|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,200
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,200 |
The 300 WSM was never intended to compete with the 300 WM. It was initially called the 300 Jamison before Winchester stole the idea and hung the "magnum" label on it. This probably hurt the chances of success because people keep comparing it to 300 WM.
It is a good round giving 150-300 fps more speed (depending on bullet weight) than a 30-06 from a lighter more compact short action rifle. With the hotter loads it will somewhat overlap lower end 300 WM loads, but with the best loads is always 50-100 fps slower. The 300 WSM works very well with shorter 22-24" barrels whereas the 300 WM really needs 26".
In equal weight rifles recoil is almost exactly 1/2 way between 30-06 and 300 WM due to 50-100 fps less speed and about 10-12 gr less powder than 300 WM. Or you can shoot a 300 WSM in a 1/2 lb lighter rifle and get about the same recoil as 300 WM.
For someone putting together a lightweight mountain rifle and wanting more punch than 30-06 with manageable recoil it is a good choice. If you want that last 100 fps and don't mind more recoil or a longer heavier rifle any of the other 300 magnums will out perform it. That about describes it.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,638
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,638 |
You guys have me halfway convinced to take one of my 06s on my elk hunt! Come on, Jorge, there's nothing better than a 300 WBY.
I probably hit more elk with a pickup than you have with a rifle. I have yet to see anyone claim Leupold has never had to fix an optic. I know I have sent a few back. 2 MK 6s, a VX-6, and 3 VX-111s.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 96,158 Likes: 3
Campfire Oracle
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 96,158 Likes: 3 |
You guys have me halfway convinced to take one of my 06s on my elk hunt! Do it!
Life Member SCI Life Member DSC Member New Mexico Shooting Sports Association
Take your responsibilities seriously, never yourself-Ken Howell Proper bullet placement + sufficient penetration = quick, clean kill. Finn Aagard
Ken
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 46,247 Likes: 1
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 46,247 Likes: 1 |
You guys have me halfway convinced to take one of my 06s on my elk hunt! Do it! Says a NM farmer that uses a 460 Weatherby for rabbit.
Trump Won!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,312
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,312 |
The 300 WSM was never intended to compete with the 300 WM. It was initially called the 300 Jamison before Winchester stole the idea and hung the "magnum" label on it. This probably hurt the chances of success because people keep comparing it to 300 WM.
It is a good round giving 150-300 fps more speed (depending on bullet weight) than a 30-06 from a lighter more compact short action rifle. With the hotter loads it will somewhat overlap lower end 300 WM loads, but with the best loads is always 50-100 fps slower. The 300 WSM works very well with shorter 22-24" barrels whereas the 300 WM really needs 26".
In equal weight rifles recoil is almost exactly 1/2 way between 30-06 and 300 WM due to 50-100 fps less speed and about 10-12 gr less powder than 300 WM. Or you can shoot a 300 WSM in a 1/2 lb lighter rifle and get about the same recoil as 300 WM.
For someone putting together a lightweight mountain rifle and wanting more punch than 30-06 with manageable recoil it is a good choice. If you want that last 100 fps and don't mind more recoil or a longer heavier rifle any of the other 300 magnums will out perform it. That about describes it. It does, good post. However I'd simply add that in addition to working well from a shorter barrel, it's also a short action. I'm done with long action, 26" barrel rifles. To me, a 24" short action rig feels great. 26" barreled long action feels like a log. And who cares about 50 fps. The elk won't.
The CENTER will hold.
Reality, Patriotism,Trump: you can only pick two
FÜCK PUTIN!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 60,149 Likes: 11
Campfire Kahuna
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 60,149 Likes: 11 |
JMR40,
Yes, the .300 WSM was indeed intended to compete with the .300 Winchester Magnum. Rich Jamison may never have seen it that way (I'm not going to go back and reread his articles on it), but Winchester did. Their advertising/publicity campaign constantly emphasized how the .300 WSM matched factory 180-grain .300 Winchester Magnum muzzle velocity through some magic in the case shape that allowed "more efficient" use of the powder. But the fact that the standard SAAMI muzzle velocity for 180's in the .300 Winchester Magnum was only 2960 fps, well under the capabilities of the round, was never mentioned.
