Hi everyone! I have a question to throw out here for everyone to think about. What is the better cartridge... 300 Win Mag or 300 WSM? If you can please give me your opinion of how and why one or the other is better. I am looking to purchase a new rifle and can not decide between the two. Thanks for the help.

If I was less recoil sensitive, I would have considered the .300WSM instead of my .270WSM. I prefer the short magnums because I like short actions and I dislike reloading belted cases. I load for a friend's 7mm Rem Magnum and the belted case is kind of a pain in the neck, as well as having much shorter case life than a non-belted case (in my limited experience) The only downside I would see in the short magnum vs. the .300 win mag is possibly better performance with the heavier bullets, as they have to be seated fairly deeply in the short mag case, using some of the case capacity. If you plan on using 180 gr or lighter bullets, I would opt for the short mag for sure. If on the other hand, you have a serious need to use the 200 gr bullets, the .300 Win Mag may be the better option. I think the short fat powder column and design of the case is also more conducive to accuracy, but that may be just a theoretical advantage.

Since you don't have either, buy the WSM. I did. I love it.

My vote goes to the 300 Win Mag. The WSM does not equal the WM's velocity. the WM is known and used world wide and ammo is readily avalable anywhere. Further, it has a definite advantage with 200 and 220gr bullets and lastly, the WSM's magazine box was not really crafted SPECIFICALLY for the cartridge, hence, one sees a series of "Rube Goldberg" notches and what nots to get the thing to feed right.jorge

My vote goes with jorge, but the 300 Wby is worth looking into if you are reloading also, $3.00 a hundred difference in brass is all.

I would make my decision based on which action I liked best, short or long. The WSM round for better or worse has been a success and ammo should be readily avalible about any where that sells bullets. I would think while the WSM can't push a 200gr bullet as fast as the WinMag, It still has enough to get the job done on anything you'd use a .30 for.

I like the .300WinMag myself, but 4BamBam's suggestion (.300WBY) is the one to go with if want the best performance

Terry

The 300 WSM comes VERY close to the 300 WM... 180/3,000 fps. Anything over 3,000 fps with the 180 is gravy. Having said that, barring a specialty lightweight, I'd always opt for the 300 WM... ammo is available nearly anywhere and it breathes easy with a 180 @ 3,000 fps. I'm getting a Kimber Montana in 300 WSM because I want as small and light a package with plenty of firepower as I can get. Near as I can figure it'll go 7 lbs 8-10 oz's "all-up" so it's my choice over the 300 WM. An M70 300 WM will always be crowding the 9lb mark unless extensively re-worked. For my needs that's too heavy.

So, like everything, "it depends"...

here we go again, the "I hate the belt" crowd. One would think they'd get the message by now, but then again, we still have those who vote for democrats. jorge

i HAVE A 300wsm Model 70 Laminate model. Its been pillar bedded, trigger job done and wears a Leupold 3.5-10 x40. I shoot it well, it shoots 1/2MOA, and wears a ching sling. I have nothing to complain about, taken 6 animals and never recovered a 180gr Barnes TSX. It and my FN 35 whelen are favorites.

BUT, I've been to Africa once and am going back next year. I'd like to get to Argentina and New Zealand to hunt as well. Getting a box of 300WSM (or Whelen)in out of the way places is not going to be easy now ,maybe better in the future.

Therefore I now have a 375 H&H. And if I had to do it over I would have a 300 Win. Mag. model 70 supergrade. If you can't bum a few rounds of 300 Win. or 375 Mag. , You probably shouldn't be there.

Forget those poorly designed short necks the marketeers are pushing down our throats and go with the more versitle 300H&H. A hand loader doesn't need any more than that. roger

The 300 WSM is the superior design. None of the great designers used belted cases for bottlenecked cartridges.

However if one has the rifle made up by an astute gunsmith or gets lucky one might get a good chamber in a 300 WM and if even luckier or wealthy enough a set of dies that fit the belted case!

I happen to have such a rifle. A used M70 Supergrade and an old RCBS FL die seem made for each other. I have little interest in the rifle otherwise as it's heavy.

For what I hunt a Kimber Montana in 270 WSM will do it all.

I thought long & hard about this choice and ended up with the 300wsm. I wanted a hard hitting light weight rifle as well and bought a Tikka 300wsm stainless. The comination of that rifle (just over 6lbs) and the 300wsm was ideal for me.

