.300 Win Mag v .300 WSM v .300 RCM...???


PDA






TooTaxed
June 27, 2008, 10:06 AM
How do these compare? My somewhat dated reloading manuals don't help on this one.

According to the current full page Hornady advertisements in The American Rifleman, the .300 RCM was designed to improve on .300 Win Mag performance, delivering more velocity with 10-15% less powder (probably a different powder?), longer barrel life, less recoil, muzzle blast & flash, in a far more compact cartridge. :what: (Same for the .338 RCM v the .338 Win Mag.) Are there any field tests you can direct me to?

Will the RCMs fit in a short action, or do they require a long action?

How does the .300 WSM compare with the .300 RCM, and the .300 Win Mag?:scrutiny:

If you enjoyed reading about ".300 Win Mag v .300 WSM v .300 RCM...???" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ashtxsniper
June 27, 2008, 10:13 AM
Will it outperform the 300 Win Mag though. I push 180 grn bullets at 3200 fps where the RCM is only pushing 2900. The 300 Win Mag still outperforms all the others with the exception of the 300 RUM and the 300 Weatherby Mag.

Tarvis
June 27, 2008, 12:29 PM
In regards to the 300 wsm and the 300 winmag, I've read somewhere that the wsm gets very close to the winmag as far as external ballistics go using less powder. Someone has also told me that the wsm outperforms the winmag, so I'm not sure.

El Hombre
June 27, 2008, 12:59 PM
There is an article in the new Rifle magazine comparing the 300 win vs the 300 WSM. The 300 WSM comes very close (@50 fps) to duplicating the 300 Win in most bullet weights. The 300 Win has a slightly larger advantage with bullets over 200gr. Performance wise they are about equal, slight advantage to the 300 Win Mag. The 300 WSM can sometimes have feeding issues with the short stubby case compared to the 300 Win. I think the cost and availability of ammo for the 300 Win Mag would swing the balance in it's favor.
They both sell well. RCBS lists the Win Mag at #10 in top selling dies, the WSM at #13 (I think) so they both are very popular. I have had a 300 Win Mag for years & love it.

TAB
June 27, 2008, 01:12 PM
Most of the "less recoil, same power in a small package" rounds is do to the powder they use... which for the most part you can not get your hands on.

So if your going to just buy factory ammo, no prob, get it, if you want to reload...

H&Hhunter
June 27, 2008, 01:16 PM
There is not a difference in any of the above mentioned rounds. the .300Win will do everything you need in a .30 cal rifle.

The WSM and RCM are nothing more than marketing schemes. They offer NOTHING in true ballistic advantage.

Because it's new people will buy it nothing less nothing more.

berettashotgun
June 27, 2008, 02:29 PM
Get a 7mm Rem mag or 280, forget the 30 cal stuff.....
I have been looking real hard at the short mag stuff, looks like the only short that lives up to the hype is the 270 WSM, but I sure wish for a 6.5 WSM/RSUM.
I realize the 6.5 rem mag is available, just want to wildcat.

USSR
June 27, 2008, 02:55 PM
It's all about case capacity. The .300WSM fills the slot between the .30-06 and the .300WM. While the .300RCM is new and without alot of hands-on experience, I load my LR .30-06 so as to send 190SMK's out at 2900+fps, and feel no need to shoot a magnum.

Don

Bartkowski
June 27, 2008, 03:05 PM
If you load your own, the 300 win mag will out perform the 300 wsm. The RCM probably won't become popular, and you will have problems finding ammo/cases.

So, if you want the 300 win mag performance, get the win mag.

ArmedBear
June 27, 2008, 03:39 PM
the .300 RCM was designed to improve on .300 Win Mag

...which is a bit silly for Hornady to claim, because the .300 Win Mag is hardly the standard for what .30 caliber will do. The .300 Weatherby factory loads beat hot Win Mag handloads. They already "improved on" the .300 Win Mag decades ago.

Of course, without a muzzle brake, the .300 Wby is a downright PITA to shoot even in a relatively heavy rifle, at least in most positions. But if all you want is a really big, bad factory .30 caliber, and you don't care about how expensive the ammo is, how big the action has to be or how much the rifle weighs or costs, you already have a Weatherby.:)

The point of the new short action rounds is to beat the .308, and they do. It's BS when they say they'll beat what you can do with a .300 Win Mag, because they don't. What they will do is give higher-end performance in a short-action rifle.