And no, the .300 Winchester Magnum does not "need" a 26-inch barrel. With a 24" barrel it beats the top loads in the .300 WSM by around 150 fps (not 50-100), with both using 24" barrels. Both rounds will lose or gain just as much velocity from the use of a shorter or longer barrel.
The average "short" action for any rifle the .300 WSM is offered in weighs 3-4 ounces less than one of the same model of "long" actions used in .30-06's and .300 Winchester Magnums. The ONLY meaningful weight savings in a .300 WSM is due to using lighter stocks and/or barrels. The difference in action lengths runs .5 to .8 inch, depending on the action, which makes about as much difference in "handling" quality as using Weaver scope mounts instead of Leupolds.
It's easy to buy or build any of the three in a rifle weighing the same, and with factory 180-grain ammo the recoil of the .300 WSM is far closer to the .300 Winchester Magnum than it is to the .30-06. In 8-pound rifles, Sierra's recoil computer recoil calculator puts it at 22.9 foot-pounds for the .30-06, 31.1 for the .300 WSM, and 34.8 for the .300 Winchester Magnum. Now, we can manipulate rifle weight and handload numbers all we want, but those are the facts with 180-grain factory ammo in rifles of equal weight.
Part of the reason I know all this is because I've owned and handloaded for several rifles in each chambering, and hunted big game from "deer-sized" up through 6x6 elk with all three cartridges. I still own rifles in all three right now, and may (or may not) hunt with all of them this fall.
I am NOT anti-.300 WSM, but the claims Winchester made in the beginning about the magic case shape and less recoil were ballistic BS. The .300 WSM gets exactly what it should from it's case capacity, nothing more, and if somebody wants a slightly milder .300 magnum then it's certainly a cartridge to consider--as is the .300 H&H.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 96,158 Likes: 3
Campfire Oracle
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 96,158 Likes: 3 |
You guys have me halfway convinced to take one of my 06s on my elk hunt! Do it! Says a NM farmer that uses a 460 Weatherby for rabbit.
Life Member SCI Life Member DSC Member New Mexico Shooting Sports Association
Take your responsibilities seriously, never yourself-Ken Howell Proper bullet placement + sufficient penetration = quick, clean kill. Finn Aagard
Ken
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,312
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,312 |
John, I personally perceive a significant difference in handling between short and long action rifles, all else equal.
However, I can certainly concede that others may not.
26" v. 24" is no contest, again speaking of my own feelers here <g>. Really dislike 26" rifles, particularly long action 26" rifles. Blech. Too looooong.
Now 'scuse me while I go count some angels dancing on pinheads........
The CENTER will hold.
Reality, Patriotism,Trump: you can only pick two
FÜCK PUTIN!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 17,119 Likes: 2
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 17,119 Likes: 2 |
JMR40,
Yes, the .300 WSM was indeed intended to compete with the .300 Winchester Magnum. Rich Jamison may never have seen it that way (I'm not going to go back and reread his articles on it), but Winchester did. Their advertising/publicity campaign constantly emphasized how the .300 WSM matched factory 180-grain .300 Winchester Magnum muzzle velocity through some magic in the case shape that allowed "more efficient" use of the powder. But the fact that the standard SAAMI muzzle velocity for 180's in the .300 Winchester Magnum was only 2960 fps, well under the capabilities of the round, was never mentioned.
And no, the .300 Winchester Magnum does not "need" a 26-inch barrel. With a 24" barrel it beats the top loads in the .300 WSM by around 150 fps (not 50-100), with both using 24" barrels. Both rounds will lose or gain just as much velocity from the use of a shorter or longer barrel.
The average "short" action for any rifle the .300 WSM is offered in weighs 3-4 ounces less than one of the same model of "long" actions used in .30-06's and .300 Winchester Magnums. The ONLY meaningful weight savings in a .300 WSM is due to using lighter stocks and/or barrels. The difference in action lengths runs .5 to .8 inch, depending on the action, which makes about as much difference in "handling" quality as using Weaver scope mounts instead of Leupolds.
