I don't see any reason to get all hung up on what the military uses for combat applications when choosing big game cartridges. Belted cartridges were designed for big game hunting. Period.

Non-belted, so-called "standard" military cartridge are better suited for use in semi-automatic rifles, and they offer more user-friendly levels of noise and recoil for soldiers of varying degrees of skill and recoil tolerance, plus longer barrel life, less barrel heating, likely lower production costs, etc.

All of that stuff isn't so important to experienced hunter-type riflemen with slow bolt-guns who know how to handle recoil and who aren't laying down a volumn of fire, plus are equipped with better rifles that are better-stocked to minimize the effects of recoil, etc. In fact, a well-stocked .300 Win. is a lot easier to shoot well than a military Springfield in .30-06 as far as I'm concerned. Some huge differences.........

My old .300 Win. Mag. was built by Glen Pearce, and Pearce was a former USAF officer who was trained in the USAF armourer's school, and he was also on the USAF high-power team, specializing in over-the-course, and 1000 yd. competition. The .300 Win. Mag. (which has been used to win the 1,000 yd. Wimbleton many times) was one of the cartridges the USAF employed for many of these events, and it was (possible still is) also used for these same applications by all branches of the U.S. military. If the belted case was so terrible in concept, they wouldn't use it, and if this cartridge was so inaccurate because of the belt, they wouldn't use it, and certainly no one would use it for 1,000 yd. target shooting events. For that matter, if the good ol' .30 Govt. '06 was the perfect cartridge for all purposes and couldn't be improved upon, the belted .300 magnums wouldn't be used at all.

My late father was a WWII vet with a straight 37 months of combat duty in N. Africa, Sicily, and Italy under his belt, and a lot of it was really intense and ugly. When I was getting ready for my first African safari, he was visiting and looked over my rifles, plus the .300 Win. Mag. and .458 Win. Mag. cartridges for same that I was going to take. He picked up a .458 round and said, "I wouldn't want to hunt 'Krauts' with a .458 or .300, but on the other hand I wouldn't want to hunt buffalo and lions with a Thompson, either!"

He summed it with that statement better than I ever could............

AD

I happen to be a fan of the short mags, but all the hype is just that. The shorter stiffer, lighter action bit is much ado about nothing most surely.

The lack of a belt IS a good thing but as Jorge said it is really transparent to cartridge performance, but it's the old thing of 'in a perfect world' if you could have your 300 WM without a belt you would. Feeding probelms with the WSM's are not BS. I have a bunch in various calibers and feeding issues are COMMON. I think this is manageable (read: fixable) for the most part, and I have several that feed without issue, but these short mags are relatively young and I think feeding issues will continue to minimize, but today it is an issue.

One other thing is that due to the case geometry (I believe the slight taper) it is not uncommon for the case to be a bit sticky in the chamber on the short mags. I have experienced this firsthand as well as having seen this frequently at the range in other shooters rifles.

Loading in the middle of the pressure envelope I do in fact see similar velocities out of both 300 cartridges, and I honestly must say if there is an edge, with my rifles and chronograph it does in fact go to the WSM.

Reloading ammo with tight specs is really easy with the short/fats, and I do think that is worth something.


Seating depth tolerance on the short mags sucks, on most your magazine won't allow you to seat the bullet out far enough to get to the lands (or even real close) and typically you must seat the bullet well below the neck shoulder junction, which I think one would prefer to seat the base of the bullet at or above that point.

I guess I'm a moderate, but as someone else stated, the mid-fat RUM's seem to feed well and give excellent performance--maybe I need to try one of them, but I guess what I'd really like to see is something that is right in between the 300 WM, 30-06 or .270 Win. and the Short mags in both length and diameter.

There are way too many loyalists out there for the WM to even fade, but if someone was buying their first rig, or their first magnum rig, there are some good reasons to choose the WSM, but the 300 WM is awfully popular worldwide!

I agree a 1/2 inch bolt throw is nothing to get your panties in a bunch about, but show me a rifle that is as easy to carry as a Rem Mod 7...

And I do think that whatever the WSM can do, the .300 Win Mag can do better...but then, whatever the .300 Win Mag can do, the RUM can do better.

You guys are too much... The WSM has ALREADY replaced the WM among smart shooters and hunters!

If you want something to cuddle up to get a woman. If you want a better cartridge get a WSM but please quit whining about how your old gun is still a good one.

$bob$

You've GOT to be kidding.........!

