300 wsm

[osprey]

The 300 WSM is a great cartridge. It nips at the heels of the 300 Win Mag in most loadings. If 200 gr bullets are the goal, the 300 Win Mag would be a better choice. The 300 WSM really doesn't do anything the 300 Win Mag can't. However it does slightly more effeciently and in a alot of cases in a lighter more compact rifle. I find The 300 WSM with a 180 gr. buller going 2950 fps is pretty good medicine for elk and deer. As far as stocking up on brass for the WSM, I think the cartridge is quite well established and it is in no danger of dissapearing anytime soon. Good luck on whatever you decide.

 

[cem3434]

I own both a 300 WSM and 300 WM. I have had my 300 WSM for about 10 years and I havent seen the decreased barrel life that others complain about. Then again, I dont load hot. As far as the punishment, get a muzzlebrake. My 300 WSM is a light rifle (around 6 lbs) and this was the first modification I made to my gun. It shoots like a 243 now and makes shooting the gun enjoyable.

Here's my assessment of the two cartridges: With 180 grain bullets, they are basically the same ballistically. If you are shooting less than 180's then the 300 WSM is faster and flatter. If you are shooting larger then 180's then the 300 WM is faster and flatter. I have killed deer, bear and elk with 180's out of my 300 WSM. My longest one-shot kill was 517 yards on a big bodied mule deer. I have many more one-shot kills at over 350 yards with the WSM as well.

I prefer the 300 WSM because its a lot lighter and thats it. If I had a 6 lbs 300 WM, then I would probably use that! Either way, ammo is about the same price and available everywhere for both rounds. You will be happy with either the WM or the WSM in 30 cal!

 

[billt]

I have been involved in shooting since 1963, and I have yet to see any real advantage to a short action. By that I mean actually choosing one cartridge over another because the cartridge case was shorter, and supposedly offered "the same" ballistics. .308 over .30-06, .300 WSM over .300 Win. Mag., .257 Roberts over .25-06, etc. I have never found a short bolt action to be any "handier" than a standard length, or even a Magnum length action. Shorter bolt lift perhaps, (Browning A-Bolt and Weatherby Mark V). Shorter action length, no.

I own many rifles in .308. With that said I didn't buy them because of the length of the cartridge case. I bought them because they weren't chambered in a long action cartridge. Springfield M1-A, Winchester Model 88, etc. This is one of those things that gets hyped by the shooting media, with no real advantage offered, or even proven. Shooters buy into it, and all of a sudden it becomes the law of the land.

In the last 10 years the market has been flooded with these rounds. Many, like the Remington SAUM's have already failed in the marketplace, and are all but obsolete. You have to hunt for brass for them, or else order it on line. Ruger is the latest to offer up the Ruger "RCM", or Ruger Compact Magnum. Hornady is the only one offering these rounds. Their investment in them is nowhere near Rugers. Gun companies have to stir the pot once in a while, or else the market stagnates.

Some of these rounds border on the ridiculous. The Winchester .223 WSSM is one of them. Most technical reports on the cartridge and guns that shoot it, talk of severe barrel throat erosion after just a few hundred rounds. For what? A bit more velocity? Is that worth a new barrel after a weekend Prairie Dog shoot, over the guy who shoots a standard .223 / 5.56 MM? In a Chrome plated bore and chamber they'll run well over 5,000 rounds without enough of a accuracy drop off requiring rebarreling.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a "gun nut" that loves to see new products and weapons evolve, and be brought on to the market. But to me short action cartridges don't offer enough, if any advantage to choose them over their well established long action counterparts.