It's easy to buy or build any of the three in a rifle weighing the same, and with factory 180-grain ammo the recoil of the .300 WSM is far closer to the .300 Winchester Magnum than it is to the .30-06. In 8-pound rifles, Sierra's recoil computer recoil calculator puts it at 22.9 foot-pounds for the .30-06, 31.1 for the .300 WSM, and 34.8 for the .300 Winchester Magnum. Now, we can manipulate rifle weight and handload numbers all we want, but those are the facts with 180-grain factory ammo in rifles of equal weight.
Part of the reason I know all this is because I've owned and handloaded for several rifles in each chambering, and hunted big game from "deer-sized" up through 6x6 elk with all three cartridges. I still own rifles in all three right now, and may (or may not) hunt with all of them this fall.
I am NOT anti-.300 WSM, but the claims Winchester made in the beginning about the magic case shape and less recoil were ballistic BS. The .300 WSM gets exactly what it should from it's case capacity, nothing more, and if somebody wants a slightly milder .300 magnum then it's certainly a cartridge to consider--as is the .300 H&H. Not to detour here but to pick up on Win's "smoke 'n mirrors" marketing of the WSMs, I remember a poster showing the 270 WSM equaling the 270 Wby, the former with some streamlined bullet and the latter with some truncated pill. 🤔 IIRC, the point was that at 400 yards there trajectory was the same. 🙄
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 60,149 Likes: 11
Campfire Kahuna
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 60,149 Likes: 11 |
Jeff,
Where did I say anything about either cartridge "needing" a 26" barrel? Some other people posted about 26" barrels on the .300 Winchester, but I sure didn't.
You might want to check back in this thread a little ways for another of my posts listing the velocities of 180-grain bullets from a 24" barrel in the .300 Winchester with some powders introduced in the last 12-15 years.
Some short actions are much shorter than the same "long" action, because the long action is enough longer to handle cartridges like the .300 Weatherby and .375 H&H. But others are just long enough to handle the .30-06 or .300 Winchester Magnum. I'd bet that if blindfolded you couldn't tell the difference in "balance" between a couple of rifles using the latter sort of actions. This is because I've invited some people to try with NULA rifles.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900 |
JMR40,
Yes, the .300 WSM was indeed intended to compete with the .300 Winchester Magnum. Rich Jamison may never have seen it that way (I'm not going to go back and reread his articles on it), but Winchester did. Their advertising/publicity campaign constantly emphasized how the .300 WSM matched factory 180-grain .300 Winchester Magnum muzzle velocity through some magic in the case shape that allowed "more efficient" use of the powder. But the fact that the standard SAAMI muzzle velocity for 180's in the .300 Winchester Magnum was only 2960 fps, well under the capabilities of the round, was never mentioned.
And no, the .300 Winchester Magnum does not "need" a 26-inch barrel. With a 24" barrel it beats the top loads in the .300 WSM by around 150 fps (not 50-100), with both using 24" barrels. Both rounds will lose or gain just as much velocity from the use of a shorter or longer barrel.
The average "short" action for any rifle the .300 WSM is offered in weighs 3-4 ounces less than one of the same model of "long" actions used in .30-06's and .300 Winchester Magnums. The ONLY meaningful weight savings in a .300 WSM is due to using lighter stocks and/or barrels. The difference in action lengths runs .5 to .8 inch, depending on the action, which makes about as much difference in "handling" quality as using Weaver scope mounts instead of Leupolds.
It's easy to buy or build any of the three in a rifle weighing the same, and with factory 180-grain ammo the recoil of the .300 WSM is far closer to the .300 Winchester Magnum than it is to the .30-06. In 8-pound rifles, Sierra's recoil computer recoil calculator puts it at 22.9 foot-pounds for the .30-06, 31.1 for the .300 WSM, and 34.8 for the .300 Winchester Magnum. Now, we can manipulate rifle weight and handload numbers all we want, but those are the facts with 180-grain factory ammo in rifles of equal weight.
Part of the reason I know all this is because I've owned and handloaded for several rifles in each chambering, and hunted big game from "deer-sized" up through 6x6 elk with all three cartridges. I still own rifles in all three right now, and may (or may not) hunt with all of them this fall.