AD

The WSMs are here to stay and any there is zero doubt on that. Does not mean the Win Mag is going away though.

I have 3 WSMs and have compteted in 1k BR with both the 300 Win Mag and the 300 WSM. The WSM will put a 210 JLK out at 2950-3050 in mine and two friends guns. That is exactly the same velocity for the WM normally.

However, there is a marked difference in barrel life from what we have seen. I went 2200 rds in the WSM with it still shooting 10 shot groups of 7-8" at 1000. Never had a WM go over 1400 rds.

I have a coyote 300 WSM (early production model) and has not misfed once. Maybe some did have problems, once mftrs learned the angles on the rails seemed to go away.

Both are good and here to stay.

BH

All the talk of 300 WSM replacing 300 Win reminds me of the late 80s with the recoming of the 416s and how the 375 H&H would be finished.

I think at the end of the day blokes who would have been 308 buyers will be where the market for the 300 WSM comes from and the 300 Win comes from the market that is 30/06 minded.

The 300 WSM is a nice little cartridge and will give a bit more velocity than a 30/06 loaded to full pressure....about half way between a full pressure 30/06 load and 300 Win load.

I have noticed in Australia that the less guns and ammo orientated person buys the 300 WSM whereas the more guns and ammo orientated shooter is 300 Win and 300 Ultra.

The 300 WSM will be like the 308 and always a classles cartridge if only for the reason that high end custom guns are almost never made on short actions.

For example, will there be anyone in the entire world that will do a pair of high end custom guns in 300 WSM and 375 H&H. Unlikely.

Mike

Allen. LOL, some people are plainly stupid... there's no other way to say it... and that coming from a 300 WSM shooter...

BA

Brad, I don't think that "stupid" is the word I'd use, but I do think that some of sales pitch gets passed-off as a bill of goods!

I don't think there's any question, though, that the WSMs are here to stay or that they're effective cartridges on game. They'll drop stuff just as well as their ballistic counterparts will, no question about that either. I don't think that we've seen the best of what the WSMs have to offer and won't until better magazine systems evolve that optimize feeding. I suspect that, once again, some of the custom riflemakers will lead the way in this area as well.

I'm sticking with the belted .300s, especially the .300 Win. Mag. Guys can rag on all they want to against belts, a longer bolt-throw, etc., etc., (ad nauseum) but for some odd reason all of the things that is supposed to be wrong with the .300 Win. Mag. (belt, short neck, & so on) haven't exactly gotten in the way of it's performance for me or for anyone else I know, so I guess I'll just keep hunting with it.

And when I'm an old man, I'll just point to the photos and trophies on the wall and the photos in the albums, then pull out my beat-up old rifles, hand them to the young bucks and tell them a few stories about all of the hunts in all of the countries they've been on, and at that point I suppose they'll wonder as to how I made do with such an archaic cartridge for all those years.......

Brad, are you coming to the RMEF convention in Portland next week?

AD

AD, an RMEF activist and shooter of such an archaic caliber? It's a wonder you harvest a trophy at all.

My 300 WM's seem to still put 'em in the bull, but maybe we need to get Echol's or somebody to wildcat us a beltless 300 WURSM.......

It's always interesting to see folks get so jazzed over a particular caliber or the other. If anyone has a need to dump their custom 300 win mags, I'd be interested.......

Or their WSM's ...............

Allen, you're probably right... "stupid" is a bit harsh! I'm nearing the end of another house building project and I'm a little cranky... I come to these forums for a little R&R and half the time it's just as aggravating! Shouldn't post in that frame of mind...

No, won't be in Portland though I'll bet it'll be great. I'm taking a little vacation in April... maybe to CA for a pig shoot! According to some on these forums you and I are a couple of no-good "greenies" for being RMEF supporter's... this culture has gotten ridiculously divisive... even hunter's can't disagree civily about RMEF!

Best,

Brad

Brad, I have found that you can get criticized for being a part of just about anything!

I don't think that the RMEF is even close to being perfect, but that organization has done a lot more good than harm. We wouldn't have the elk and elk habitat that we enjoy today without the efforts of the RMEF, and that's a fact.

If you go for a hog hunt in CA, I'm sure you'll have a great time. I LOVE to hunt hogs.......

AD

The most overlooked advantage of the WSMs for handloaders is that the brass is unbelievably strong. A 300 WSM with primer weighs 260 grains...nearly 20 grains more than a 300 Winnie, but it is half an inch shorter with less capacity. I ain't never stuck one, and never had the primer pocket enlarge.