HOWEVER.... I haven't looked at the Ruger's spec's, but most short magnum rifles I see seem to have rather long barrels and are a good bit heftier than a similar .308-family rifle. Seems to me that takes away most of the reason I'd ever want a short magnum.

If I want a long, heavy rifle, I can just skip the magnumania and get a .30-06, which can be pushed to what the RCM will do. E.g., 180 grain @ 2900 fps is a relatively common hot load in .30-06, with off-the-shelf powders, and Hornady themselves sells factory .30-06 loaded to that (their "light magnum" series). Oh wait... I already HAVE a hefty 24" .30-06, as does damn near everyone else in Hornady/Ruger's target market.:)

Maybe Hornady can explain to me just how duplicating their own commercially-available .30-06 hunting load is "improving on the .300 Win Mag's performance".:rolleyes:

Seafarer12
June 28, 2008, 12:46 AM
It will be just like all the other new 30 mags out there. They will make all the mags and then fade away. If your looking for a 30 mag go with the 30 win mag. Cheaper ammo, better selection of ammo and rifles, better avalibility. If you don't need that much poer get a 30/06 or a 30/06 improved. Personally I don't need anything more powerful than a 308.

moooose102
June 28, 2008, 11:09 AM
i think the biggest reason you should consider is which one of these will ammunition still be available for in 20 years? with all of the "NEW" calibers coming out, at some point in time, at some point in time, some of them are going to be flops, and go by the wayside. which one will be around in 20 years? i dont know. i would suggest doing a little research on sales records on all 3, which ever has sold the most in the last 2 years, would probably be the one i would pick. good luck! you are going to need it! p.s. one thing to consider is that the 300 win mag already has a large following, so it is pretty likely that ammo will be available for this round for some time to come. even if they stopped selling it tomorrow.

H&Hhunter
June 28, 2008, 11:16 AM
I'll make a bold prediction right here and right now. The .300RCM will be dead and gone within two years. It is possibly the dumbest do nothing new round that's ever been produced.

ArmedBear
June 28, 2008, 11:38 AM
Hornady is smart. They've had success with new cartridges. They know that some will survive and some won't, and it's not much skin off their nose to try a bunch. Some of them will "stick".

It does seem, though, that .30 caliber has been done to death, especially in the US. And as I said, since a lot of the short magnum rifles are as long and heavy as a .30-06, what exactly does the short action give me, especially since the short magnums don't beat what a .30-06 can do?

Now if they can get 180 gr @ 2900 FPS out of an 18" barrel or something, that could get interesting, but since they can't, what do these things offer?

I second H&H's prediction.

TOU
June 28, 2008, 04:39 PM
Years ago before the WSM & RCM my brother and I were deciding on a good all around magnum. The Weatherby .300 sure looked great on paper...but like the others noted above, for what it offered it wasn't worth it to us for the price paid for, punishment, weight, length, cost of rifle...and the HUGE cost of ammo...compared to the 7mm Mag and the .300 WM. He went with the former against my better judgment and I went with the latter. I currently have a .300 WM and his 7mm Mag was sold long ago.

A few more things I like about the .300 WM over the Weatherby's or the new WSM/ RCM/ RUM's is that I can get brass nearly anywhere, (cheaper and easier to get once fired at gun shows) ammo at the mom and pop shop up while up in tim-buck-too as nearly any ammo selling store carries this caliber in multiple offerings and brands. Finally while not cheap either, it is many times tends to be cheaper than any of the rest...especially factory Weatherby ammo! :what: JMHO. Oh yeah...I think it is safe to say that the .300 Win Mag is made in more rifle variations and brands than ANY of the others so the odds are you can pick your flavor rather than being pigeon-holed with the rest. (This maybe especially true if a south paw.)

After playing around with several calibers through the years, I have finally settled on .243's, .270's & .300 Win Mag's for all my non-varmint needs. (On rare occasion, even for Varmints...LOL. :p) I doubt that will change in the next 40 years for me as the "new" trick cartridges don't hold it for me.

Now I wish I could say the same when it comes to Varmint calibers as I currently have .22 LR, 22 WMR, 17 HM2, 17 HMR, .22 Hornet, .204 Ruger and am in the process of building a .204 VarTarg....go figure. :rolleyes:

Der Verge
June 29, 2008, 12:10 AM
The point of all of this WSM and RCM crap, is that is is all a marketing ploy. None perform any amount better than the others. Not enough to care, anyway. The .300 RCM uses 10-15% less powder because the case is smaller. If you hand load, you will get a few more shots per pound. YAY! you will also have to buy your brass, cause you will never find it, and you will pay through the nose for it.

