IMHO there is no such thing as "settling" for a Kimber short mag, they are a first choice. I've got a set of them in 270,7, and 300WSM.
-The 300 WSM with 180's is a legitimate 3000fps cartridge. If you handload the 300 Win will usually do 3100, the 300 Weatherby is 3200, and the 300 Ultra will do 3300. But for factory loads the 300WSM is about the same as the 300 Win Mag. It will perform on Elk the same. My 300WSM Finnlite is the only 300WSM I've had that would do 3000fps - for some reason it tops out at about 2950. The Sako Finnlite's are another excellent light-weight choice if you like stainless.
-The 7 WSM in my Kimber 8400 outperforms my 3, 7 Remington mags. The Federal Factory 160gr Accubonds are rated at 3120fps and they do that or better. My 7 Rems usually do about 2950 to 3050 with 160's. Again they should perform as well or better as the older cartridges.
-The 270 WSM on average is 200fps faster than the 270 Winchester. My Kimber is superbly accurate (i.e. 1/2" 3shot groups at 200yds). I would rather use the 7 or 300WSM on Elk but with good bullets it should also do well on Elk.
So there's nothing wrong with the old 300's and 7's but the new Short Mags offer their performance in lovely light rifles are IMHO are destined for greatness........DJ

For those of you that own the WSM cartridges, how do you feel they stack up against the old version of the cartridge? Do they achieve the ballistics and energy that winchester quotes? How well have the WSM's worked on large game like elk? Any info, data, experiences you have collected with these cartridges would be great to hear about. If I can't find a way to make a light 300 win mag (that's affordable), I may have to settle for a Kimber in one of the various cartridges. I would like to get an idea of their preformance in the field.