Jorge, there are rumors she'll be running for governor as a GREEN Party candidate... she sold he CO. for something over 149 million cash whie retaining 20% of the CO. and remaining acting CEO... hmmm, more money, more time... doesn't sound good.

Thanks for the logic infusion Paul.

Neither the 300 Win Mag, nor the 300 WSM are ideal from a fit, feed and function point of view. The 300 Win Mag has the belt as a potential source of trouble, and the 300 WSM has minimal body taper.

Back when cartridge/rifle combinations were being designed more from a pure functionality point of view, the 7x57, 6,5x55 and 30-06, all with moderate case taper, came into being.

Forty years ago sexy was exemplified by a belt. Now it means a fat cartridge case with minimal body taper, and a steep shoulder angle. Both configurations require some careful engineering to insure reliable functioning.

If we were truly sensible, our new cartridges would look like the .376 Steyr; efficient amount of powder capacity, good bore life and nicely tapered for easy feeding.

I have a few rifles with short, fat cartridges. Most notable is a sporter weight Sako in 6mm PPC. Amazingly it feeds without a bobble. I also have several rifles for belted, 2.5" long cases. One is even a 300 Win Mag. Amazingly it also functions with nary a burp.

The WSM cases are winning the marketing war, based mainly on their appearance. From a functionality point of view, the RSAUM cases are superior.

Having humped a variety of rifles some long distances over and through jungles, swamps, deserts, and mountains I have seen a variety of types of dirt, water, snow, mud, sand (and combinations of the above) migrate into chambers and actions despite due diligence on my part or on the part of others. One nice thing about belted factory ammunition when you are taking that shot of a lifetime is that the shoulders are often .010" to .040" short of the chamber end. Thus they are a little more tolerant of some errant spooge in the chamber.

Try not to chain your identities to closely to the particular cartridge that you are championing. What is much more important is the quality of the engineering design and the manufacturing execution of your rifle. Wheter I take a 6.5x55, 300 Win Mag, or a 416 Rigby on a hunting trip, you can bet that rifle will get a going over by one of the Mark Penrod's or Dennis Olsen's of the world.

In summary, who gives a shit what cartridge someone wants to shoot? Does it feed reliably? Are you, with your rifle, sufficiently accurate to get the job done? Does the gun fit you? Are you in good enough condition to haul it over hill and dale, mountain and desert and still make the shot when the time comes? Is it too heavy that you get excessively tired carrying it? Is it too light and whippy that you have trouble getting the sights to steady on the target when you are breathing hard from scampering up a 45 degree shale slope?

I own, and will use a 300 Win Mag. Why? Not because it is inherently better. Because my rifle fits me, is accurate, and I have the brass, dies and recipes already for it. If I didn't own any 300 Mag, what would I buy today? A 300 Win Mag. Why? Because everyone is buying 300 WSM's, so there are some great used 300 Win Mags available for good prices. I'd put the money saved into refining the rifle and into practice ammo. If I found a smokin deal on a (good functioning) 300 WSM, would I use it. Sure, and never look back.

JCN

John,

I've never understood the constant badgering of the belt as a problem. The reason it is there has nothing to do with looking sexy as someone said, or some sort of claim of super power. The ammo companies wanted to use an existing case to provide more powder capacity then the -06 offered, and the 375 H&H case was the logical choice at that time. True, only two commercial offerings required the belt for the Headspacing, the 458 win mag and 458 Lott.

If the 350 Rigby had been been as popular as the 375 H&H, then we would have beltless brass with the same capacity, but that didn't happen. From a functional standpoint, the 350 Rigby would be ideal, it feeds slicker n snot (technical term ) and has the right capacity. Or the 300 H&H should have been the world standard 30 mag, because it too feeds slick, but standard length bolt actions became the standard, and cases to fit them followed suite.

A co-workers brother is a gunsmith, who builds br guns, and sporting rifles with the same care in truing the action and chambering. He says the 30 WSM is an outstandingly accurate cartridge, far better then the 270 or 7mm WSM's. Also that it is at its best with 150 and 165 gr bullets.

Great point,
and one I completely overlooked/missed.
In the days before CNC, or professional marketing companies, tools (eg guns and ammunition) were adapted out of what already existed. A lot of muskets were adapted to breechloading configurations after the war of Northern Aggression. Mr. Garand was ordered to change his rifle design to accomadate the 30-06 because there were piles of that ammo left over from The Great War. Etc.
Anyway, in twenty years we'll know which design prevails.
JCN

Paul,

Why is the .300WSM more accurate than the other WSM's? Any idea? You've really piqued my interest.

Steve

I don't know why the 30 is reported to be more accurate, but that's what I've heard. I guess it just has a good balance of dia, length and bore dia for the powder charge. He did say they really shoot though.

Shit DJ,

You're right. I got off my high horse and stuck my head in a trough of cold water. I feel better now.

I'll wait until the hoopla has died down, and buy a 300 WSM from someone who has discovered that they do have a little recoil after all (and after Lapua starts making brass).

Then I can argue both sides of the issue.

JCN

I researched long and hard before making this decision and I settled on a .300WSM WHY? Feed and functioning are flawless, accuracy exceptional and recoil minimal. On game performance is incredible. In the final analysis, a very efficient cartridge.

Yes, the .300 Dakota is another interesting round...in fact, one could restate this thread as 300 Dakota OR 300 WSM and get a more interesting discussion going!

So, which would you choose? .300 Dakota OR .300 WSM?

Sk1 and Paul wrote:

"I don't know why the 300 WSM is more accurate" (or something to that effect).


The reasoning behind the phrase: "The WSMs are more accurate" and many other accuracy related phrases behind the WSMs is their ability to achieve a more efficient powder burn because of their short, fat design which, allows the powder to be ignited in a more even and better fashion than the longer magnum cases. This better ignition leads to more consistent shot-to-shot powder burns and less deviations in velocity which, leads to better inherent accuracy.

Now we all know that there is alot more to accuracy than which cart. we are firing but, If you considered all accurizing methods and had two rifles of the exact configuration w/ the same mods, then the WSM would probably be more accurate than the Big Brother Mags.

However, w/ the inconsistencies in todays rifles especially, today's Factory rifles, The accuracy advantage of the short mag would be hardly noticable. If you were going to build a nice custom rig, Short Mag may be the route to go.

Good Luck!

Reloader

Either you missread my post, or I didn't properly elaborate. Of the WSM's that smith had chambered, 270, 7mm and 300, the 300 was more accurate than the 270 and 7mm WSM's. I don't know to what degree "more accuate", but this is a smith who builds competitive bench rest guns, so he knows how to build a gun that really shoots, and says if you want an accurate hunting rifle, the 300 wsm is one of his favorite chamberings.

I wonder if the 300 WSM popularity has peaked as the local Walmart has quit stocking those ugly push feed WSM model 70's and has the ammo for all versions on the closeout shelf.

Winchester doesnt list the push feed rifles anymore, and I thought all short mags were in CRPF actions or CRF actions. I think the push feed at walmart was the black shadow. 2004 catalog only has the super and ultimate shadow, which are short mags. Win has no low price traditional offerings (3006, 270, 7mag, etc)