better cartridge- .308 win,.300wm or wsm, or 30/06?

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

OK, you're right 1858, it's not "leaving" any more than .300 H&H has "left" - sure you'll always be able to get components for it. Leaving being a relative term meaning "low popularity and continuing to decline in popularity with corresponding increase in factory loaded ammo."

 

[snowpro440]

308 30/06 300 wm 300wsm

i dont think any of these calibers are going anywhere , they all shoot good and they are similar but different , just depends on what you want to do with them as to whether or not they serve your purpose , i have 3 of the four and i dont intend to get rid of any they all serve my pupose .my preference is 308 is my 600 yard ground hog gun an comp shooter, my30/06 is my deer hunter an my 300wsm is my 1000 yard shooter for anything ,,, works for me [i was scared of the belted mag]

 

[P.B.Walsh]

Just one?!??!?? Come on you hot to have more than just one!! Howerver for just one a .308 Remington 700 will give you a happiness outside of......well ya no.....

 

[robctwo]

I bought a 300 Min Mag, sold it. I bought a 30-06, sold it. I bought a 300 WSM BAR Stalker and liked it so well I bought a .308 in the same gun, but without the BOSS. I will probably never sell them, and will hunt them both for deer and elk.

 

[Zak Smith]

I'd really like to hear what Zak has to say about the .300 WSM in terms of its suitability to the kind of shooting that he does. Given its accuracy and long-range potential, it might be a good, fast, 1200 yard match caliber.

I know it's hard to believe, but I don't read all the posts on THR. If I don't see something you think I should see, PM or email me and I'll get on it as soon as I can.

My take on the overall topic of this thread, in the context of the kind of long-range shooting I do, is prefaced on the assumption that there is no meaningful difference in "inherent accuracy" between the four .30 caliber cartridges being discussed, that an accurate rifle can be built in any one of them. With that in mind, and the same bullet selection, it comes down to long-range performance as a function of powder volume: .300WM > .300WSM > .30-06 > .308. I don't know the "best" max loads for .300WSM and .30-06, but I know what is reasonable with good LR bullets for .300WM and .308.

If we say that the .300WSM is 100 fps down from full-house .300WM loads - 190 and 210gr - (I do not know if this is a reasonable assumption but I think it's probably close), then for wind at 1000 yards, the .300WSM should have about identical drift as the best .260REM loads. (If it performs identical to .300WM, it'd be about 4" better at 1000 for wind, 55 vs 59".)

I bet many of you can predict where I'm going now: Unless I need the mass of the .30 caliber bullet for terminal effects, why would I shoot a .300WM when I could a 7mm RM, a .300WSM when I could a 7mm WSM, a .30-06 when I could a .280 Remington (ie, 7mm-06) or 6.5-06, or a .308 when I could a .260 Rem?

In 7mm RM, I have a load that shoots the 180gr Berger VLD at 2950 fps, and it's not even a max load. My friend just worked up a couple loads for his 7mm WSM at the same velocity (unlike .300WSM vs .300WM, the 7mm WSM has almost identical case capacity to 7mm RM). These bullets have a BC advantage over the .30 caliber bullets that could be shot at the approx same velocity.

 

[RugerOldArmy]

What are the criteria?

I'm kind of suprised there isn't more of a consensus on this, but it is probably due to different criteria.

Yet what criteria makes a good cartridge?

- Surely the .30-06 has the history, and is the American darling.

- The .300 WinMag has both power and accuracy.

- The .300 WSM has the advantage of a shorter fatter case design, and the advantage of a short action.

But I'm not sure history, power, or action length make a cartridge better. You can always move up to a larger case for more power, and history, in and of itself doesn't make the design better.

If the criteria were:

- Efficiency (results per powder burned)
- Flexibility (Suitability for target shooting, hunting, etc.)
- Accuracy (Proven competitive accuracy)
- Availability
- Cost

It would have to be .308 Win in my mind.

Several of these cartridges rate well in different attributes:

- .30-06 and .308 Win have to be the most available.

- .308 Win and .300 Win Mag are still competitive cartridges today for several events. The '06 was too, but was pretty much replaced by .308

etc. etc.