Also the rounds feed flawlessly from the vertical single stack mag unlike some other rifles - that is a consideration with the 300wsm.

But I agree with the comments other guys have made that if you are going to shoot heavy for caliber bullets then the 300win mag is probably better.

Also I was surprised at how mild the recoil for the 300wsm was - I expected more but find it quite manageable.

The great gun designers didn't use belted cartridges because four of the five you mentioned did not live in a time were belted cartridges were around. The garand was DIRECTED to use the 06. Moreover, those gents designed rifles and not new cartridges per se.

Brad, regarding the feeding at slow cycle speeds is a function of poor magazine box and sloppy gunsmithing. Take a D'Arcy Echols rifle and just TRY and make it fail. No way. The belts WERE dsigned to mitigate higher pressures and it worked. Whicg brings us full circle back to the WSM. ALL it does is make for a more efficient powder burner and THAT's IT. The trade off is less MV than a regular 300 Win Mag and the biggie; all sorts of feeding problems due to poor magazine designs. The 300 Win Mag is arguably one of the most succesful cartridges in existice. Only the 3006, 7 Rem Mag and 270 surpass it in popularity and no amount of "belt-bashing" is going to alter that. jorge

I bought my 300 Win mag via a Walmart special Black Shadow model 70 push feed. The scope that came on it lasted 28 rounds of 79 grains of H1000 under a Speer 200 grain bullet. Put a Nikon on it and did some bedding work, then tried the Nosler partition 200 grain bullet and three powders for a best group of 2 1/2 inches. Went back to the Speer and shot 5 consecutive 3 shot groups under an inch with some all touching in a pretty little clover shape. I don't know what problem there is with the belt and my cases last many shots, haven't lost one yet. The only reason I use a magnum is to push long heavy bullets fast. The WSM thing is kinda funny because who cares about a short action, especially in a gun that has some recoil to it. I wish my rifle weighed a bit more than it does and I like the 26 inch barrel. I just don't see any benefit in short fat cases or any problem with belted cases.

Brad: The message is that the belt is for all practical purposes "transparent", in that it does not make a cartridge any better or worse than one without the belt, i.e., the 300 WSM is not a "better" cartridge because it lacks a belt. Your point of "tits on a boar hog" is noted and agreed. Accordingly, if you want to compare say, your 300 Dakota to a 300 Weatherby, the issue of the belt has no bearing whatsoever on the cartridge's ability. I do take issue with you however on the beltt causing feeding problems. I've owned many different calibers, most in CRFs and none, none, feed better than a 300 H&H or a 375. It just makes me groan everytime some neophyte says "yeah, the XXX is beter than a 300 Win Mag because it doesn't have a belt." Utter nonsense. And a postscript. The "non plus ultra" of 30 cals was invented over 50 years ago; it's called the 300 Weatherby. jorge

I agree it's a relatively "transparent" issue as you say. And I agree something is not necessarily better because it lacks a belt. The short, fat 300 WSM yields impressive power for its OAL yet its dimension's create new hurdles in terms of feeding.



You say you groan when you hear a neophyte say "XYZ" cartridge is better because it lacks a belt. I agree. I call the RUM's the RUF's (Remington Ultra Fag's)... Remington went for a design that 99% of the folks shooting can't handle (belt or no belt)... too much of a good thing, hence my refrence to the Dakota 300 (no I don't shoot one). Me, I like the 300 WSM because of various rifles it's chambered in.



Thing that gets me is the reverse of you... crumudgeon's who think Moses brought belted cartridge drawing's down from his encounter with God and that somehow, because they're old they're hallowed, sacred canon!



My point's are.



1 Something old isn't better necessarily better because it's old.



2 Something new isn't necessarily bad because it's new.



2a Reverse no's 1 and 2



3 The belt cut-out often DOES create feeding issues at slow cycle speeds in CRF action's. Most people never bother to cycle a round VERY SLOWLY until they're in a situation where they have to so they often never discover this phenomenon.



4 The belt on 1940's-60's era cartrige's is a marketing gimmick that's utterly useless and can, occasionally, be a hinderance.



Postscript: Chas Newton designed a beltless 300 Mag decades before Weatherby's 300 (very similar to today's 300 Dakota)...

Good posts Brad. Even when your right, as you are, the facts must be presented well.

I was thinking of using the 30 Newton as an example also.

99, the 30 Newton is an amazingly forward-thinking design when one considers how old it is! Too bad the big Co's didn't have the guts to ditch the belt knowing full well it was in the same category as chrome fins!



