Hmmm, regarding the actual field differences between the .300ABCDEFG magnums.

I have some rough cut barn rafters - anybody got a micrometer to measure them with?

I have a 300 WIN MAG and a 300 RSAUM. I have taken exactly one animal with each - an impala with 300 WM and a whitetail doe with 300 RSAUM. Based on that unstatistically valid sample I don't like either for Deer sized animals. The tissue damage was, in my opinion, excessive. Both shots were 100 yds or less and the bullits left grapefruit sized exit holes. I am intrigued by the 300 H&H and could talk myself into one in pre 64 Mod 70.

A friend has a custom 30-338 built on a model 700 action with a 24" Shilen barrel. That rifle is a dream to shoot and will place 180gr bullets into .5"-.75" groups all day! I've seen him do it many times. It shoots his 180gr. load right at 3000fps and the recoil is very similar to my 30-06 imp.
If I didn't have my 06imp., I'd build a 30-338, it get's my vote.
Elk Country

I've done well with the std old .300 Win mag but I also have a pair of .300 H&H's that have worked very well on deer,elk and antelope. IMHO if a good 180 at 3000 fps or a 200 at 2900 isn't enough poop ; get closer or move up to .33" or a three seven five.

The .300 Win/.300 H&H are shootable by most anyone and with the great selection of good thirty caliber bullets and velocity attainable they are about all 90% of us truly need.

FN in MT

Mike,

Good points all. But just for the record, I did not say my 300 SAUM equaled the 300 Winny in velocity, I said approached. I use 56 grains Varget for an actual 2989 FPS, w/ a 168 Barnes XLC in a 24' Barrel @64507 PSI (quickload). In my 300 Win Mag, I used 76 grains H-4831 SC, for an actual 3096 FPS in a 24" barrel @ 62180 PSI (also quickload), with the same bullet.

Yes, the powders are not the same, but I am using 20 grains less powder, for a grand total of 107 less FPS. That's what I mean by approaching, not exceeding.

The bench rest records do not support the conculsion of the 222's being superior to the PPC's, but the difference are small.

Yes, the stepper angle of the short mags, should mean less reliable feeding, than longer and thinner, but like my PPC example the differences are small, given correct enginerring.

Shorter is only better in that it is stiffer. A 20" .900 diamiter barrel is stiffer than a 26" .900 diameter barrel. And if constucted equally the shorter barrel will be more accurate. Again though, the differences are small.

Be we are taking in specifics over small details, not absolutes. The only absolutes are death and taxes.

Regards,

Bob

Strictly as a means to an end...300 Winchester...no others can compare..

For toy purposes and pizzaz..30/378 Weatherby

Mike

Allen,

You write well and make a good case for the 300 Winny. If I had a good 300 WM, I certainly would not switch to a 300 RUM or a WSM or SAUM.

However, your premise that short fat cartridges are no more accurate, than say long and thin, belted or not, is flawed.

Short and fat is more accurate, and the benchresters have proved it. The success of the PPC line over the old standby 222's is proof. The average 308 is more accurate than the average 30-06.

Now individual rifles may show one more accurate than the other, but the proof is that short and fat is more accurate.

Now in a hunting context, one rifle may print .40" another .60" and you are correct, that is not really relevant in a hunting context.

But if there is any advantage, it rests with short and fat.

Also a short action will be lighter, stiffer, and more compact, than a long action, even if it is only 1/4" or 4 ozs.

These are real advantages, even if they are meaningless to you.

Failure of the short mags to feed, is not a problem of cartridge design, but a failure of workmanship and action design. A fat cartridge must have a mag box of enough width. Given a correctly designed box, a short mag will feed as well as a belted round or an 06 based cartridge.

Now you are not wrong in your cartridge choice, the 300 Winny works for you and works well. You have no reason to change, nor would I want you too.

But my 300 SAUM, also works well, feeds well, is very accurate, and approachs the performance of your round, with 10 grains less powder, in a 4 oz lighter action, and one that is shorter to boot.

Better than your choice, no not for you. For me, I'll take my miniscule advantages, and thank god, we live in a country, that can develop and produce, two fine rounds, and rifles that can shoot them; so you can enjoy long and belted and I can enjoy short and fat.

However, that said, I like my women, long and thin, rather than short and fat.

Regards,

Bob

Mike,

I see your point on action size.

As far as the 30's go. Comparing case capacity in grains of H20:

308 = 56
30-06 = 68
300 SAUM = 74
300 WSM = 79
308 Norma = 85
300 H&H = 86
300 Winny = 92
300 Dakota = 94
300 Weatherby = 100
300 RUM = 113
30-378 = 133

So a SAUM is closer to the 30-06 and 308 than it is 300 Winny. But I think magnum "like" performance from a short action, is not a bad attribute.

