Okay, it's pretty much accepted that the 300 WSM is THE short/fat champ over the 300 SAUM, so, wouldn't it follow that the 7 WSM should be the choice, too? Yet, it seems the 7 SAUM is more popular among 7's.



It can't be the rifle choice, since the 7 WSM is available in the same rifles the 300 is.



Hmmmm. This is SO confusing.



Any thoughts?



R-WEST

Compare the neck lengths.

What sales data do you have? I am not questioning who is fighting for last place but just interested in sales.

Someone said Ruger dropped the SAUM's. I asked what was selling at a big Cabela's and they had SAUM's in stock and so far had not sold even one.

What's that question about the neck lengths?

Not a question; a statement. The neck of a 7mm SAUM is 0.311", while that of a 7 WSM is 0.244". Decide for yourself what difference that will make in terms of reloading and accuracy.

Infosponge,



The neck of the 7mm WSM must be the best length as mine is the most accurate magnum that I have had!



The .264" length is not the problem with the troublesome .300 WM. It's the too short magazine box's and throats!



If your having problems post them up. I am sure I can help.

Nope, no problems -- don't own a rifle in either 7mm short-mag. Nor does it surprise me that you have attained good accuracy from a 7mm WSM. Neck length is no guarantee of accuracy or lack thereof, but a longer neck is generally thought to increase your probability of acheiving a highly accurate rifle. I'm not saying that the difference in neck lengths of these cartridges is of overriding significance. It is, however, a difference between the short 7s that doesn't exist to the same degree between the short 300s. The other differences are largely the same between the 7s and 300s, although the velocity difference between the 7s is even slightly less than the already inconsequential difference between the 300s.

Does any or all of this account for the differences in the acceptance of the 7mm and 300 short-mags? Nope. It doesn't make much sense to me why the 300 WSM should outsell the 300 SAUM, while the 7mm SAUM outsells the 7mm WSM. (I also don't have data proving either of those sales comparisons, so I'm just going by the conventional "wisdom.") In my opinion, the SAUM designs are slightly superior to the WSMs, but that's mainly because I value the reduced powder charge and shorter length more than a very few extra fps of velocity.

I beleive if Remington would have released their SAUM line first(they had the R&D done) instead of releasing their behemoth RUM's, letting Winchester get the jump by bringing out their WSM's, the SAUM's would have been the top seller between the two! Whether or not one is significantly better than the other is a non issue! The Rem SAUM will never catch up to the popularity of the WSM's! It was all marketing.....or lack of!!!! This is from someone who owns the 300SAUM version! GHD

6 of one 1/2 dozen of the other. it boils down to wanting a model 70 or a 700..
woofer

It's just typical Remington poor marketing, just like w/ the .280. If they put the 7/300saum up in a their SA mtn. & Tit. rifles they would be selling them. I also think many people just like the M70 more. I think the SAUMs are a slightly better design for true short actions.

Sitting around doing some deep thinking (a New Year's resolution ) since I posted initially, and came up with both a headache and another perspective. A lot more "average" gun buyers, not dedicated cranks like most of the posters at the forums (well, except some of the guys at the "Politics" forum, anyway ), connect the terms '7mm magnum' with Remington, and '300 magnum' with Winchester. I'm sure all of us know guys who own one or the other, and don't know, and could care less, which one has a shorter/longer neck, or more/less case capacity, etc...

A laminated/stainless 700 Mtn Rifle in any of the SM chamberings, or 338 or 358 ShortMag, would be about perfect, no?

R-WEST