It appears the 7 WSM is not doing so well. Is there no redeeming qualities and reasons why a person would prefer the WSM over the Rem Mag?

Nope.

I haven't seen any.But then again,I never bought into the WSM hype.

WSM could be had in a marginally lighter package. Theoretically the WSM would allow for a faster followup shot.

Neither of which is really going to make much of a difference in the real world.

quote:

Originally posted by daniel77:
Nope.

+1

Except maybe to neck it down to 6.5...

quote:

WSM could be had in a marginally lighter package. Theoretically the WSM would allow for a faster followup shot.

Then again the lighter rifle may have more muzzle lift,which could increase the time required to get back on target after firing.

quote:

Originally posted by rnovi:
WSM could be had in a marginally lighter package. Theoretically the WSM would allow for a faster followup shot.

Neither of which is really going to make much of a difference in the real world.

As I understand it, and I admittedly don't own any WSM's, they can have feeding problems due to the case design, shoulders, etc. This seems to me to negate the follow up shot argument. One shot one kill anyway, right?

I'm not sure what one means by the WSM hype? No need to discuss it since this topic has been beaten to death years ago. If one does not understand the concept by now, one never will, and that is ok.

The 7WSM will duplicte 7 Rem performance out of a short action and a case with no belt. The 7WSM got a slow start due to a change in case design, pushing the shoulder forward .035", which delayed its introduction.

I don't think it was ever intended for someone to replace a pefectly good 7 Rem with the WSM. If one were looking at purchasing a new 7 mag, the WSM was a good option.

With that being said, I do feel that the case design and the late start will give the 7WSM the earliest departure in the WSM family.

As far as feeding problems are concerned, the only issues I had were due to out-of-round, off-center chambers and poor action finish on two Winchester M70's. Most people had problems with feeding due to neck-sizing only on handloads. The WSM's feed and shoot best after FL sizing and just bumping the shoulder back .001-.002"...but that is another story.

Bottom line, I would not purchase a rifle in 7WSM unless you knew you could get a good supply of brass. And even with that, it would be somewhat iffy.

Is the 7mm WSM case materially different than either the .270 WSM or the .300 WSM?

Hard but fair question. The 7 WSM is the better case design. I am a high velocity 7mm fan. I go 7 STW, .375 Weatherby, and .500 Schuler. The 7 WSM may well be the ultimate all - around cartridge.

quote:

Is the 7mm WSM case materially different than either the .270 WSM or the .300 WSM?

Yes, as Bear Kodiak noted, the shoulder has been pushed forward slightly. This shortens the neck a bit but precludes its being chambered inadvertently in a 270WSM and causing a big nasty mess when the trigger is pulled. Like what Remington did with the 280 so it couldn't be chambered in a 270.

LWD

Personally I think the 7mm saum is a better design than both. The shoulder has a better angle, and the neck is longer than on the wsm, and it doesn't have that stupid belt like the rem mag. The saum is not being chambered in any rifles that I know of, the wsm is almost in the same boat. If you are not a reloader then the 7mm rem mag is the best option, since you should have a farily easy time finding ammo.

Tech, I couldn't agree with you more. Remington did not market or name the SAUM line-up woth a darn. Really, they are not an Ultra Mag of any type and neede to be introduced in the BDL with 24" barrels. Not to mention they let their pride interfere when they re-intoduced the 6.5 and .350 Rem mags, both in wierd rifle selections as well. A line-up of 6.5mm, 7mm, .30 cal, .338/.358 cal Remington shorts would have been the ticket.

Yes if Remington would have just hung in there, I suspect the saum would still be in the game. I think they should have included a 270, and 25 in the line up. The 338 would probably also been a winner, over time.

HI guys, I can't comment on the 7mm WSM in comparison to the other 7s that are out there,as I have not had the priveledge to be able to shoot them, due to U.K. crap laws etc, What I can vouch for is that I am truly happy with the performance of this Howa/Hogue in stainless steel, As mentioned above,On taking possession of my new rifle I was alarmed at the real unpredictability of cartridge feed, I had to take it to Mr Proctor at Wilmslow in Cheshire to have this resolved, a relatively simple job for a guy of his standing, but totally out of reach of an unversed customer/nut behind the butt, Now I have to figure out how I can shoot my .270W at the same time! Also I am laying in a barrel's lifetime supply of brass so mine at least won't be made obsolete, It likes Ramshot magnum & Vihtavuori N160/ N165

I have a 7mm Rem Mag....

I will stick with my 280AI.

I did not intend to create arguments when i began the thread. My thoughts were to discuss what the 7MM WSM does well compared to the 7MM Rem Mag.
I don't own either of the two calibers in question here as most of my hunting can be done without magnum speeds.
Having said that, as I continue to add calibers to my stable I wanted to be sure I'm buying the best for my dollars spent.
I am curious to see what others think of the future of the 7MM WSM and the 7MM SUAM. It appears neither have a long life. Thanks to all for submitting positions.
What do you think about a 25 WSM wildcat, based on the 7MM WSM? I know it's being done with pretty good success but would like to get your thoughts.