The other thing is that the short case is more consistent with reduced loads as well as being capable of holding accuracy with 110 gr spire points at over 3700 fps.

quote:

Originally posted by LDHunter:
You guys are too much... The WSM has ALREADY replaced the WM among smart shooters and hunters!

If you want something to cuddle up to get a woman. If you want a better cartridge get a WSM but please quit whining about how your old gun is still a good one.

$bob$

Yea right.

quote:

Originally posted by GeorgeS:
I doubt it, because the factors that resulted in the .300 Win.Mag. winning out over the .300H&H in this country do not exist today.

• the .300 Win. Mag. was a 'home grown' product; the .300 H&H was 'foreign-born'
• far more companies chambered for the .300 Win. Mag. than for the .300H&H, which required a longer action
• ballistically, the .300 Win.Mag. equaled the .300H&H's; the .300WSM does not quite equal the .300 Win. Mag., especially with heavy bullets
• today, chronographs are more widely available permitting savvy gun owners to verify manufacturer's claims
• handloading techniques and component availability are superior today, allowing handloaders to improve on factory ballistics with the .300 Win. Mag.; the .300WSM is maxed out already
• selling 'shorter and fatter' as 'better' is much harder than selling 'bigger and longer'
• specious claims of reduced recoil with the WSMs have not fooled anyone with an ounce of reason (elementary physics dictates that burning the same amount of powder to propel a bullet of equal weight in rifles weighing the same will result in equal amounts of recoil)

George

Yes George, you are correct with your reasoning. It is harder to sell "new and improved" as "better."

As for recoil, the laws of physics are not yet repealed. All things being equal, all things ARE equal.

In the past 24 months myself, friends and hunting pards that have bought nine 30 cal mags. Of which four are 300 win mags and five are 300 win short mags. The four win mags where purchased by long time hard core hunting types with years of hunting experience and all four have military experience. Of the 5 short mags 3 are owned by guys with real hunting expierance one military and 2 newby hunters. One of the short mags was bought as a gift for one of the experienced guys by his wife. New and improved marketing usually sells, but the very first winchester advertisement I saw with bogus comparisons made me call BS on the short mags. I've finally come to the point where it just doesn't matter when I'm quoted that same old marketing crap. I just say, "oh really, that's nice" and keep loading and shooting my stone aged belted mag.
I heard belted mags make your hair turn gray and fall out, not to mention the errectile disfunction and high cholesteral it causes. Better get a new and improved.

How well is the 300 Rem Ultra going in America

Mike

I don't really think the WSM's will supplant anything.They will do quite well, for a while, however simply because Winchester is putting so much into their promotion.Winchester was very successful at selling the original 300 Win Mag and showed that marketing could make up for any shortcomings.None of the 300's shortcomings were all that imprtant anyway and became less so when the post-64 action came out (greater length).
The WSM's are being heavily promoted and it is being shown that Barnum was indeed correct. I don't think it will continue though and I suspect the WSM's will become just another cartridge. Not all of them, however. The 325 will flat out die. The 270 will slowly fade. The 300 willlevel out at roughly the same popularity level as Remington's 7mm-08.
The WSSM's will die as well. They will die because they deserve to.
Over the years there have been a few cartridges introduced which I thought were good ones and some I thought were stupid. Thw WSM's fall solidly into the latter category along with the Ultra mags, the STW, the 225 Winchester and the 284.
There have been few cartridges introduced since 1930 which really gave us much we didn't already have. In some cases, the cartridges which were introduced were old cartridges which were finally legitimized.There have also been some very good cartridges which were (and are) doomed to fail.
The 222 and it's offspring, the 223, are great cartridges which did a great job of filling a niche. The 243 and the 6mm, one successful, one less so, were valuable cartridges though they did nothing that wasn't done just as well by the 25 cals which preceded them. The 280 Remington is a pretty good cartridge which really served no useful purpose since it accomplished little the 270 wouldn't or the 7x57 for that matter. The 308 was and is a great cartridge. The 358 was one which should have survived. The 7mm-08 is nothing but a 7x57 in slighhtly more modern garb but is a good cartridge nonetheless. The same goes for the 260 (which I think will die). The 300 Winchester nicely duplicated the 30 Newton of 50 years previous but the Newton had failed (mostly, I suspect, because Winchester and Newton didn't get along)and the Winchester succeeded.
I look at the WSM's as cartridges which simply accomplish nothing. They are not ballistically better. They are not more accurate. The sure don't feed better. They are not filling any kind of niche which has been left unfilled. They are successful only in being short and fat. I'm not sure that is any kind of advantage at all. Regards, Bill.