I am NOT anti-.300 WSM, but the claims Winchester made in the beginning about the magic case shape and less recoil were ballistic BS. The .300 WSM gets exactly what it should from it's case capacity, nothing more, and if somebody wants a slightly milder .300 magnum then it's certainly a cartridge to consider--as is the .300 H&H. Whew......nice to see some common sense to cut through the fog and hype.
The 280 Remington is overbore.
The 7 Rem Mag is over bore.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 22,736
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 22,736 |
There is no significant difference in the all the new data found in Nosler #8 than what Nosler #1 can provide. Its marketing hype for those who are never satisfied.
My home is the "sanctuary residence" for my firearms.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 39,139 Likes: 24
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 39,139 Likes: 24 |
Started hunting with a 30-06, went 300 WM and then back to 30-06 and now 7-08 I liked the 300WM enough just wasn't enough more than the 30-06 for me to put up with it. As to the 300WSM - I couldn't talk myself into buying one. For me it would boil down to the rifles, i.e. which one I liked the best.
A 180 gr bullet at 3000 fps is what it is,no matter what case you use to get it there. Someone once said "critters can't read head stamps"... Seems appropriate still.
Me
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,386
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,386 |
Jeff,
Where did I say anything about either cartridge "needing" a 26" barrel? Some other people posted about 26" barrels on the .300 Winchester, but I sure didn't.
You might want to check back in this thread a little ways for another of my posts listing the velocities of 180-grain bullets from a 24" barrel in the .300 Winchester with some powders introduced in the last 12-15 years.
Some short actions are much shorter than the same "long" action, because the long action is enough longer to handle cartridges like the .300 Weatherby and .375 H&H. But others are just long enough to handle the .30-06 or .300 Winchester Magnum. I'd bet that if blindfolded you couldn't tell the difference in "balance" between a couple of rifles using the latter sort of actions. This is because I've invited some people to try with NULA rifles.
I've never killed an animal and said that would have been so much better with a short action.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,313
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,313 |
I have several rifles in 308 3006 300WSM and 300WM. I choose which rifle to shoot each year if I have worked out a new bullet powder combination. I have bagged game with each including deer and elk. The 300WSM and 300WM are so close to not make any difference in the hunting fields.
I have a Ranching for Wildlife cow elk tag for mid November and I will use my Extreme Weather Model 70 chambered for the 264 WM. I have a load that shoots with a Barnes 127 gr LRX in front of 70.1 grains of Ramshot Magnum. In the sagebrush country of Northwest Colorado I think this will be a flat shooting good choice. I have never bloodied this rifle so now is a good time.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,326
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,326 |
JMR40,
Yes, the .300 WSM was indeed intended to compete with the .300 Winchester Magnum. Rich Jamison may never have seen it that way (I'm not going to go back and reread his articles on it), but Winchester did. Their advertising/publicity campaign constantly emphasized how the .300 WSM matched factory 180-grain .300 Winchester Magnum muzzle velocity through some magic in the case shape that allowed "more efficient" use of the powder. But the fact that the standard SAAMI muzzle velocity for 180's in the .300 Winchester Magnum was only 2960 fps, well under the capabilities of the round, was never mentioned.
And no, the .300 Winchester Magnum does not "need" a 26-inch barrel. With a 24" barrel it beats the top loads in the .300 WSM by around 150 fps (not 50-100), with both using 24" barrels. Both rounds will lose or gain just as much velocity from the use of a shorter or longer barrel.
The average "short" action for any rifle the .300 WSM is offered in weighs 3-4 ounces less than one of the same model of "long" actions used in .30-06's and .300 Winchester Magnums. The ONLY meaningful weight savings in a .300 WSM is due to using lighter stocks and/or barrels. The difference in action lengths runs .5 to .8 inch, depending on the action, which makes about as much difference in "handling" quality as using Weaver scope mounts instead of Leupolds.
