I'm looking at a Kimber Montana in WSM as my long range gun.

Would you get a 300 or 7mm WSM, and why?

Whatchya gonna do with it?

Regardless, flip a coin as it amounts to that much difference... me, I like 30's.

Long range, as in deer at 300 yards? Then its flip a coin.

Long range, as in Moose at 200 yards, go with the .308 cal bullet.

I would go with the 300 WSM as it seems to be the most popular of the Short mags (and thus, the easiest to re-sell, get ammo for etc.).

BUt, that is just me.

Stick will tell you to get a 7 shamu, but that is just because he is contrary.

Good shooting, you really can't screw up with either.

BMT

I'd get the .300 WSM over the 7mmWSM.

The reason is, I think the .30s are more versatile on a wider variety of game and just-plain kill stuff better. I also think the .30s are more inherently accurate, and less fussy to work with than 7mms. That's been my experience anyway.

Once I started using the .300 Win. Mag. in earnest more than a decade ago, I haven't revisted the 7mm Rem. Mag. I've had no practical reason to.

I'd look at these two WSM cartridges in pretty much the same way.........

AD

.270 WSM and never look back!

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Mike

I am going to buy a Kimber Montana as well, I will get the .300 as I backpack in Grizzly country and prefer the larger, heavier bullet. I have seen very large coastal and interior Grizzlies killed stone dead with a single Nosler PT. from .300 Win. Roy and RUM mags. I fully expect that the WSM will do exactly the same thing, I will try the 200 gr. NP as it used to shoot lifesaver holes in my old Mod. 70s in .300H&H, melud!

Right now, I doubt that there is a better option for the solo, backpacker-hunter who finds, shoots and guts, then packs out his own game. I do prefer even more gun for Grizzly country as do most of the really experienced bushwhackers I know in rural B.C., but, a .338 Win. in a rifle as light as the Kimber is just too much for me. I once considered one of those titanium Mausers that Ed Dillon made some years ago, but, the cost was too high for any real advantage one would get.

My thinking is that this Kimber in .300 WSM especially is going to sell in the 100,000s for years to come; it's hard to imagine a more practical rifle for most big game hunters in North America. Of course, I will keep my other rifles because I badly "need" them......................

If the late outfitter and writer Les Bowman was right then the 300 magnum hunters do the worst shooting of any. Bowman was a primary impetus for the 7mm RM and that cartridge became very popular.

I was at the range today with five rifles. One was a 300 WM shooting the 180 Accubond at about 3030 fps. I fired two shots with it and put it away. Then I fired dozens of shots out of a 260 Rem, 7x57 and 270 WSM. I can enjoy shooting those rounds.

On the other hand a 300 WSM will be a tiny bit more powerful and could even be loaded down some.

The Kimber 8400 Montana is a nice rifle. They are light enough to carry for woods hunting.

Have the dealer keep the factory bases. They are not a good design. At the moment the only alternative is the Talley standard steel base for their rings. It's a pricey system but the Kimber's copy of the old Redfield bases and rings are just not a good design.

Buy both of 'em! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

300 WSM. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I have Kimber 8400's in all three of the WSM's. Hopefully I can start on the Montana's next year. My three rifles have the following personalities:
The 270 WSM is the most accurate i.e. 1/2 to 3/4" 3 shot groups at 200yds.
The 7 WSM is driving me nuts because I haven't yet found a handload that shoots better than Federal 160gr Accubonds (at 3120fps). I shot Sunday and out of a cleaned bore the first 2 shots were less than 1/2" the third opened it up to a little over an inch. This rifle always dead centers the first 2 shots at 200yds from a cleaned bore - I'm taking it Elk hunting next weekend.
The 300 WSM hasn't yet shot as well. Some 1 to 1 1/2 200yd groups. I may have been trying to make loads that have worked well in my other 300 WSM's work in it too much instead of trying to find what it likes. So far it's my least favorite of the three - but I have a Sako Finnlite in 300WSM that's also going on the Elk hunt for days I may be walking in rain or snow......

