View Full Version : Short Magnums

Mike Bryant
02-07-2011, 07:52 PM
Most of you know that when Rick Jamison was working for Shooting Times, he patented a short magnum cartridge. Thought you all might be interested in this photo. The photo is of a 7mm Wade Super Seven on the left, 7 WSM in the middle and .300 WSM on the right. The 7mm Wade Super Seven is listed on page 396 of P. O. Ackley's volume 1 of Handbook for Shooters and Reloaders. The parent case is the .348 Winchester with the rim turned off to make a rimless cartridge. The copyright date in the book is 1962 with my printing being 1977. It sure looks like a WSM doesn't it? Case head diameter is .549" on the Wade Super Seven and slightly less than .551" on the 7 WSM. Overall case length on the 7mm Wade Super Seven is 2.221" with the 7 WSM measuring 2.095" in overall case length.

Maybe Mr. Wade should have been the one to patent the short magnums as he predates Lazzeroni's effort as well as Winchester and Remington's short magnums?:confused:


02-07-2011, 10:02 PM
Back in the late 1940s Winchester was developing a new rifle (Model 80) and a new cartridge (30-80 WCF). The cartridge would become the 308 Winchester in 1952 but the Model 80 rifle was dropped in favor of a new version of the Model 70, the Featherweight.

At the same time, Winchester was considering a fatter version of the 30-80 WCF which they called the 308 Magnum. They made un-headstamped cartridges although the rifle used for testing has never been positively identified. Winchester data sheets refer to a test rifle chambered for an unspecified .30 caliber cartridge, which was tested to destruction and then scrapped. I believe that the experimental cartridges were the 308 Magnum and the rifle may have been one of the first Model 80.

Here's a photo of one of the cartridges in my collection, and the box it came in. As you can see, the box was simply a 405 Winchester box turned inside-out with a pasted on label. The cartridge bears a striking resemblance to the 30 WSM of many years later.



02-08-2011, 07:12 AM
Here's a photo of one of the cartridges in my collection,
What a collectable! Where did you ever find that?

Does anyone know what became of Rick Jamison and the story surrounding his tenure at ST?

Boyd Allen
02-08-2011, 08:00 AM
It wouldn't be the first time that someone has gotten away with patenting something that was really not new. Perhaps if Winchester had called the cartridges something else, they could have saved a whole lot of money. In his defense, perhaps Mr. Jamison was unaware of the earlier designs. IMO, anyone who is interested in wildcats or new cartridge design should have a copy of Ackley's two volume set. Reading it gives a whole new slant on "new" developments in the firearms industry.

Mike Bryant
02-08-2011, 09:19 AM
Roy, I was contacted about rechambering the barrel to a 7 WSM so that he could pass it on to his kids in a factory chambering. He decided to leave it as it was and was gracious enough to send me a case for it. I was pretty amazed at just how close the 7mm Wade was to the WSM. The wildcat was created by Fred Wade an Arizona gunsmith. Dont know what time period he was active, but I'd bet any of the cartridges in the Ackey books were developed a long time before the book was first published.

02-08-2011, 12:22 PM
What a collectable! Where did you ever find that? . . .

Roy B - I collect experimentals and prototypes (among other things) and have quite a few Winchester (Western) developmental cartridges. For whatever reason, Big W put all of their new cartridges thru a long process that involved a lot of testing and possible sales evaluations. Remington, on the other hand, seemed to get an idea for a new cartridge and go directly to market. That process resulted in a couple of flops for them but I think, at the time, they were more interested in selling rifles and shotguns than they were ammunition.


02-08-2011, 12:33 PM
I have an early Model 70 chambered for .300 Mashburn Short Magnum. The .308 Norma is a virtual copy, and the .300 Win Mag is close enough. Not directly comparable due to the belt, but the basic idea is the same.

My rifle is way cooler than anything I could buy with an off the rack cartridge. :)

02-08-2011, 01:10 PM
" In his defense, perhaps Mr. Jamison was unaware of the earlier designs."

No one of Mr. Jamison's age and knowledge of things about guns, cartridges, reloading and wildcats could be ignorant of P.O. Ackley and his "Handbook for Shooters and Reloaders", nor the design of the 7mm Wade on pg. 811 of John Donally's "Handbook of Cartridge Conversions", 1987 edition.

Jamison won the suit, that seems an indicaton of the ineffectiveness of WW's attorneys.

Greg Culpepper
02-08-2011, 01:42 PM
" In his defense, perhaps Mr. Jamison was unaware of the earlier designs."

Jamison won the suit, that seems an indicaton of the ineffectiveness of WW's attorneys.

There are many examples of short, fat magnums made off of 348 Win brass that pre-date Jamison. Any of them would suffice as prior art and be an effective defense in a infringement suit. The fact that this was not employed by Winchester's attorneys may indicate they had a different objective than the obvious.

Suppose you're a multinational corp with manufacturing facilities all over the world and you had purchased an iconic American firearms manufacturer with timeless designs but an old, financially marginal plant in a high tax state and a cranky, expensive, unionized work force to run those old, slow machines. It might be worth a few million bucks to dump the whole operation with plausible deniability and go make a lick with those timeless designs manufactured on modern equipment where ever and with whom ever you preferred. Just sayin.

02-08-2011, 04:25 PM
I have spoken to two individuals that were subpoenaed to testify at the court proceedings and according to them "prior art" was proven hands down then Winchester dropped the ball. Jamison invented nothing. When he was doing this so called inventing was he doing when he was on the payroll/time of Shooting Times?

Mike Bryant
02-08-2011, 05:24 PM
I imagine Greg's right on the money as to why Winchester settled out of court. They should have been able to have won against his patent easily because of prior art. To my understanding, the law suit was the excuse for closing Winchester down.

02-08-2011, 07:31 PM
is sooooo right! That WAS the reason. The days of simplicity, common sense and honesty are long gone. May Jamison and his ilk rot.

Larry Elliott
02-09-2011, 11:00 PM
Back when I was a lad MANY years ago I remember reading something by Jack O'Connor concerning patenting of cartridge designs. He made the point, the fools in the patent office likely don't know the difference between a bullet and a cartridge, that since the self contained metallic cartridge was designed in the mid to late 1800's any change in the shape of the case was inconsequential (except in performance which he didn't go into). A design could be copyrighted, but not patented. Beats me that the Patent Office doesn't have anyone who knows anything about such things.

Winchester must have had some lawyers who had just graduated from the East Podunk School of Brewing Technology with associates degrees in beer drinking.

02-09-2011, 11:09 PM
+3....... count another vote for Greg's explanation here :)


02-10-2011, 03:08 AM
When it comes to mechanical apparatus and I would say metallic cartridges, there is no new art. Everything that is being patented, is just an adaptation of someone else's prior art. If you are willing to pay a BS artist to write up your application, you will get it approved. Of course if you fail to pay the maintenance fees it will lapse and it's up for grabs again.

As an example, I know a company that has taken machinery that was designed and proven, and the components that make it's uniqueness, patented, and they will add a few modern features like electrical controls vs air, then patient the whole machine that someone else created, as their own.

I also know people that are pro's at getting around those jerks that blatantly patient others technology.

Mechanical patents are a joke as they can be purchased almost at will and can be broken easier.

A good everyday example of patent abuse, is that all 5 gal plastic pails are patented, by their individual manufacturers.

Also keep in mind that a patented item needs to have no purpose or even be suitable for the application claimed for it. It's all in the BS you send them in your application.