Magnum. When you do a comparison, you need to use similarly shaped bullets, which means if you're going to use a 200 grain bullet in the 325, you should probably compare that to a 225, or even a 250, in the 338.

ICHTHYDEMON · 11-01-2005, 11:42 AM

Uh... I think the Accubond and Ballistic tip are similarly shaped.

Washington Hunter · 11-01-2005, 12:33 PM

ok...maybe "similarly shaped" wasn't the right term...I was trying to keep it simple. But a comparison of same weight bullets in different calibers is not a fair comparison. By using a 200 in 338 caliber, you are shortchanging that caliber. That weight bullet would be relatively short, and therefore ballistic coefficient and sectional density would be low, and ballistically it will not do as well as a 225 (for example) in the 338 caliber.

Coastalfisherman · 11-01-2005, 01:02 PM

If I am reading your posts correctly, it sounds like I ought to just keep my 338 and save my money. Maybe I will buy two nice scopes instead.

Ni! · 11-01-2005, 01:15 PM

If you've already got a .338, then by all means stick with it. I would only consider the .325 if I didn't already have something in that class that I was happy with.

Good luck on the hunt.

Ni!

Chesapeake · 11-01-2005, 01:16 PM

Now your talking. Get a good scope and some good bino's and keep the 338. It is a proven killer.

Washington Hunter · 11-01-2005, 01:19 PM

If you just feel the need for a new rifle, go ahead and get one! It will kill deer and elk as well as anything else. But if you're thinking it will shoot faster, flatter, and kill elk quicker than the 338, you might be disappointed. On the other hand, if you would prefer a lighter rifle with maybe just a little less recoil, it may be just the cartridge you need.

McBaine · 11-01-2005, 02:31 PM

Part of the reason why they came out with the 325 WSM then say the .338 WSM was because they weren't able to duplicate the same performance. Almost as soon as the .300 WSM hit the market wildcatters started chambering it in the .338. The biggest problem they ran into was finding a powder that will give them true .338 performance. They have yet to do so. Winchester was able to come up with something truly good, .325 WSM, but couldn't do what they wanted. Right now you'll have a hell of a time finding a .325 rifle, let alone ammunition. February is the earliest I'm hearing for them to fill back orders on the rifles, haven't heard for the ammunition.

OuterLimits · 11-01-2005, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Pros:
Short action= stiffer reciever for better accuracy(a hunter will never notice and most hunting rifles arent capable of benefiting from this).

Short fat powder columb= More efficient burn for better accuracy(see above comment) and less recoil.

Less recoil= Test instruments show this but most hunters cant feel it.

Cons:
Small selection of rifles chambered for rounds
More expensive ammo
Less choices in ammo
Ammo is less available
Magazines typically hold less rounds

Save your money and buy a nice scope. Wildcat cartridges are just that....Expensive, small selection of loaded ammo and brass, of course, unless you are loading your own, then trying to find the brass, or resizing and shaping can be very time consuming. An alternative would be the .338 Rem Ultra Mag which is close to the .340 WBY Mag. That's my .02.

baltz526 · 11-12-2005, 12:40 PM

sounds like a great bear/elk brush combo to me in a carbine length rifle.