-Federal loads the 180 Accubond in the 300 WSM and the 160 Accubond in the 7 WSM. At 300yds and out the 7 WSM has more energy than the 300.

So in conclusion:
-If you don't handload definitely buy the 300 WSM, it's far the most popular
-If you want the most efficient ballistically buy the 7 WSM.
-If you want the most accurate and easiest to shoot buy a 270 WSM

The 7 WSM in a Montana might be pretty hard to find.

I remember Les Bowman, gawd, that was a looonnnggg time ago.

I used to have a pair of old Mod. 70s, in .300H&H with the steel buttplates and I loaded them with either 200 gr. Speers or Nosler PTs. to the safe max. I had Leupy 3.5x10 scopes on them on Leupy QDS and they were half inch guns.

I would load each one with 5 rounds and place them on my shooting bench, then pick one up and quickly fire all five rounds, put it down and then shoot the other immediately. Most of the time, the 10 shots would go under the palm of my hand at 100 yds, using 4x setting on the scope, offhand, no sling. This is not difficult to do as .300 Mags. don't kick very much.

Les Bowman was an O'Connorite, a small-bore man and as I remember, used to boast about all the Black Bears he had shot with his .25-35 Mod. 94 carbine. Maybe he was just hyper-sensitive to recoil or maybe he was just hasslin" Elmer?

In all honesty, any healthy person can learn to shoot a .300 Mag. well, from field positions, it just takes careful practice after a bit of sound instruction. Of course, many people will NOT practice as they know they should, but, those kind will find any caliber to be too much, IMHO.

Thanks for the heads-up re: the Kimber bases, I don't much care for the Redfield style anyway and will spring for Talleys. With a rifle like this, I like to keep a spare 4x Leupy sighted in in spare rings back at the truck, so, Talleys make sense.

"A tiny bit more powerful"?

How'd you draw that conclusion?

AD

Comparing say the 7mm WSM to a 300 WSM as to potential effectiveness on game an important factor is shot placement. Since they both shoot quite flat the recoil they produce would, according to Bowman, matter on where the bullet hit's.

So a larger hole with the 300 might not be effective if it hits a little off of where you want it to go.

Bowman carried only one round when he hunted also. He was quite a guy and did influence things. Being in O'Connor's camp is not a bad place to be also.

You guys are the best. I used to wait a month for a magazine to come in the mail.

What is "long range" and what are you shooting at?

I have a 270 WSM, a 700 SPS in a McM MR stock, and think that, 4 me, it will do everything that I need 1 gun to do for lower 48 game. The only thing that I don't think that I'd feel 100% comfortable doing with it is shooting grizzly/brown bears at close range. But in that situation, anything less than a 375 H&H is probably on the small side.

Jeff

As I have mentioned before, I have known and worked with several older guys here in B.C. who guided both O'Connor and Page in the "glory days" of the '50s and '60s. I think that you would be very surprised by the attitudes these bushwise old chharacters, all of whom are long under the sod, had about these famous gunwriters.

O'Connor, in particular, was a very good writer and had the opportunity to travel widely and hunt exotic game in divers foreign lands. This does NOT mean that he actually was much good at locating, stalking, tracking or gutting said game; in short, he was a "dude" hunter who paid others to do the real hunting and packing for him.

This is not intended as a slight against JO'C or anyone else, dead or alive, that chooses to hunt this way, but, I prefer to do it myself and read others that do as well, at least for practical advice. O'Connors lasting legacy is the fact that his writing is very entertaining and worth re-reading; the other thing I admire him for is his promotion of the American Classic Rifle, one of the great contributions of the USA to world culture, IMHO.

Bowman's antics concerning hunting with only a single cartridge do NOT impress me, in fact, I consider such stunts to be foolish. If, you try this sort of macho b.s. here in B.C., you may very well end up as a small pile of Grizzly poop, on a lonely horse trail up the Prophet River. It's all about realistic appreciation of the conditions you hunt under and adjusting your behaviour accordingly, again in my opinion.