It's easy to buy or build any of the three in a rifle weighing the same, and with factory 180-grain ammo the recoil of the .300 WSM is far closer to the .300 Winchester Magnum than it is to the .30-06. In 8-pound rifles, Sierra's recoil computer recoil calculator puts it at 22.9 foot-pounds for the .30-06, 31.1 for the .300 WSM, and 34.8 for the .300 Winchester Magnum. Now, we can manipulate rifle weight and handload numbers all we want, but those are the facts with 180-grain factory ammo in rifles of equal weight.
Part of the reason I know all this is because I've owned and handloaded for several rifles in each chambering, and hunted big game from "deer-sized" up through 6x6 elk with all three cartridges. I still own rifles in all three right now, and may (or may not) hunt with all of them this fall.
I am NOT anti-.300 WSM, but the claims Winchester made in the beginning about the magic case shape and less recoil were ballistic BS. The .300 WSM gets exactly what it should from it's case capacity, nothing more, and if somebody wants a slightly milder .300 magnum then it's certainly a cartridge to consider--as is the .300 H&H. Not to detour here but to pick up on Win's "smoke 'n mirrors" marketing of the WSMs, I remember a poster showing the 270 WSM equaling the 270 Wby, the former with some streamlined bullet and the latter with some truncated pill. 🤔 IIRC, the point was that at 400 yards there trajectory was the same. 🙄 as long as you hamstring the Weatherby by some means , sure. which is the same song as the 300WSM vs 300 Win mag
Rabid Creedmoorians ring my doorbell ... as I open it a crack they speak : "Do you have a moment to talk about our Lord and Savior , 6.5Creed?"
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 20,901 Likes: 1
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 20,901 Likes: 1 |
The .300 WSM gets exactly what it should from it's case capacity, nothing more... Excellent observation! And, that is what I love about it.
"I never thought I'd live to see the day that a U.S. president would raise an army to invade his own country." Robert E. Lee
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 12,806
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 12,806 |
You guys have me halfway convinced to take one of my 06s on my elk hunt! Do it! What Jorge, are you going to try and bore an elk to death?
Islam is a terrorist organization.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 60,149 Likes: 11
Campfire Kahuna
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 60,149 Likes: 11 |
Yep, it's perfectly designed to fill the slot between the .30-06 and larger .300 magnums. But I don't think it really needed the, ah, exaggerations of Winchester's PR department to sell well. Pent-up demand for short, beltless magnums had been building up due to articles in various magazines for several years. But PR people do need stuff to keep them occupied.
One thing I've noticed over the decades is that the most successful new factory cartridges are almost those on already successful wildcats, NOT cartridges rifle/ammo companies come up with on their own. The list of examples of former wildcats becoming well-established factory rounds is almost endless, including not just the .300 WSM but the .204 Ruger, .22 Hornet, .243 Winchester, .257 Roberts, .25-06, 7mm-08 Remington, 7mm Rem. Magnum, .300 Winchester Magnum, .338 Winchester Magnum, .416 Remington Magnum and, of course, all the early Weatherby rounds.
The list of successful rounds totally designed by factories is much shorter, with most dating back to the first few decades of smokeless cartridges. The .270 Winchester and .375 H&H are good examples, but after World War Two it was much harder for factories (and wildcatters) to fill empty slots. The most successful post-war factory round not based on an already existing wildcat might have been the .222 Remington.
Like the .243 Winchester and 7mm Remington Magnum, the .300 WSM's considerable success was due to several years of publicity surrounding similar wildcats, not because of the ballistic "magic" promoted by Winchester's PR people. Though obviously the magic claims didn't hurt, since some people still believe in them!
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 50
Campfire Greenhorn
|
Campfire Greenhorn
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 50 |
I am clear that the marketing department of Winchester hyped the 300 WSM a bit and that it slots in somewhere between the 30-06 and the 300 WM. It is an excellent cartridge in its own right and for someone looking for slightly better ballistics than the 30-06 / 180gr combo – a good choice.
Last edited by QuQ; 08/16/16.
|
|
|
|
100 members (6mmCreedmoor, 338reddog, 14idaho, 01Foreman400, achlupsa, 5 invisible),
1,513
guests, and
826
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,370
Posts18,488,323
Members73,970
|
Most Online11,491 Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|