The 300 Dakota for comparison:

I'd recommend either but have to ask strong questions about use and style of hunting.

For me I'd pick the old decrepit .300 WM without hesitation! I carry heavy rifles on long backpacking trips and survive just fine. The pointless belt thing isn't really an issue at all. If you neck size you can headspace on the shoulder, I do and do so with hunting loads in a 7mm RM with no problems. The bigger case allows for more room when using heavier bullets, no way around that.

The belt did serve a very real purpose in it's original creation! By having a belt to headspace on, the chambers could be cut a little large and the rifle would fire perfectly. This was intentional thought based on rifles used for dangerous game. The idea was to have the ability to reliably chamber dusty / dirty cartridges safely in a dangerous situation. Because the H&H cases were available and had a good reputation they were an easy candidate for wildcatters. With todays technology it may be a mute point, but limiting case capacity to be without one seems like a step backwards.

I agree with the Dakota .300 being about ideal! The RUM is close but to long and to overbore for my tastes, makes the action a little heavier and cycles slower. Remington would have done well to just chamber for the .300 Dakota. Making it legit with several choices of ammo and rifles and they would have made huge money. As it is the RUM and SAUM are both floundering.

What this comes back to is what you want to do with it, and what performance you are willing to settle on. How much weight are you willing to carry? Will you be happy to shoot 180's and lighter only? What are you really going to hunt with it?

I settled for a .338 WM and a 7mm RM for my "Magnum" battery.
I do by far more hunting with other standard size rounds and am quite happy with them.......until I start wondering what such and such a cartridge would be like. I'm actually being tempted by a .17 Rem right now, but then theres the new.204 too....hmmm.

I have the 300 Win Mag. Its a great rifle. The 300 WSM is something new and I'm sure it will do better than the 300 WIN Mag In different situations. It has a belt less case and so does my 338 Rem Ultra mag. My RUM is a great rifle also.

So Savage99, Why did they (gun designers) deside to put a belt on the case? You clearly believe I'm wrong but I'd like to know then why. Where can I educate myself on the designers idea behind this pointless belt?



I don't disagree with the idea of headspacing on the shoulder, nor the idea of using the .404 as a basis for new mags. Read what I said. I neck size for the seven mag, that proves my line of thinking. The belt doesn't cause me any problems, why worry about it? And didn't I say I thought the Dakota was about ideal?



I don't mind when somebody disagrees, but take the time to read my whole post before firing shots. So do tell why they put the belt on these cases and give me some reference. I may have learned something new today, then again......



P.S. forgot to mention earlier the smooth feeding intentions as well. The H&H case has a 15 degree shoulder and tapered body to help with feeding smoothly. In the early 1900's they may well have questioned if this was going to cause headspacing problems. Times have changed, and this in no way is to say a belt is needed but does help explain why it was used. Prior the most common big cases were "flanged" or "rimmed", the belt provides positive indexing without the feeding issues from a box magazine by a rimmed case.

BigNate,

The belts are for headspacing cartridges that do not have adequate shoulders or no shoulders. The 300 HH and .458 Win are examples. The 15 degree shoulder on the .375 H&H is adequate for headspacing. It's too bad such a design ever got stuck on cartridges with adequate shoulders. We continue to suffer from this.

I like the belt, really makes a cartridge look classy. Thr truth is that the larger cases available when the belted mags (short mags then) were being designed just happened to be the 375 H&H and the 300 H&H. It was not uncommon at all to cut chambers a bit large to alow for a bit of crud to get on your ammo and still function, a perfect example would be the 303 British. At any rate the two H&H cartridges were and are great cartridge designs.

I have to agree with BigNate seems like he really nailed it. I've never had problems with a 375 H&H which as he pointed out has a generous chamber. Whereas I have had issues in reloading for a friends .270Win. I FLS the case & it fits in my chamber but its a bit oversize for my friend's rifle (a HS Precision & mine a BLR). Had to use a different shellholder that must have been a mite shorter then I had no problems. So for dangerous game the belt "can" be an advantage but of course good practice dictates that you feed every round through before the hunt. Still the belt serves as a good backup in case you need to borrow ammo.

There is another benefit to a belt that Mike375 pointed out to me. Firing squib loads. It is very pleasant to shoot 220gn Hornady FP at 2200fps out of my 375H&H, without a belt you may have a headspace issue unless the pressure was sufficient to push the shoulder back after each firing.