I agree wholeheartedly, this is a tremendous resource with some fantastic and knowledable folks on it, of whom you are one. It is so helpful to me to be able to interact with guys who actually have rifles that I think I want and it makes my wife happy, too! This is because I am buying fewer guns these days and part of that is due to the wise advice I find here. Of course, I will still cheerfully "look after" any lonely old Mod. 70s, Legends or even British double rifles that need a good home!

I'd get the 300 over the 7 for many of the reasons stated above. Regarding recoil and shot placement, if you have a problem with the recoil of a 300 WSM, you have some issues. A blanket statement that "300 Mag shooters are worse shots than all others" is making one hell of an assumption. Same goes for shot placement, just because you shoot a 300 is a recipe for poor shot placement is absolutely ridiculous. Man, whre do we get such logic? jorge

I have three 308s, two kimbers and an old Remington 722. Everything dies on schedule when hit properly.

The 300 is for elk mostly. Although I can and do hit the 450 yard gong with my 308s, the 300 WSM or 7mm WSM allows a sightly greater margin of error (+- 75 yards) over the 308.

That being said, the longest shot I've ever taken on a game animal was 353 yards (measured), and can't imagine taking one much over 450 for any reason.

Logic??? Where?

RSY <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

The Kimber Montana is really light in weight. I think that is the issue here- the recoil of a 300 WSM in, say an all up rifle weight of 7.25 pounds or less in the Kimber v a standard rifle weight of 9 pounds or a little more, for instance, in a Winchester 70 Laminate model. The felt kick and muzzle bounce can be substantially greater. A 7 WSM would recoil less but still get the job done on everything in NA with the right bullets with only grizzlies in the gray area.

Having shot at least 1/2 dozen 300 WSM's including Kimbers, I don't know if I could tell much difference between the different 300 WSM's and or a 7 WSM. The Kimbers are light but have well designed stocks with excellent recoil pads. I don't find them at all uncomfortable to shoot but I do have a somewhat dead shoulder. I haven't fired a Montana in WSM yet but I'd bet that the slight recoil absorbtion in sythetic stocks make up for their lighter weight over the standard 8400's. I think if you can shoot 1 WSM you should be able to shoot any of them........DJ

What sort of accuracy are the Kimber WSM rifles capable of?

They sound interesting!

AD

Kute,



Those guys were my hero's and still are. Whelan had the most influence on me as he was a target shooter as well.



Jorge,



Bowman said that 300 Magnum hunters did what they did. He was there and had to chase the results down. He made a point that sold a lot of guns. Recoil is important to shooters.



djpaintless,



I have just about all of the guns as well. The Decelerator pads have changed the recoil equation for all guns. In theory most of us have a limit as to what recoil we can endure and not flinch. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that Allen Day is an outstanding shot with his 300 WM's and does not flinch. Also that he is an excellent hunter and uses guides only because he wants to shoot lots of stuff. Sure I do it myself to but to each his own.



Allen,



The Kimbers are indeed interesting and on paper have all the features. However your buying stuff that has been checked and double checked. For most of us the Kimbers are a good place to start for not that much money. With some luck one can get a shooter out of the box.

I simply don't "get" the recoil/more accurate shooting argument. It borders on ridiculous!

No matter how you crunch the numbers, if you compare max loads to max loads (or starting to starting), there is no realistic difference in recoil between the two! ONE foot pound is NOT going to make you shoot any worse or better.

It's a simple calculation -- a lighter bullet, traveling faster is going to come in very close to its counterpart!

Sorry to be so bluntly rude, but shooting one better than the other, for whatever made up reason, is silly.

I have the pair in model 7's in their Remington counterparts (7mm and 300 saum). Both are light rifles and "I" can't tell ANY difference in recoil shooting the two.

If elk or bear are on the agenda, go with the 30 cal version. You WILL get more of a blood trail out of the entrance wound as thick hides and fat will plug smaller holes. Of course, if your shots are always perfect, it's not an issue <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />.