If you are buying a hunting rifle, stick with the main stream cartriges. Remember, IF a store sells ammo, there is a 99% chance that they will have

.22lr, .308, .30-06, .300Win, 7mm Rem mag, and 12ga. This is important because when you travel many miles, and forget your ammo, if you have a rifle for one of the listed above, you go to the corner store, and get a box. If you have, say, .270 Wby, you get to travel to the nearest Gander or Cabelas. What if those stores are 60+ miles away? It sucks, trust me.

Now, If you are building a target/toy/plinker. Who cares. Have fun.....

mzimmers
May 7, 2009, 09:04 PM
I realize that this thread is a bit old, but I thought I'd share a data point with the .300 RCM. (I'll be writing an article about the hunt, but you guys get the sneak preview.)

I got this hog on Tuesday in Paso Robles. He was about #320 and the shot was taken at 200 yards with the new Hornady GMX bullet (150 grains). He moved about two feet, and was DRT.

I was *highly* skeptical about Ruger shoehorning another cartridge into the .308 caliber, but...I am now a firm believer in the gun, the cartridge and the Hornady bullet.

http://scopedin.com/images/bigboar_smallpic.jpg

Cheers...

Kentucky Windage
May 8, 2009, 05:47 AM
Who did you hunt with in Paso? I know most of the guides up there... have for more than 20 years. Will be going myself again on the 19th. Just back from an Island Bear hunt on Vancouver Island where I whacked a huge black bear (squared just under 7 feet) with the .338 RCM, 225 grain SST, 180 yards, double lung, through and through, lights out. Count me as a true believer in the .338 RCM version.

Uncle Mike
May 8, 2009, 09:50 AM
How many different ways can you launch a certain weight bullet at a certain velocity?

A 180gr. bullet at 2900fps(hypothetically) is just that... no matter if it popped out of a .300 Win.Mag., WSM, Remington SAUM or the RCM.

jbech123
May 8, 2009, 12:21 PM
I was *highly* skeptical about Ruger shoehorning another cartridge into the .308 caliber, but...I am now a firm believer in the gun, the cartridge and the Hornady bullet.
Damn nice hog you got there. As far the rcm, I just don't see how it did anything at all to that hog that a WSM wouldn't have done, or probably even a standard .308 win for that matter.

UnTainted
May 8, 2009, 01:59 PM
I don't remember where I read it, but in competition shooting, they used to use 30'06 all the time, but after the release of the .308 they found that the case was giving more inherent accuracy than the 30'06 because of powder-burning efficiency and other stuff that I'll never pretend to understand. Now, few use the '06 and most have gone to the .308.

I wonder if the same might be true of the 300WSM over the 300WM? Anybody know?

These days, any small shop that I find 300WM in, i see 300WSM sitting next to it. I rarely see any other short-mag type sitting there, but probably 9 times out of 10 I see the WSM with the WM.

jbech123
May 8, 2009, 02:10 PM
.308 they found that the case was giving more inherent accuracy than the 30'06
For really serious target guys, there is likely some truth there, but for most folks, the person is by far the limiting factor compared to anything regarding inherent accuracy loss that the '06 gives up.

I wonder if the same might be true of the 300WSM over the 300WM? Well the WSM is not marketed as a target round, and certainly in the field the difference would not be discernable.
I actually can see why the WSM exists, although for me the advantages of a few ounces and an inch or so shorter action don't amount to much. But I can at least see the logic. It is the SAUM and the RCM that seem utterly redundant, certainly they don't bring anything to the table over the WSM.
I agree with above poster that predicts RCM dead in 2 years(or less).

ArmedBear
May 8, 2009, 02:18 PM
I wonder if the same might be true of the 300WSM over the 300WM?

Were that true, you'd find long-range competitive shooters switching over to the .300 WSM en masse.

Has anyone noticed such a phenomenon?

Uncle Mike
May 8, 2009, 02:23 PM
The short,fat powder column is supposed to ignite more evenly in the short mags. Resulting in more uniform pressure, hence better accuracy.

Can anyone other than paper punchers contest to this?

Can you honestly say that the information super computer HAL came up with in some lab under controlled conditions reflects the merit of the short mags while in the tree stand?