But given those criteria, regardless of personal favorites, could any of the others meet those criteria overall as well as .308 Win?

You could also consider the negatives (such as the limited options on good .300 WSM brass availability), but I don't think there is another objective solution.

Again, my opinion, from this perspective.

 

[RugerOldArmy]

You're cheatin Zak. There were four choices of cartridge that could shoot the same bullets.

You chose cartridges in another caliber, to get a better BC. I can respect that, but don't think you answered the question.

Then again, such an evasive answer is always best when your woman asks if her butt looks fat in these pants.

 

[benzy2]

How is barrel life on those 7mm magnums? I would think you burn them up a bit quicker with the smaller hole.

 

[Zak Smith]

Well, I was primarily trying to address 1858's question, and also, kind of limit my response to the overall question to my type of LR shooting: for pure long-range ballistic performance it comes down to powder capacity.

However, I do agree with you about "what does best mean?" All four of these cartridges have a strong reason to exist and a niche to fill. If limited to the .30 calibers for my long-range rifles, I'd have a .308 and then either a .300WSM or a .300WM, and which of those magnums would depend solely on what action I wanted to fit it in. It just so happens my preferred platform (AI) comes factory in .300WM so that would be it.

I do currently have two LR rifles set up in .308, one that I haven't even broken the barrel in on yet (the other has 5000+ rounds). It is a good caliber for a variety of reasons, but if pride or money's on the line, I'll grab my .260.

I just mentioned those other calibers because it's a natural comparison that comes up. benzy2- 7mm RM barrel life is approx 2000 rounds, +/- about 10%.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

Would I be correct in assuming that the efficiency of the short mag case requiring less powder to achieve similar velocities would yield a slightly longer barrel life, all other factors being equal, than the full length belted mag in the same caliber?

 

[Zak Smith]

Is it "requiring less powder to achieve less velocity", or is it "requiring similar powder to achieve similar velocity"? I would say the way you phrased it is somewhat biased-- but then again, that is the argument, in summary, for the short magnums.

I think there is a component of the barrel life equation that is related to grains of powder, and there is a component related to velocity (as well as dwell time, type of powder, burn temperature/pressure, bore area, bullet type). Thus, I would expect the short magnums to have slightly more barrel life vs. their belted counterparts. However, if the belted case can achieve the same velocity with less pressure, then we might be back to parity or better-- who knows?

 

[MCMXI]

MTMilitiaman, that's a good question regarding barrel life.

However, if the belted case can achieve the same velocity with less pressure, then we might be back to parity or better-- who knows?

The 300 WSM does operate at slightly higher pressure than the 300 Win Mag, for the loads listed above anyway. The pressures are 63,800 CUP and 62,600 CUP respectively. Perhaps barrel life would be similar ... there sure are a lot of discussions in cyberspace debating this very issue.

I bet many of you can predict where I'm going now: Unless I need the mass of the .30 caliber bullet for terminal effects ...

I think we need a long-range "heavy metal" type shooting match where terminal performance comes into play. The bullet's energy on the target should be sufficient to penetrate soft body armor out to at least 1000 yards. I'm guessing that would rule out the 308 Win and many, if not all of those fancy "metric" calibers at 800 yards plus.

Anyway, I'm happy with my 300 WSM because as far as I'm concerned, it combines all the best features of the 308 Win and 300 Win Mag. There may be better calibers out there for winning long-range shooting competitions, but for elk and the like at 300+ yards in less than ideal, real-world conditions it's a winner and I hope it's here to stay. If not, I'm sure the 200 Norma and 100 Remington cases that I have will last a while ... at least the life of the barrel.

As for the .30-06 .... I don't have one but I'd really like a Mauser 98 in that caliber.

 

[USSR]

...for pure long-range ballistic performance it comes down to powder capacity.