I think the WSM are selling well, and the SAUM's less well. Remington has just announced an 190 grain match load for the SAUM. I think like the 308 started slow, the WSM and SAUM's will start out slow, and then gain full acceptance. I think the SAUM will show great promise as a LR match round. In this respect, the SAUM is better than the WSM. It will fit in any short action. The WSM will not, in factory guise. In the long run that could well doom the WSM.

Like the 300 Winny vs the 300 H&H, both are great rounds, and the H&H is a classic. But which sells more? The shorter of the two. Many more actions fit the Win mag.

Winchester designed the WSM a little too long, with a little too short a neck, to gain a little more meaningless capacity. In the long run, these three strikes will work against it.

Yes it was first, but who knows which will win in the end.

Bob

My .300 weatherby and .340 weatherby cover the waterfront for me.

So a SAUM is closer to the 30-06 and 308 than it is 300 Winny. But I think magnum "like" performance from a short action, is not a bad attribute.

I think you are right there.

In the long term I think lower recoil and noise will bring the forward.

In my experience a 300 Win at full power is too much for most shooters. I have never fired a 300 WSM or SAUM but I imagine they would be more at the 7mm Rem level and that level of recoil seems to be a threashold.

I think Winchester would have been better to do a 25 WSM as opposed to the 25 WSSM.

Mike

Bob

My thoughts on the very short action were along the lines of a very short action not having much distance between the front and rear screw. In other words if we had a 30 inch bull barrel and (taking the extreme)an action only an inch or 2 lonh we might have some problems

I have had several barrels in 300 Win on bench guns at 26 inchs with both 1 in 10 and 1 in 12 twist. I found with single base powders accuracy held to about 3150 f's with 180 grainers.

As a side note a mate of mine just bought a Win M70 Cyote in 223 WSSM and has a barrel put on with 1 in 8. It also has a Jewell trigger fitted and Nightforce scope. We have not done much with it so far but the case capacity is smaller that we thought. We were thinking it was in the 22/6mm Rem Improved area but it seems a few grains smaller. Perhaps about like a Swift Improved.

Back to the WSMs and SAUMs. I think the mistake being made is that they should be compared to the 308 as the plus I see they have is much better ballistics from the smaller rifle.

Are WSMs and SAUMs selling well in America?

Mike

I like the belted .300 Magnums the best. I'd be happy with the .308 Norma, .300 H&H, .300 Winchester, or .300 Weatherby for just about any hunting purpose. Of these .300 Winchester is the only one I've ever hunted with, and quite honestly, it's the only one I ever plan to hunt with. I have found that a MV with 180 gr. bullets of between 3000 & 3100 fps. provides a substantial increase over the .30-06 -- a difference you can really see in the field -- yet recoil is still quite managable.



All of the .300s I mentioned will provide that level of performance, but the .300 Winchester is logistically the best choice by a considerable margin, and that's why I've stayed with it for all these years. It's inherently accurate, easy to load for, and ammunition is widely-available, even in obscure places in Africa. I've used the .300 Winchester on scores and scores of big game animals from Alaska to Mexico, from Oregon to Texas, and from British Columbia to Tanzania. I've used it on game as small as the tiniest African antelope species to moose, and from Texas whitetails and Dall's sheep to Cape buffalo, lion, and leopard. Ranges have been under twenty yards on out to over 500 yds., and most animals have dropped on the spot, without fuss. I suppose an Ultra-Gag might have performed better in some cases, as some of the gunstore clerks (who haven't shot 'Jack' with much of anything) keep telling me, but I'm not sure exactly how.



Yes, the short mags will perform about as well, but I'll still stick to the .300 Winchester. I've found the selling points of the short-mags to be rather thin. That half-inch shorter bolt throw means very little to me, as does slightly less powder consumption. Model 70s in .300 Winchester do weigh 12 ozs. more than Model 70s in .300 WSM, but that doesn't mean much to me, either. I'd rather lose 12 ozs. off my ass and be able to find ammo on the other side of the world, plus I've found that short, fat cartridges are no more accurate and don't feed as well as belted, .375 H&H-bases cases do. Magazine capacity isn't as great either........



AD

Well, I love my .300 SAUM; for anything 500 yards and less, it gets things done in a great handling rifle.

I also love my RUMs. For long range hittability, they are unmatched, not because of speed, but they are damn accurate.

Unlike wives and girlfriends, you can have more than one.