Of course, bullet selection is almost as critical as shot placement! The wrong bullet in the right spot and eventually you'll have problems.

Talk to target shooters about recoil. They want the bare minimum in recoil that will get the bullet to the middle of the target. When we shoot long range or even at moderate range recoil matters a lot.



As to hunters and recoil I suggest reading Bob Hagel. He wrote quite a few pages on it and states that it matters a lot.



That's the word from target shooters and Bob Hagel. If recoil does not bother you then good for you.

Nice try! If you are finding ANY significant difference, you are NOT comparing apples to apples.

BTW, we're not talking target shooting either! If we were, we'd also be talking HEAVY rifles and that <1 footpound delta in recoil would be even less an issue. I'm calling BS.

Muley Stalker,



I added the paragraph about Bob Hagel after you posted.



Your entited to your own opinion and adjectives however you are wrong.

Here's the 7 WSM 3 shots at 200 yds with Factory Ammo:








And then the 270 WSM 3 shots at 200 yds with a favorite reload:







Allen, please realize that you may be spoiled by the exceptional accuracy of your Echol's rifles and Kimbers probably aren't quite in the same class, but they are very capable rifles. They are also lighter in weight and on the wallet than an Echol's custom. I think for a factory production rifle for under $1000 they represent an excellent value. They also fit me very well.
If you ever happen to be near OKC you're more than welcome to shoot any of mine. I've let 4 buddies shoot my Kimbers, 2 have already bought 1 or more Kimbers and the other 2 are planning to buy one. PM me if you might be close and would like to visit our gun club, I promise to not complain if you bring your 338 Legend along to compare.............DJ

Been following this thread somewhat, kinda amusing! Anyways I was contemplating this very question a month ago. Came to the same conclusion as Muley Stalker after a bit of thought, it won't amount to a rat's ass when it comes down to felt recoil in the field between these two cartridges. I went with the 300WSM but plan on picking up the 7WSM next year! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Dang rifle looney in me!

MtnHtr

Using Federal factory ammo as a guide, their 7 WSM 140 Nosler BT @ 3310 fps generates 3405 ft lbs. of energy while the 300 WSM 150 Nosler @ 3200 fps generates 3410 ft lbs. The 7 WSM 160 Nosler Partition @ 3160 fps generates 3545 ft lbs. of energy while the 300 WSM 180 Nosler Partition generates 3540 ft lbs.

They are basically equal in energy. Therefore, recoil will be very close. Assuming a zero of 250 yards, the 300 WSM will drop a little more than 1 inch more than the 7 WSM @ 400 yards with the lighter bullets. The difference at 400 yards in drop with the heavier bullets is still less than 2 inches in favor of the 7 WSM.

I think a fellow needs a 7 Mag and a 300 Mag.

Savage, I could really give a crap about Mr. Hagel. We're talking about hunting rifles here.

BTW, I have a degree in Mathematics and used to teach physics. I understand the entire concept of recoil quite well. If you can distinguish such a slight difference (if at all) in felt recoil then you are already shooting beyond your maximum and that AGAIN would make it a non-issue.

Seriously, we're talking about a difference that is no more than the variance in what you'd find between one bullet and another in the SAME box of off the shelf ammo. Average handloads for that matter.

Once again, BS! -- particularly when you take it in context with the original question posed.

BTW, common courtesy would be to crunch some numbers before you tell somebody they're "wrong." If you had, you'd see how silly your recoil argument is!

Muley, I agree with you. I have a brother in law who last year purchased a Savage 110 bolt in 30-06, wood stalk. We went to our range to sight in his rifle, he was shooting 150 grain bullets, factory ammo, I was shooting my 7mm Rem Mag in 150 grain Scirocco's, Rem BDL left hand rifle.