Plus if you want to headspace on the shoulder, just neck size as BigNate has suggest. You have the choice. If you don't have a belt you have no choice.

One day I think belts will be cool again.

If you are talking benchrest - no belts but for hunting rifles it really does not matter which you choose of the WSM or the Win Mag. As someone else suggested here select the rifle that you like & fits you. That's the important bit.

Regards,
JohnT

Thanks for all the input guys. I think I may just have to have one of each in my collection. LOL... I wonder if the wife would notice a few more guns? She is more dangerous than most big game and barely 125 pounds. LOL...
Thanks again!!
Aaron

I think alot depends on the gun. I have a 300win mag that has a 3.700" magazine. I can load 180 matchkings at 3.600" so that gives some more powder room than the wsm. Mine is closer to a 300wby than a 300wsm.

by the way, my 1963 remington700 feeds upsidesown and sideways flawlessly with the 300wm. I wish the new ones did that

There isn't a dimes worth of difference between a 300Mag and a 300WSM. Nothing either you or the intended game animal can distinguish. Get the one you like best. Find a load that shoots best in you rifle, acquire several boxes, and ammo availability become a mute point.

Its interesting that if you were to ask to compare the 300 Win Mag to the "proven" 300 H&H (same velocity as the WSM) most would say it would make no difference in the field, and in fact it doesnt. I'll give up a 100 fps to the Winnie
in order to shoot the better ergonomical WSM. It makes me a better off hand shooter and yes my WSM does have less percieved recoil than my 300 Winnie.
The 300 Win Mag, poor in design, will go the way of the 300 H&H as it proponents pass on.

whichever one you like to look at.
woofer

My vote goes to the 300WM. At this point, there just more selection in factory ammo in the 300WM than WSM. That may change in the future though as more hunters purchase the WSM family.

I beg to differ. P.P Mauser's last design was the Mauser 98 and his masterpiece was adapted to FLAWLESSLY feed belted cartridges, to wit the 300 H&H AND the 375 H&H. MY point still remains the same; the belt is a transparent issue when comparing these or any other cartridges. jorge

Brad: We'll agree to disagree. I don't own an Echols but Do own many, many Winnies. Pre -64s and a couple of new ones all CRFs. Took a 375 (larger than a 2.35" as you know)to Africa. NO problems. The problems with the fat-mags and feeding are becoming legendary. No argument there on the 300 Dakota, except of course for it's exclusivity might be a problem if you lose your ammo. As to the Maine bear problem, it's ongoing. She's left us alone for a while, fearing survey issues. We've had a great bear season so far, we managed to lease land from another gent up there who hates her. The next "bogie" is the Maine Bear referendum in November. that one has us worried, becasue of the heavy concentration of voters in the big cities that don't hunt. jorge

jorge,

Of course you are wrong about this belted issue as well as others. Use what you want but the application of a belt to headspace bottlenecked rifle cartridges is a negative situation.

Well I've been wrong before, but it seems to me the idea worked well on the 300 H&H & 375. It is a well known fact that the infamous belt on newer cartridges is purely "window dressing" and not used to headspace, hence, the "transparent"postulate. While there have benn some documented cases of feeding problems with belted cartridges, most if not all are atributed to poor smithing, while the cases of feeding problems with the S'hort mags" is becoming a plague. Besides, if I don't hunt with ugly guns am sure as hell not going to hunt with ugly cartridges, epecially those with LESS performance as is the case (pardon the pun) of the WSM when compared to the conventional 300 Winchester, not to mention the 300 Weatherby. jorge

Winchester attached the word "MAG" to there short mag line of cartriges because they compare to the magnums in there respective calibers. I for one wish they would not have called them short "Mags" because now everyone with a belted magnum uses "MINE IS BIGGER THAN YOURS!" in defense of there long, belted mag. over the shorter versions. SO WHAT!! I've had both and prefer the short, non belted cartridge even if it does give up a few fps's. Besides there are bigger, faster 30 cal's than the 300 Win. or Weatherby so why stop there?

Anyone who finds themselves in a situation were one 300 mag. would kill and the other would not would be in a rare situation indeed!........... Unless the kill came from a quick follow up shot provided by the shorter bolt throw of the lighter, quicker short mag!!

BTW, my short mag is a 7mm WSM and will launch 160 grain Barnes XLC's at 3,100 fps and keep them in a 1 inch circle at 100 yards. If I need for more gun than that you can bet it aint going to be any 30 caliber!