We often hear from customers that the reason I'm buying that short mag is that the bolt throw is shorter than a long action.

I ask you, can you tell the difference in the 1/2" shorter action of the short mag. versus a regular length action as you jack the next round in so fast it would shame a auto loader after busting that buck... I doubt it!

All said... I think the short mags have their merit, but like I said, You launch X-Amount of weight at X-Amount of velocity it doesn't matter what launched it. The end result will be the same.
Only the luancher is different.

UnTainted
May 8, 2009, 02:26 PM
Good points.

1858
May 8, 2009, 03:17 PM
I've owned a .308 and .300 Win Mag for quite a few years so when I decided to buy a new hunting rifle 18 months ago I chose the Remington Alaskan Ti in .300 WSM. I wanted a lightweight, corrosion resistant, short action rifle capable of taking any animal in North America and beyond.

Given my experience with the excellent .300 Win Mag and the theoretical ballistics of the .300 WSM, it seemed like a good choice. I've never bought factory ammunition for any of my .30 caliber rifles and don't plan on starting now. The .300 WSM uses the same powder, same primers and same bullets as the .300 Win Mag so it was a good fit for me.

I like having choices in terms of calibers and from where I sit, the more the merrier. I could care less if the major manufactures stop making .300 WSM rifles and I could care less about the availability of factory ammunition. If I need/want another one I'll have one built or add a Krieger barrel to the action that I have now.

:)

UnTainted
May 8, 2009, 03:32 PM
I highly doubt the major manufacturers will ever stop making 300WSM (both rifles and ammo). Highly doubt.

I agree, from where I sit, the more the merrier to!!!

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
May 8, 2009, 04:35 PM
300 RCM was designed to improve on .300 Win Mag performance, delivering more velocity with 10-15% less powder (probably a different powder?), longer barrel life, less recoil, muzzle blast & flash, in a far more compact cartridge

It may have been designed to do that, but the designers failed - it doesn't do the bolded part. Doesn't even equal .300 Win Mag. Ditto for WSM. The original offers more performance with heavier bullets, period.

rcmodel
May 8, 2009, 04:44 PM
but in competition shooting, they used to use 30'06 all the time, but after the release of the .308 they found that the case was giving more inherent accuracy than the 30'06 because of powder-burning efficiencyThe accuracy followed the caliber of the service rifle of the time.

When the service teams shot 03 Springfields, and later M-1 30-06 rifles in competation, and developed the rifles & loads for them, everyone followed and shot 30-06 and developed it further.

When the service teams switched to the M-14 & 700 bolt-guns in .308, the same thing happened again.

Next it was the switch to the M-16 & 5.56MM that resulted in the accuracy everyone is getting out of them now.

Whatever the current military darling is, will be everyone elses too.

And that still happens to be the 5.56mm & 7.62 NATO.

rc

Reid73
May 8, 2009, 05:16 PM
The short,fat powder column is supposed to ignite more evenly in the short mags. Resulting in more uniform pressure, hence better accuracy.This is true. Of course, whether the difference is significant enough to be noticeable in hunting rifles is debateable.

On the other hand, there are substantial disadvantages to short, fat cases. See generally "Selling Short: Finally, the truth" (http://www.africansportinggazette.com/html/volumes/vol-12-1/shooting.html). Worth thinking about, anyway.

I highly doubt the major manufacturers will ever stop making 300WSM (both rifles and ammo). Highly doubt.We will see. Only time will tell.

I haven't see many .308 or .358 Norma Mags recently. Ditto the .348 Win, 8mm Rem Mag, or .358 Win. To my way of thinking, all of those cartridges are more useful than any of these new short magnums; but that hasn't prevented them from fading into obsolence.

I agree, from where I sit, the more the merrier to!!!Have to disagree with you there.

An unbridled multiciplicity of choices just increases costs for everyone. That would be tolerable if new cartridges offered a substantial improvement over the old; but there is no point to 'a solution in search of a problem'.

jbech123
May 8, 2009, 05:28 PM
I highly doubt the major manufacturers will ever stop making 300WSM (both rifles and ammo). Highly doubt.
Agree. I'd put money on the table that will be the fate of the 300 rcm pretty soon though.

jbech123
May 8, 2009, 05:33 PM
Quote:
The short,fat powder column is supposed to ignite more evenly in the short mags. Resulting in more uniform pressure, hence better accuracy.