Years ago, when I decided to build a .30 caliber LR rifle (see below), I went with the .30-06 for the following reasons: first, it has the case capacity to drive a heavy (185gr -190gr), high BC bullet at 2850 - 2950fps (my targeted velocity range); and secondly, high quality brass (Lapua, Norma, LC Match) is readily available. While I have been extremely pleased with the result, I must admit that several years later I had another LR rifle in 6.5x55 built. The newer rifle shoots flatter and kicks less, but both of them get the job done.

Don

 

[Hostile Amish]

.308

 

[Art Eatman]

The OP doesn't say if he's a hunter, mostly, or a paper-puncher. Or, if he's a handloader.

I figure that if a hunter doesn't have a 30-caliber, but is a handloader, the .300 WSM is a good way to go. You can load down if you want, or you can max out and have more than the '06. For the lower 48, that's the most you can justify from the standpoint of any need for horsepower.

Few hunters have any legitimate interest in game animals out beyond 400 to 500 yards. The vast majority quit at around 300, and the majority of all deer are killed inside of 200.

Zak's world is entirely different. Same for one who doesn't handload, or who mostly punches paper at 100 to 300 yards. Different uses, different needs.

 

[ArmedBear]

Believe it or not there in fact were light and compact rifles before Winchester suckered the shooting public with the WSM.

The WSM gives you something with the right hand, then takes it away with the left.

The WSMs like long barrels. So you have a short action, but your rifle is neither more compact nor lighter than a .30-06 with its larger, heavier action. You could put a short barrel on it, but if you do, I doubt it would perform appreciably better than a .308 in the same rifle.

Now if Winchester had figured out how to get the .300 WSM to fit in a short action and to get close to its ballistic potential in a 20" barrel, they'd really have done something. As it stands, they just made yet another cartridge that covered some pretty worn ground.

So how's the .30TC doing?

 

[jbech123]

1858,
Although limited in my opinion, you do make a good case for the 300wsm. I actually have less of a problem with the wsm than the saum and rcm lines. Those are just proprietary rounds that are doing the exact same thing as the wsm. My main concern with the wsm is whether it will stay around long term. If I had a better feeling about that, it might sway me to take a harder look.

 

[Zak Smith]

USSR,

I agree, that's why I shoot more of the 6.5's and 7's over the .30's. I meant just to compare the pure long-range trajectory/wind performance of the .30's from this thread, the one with more powder capacity will win.

The WSMs like long barrels. So you have a short action, but your rifle is neither more compact nor lighter than a .30-06 with its larger, heavier action. You could put a short barrel on it, but if you do, I doubt it would perform appreciably better than a .308 in the same rifle.

I don't have chrono data, so I ran the numbers in QuickLoad. I used 60kpsi for .308 and 64kpsi for .300WSM (ie, SAAMI spec rounded down to the nearest 1000 for each), 20" barrel, 100% fill capacity, 175 SMK. The best loads for .308 were about 2625 fps. The best loads for .300WSM were about 2900 fps.

I think we need a long-range "heavy metal" type shooting match where terminal performance comes into play. The bullet's energy on the target should be sufficient to penetrate soft body armor out to at least 1000 yards. I'm guessing that would rule out the 308 Win and many, if not all of those fancy "metric" calibers at 800 yards plus.

I have thought quite a bit about administering both long-range and short-range practical "magnum rifle" matches (the former for things like .338 Lapua/RUM, the latter for African game rifles), using a muzzle power factor (like IPSC). (Factory 338 Lapua is about 725 PF.) What usable criteria would you propose to represent "penetrating soft body armory at 1000 yards"?

 

[ArmedBear]

I think the .300 WSM has a lot more long-term potential than some of the other recent cartridges.

OTOH there is a book that discusses 14 .30 caliber "magnum" cartridges, past and present. How many of those are still around today?

 

[ArmedBear]

Zak- Those number are interesting. Do you think a chrono would match them?

If so, I wonder why gunmakers stick long barrels on the WSMs, and turn light short-action guns into heavy ones.

(Not talking about target guns here; I'm referring to the sporters that would benefit from light weight and compact size.)

Seems like they're short-circuiting the cartridge's best attribute: magnum ballistics in a short action. In a full-size hunting rifle, the .30-06 and .300 Win Mag work fine.

