Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles 300 wsm it is.

In my opinion, the 325 wsm is a very underrated cartridge. The above statement by Burleyboy is one of the reasons. The fact is, in my opinion, if someone is buying a 325WSM for long range, that person is extremely misguided, unless he is just seeing what he can do with the round. And that is where the higher BCs come in to play. However, as a normal day to day round for larger big game to be shot at ranges most hunters will be shooting, it is an excellent, under-appreciated an under-rated cartridge.

I'd love to hear the thought process behind this. Especially that the 300 isn't as useful as the 7mm.

I'll got back up there today if I am feeling better around noon. I didn't see them for the T3 when I was in there Saturday. If not, I'll be in Anchorage tomorrow and may swing by that one or Cabela's.

The 325s have a very specific application - when loaded with the 220 Weldcore they are a far better bear stopper than any 300, while also retaining a long range trajectory in line with most small bores although not quite as good as the best 7mm and 6.5 magnums. For the american hunter who is hunting any animal at a distance and wanting a light and handy rifle, but still concerned about close range bear encounters, it's arguably the best option. The only real downside is recoil. The .338 RCM is a decent option as well, but the rifle situation there sucks. There are plenty of good new manufacture CRF rifles in 325 to choose from.

You would certainly hope they would. The .308's steep shoulder angle is a major liability.

Well that's obvious - for thin skin non-dangerous game, the 7mm bore is far superior to .308 - higher BCs and higher sectional densities on typical hunting bullets.

Fan boy here too. I think it's perfect.

So what you are saying is that a guy should buy two rifles and cover small and large to a tee, rather than one rifle in a medium caliber that can do both satisfactorily?

Nothing obvious about it. I'd take the .300 over the 7 every time if performance on game is the only criteria. The increase in SD in the 7mm is minimal as is the difference in trajectory inside typical hunting ranges. The 300, however does carry more energy and it makes a bigger hole. I don't think it's a coincidence that one cartridge is thriving and one is on life support. That said they both are excellent cartridges for nearly everything in North America.

A minimal increase in SD and a minimally flatter trajectory are both significantly more important in the killing of critters than a minimal increase in kinetic energy. The difference in hole size in the critter is also minimal. At the end of the day, when it comes to killing power any variable that aids in precise bullet placement trumps one that doesn't, like energy or caliber.

The success of the .300 WSM vs the 7 WSM has nothing to do with the merit of each cartridge, and everything to do with the 30-cal bias of the American people. Of course other factors, like ammo selection, the long-standing 7mm dominance of the 7mm Rem Mag at a critical time when the 7 WSM was trying to gain a foothold, etc, play a role, but the 30-cal bias is a huge one.

Correct. The 7mmWSM is simply superior for thin skinned non-dangerous game. That doesn't mean it's more popular. Just better.

And at least an additional rifle if you want to hunt thick skinned dangerous game.

The reality is that the cost of hunting (especially in terms of time) is very high compared to the cost of rifles. You might as well be shooting the right thing.

The sectional density advantage only exists because you are comparing bullets of higher SD in the 7mm to ones of lower SD in the 300. I could compare a 200 grain 30 cal bullet to a 140 7mm bullet and claim the same. Additionally, you claim these differences are significant. At the ranges 99% of game is killed they are irrelevant. Frankly, at the point that the BC makes any significant difference in trajectory you probably shouldn't be shooting at game anyways. For example, a 180 grain Accubond from a 300 WSM at 2950 FPS sighted in at 200 yards has 61.2" of drop while a 160 grain Accubond from a 7mm WSM at 2950 FPS sighted in at 200 yards has 60.3" of drop even though the 160 grain 7mm bullet has a slightly higher SD and BC. If you think .9" flatter trajectory at 600 yards is significant I'd venture to say you are in the minority.

Nice theory, but not true. Here's your task: find a .308 bullet with a higher SD and higher BC than the .284 175gr Weldcore. It must be a lead core bonded hunting bullet with 90%+ weight retention.

I'm not going to hold my breath because you'll be looking for a while.

Yeah, the difficulty with getting good groups out of a 308 is well known.

Actually I won't be. I'm not wasting my time trying to find something that meets the parameters you set forth. You are completely ignoring my example above. The benefits you speak of are of no real significance in the field and really only start to possibly be a benefit once you get past reasonable hunting ranges. Inside of those ranges the 7mm is inferior, albeit fairly insignificant as well. I'm done with this conversation since keeping up is proving to be a challenge for you.

False again. Increased SD, and thus penetration, is advantageous starting at the muzzle.

Nosler Accubond Long Range 210 grain .30 cal.

SD .316

G1 BC .661

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1010505254?pid=149294

Talk about pole vaulting over mouse turds...

That's basically what I've said multiple times. The difference between the 2 is negligble. But I'm sure this douche cake will continue to tell us all how much better the 7mm WSM is.