After about 6 shots, my brother in law was complaining about recoil and how hard his 06 was kicking, and told me to shoot it some. I can tell you that his 30-06 kicked alot harder than my 7 mag, and I believe for the following reasons: 1)he had no recoil pad on his rifle, and I had a decellerator, 2) His rifle was fairly light, and mine was slightly heavier. Between the two, his "felt" recoil was much greater than mine, even though on paper with math, a 7 mag kicks alittle harder than an 06. 3) I am a bigger man than him, he feels more recoil than me.

go with the 300 wsm. if you only need to shoot 7mm bullets, you do not need a mag, go with a 270. the 300 wsm is simply too good to pass up and the 7mm wsm has the short little neck that no one really likes to talk about anyway. I have owned three 300 WMs and sold them all, just did not like them (must admit the cartridge is hard to beat). have one 300wsm and love it. it is my "go to" rifle. for "trophy hunting - however you may define it", I like a 30 cal bullet of 165 grains. this can do any reasonable shot at any angle. I know you can kill them with 100 gr 25 cal bullets at 2800 fps but I prefer to hedge my bets. also, for larger game, the 30 cal is the way to go. the 300 wsm can do anything the 7 mm wsm can do but the 7mm can not step up to the heavier bullets if needed, ie 180-200 gr.

re. the recoil discussion, I got curious and plugged some #s into one of the online recoil calculators

assuming equal powder charges and weight guns, a 160gr out of a 7mm WSM recoils about 5% less than a 180gr 300 WSM, depending on which recoil parameter you look at

http://stevespages.com/brecoil.shtml

using the Federal nosler partition loads, assuming same powder charges...

160 at 3160fps from 7.5 lb gun w/ 70gr charge gives
26.94 ft-lbs
14.96 f/s
3.6 lb/s

180 gr at 2975 fps from 7.5 lb gun, also 70 gr charge gives
29.03
15.53
3.74

not a big difference, but the recoil formula is incorporates bullet momentum rather than energy, explaining why even though muzzle energy is similar for the loads, recoil is lower for the 7 using the lighter bullet

anyway, the recoil issue is somewhat hair splitting but I like the idea of a 7 WSM because of the better vel. and energy retention downrange, as someone else noted earlier

also has the highest powder capacity of all the short mags by a smidge due to shoulder further forward

Muley Stalker,

Les Bowmans argument was with 300 Magnums. The popular one at that time was the 300 Weatherby Magnum. What Bowman promoted was the 7mm RM.

Somehow this discussion got off comparing the WSM's which are similar of course.

I have not calculated the recoil of at 300 Weatherby vrs a 7mm RM but having shot both there is a difference. I would expect it can be calcuated also.

Perhaps this is how a misunderstanding started.

oh, and as far as "inherent accuracy", a guy named Tim Lambert set a new world record for 1 mile group (5 shots in 10 inches!), and won a 1000 yd national competition w/ a 7 WSM he built (on a savage action!) within the last yr; if you poke around you can probably find the info, maybe over at shortmags.org

I can't imagine the recoil to be noticeably different between the two, not on the bench, and certainly not in the field!

Huntr

Nontypical,

I appreciate your calculations, and it illustrates my point, but the recoil is even closer than that as you can typically use a bit more powder safely with lighter bullets.

Savage, THAT I can agree with! I owned a 300 wby for quite a few years that I HATED to shoot, despite it being very heavy! In fact, after I sold it I bought my 338 ultramag (slow learner <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />) and would MUCH rather shoot the ultra than the Wby.

Stock fit? Who knows for sure, maybe I just learned to shoot the Wby well enough that the ultra wasn't that much worse? I have put a TON of copper down range with that ultra and while I can't pretend that I enjoy shooting it, I shoot it pretty well. Better than I ever shot the 300 wby. Gotta think the 7mm RM a piece of cake in comparison though I've only shot a few rounds from a couple different rifles of that chambering. The 7mm saum is the first 7mm anything I've owned.

Faced with having to dump either my 7mm or 300 saum, there'd be no question despite the 7mm being a custom job and the 300 straight factory -- I'd keep the 300 in a heartbeat!