I own the Rem 7mm. It shoots very acturly. I wouldn't trade it for any other.

The SAUM case is better for wildcatting anything .264 and under. Jon Sundra had a nice article on the 25 SAUM 4-5 years ago. It can be done with the WSM case also, but barrel life is short due to the "overbore" factor.

quote:

Originally posted by Cliff Lyle: Is there no redeeming qualities and reasons why a person would prefer the WSM over the Rem Mag?

Yes, there isn't!!

I got hammered by a number of people on this forum a couple of years ago for “bad mouthing” the short-fat cartridges as being just a marketing tool to sell more guns. I said at the time, “time will tell if they make it or not”. Well, it’s been a couple of years now and here is this thread on the subject. The little fat rounds have had a chance to show their weaknesses and people aren’t buying the advertising hype anymore.

I don't think you created arguments with your post. Benchrest competition has forged the finest case design which is short and fat for improved uniform powder ignition. If benchrest shooters buy in then a design must have proven itself! You can't go wrong with the 7 wsm. I use the 25wssm exclusively for hundreds of rounds in varmint shooting. I love the short fat stiff action of the M70. The 25 wsm is an awesome round but more aligned with light big game.

quote:

Benchrest competition has forged the finest case design which is short and fat for improved uniform powder ignition

Very true. But we’re not talking about benchrest shooters and their choices. We are talking about over the counter hunting rifles and ammunition, which is a different animal.

No it's not. The wsm is a derivative of benchrest accuracy in a hunting rifle case design. Short and fat.

I think the 7MM RM won out over the WSM version for many reasons. One being it handles heavy bullets much better. Second it already was a very accurate chambering in hunting weight rifles, it was also a much ballyhooed match cartridge. A lot of people like the belt, I find it cause no problems whatsoever. I have seen poorly chambered rifles cause problems but I can't blame the cartridge's design. What is this insanity trying to build 6 1/2 pound magnum rifles anyway? Who wants to be kicked harder for nothing. I saw the WSM's as just another so so idea that never should have made it to production.

quote:

Originally posted by MickinColo:
I got hammered by a number of people on this forum a couple of years ago for “bad mouthing” the short-fat cartridges as being just a marketing tool to sell more guns. I said at the time, “time will tell if they make it or not”. Well, it’s been a couple of years now and here is this thread on the subject. The little fat rounds have had a chance to show their weaknesses and people aren’t buying the advertising hype anymore.

Mick: Certainly they were, and are, an attempt to sell more guns. What would be wrong with that?

And it appears to me that your prediction of their imminent demise was not entirely correct. The 300WSM and 270WSM seem to be doing quite well, thank you. I think the 7WSM is struggling for some of the other reasons posted in this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by olarmy:

quote:

Originally posted by MickinColo:
I got hammered by a number of people on this forum a couple of years ago for “bad mouthing” the short-fat cartridges as being just a marketing tool to sell more guns. I said at the time, “time will tell if they make it or not”. Well, it’s been a couple of years now and here is this thread on the subject. The little fat rounds have had a chance to show their weaknesses and people aren’t buying the advertising hype anymore.

Mick: Certainly they were, and are, an attempt to sell more guns. What would be wrong with that?

And it appears to me that your prediction of their imminent demise was not entirely correct. The 300WSM and 270WSM seem to be doing quite well, thank you. I think the 7WSM is struggling for some of the other reasons posted in this thread.

Yes, all companies are in the business of making money. I have no problem with that at all. I remember the hype, and hoopla in the advertisements. The chatter on the forums was unbelievable, and some of the gun writers were slobbering all over their keyboards to write as glowing an article as they could.

In some people’s minds these new fat rounds were not just going to fill a niche but replace the rounds they were designed to compete head on with.

What I call the “short fat” rounds are Winchester short magnum, Remington short action magnum, and Winchester super short magnum. Out of all the rounds that were proposed or actually released in those families, you can name 2 that might make it?

Time well tell.

Everything is relative. The 7mm RM is short & fat compared to the 275 H&H.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by Buliwyf:
No it's not. The wsm is a derivative of benchrest accuracy in a hunting rifle case design. Short and fat.

As long as factory ammunition for the WSM can live up to the reputation of accuracy, speed, reliably, multiple bullet choices, and price range, it will survive. I don’t know if it can overtake an established cartridge in sales though.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MickinColo:
[ Out of all the rounds that were proposed or actually released in those families, you can name 2 that might make it?
[QUOTE]

I already did: 300WSM and 270WSM.

quote:

Originally posted by olarmy:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MickinColo:
[ Out of all the rounds that were proposed or actually released in those families, you can name 2 that might make it?
[QUOTE]

I already did: 300WSM and 270WSM.

From what I’ve seen you picked 2 of the better ones.