This is true. Of course, whether the difference is significant enough to be noticeable in hunting rifles is debateable.

Actually it might be debateable in a target rifle, but in a hunting rifle under hunting conditions there are so many variables affecting where your bullet hits, the 1/10moa difference in inherent accuracy(being generaous) would not be a factor.

Reid73
May 8, 2009, 05:56 PM
No argument from me. I know that I cannot shoot well enough to notice a difference; nor can the vast majority of shooters.

The only real advantage of the short mags is their ability to be chambered in compact actions. Some people maintain that this is important to them, and they are entitled to their opinion.

What is funny is people buying Tikkas in the short magnums. Apparently they don't realize that the T3 only comes in one action length, which pretty much negates the point of the WSM.

mzimmers
May 8, 2009, 07:03 PM
I think some people in this thread may have overstated the intended purpose of the .300 RCM. Like its parent cartridge, it was designed to deliver high performance for the caliber in a light, compact gun. And that it does. It's not just about a cartridge; it's about a cartridge and a gun.

Whether it deserves space in anyone's safe is a personal choice, but...I'm giving serious thought to selling my Weatherby .300 and getting one of these.

jbech123
May 8, 2009, 07:38 PM
it was designed to deliver high performance for the caliber in a light, compact gun.
Which is the exact purpose of the WSM and SAUM that came before it. While debateable in real world utility, I think most people ackowledge at least on paper the advantages of a short fat round with similar performance to a 300wm. It is the RCM duplicating the wsm, after the SAUM already duplicated it, that people have a hard time seeing the value in. If I invent a new cartidge called the 307JB improved, and it is short action, does well with bullets from 150-180 gr., is extremely accurate shooting 168 gr match bullets at 2650 fps, and does well in semi auto platforms too, that is great. Problem is I've brought nothing new that the 308 win doesn't have.

Reid73
May 8, 2009, 07:49 PM
it was designed to deliver high performance for the caliber in a light, compact gun. And that it does.Same as the .308 Win, introduced in 1952. ;)

I'm glad that you were successful on your recent hog hunt, but (based upon the limited information provided in your post) you would enjoyed the same results with a .30/06, or the aforementioned .308. As you know (http://www.scopedin.com/wordpress/?page_id=57), the standard calibres are capable of quite satisfactory performance.

mzimmers
May 8, 2009, 08:18 PM
OK, I don't want to see this deteriorate into an argument, but...the .300 RCM has at least one significant advantage over both the .300 WSM and the .308. Its recoil is considerably less than the WSM (especially in a shorter-barreled rifle), and it should be a much flatter shooter than the .308.

I didn't mean to imply that the .300 RCM filled some gaping hole in the lineup of .308 calibers out there; merely that it occupies a rather unique niche among them and is quite a viable alternative.

Uncle Mike
May 8, 2009, 08:22 PM
Well He is right, it's not just the round itself... the rifle has a lot to do with it also... I mean, a 1/2" less receiver length is a lot!

We chronographed a WSM, RCM and SAUM and NONE gave the velocity of their claimed resume, velocities were less than stated.
I'll say it was the shorter barrels.

ArmedBear
May 8, 2009, 08:50 PM
it was designed to deliver high performance for the caliber in a light, compact gun. And that it does.


The guns I've seen are neither. They have a short action, but that doesn't translate into a compact, light rifle.

Compare some very common examples, the Model 7 CDL and the Model 700 CDL, some of the first guns to come to mind as "light, compact" and "standard-size."

In the M7, the .300 WSM weighs 7 3/8 lbs. with a 22" barrel. The good old .308 weighs 6 1/2 lbs. with a 20":
http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire_rifles/model_seven/model_seven_CDL_specs.asp

In the equivalent 700, the .30-06 weighs 7 1/2 lbs. with a 24" barrel, and the .300 WinMag weighs 7 5/8 lbs. with a 26" barrel:
http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire_rifles/model_700/model_700_CDL_specs.asp

Where's your light and compact?

Furthermore, .30-06 and .300 WinMag will give you book velocities with those barrels. The .300 WSM is going to lose a little with the 22".

So with the .300 WSM, you get a short action, but you gain nothing in terms of light or compact.