I have used them all, liked most of them, particularly the 300 Wby, 30-338, and I liked the 300 Win. Magnum..but my favorite was and always will be the 300 H&H, I like the long neck and with the heavier bullets it will surpass all of them except the Weatherby, but not by much...I has less recoil, and I have heard say that is because to the tapering case and that may well be, but for whatever reason I have found them gentle on the shoulder and mild of muzzle blast..I want a 26" tube on any magnum 30...

Bottom line is most of them are excellent and the difference is mostly in the mind of those who own them...

If I was going to get another 30 Mag, the only one I would consider is a 300 H&H.

Definately a classic round.

My favorite's the .300 Ultra Mag. It has the best speed, energy, and trajectory, if only by a little bit, of the chamberings with widely commercially-available ammo. It doesn't have a belt, which is a small positive (but still a positive). It consistently shoots all ammo well, even cheap factory loads.

Finally, I used a .300RUM with great success on my first trip to Africa. I'm sure that's part of what makes up for any extra powder burned, any extra recoil, and the requirement for a 26" barrel.

Steve

I have shot and/or owned the following:

300winmag
300saum
300rum

All are great calibers, however, the only one I currently own is the 300RUM, it is my favorite, at least for right now.

I have owned and used the 300 h&h, 300WM, and 300 weatherby. The only one I still own is the 300H&H pre 64 and will be the only one I'll ever need. If I need more gun I'll use something in a heavier caliber. Actually I'm a big fan of the 30-06 so in North America it's my favorite. I personally have little use for the ultra mags of any sort. It's not the recoil, extra powder, or the big bang that turns me off. It's simply the fact that I don't need anything super big to do the job cleanly and right.

i'll go with the .30/06, which could be called the "magnum" version of the.308 winchester, even though the former came out half a century earlier.

hey - 100fps or so is "magnum" performance, ain't it???

Well TC1, I am not offended about comments on the .30-06; these threads wander all over the place. The original poster said to pick one .30 cal mag; I picked two anyway. I don't think anyone with thin skin hangs out too long anyway.

The thing I like about this site is that it is not dominated by a few personalities who seem to want to tell everyone the way it is. But now we are really off track...

Why is it everytime a thread like this comes up some people fell the need to denigrate the cartridges or the people that use them? The poster asked about .30 MAGNUM cartridges, not about a .30-06, not what you thought about .30 magnum cartridges or the people that used them.

Terry

I like the old .300 H&H, a classic. My .30-.338 is a sweet shooter but my all time favorite is the one I have beeen using for 41 years - .300 Weatherby Magnum< !--color-->. Lawdog

The .300 RUM is my pick.Just cause it's the one I picked when I had to decide what .30 cal. magnum I was gonna have built.

TC1,



I thought the same. I don't mind that they bring up another caliber, like the 30-06. It sort of irks me that the post always gets negative and preachy.



It wouldn't bother me if someone said something like, "I prefer to shoot the classic 30-06 because the bullets penetrate better for me at the lower impact speeds, particularly because I like to stalk in to close shooting distances. Also, the 30-06's standard action length and powder efficiency appeal to me."



But instead it's always, "I don't like the ______ because it's for people who don't take the time to learn to hunt."



Also, you see a lot of, "The INSERT OLD CLASSIC CARTRIDGE HERE is too slow and doesn't kill well enough, so I go with INSERT BELTED MAGNUM HERE." This then is followed by the same folks two days later with, "The ULTRA MAG/SHORT MAG is TOO FAST/ too short/ just a marketing gimmick." But the focus is always on what's wrong with the other cartridge with, usually, an implication that those who use it are poor hunters or gullible consumers.



And the worst is, my first reaction is the same and I have to consciously try to avoid talking down the cartridge I don't like.



It's hard to like Remingtons, Brownings, or RUM cartridges on AR. Could be another thread...



Steve

tasunkawitko---I agree with you--the 30-06 is a magnum .308. I don't see a faster than 30-06 having much use. If more needed go to bigger bore. If you don't consider the 30-06 as a .30 mag then my favorite is the one somebody else shoots.

I own rifles chambered for .300 H&H, .300 Weatherby, and .300 Win Mag. If I could only keep one, it would be chambered for the .300 H&H.

TC -

i hope that my reply did not coome off as denigrating "magnum" users. this was not my intention. my intention was to point out that compared to a .308 win, the .30/06 delivers "magnum" performance. a side-effect of this point would have been to discuss what actually DEFINES the term "magnum."

in any case, if someone wants to use one, i certainly will not begrudge them that choice. the .30/06 is all the "magnum" performance that "i" will ever need, but then again, i do not hunt large bears, african game or anything along those lines.....