After having shot the 7MMRM for many years, I went ahead and got a 7mmWSM. Why? Because I like the 7mm size, and shoot 7mmSTW as well. The 7mmWSM and the 7mmRM are two peas in a pod, performance is essentially identical. My two rifles, both Model 70 Stainless Classics with 24" barrels are also very similar. Never had any problems with either rifle or cartridge. In my particular case, the 7mmWSM is more accurate with a wider selection of loads than my 7mmRM, the Remmie has one load it shoots very well, while the WSM shoots several loads very well. I do prefer the WSM for one reason because of its shorter action, which makes installing a compact scope easier.

For myself, I pay no mind to how popular any particular cartridge is. This isn't a popularity contest. I shoot all sorts of different cartridges, some very popular, and some not. I enjoy them all. But, if you are going to hunt in some out of the way places, you may want to consider the 7mmRM, as ammo is available most everywhere. Not so with the 7mmWSM. If you choose 7mmWSM, rathole a lot of brass, and never look back! Good luck!

quote:

Originally posted by rickt300:
I think the 7MM RM won out over the WSM version for many reasons. One being it handles heavy bullets much better. Second it already was a very accurate chambering in hunting weight rifles, it was also a much ballyhooed match cartridge. A lot of people like the belt, I find it cause no problems whatsoever. I have seen poorly chambered rifles cause problems but I can't blame the cartridge's design. What is this insanity trying to build 6 1/2 pound magnum rifles anyway? Who wants to be kicked harder for nothing. I saw the WSM's as just another so so idea that never should have made it to production.

The belt is useless, stupid, and simply takes up magazine space. It's retarded. But that being said if you reload, resize the case to head space on the shoulder not on the belt, and you take it out of the firing equation.

quote:

Originally posted by olarmy:
Mick: Certainly they were, and are, an attempt to sell more guns. What would be wrong with that?

Nothing if they offered real world advantages over the original "obsolete" cartridges.
Truth be told, they don't.

It was yet another (marketing) attempt to correct faults that did not exist.

You opinion can differ, but the truth is if all of these "new" cartridges were markedly better than those they hope to replace, it would have happened already.

Time will tell indeed.

quote:

Originally posted by MickinColo:

quote:

Originally posted by olarmy:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MickinColo:
[ Out of all the rounds that were proposed or actually released in those families, you can name 2 that might make it?
[QUOTE]

I already did: 300WSM and 270WSM.

From what I’ve seen you picked 2 of the better ones.

Yeah, the .300 and .270 WSM's are going to continue being popular, the others are going to fade away. Current numbers locally at least show they are selling very well. They've mostly stopped ordering 7mm WSMs altogether.

IMO, they weren't intended to replace anything. They offered options. It worked for me. I bought a 270WSM and a 25WSSM. Didn't sell my 270, 7mag, 25/06, or 257Roberts. But I have had some fun with some new rifles, the gun companies made some more money. The bullet manufacturers sold a few more bullets. The brass manufacturers increased their sales. The powder companies profited. And I had fun!

Truth be known, I could have neatly taken every game animal I have shot in the last 50+ years with my dad's ol' 270. And IMO, there ain't much real world performance difference in the 30/06, 280, 270, 25/06, 308, 708, 7Mag(s), etc., ad nauseum. But I'm glad we have the option of buying all of them... or not

quote:

Originally posted by olarmy:
IMO, they weren't intended to replace anything. They offered options. It worked for me. I bought a 270WSM and a 25WSSM. Didn't sell my 270, 7mag, 25/06, or 257Roberts. But I have had some fun with some new rifles, the gun companies made some more money. The bullet manufacturers sold a few more bullets. The brass manufacturers increased their sales. The powder companies profited. And I had fun!

Truth be known, I could have neatly taken every game animal I have shot in the last 50+ years with my dad's ol' 270. And IMO, there ain't much real world performance difference in the 30/06, 280, 270, 25/06, 308, 708, 7Mag(s), etc., ad nauseum. But I'm glad we have the option of buying all of them... or not

I think your right my 270WSM/300WSM didn't replace any rifles.

"WSM could be had in a marginally lighter package. Theoretically the WSM would allow for a faster followup shot. Neither of which is really going to make much of a difference in the real world."

Absolutly true.

Consider any average healthy hunter weithing 190 lbs. He wears maybe 11 lb. of clothing and boots, minimum, and typically carries a 14+ lb day pack. His scoped and loaded rifle goes at least 10 pounds. His total weight is at least 220 lb., out the door, frequently much more. So, what's the value of "saving" 6 oz in the rifle's short action and stock?

Supposedly faster to operate a short action bolt gun? Anyone who wainting to measure the difference in time for a competent shooter to open, eject and close long or short bolts needs some fancy electronic timing, a simple stop-watch sure can't be used to measure it!

Anyone can - should - buy any toy they wish and play with it all they want. But trying to justify the various short magnums is just fanning the wind with his illusions.

IMHO, of course!