The thing you have to keep in mind when you re-examine Les Bowman's comments on this subject -- and Bowman was a very bright man and good observer -- is that the most common .300s that were brought into his camps in those days were .300 Weatherby's. Those early Southgate-built FN and German-built Mark Vs were typically very light rifles with light barrel contours and crooked stocks with a lot of drop at heel, plus high Monte Carlo combs. Recoil pads weren't that soft, either.

I've shot a few of these rifles myself, and those light .300 Weatherby's just plain kick like a mule. It's no wonder in my mind that some of Bowman's clients didn't shoot those rifles so well. Modern .300 Weatherby's with good Decelerator recoil pads, and high, straight stocks are much more shootable.

Even the early Remington 700s ( I have one built in 1963) in 7mm Rem. Mag., while they do kick less than those .300 Weatherbys, actually kick harder than more modern rifles chambered in .300 Winchester.

My Echols-built .300 Winchester is much more shootable than that early 7mm Mag. of mine, and one of my friends has a Model 70 Sporter LT in .300 Win. (Miller-designed stock) that also kicks less.

Felt recoil isn't all about the cartridge, it's also about the RIFLE.

This new Kimber has a very well-designed stock from all appearances. It should be very shooter-friendly.......

AD

Sooooooo.....

For poor Mr. Walters' benefit, recoil deltas shouldn't be a significant consideration in your decision between the two cartridges you are considering (grin).

Sorry to start a fight on your thread!

Actually, the recoil issue was never an issue. I'm a mechnaical engineer, and have been watching the debate rage with some humor.

Guess I should have asked which is more accurate, and by how much? If the 7mm is .5 inches at 100 yards and the 300 is .75 inches, the 50% better group of the 7mm is insignificant at most shooting ranges (at 600 yards the dif is 3 inches, all things being otherwise equal).

I have kimbers and Tikkas, might just get a Savage in 7mm WSM with the accutrigger, just to experiment.

If all other factors are equal, I don't think that recoil is that much of an issue when choosing between a 7mm cartridge and a .30 caliber cartridge. For me at least, the .280 Rem. doesn't kick that much less than a .30-06, and 7mm Rem. Mag. doesn't kick that much less than a .300 Win. Mag. -- not enough recoil difference to get in the way of good shooting.

In the case of the later two cartridges, in my experience the .300 Win. hammers stuff better than the 7mm Rem., so when choosing a WSM cartridge, the .300 is the one I'd go with. I have literally shot the works with the .300 Win. Mag., from pronghorn to African lion, so I'm really on the side of the .300 WSM in this case.

But really, selection should depend upon whether you're a 7mm fan or a .300 fan. What mantra do you buy into? Which cartridge best captures your imagination? I know guys who have literally "shot the works" with the 7mm Rem. Mag. as well.............

AD

David,

You might answer your own question. As an engineer you might surmise that many cartridges produce similar accuracy. There was a report published by Remington a while back, of which I would like to see here, of the accuracy of the cartridges that the 40X had been chambered for. In general the larger the cartridge the larger the groups but not by much. In theory you might agree that the force of a larger cartridge might disturb the same rifle more.

I have a 270 and a 7mm WSM. Both are reasonably accurate but at the moment the 7mm is slightly more so. This is just the variance in guns.

Some quoted a gunsmith who claims that the 300 WSM is the more accurate of the trio. Perhaps it is? I do know that the owner of a shop that builds long range match rifles here in CT is now shooting the 300 WSM for 1000 yd target.

Just pick the one you want and good luck is the reality of it all.

As to the Savage WSM. I bought one as I could not wait for a custom 270 WSM to be finished. This was a very heavy 12fvss. If it had shot well I might have kept it. It didn't.

My choice would be 7mm WSM if you hand load if not go 300 WSM.

It only took 4 1/2 years to figure that out.....(grin)

One wouldn't wish to be too hasty now would you...grin

Dober

Better late than never... Was thinken about all the talk about 708 vs 308 and 280 vs 30-06 here at the Campfire this post just fits....

Don't get us started!
I have had enough of "this versus that" threads!