Reid73
May 8, 2009, 11:12 PM
OK, I don't want to see this deteriorate into an argument, but...No worries there. This is The High Road, and people are capable of having friendly discussions. :)

While flat shooting is certainly a desireable characteristic, I wonder how useful it really is. Frankly, few hunters are capable of consistantly accurate shooting at ranges over 250 yards. Some are, but they are in the minority. And the .308 et al. are perfectly adequate for intermediate range shooting.

I didn't mean to imply that the .300 RCM filled some gaping hole in the lineup of .308 calibers out there; merely that it occupies a rather unique niche among them and is quite a viable alternative.Sir, if you like it, by all means enjoy!

juk
May 9, 2009, 03:03 AM
If you're just looking for a big, bad a$$, butt whomping 30 cal, look no further than the 30-378 weatherby mag. I though my friend was crazy for taking a 30 caliber to North Dakota to shoot deer out of fields at up to 600 yards. I changed my mind when he was doing some "testing" on the differences between 30.06 and 30-378. The target was several layers of industrial polycarbonate type stuff. Each layer was about 1" thick and each target had 7 layers. the 06 broke the first few and cracked the rest. That 30-378 not only broke all of them on a new target, but proceeded to blow the umpteen million pieces all around the berm. It left a hole in the ground too. Hard to NOT be impressed by that!

USSR
May 9, 2009, 06:00 PM
I changed my mind when he was doing some "testing" on the differences between 30.06 and 30-378. The target was several layers of industrial polycarbonate type stuff. Each layer was about 1" thick and each target had 7 layers. the 06 broke the first few and cracked the rest. That 30-378 not only broke all of them on a new target, but proceeded to blow the umpteen million pieces all around the berm. It left a hole in the ground too. Hard to NOT be impressed by that!

Hmm, I'll change my mind when deer start wearing polycarbonate flak jackets.;)

Don

juk
May 9, 2009, 08:21 PM
Any deer that gets hit with either won't be able to tell a difference. :) When the deer start wearing armor, I'm gonna give it up and stick to duck hunting only. (although most ducks seem like they are wearing armor) He seemed pretty convinced though. His "up close" deer rifle was a Remington VTR in 308.

Uncle Mike
May 9, 2009, 10:30 PM
(although most ducks seem like they are wearing armor)

You noticed this about the ducks also..... :p

desidog
May 9, 2009, 11:13 PM
I don't think there's a noticeable difference for hunting...dead is dead. Just know where your round is going to go, and plan accordingly.

I can't speak for the RCM, but i can compare the .300WM/WSM: as i recently summed up in another thread, the short action is an advantage for cheek-weld: I can keep my eye through the scope while chambering the next round, instead of lifting my head and, in the process, minutely changing the ergonomics of my grip. Performance wise, the two cartridges are similar enough that it's beyond my innate math-processing ability and accuracy to see a difference.

Kentucky Windage
May 12, 2009, 04:09 AM
Mike - I'm not familiar with scoped in. You write for anyone else? I'm a long-time Calif. based outdoor writer for several regionals and some nationals. Saw your Paso Robles hog photo and smiled. I've been hunting around Paso for decades. Going up for the next hog on the 19-20th so I can write about shooting one with factory copper ammo... Just got back from shooting a monster bear on Vancouver Island with the .338 version of the RCM. For the purposes of this thread, I'm a true believer in the .338 version. Not completely sold on the .300. Happy to compare notes. 338 RCM using Hornady 225 grain SST produced one-shot, double-lung, through-and through DRT results on my bear, which squared nearly 7 feet.

And by the way, I'd hang onto that 300 Wby whether you buy a 300 RCM or not -- or sell it to me.

Here's my .338 RCM bear... assuming I load the photo correctly.

http://i692.photobucket.com/albums/vv283/Kentucky_Windage/DSC_0018-cx-5x7.jpg

Kentucky Windage
May 12, 2009, 04:13 AM
Oops, wrong photo. That was the last hog I shot, with a muzzleloader, just prior to the lead ban. Here's the new bear...

http://i692.photobucket.com/albums/vv283/Kentucky_Windage/_DSC3330-8x12-cx.jpg

Reid73
May 13, 2009, 01:43 PM
wrong photo. That was the last hog I shot, with a muzzleloader,Glad you clarified that ... I saw the ramrod in the first photo, thought I was going crazy!

Nice bear.

Kentucky Windage
May 13, 2009, 07:22 PM
I did that just to mess with you senior members. :D

If you enjoyed reading about ".300 Win Mag v .300 WSM v .300 RCM...???" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!