 

[Zak Smith]

QuickLoad is usually generally close. To me it makes sense that a cartridge that burns more of a slower-burning powder would have more "area under the curve" (pressure vs. time) than one that burns less of a powder that will peak to max pressure quicker. It's the same reason why a .308 has more velocity than a .30 Carbine, when both are shot from a 16" barrel.

What gun companies [try to] sell is often a mystery, I agree there.

-z

 

[MCMXI]

I have thought quite a bit about administering both long-range and short-range practical "magnum rifle" matches (the former for things like .338 Lapua/RUM, the latter for African game rifles), using a muzzle power factor (like IPSC). (Factory 338 Lapua is about 725 PF.) What usable criteria would you propose to represent "penetrating soft body armory at 1000 yards"?

I think the current RBAV body armor standards would be a good start. The ceramic plates (all seven ... front/back/both shoulders/both sides/groin) are designed to withstand a "typical" 7.62 x 51 round and the two large soft armor inserts (front and back) are designed to withstand a "typical" 9mm round. So in effect, to penetrate soft armor, you'd need to exceed the energy from a 9mm all the way out to the intended range. Given the factor of safety, .357 Magnum ballistics would be sufficient but .44 Magnum ballistics would be better. This would go a long way to "practical" long-range shooting and it would negate the benefits of all the "target" rifles.

I think this thread has been very interesting so thanks to sprice for getting it started. I've definitely learned a lot here so good job to all involved.

 

[Zak Smith]

By usable criteria I meant a number that can be computed from velocity, mass, and caliber. I am not convinced that armor penetration is a function only of energy. But that aside-

If you're looking at energy only and want to exceed 44RM (call it 240gr @ 1400 fps for 1043 ftlbs), 190gr FGMM from .300WM may not exceed it at 1000 yards (I get around 1000 ftlbs), but 7mm RM would exceed it by almost 300 ftlbs. (210gr @ 2900 fps loads in .300WM only have about 50 ftlbs more energy at 1000 yards than the 7mm/180 load.)

Heck, if you figure .357 Magnum energy is sufficient, then even the .260 would exceed it by +44%. (IE, 125gr @ 1450 fps, vs 140gr @ 1645 fps)

-z

 

[MCMXI]

If so, I wonder why gunmakers stick long barrels on the WSMs, and turn light short-action guns into heavy ones.

(Not talking about target guns here; I'm referring to the sporters that would benefit from light weight and compact size.)

Seems like they're short-circuiting the cartridge's best attribute: magnum ballistics in a short action. In a full-size hunting rifle, the .30-06 and .300 Win Mag work fine.

I was just checking Ruger's website and I noticed that they don't offer a 300 WSM. They have their own 300 RCM which seems to be the equivalent of the 300 WSM as far as I can tell. Ruger offers 16-1/2" and 20" barrels in 300 RCM so at least one company agrees with you ArmedBear. However, a company called Hawk Cartridges did a comparison of a number of 300 calbers including the 300 RCM and the 300 WSM and this is what they had to say ...

"Most recently the 300 RCM from Ruger and Hornady hit the market, this cartridge employs Hornady's special proprietary powders that produce higher velocities in a shorter barrel, loads listed for the RCM are for a 20" barrel, since that is the selling point Ruger is working from. Frankly the 300 RCM looks better with a 24" barrel, however the velocities reported by Hornady will be near impossible for the handloader to reproduce."

 

[USSR]

USSR,

I agree, that's why I shoot more of the 6.5's and 7's over the .30's. I meant just to compare the pure long-range trajectory/wind performance of the .30's from this thread, the one with more powder capacity will win.

Zak,

Yeah, I knew what you meant and agreed with you (forgot to put a "+1" up). For me, it's all about high BC bullets and the availability of quality brass in a cartridge with enough case capacity to drive the bullet within a specific predetermined velocity range, which for me is the previously mentioned 2850 - 2950fps. See no need for faster than that, as a reasonable amount of barrel life IS a factor for me. Could care less how "new" or "current" the cartridge itself is, as long as it meets the above criteria, so shooting cartridges developed over 100 years ago doesn't bother me.

Don