Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles 300 WM vs. 300 WSM ?

Look at a reamer print for the two (SAAMI) and you can see why the WSM has the edge in accuracy.

I've owned a number of both over the years and still own at least one of each. My favorite is the WSM, without a doubt, but I wouldn't hesitate to go either direction.

+1. I sold the Browning A-Bolt in 300 WM and picked up a Kimber Montana in 300 WSM and have never looked back. Much lighter, shorter and easier to handle.

donsm70

You are right JB. I also agree that the 300 win has more oomph than the wsm and the wsm falls flat on its face with bullets heavier than 200 gr's. Now as far as accuracy is concerned, in my experience it's been a wash. I've had some damn accurate rifles chambered for both rounds. When I look at a 300 wsm I think of a +P fat 30-06 which can be chambered in a short action rifle. That in itself may be considered a benefit by some/many...

Sounds like you have no need for those pre 64 model 70 300 H&H's ..Keep me in mind ol buddy..

I've owned and loaded for a few of each. In my rifles the 300 Win has constantly been more accurate.

Although, the Wins have been sporter weight and heavier and the WSMs and SUAMs have all been lighter weights.

Packing in elk country, I like the shorts mags, because of the lighter rifles. But, there sure isn't anything wrong with the Win.

So buy a Weatherby Vanguard Sub-MOA in 300WBY, just put less powder in if you want Win Mag or WSM performance. If not, same rifle in which ever one of the others comes along first.

I'd wager that factory .300 WSM ammo is easier to find on a store's shelves nowadays than .300 WM.

Apples vs apples here as ballistically they are virtually the same and anyone is really splitting hairs to argue different, the real question is are you a short action man or do you prefer a long action rifle....I will say that it will be easier to find factory ammo at any country store for a Win mag than a WSM...I like both but prefer the Win. Mag, a long action rifle fit's My 6ft 2 inch frame better.........No bad choice here............Good luck..........Hb

Not in My neck of the woods, both are available at any of My local Wally Worlds, more 300 Win. though as they handle more of this cartridge than WSM stuff, if you get out in the country away from Wally's you will find mostly 300 Win only as the little country stores in these parts rarely stock WSM ammo................Hb

The rifle itself matters to me. Can you find the rifle you prefer in one or the other of them?

I was loading some 300 Win Mags today and reaching inside each case with a wire feeler to check for case thinning and separations.

I could feel a significant one and I cut the case in half to see it up close. It was not all that bad but you wont get that with a 300 WSM if you size them right.

The 300 Win. Mag kicks! Bet the WSM does too!

.............Owned and reloaded a 300 WM Wby Vanguard for over 30 years. Sold it in `07 and now have a 300 WSM. For my 30 caliber, I changed the format to a compact rifle.

For NA hunting use, there is no advantage that one will have over the other when using bullet weights up to and including 200 gr. Accuracy will depend more on what any individual rifle prefers in components and seating depths.

My suggestion to you is to throw out which cartridge and go after the rifle you prefer for better overall looks, weight, balance, feel, and the rifle that will better suit your hunting terrain, carrying and handling situations.

The cartridge will then follow.

All that means is that the .300 WM is more popular than the .300 WSM.

This is true IME and from 24 inch barrels as well.The 30 Win Mag is capable of a full 150-200 fps more velocity than the WSM with 180 gr bullets and I have routinely gotten well over 3200 with 165's and about 2950 with the 200 gr.It takes a 300 Weatherby and 26 inches of tube to top it.

I like the WSM even though it is not as fast,and speed isn't everything.It is easy to load,accurate, and does not seem to recoil as severely as top loads in a 300 Win Mag.

The rifle weight thing is still a conundrum to me because I have had a pair of Kimbers chambered for the WSM and found them both bothersome...and don't like any 300 magnum weighing under 8 pounds all up.

I think the M70 EW and FW as currently made are about ideal for the cartridge.

When I was younger the 300 magnums held a lot of appeal to me but today I am very firmly a 30/06 guy.

If you size the brass right, you won't get that with a .300WM either.

As far as I'm concerned, either will work. Look into ammo costs if you don't reload and I think you'll find .300WM ammo available for less. I just picked up two boxes of 180g Soft Point in Federal's blue box for $19.99 at Wal-Mart for my son-in-law.

Mine is also a WM and I' have no desire or need for a WSM.

Many good comments posted to consider. The difference in velocity between the WSM and the WM is notable but only to the shooters logbook. As long as you know your "drops" and put a well constructed bullet in the right place, you will have no problem. As "bsa" already pointed out, the 300WSM is a faster 30-06. For me it would come down to whatever "package" fit how and where I was going to use it.
Both are very good if you can handle them.

Having owned two 300 win mags and five 300 WSM's myself, I disagree with this statement or let me say I am not convinced of this statement.

I've found that there are newer powders that work with the shorter WSM case design that do indeed give higher speeds, and using published data.

I currently get 3,250 with 168's using Superformance powder.

I also have no short commings using heavier 200's and 220's in the WSM.

A short action with a 23" barrel makes for a nice rifle package.

I'll take the WSM over the Win anyday. Or a 308 Norma Mag which I now shoot as well.

Flip a coin as far as performance goes.Buy the rifle that fits you the best.

One quick question, do you prefer wood or metal for a coffin?

laffin

One other issue as it pertains to these two rounds. The 300 Win Mag feeds very well from most any gun. The same can not be said for the short/fats.