mc223
Member
What are your Opinions of the 300WSM now that it has been around for a while.
Short version, you get 300 WM performance in a 308 size package with 30-06 recoil.
Remington tried that with their Ultra-mags. It was pretty much a flop. Handloaders obviously can do that, but your average consumer just buys a different rifle for each purpose.I think I'd like to see factory power level loads that take it from .30/30 to .308 to full power to make it the one short action cartridge for all uses it could be.
I think it gets down to personal needs. If you are rangey and long rifles dont bother you, and if you dont reload much just get a 300 Win mag. But if you value a light handy rifle and reload go for 300WSM
Short version, you get 300 WM performance in a 308 size package with 30-06 recoil.
FYI I reload 300 wsm with 180 barnes ttsx over superformance powder. Right at 3200 fps and 3/4 inch groups out of Kimber montana. My 300 mag, custom rem 700 rifle, only does 3100 fps with the same bullet. In my case the chrono does not lie. The amazing thing is the wsm does the job with 10% less powder than the taller win mag case.I ended up swapping my stock for a McMillan Edge and using lighter bottom metal. Total weight including scope and mounts is just under 7.5 lbs. It shoots 180 gr accubonds @ 3000 fps with MOA accuracy.
browningguy said:The amount of weight you save with a short action is probably somewhere close to 1-2 ounces, depending on the action in question. The only way to get really significant weight savings is to reduce barrel length. I haven't measured but how much length do you save? Maybe 1/2-3/4"? On most of my hunting rifles that is a completely meaningless tiny fraction of the weight or OAL of the rifle and would have absolutely no bearing on me choosing a cartridge.
Montana in 300 WSM to one in .300 Win Mag shows a weight difference of 10oz and an overall length difference of 3".