Come on.You love them.

So long as we don't start howling about who's got the bigger 'shortfat' it's all good!

Keep your lady conquests to yourself.

So whats your pick? The 7mm WSM would look nice next to your 325WSM & 308 Montana's......

Yeah,
That 7 would look good in my safe-if Kimber would make a Montana in 7 Whizzum, that is...

The 284 168g vld has about the same BC as the 308 210g vld. I've driven the 210 vld around 2750fps in a 300 wsm and I've seen the 168g driven to near 3000fps in the 7 wsm. If your talking truly long range I'd consider the 7 for anything smaller than elk. If your going elk and bigger the 308 210 might be better.

I'm shooting the 210 vld in my 300 RUM at 3100 fps and it's looking promising.

Bb

Tim, thats just a miner oversight.....grins...

yes it was...
(I really do wish Kimber still made a 7WSM, I would buy one.)

Me to...

Just get one of these: http://www.6mmbr.com/gunweek064.html

Bb

You two should be so lucky to hear.....


I'd be happy with either in a Montana.

Right on Sam..Love your humor.

Bb,
Thanks for the link!

Sam,
we just got to give you a little trouble now and again, right?

OR, and maybe even better yet, just get one of these.

http://www.fnhusa.com/le/products/firearms/model.asp?fid=FNF048&gid=FNG021&mid=FNM0133

Well of course Tim!

SU35,
One of my local dealers carries FN, heck, he may even have one of those in stock-they do look nice!

As for me....after shooting all these years...give me the 308 and a reloading bench and I can do what I want. There is one exception...if I'm hunting game that can eat me...than I prefer the biggist gun I can handle.

Wow... a short-fat blast from the past...

JMHO......but........7MM...because, it kicks less,will shoot just as flat(likely flatter)and kills stuff just as dead...High BC bullets,plenty available in lots of styles.....

I picked the 7 WSM.

JM

Since David originally posted this he's likely bought and sold 28 rifles, some in both 7mm a 30!

Thanks for the heads up Turd.

Bump

The posts are pretty informative. I agree with those who advocate the 300WSM. Having all three of the original, it was hard to tell the difference in recoil when you rotated the rifles at the range.
I came to the conclusion that the 270WSM wasn't enough of a gain over my 270 Win's and let it go - twice.
The 7WSM was fine but wasn't "impressive" enough so it moved on.
But the 300WSM in my opinion has the most to offer. I liked the bullet range, from 150 to 200.
The biggest problem you have is that Kimber does not offer the 7WSM in a Montana anymore. Plus the launch of the 7WSM was delayed inorder to change its SAAMI specs. That hurt it and may have doomed it. Also, factory ammo and components have been short from time to time - at least in my area.
IMHO you have the best of the best with the 300WSM - from antelope to grizzly bear.
Keep us posted.

Or just get Talley one-piece mounts.

I would chose 7MM WSM just because I like 7MM.That being said I do own a 270WSM and a 300WSM and do not see a spit of difference on game or paper with either.ANY of The WSM`s will take anything in North America and although not legal for everything in Africa,would do the same there.

It's interesting to see this 6 year old thread resurrected. Most of the info is still relavant other than Talley coming out with ultralights for the Kimbers since it first started.

I wish AllenDay was still around posting. Seriously experienced hunter...................DJ

I agree with Bob.Well put.

there is always the compromise. chamber to 7-300wsm. 7mm with a little longer neck to stabilize the big and beautiful 180gr berger VLD. can be pushed to 3000fps and has some of the best BC available.

Just a thought.

I didn't even notice the date, and you're right on all counts.

What a treat to read both Allen and Kutenay's posts again. Allen, sadly, is no longer alive, but Kutenay is still kicking. LIke to see him posting here again, as he has a tremendous backlog of experience and he writes well. For those who miss his posts, he has occasionally posted on:

http://www.huntshoot.com/forums/

Wow, I'm saddened to hear about Allen Day. I hope his family is well......................DJ