Bill,

I disagree with you on the Rem Ultras. They pretty well maximise the case capacity readily adpated to the Rem 700 and M70. If like a mate of mine a person is happy with 3100 with 180 grainers then with his 300 Ultra he gets that with lower pressure and generally wider reloading parameters.

On the 223 WSSM I have the same persons rifle here, M70 Coyote to bed it and do his trigger AND try and get it to feed the second round from the magazine. The point of the bullet misses the chamber by about .1"

He actually got this rifle because he was under the impression from a bit of early reasing that they were 22/6mm Rem Improved capacity but it is about like a 243.

Mike

Bill, since you are not a fan of the .300 WSMs, what is your take on the .300 Dakota vs. the 300 Win. Mag. then?

It appears to come close to duplicating the performance levels of the .300 Weatherby, but in a standard length action, without a belt, and burns the powder slightly more efficiently as it has a wider case - some say improved feeding and accuracy potential. It also has a longer neck a la 308 norma etc...

I would appreciate your thoughts on this, especially from a custom rifle building standpoint.

CanadianLefty,

I am not Bill Leeper but there is a poster on this forum who posts as Bob338 and Bob T on HuntAmerica. Obviously he is a keen 338 man. He testes the 338 Win, 338 WSM and 338 Jamison (which is based on actual 404 brass so is a touch smaller than the 338 WSM) and he found velocities were right in line with case capacity, that is, the 338 Win was a touch faster than the others.

Mike

I personally have a fairly low opinion of the Dakota cartridges although, on the surface, they seem fairly practical. I feel the cartridges could benefit from having slightly more body taper. I have seen rifles in these chamberings which exhibited extraction problems related to this lack of taper in combination with thehigh pressures necessary to achieve performance in line with claims. Most actions simply lack sufficient primary extraction to allow the case to release. Many will argue this point but there it is.
While I think the short neck of the 300 Win Mag is a stupid feature, I have to agree with Allen that it causes little trouble in real life. Few rifles are limited in magazine length now and it was the combination of the short neck and barely adequate mag length which made the short neck problematic in some circumstances. As you may know, I consider the 308 Norma to be a much better cartridge than the Winchester but, if I had to make a recommendation for the serious hunter, I would recommend the 300.
Mike,
Your points made in favour of the 300 RUM are valid only if one accepts the premise that more capacity was/is required or even all that beneficial. I don't necessarily subscribe to this. In addition, EVERY Ultra Mag I have had in the shop exhibited feeding problems. They were correctable but should never have existed in the first place. I find it interesting that only the ones I see apparently have these problems since all others seems to feed and function flawlessly. Go Figure.
In addition, a great number of those for whom I have built Ultra Mags have later expressed some dissatisfaction with a cartridge which burns so much powder for so little gain. Most come to the realization at some point that 100fps or even 200 makes little difference in the field.
I've been at this for a long time and have, like everyone, developed some predjudices over the years. In general I have an antipathy toward most wildcats or fringe cartridges (like the Dakotas, lazzeroni's etc.) to the point that I will no longer even consider buying reamers for such. I am more and more interested in what I consider to be practical rifles and calibers and there are many I just don't consider to be truly practical. Others are emminently so.
I stray from this a little bit at times of course as my affection for the old Norma cartridges shows. Everyone is entitled to one or two quirks! Regards, Bill

quote:

In addition, EVERY Ultra Mag I have had in the shop exhibited feeding problems. They were correctable but should never have existed in the first place. I find it interesting that only the ones I see apparently have these problems since all others seems to feed and function flawlessly. Go Figure.

That Bill, was funny. If you ever need someone to swear to at least one of those "out there" ultra gag feeding problems, you know my number.

Chuck

From what I have read, the 300 wsm is far out-selling the 300 win mag, and has been for at least 2 years. I have also read that the 300 wsm is the best selling of all "new" cartridges, and is the #1 wsm caliber. Judging from the advertisements, Rem, Win, Savage, and Browning are really promoting the wsm calibers, which translates into increased sales, thus moving the 300 win further down the list. However, we all have our "favorites", so it really doesn't matter.

Thanks Bill- as always very courteous and helpful.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
I personally have a fairly low opinion of the Dakota cartridges although, on the surface, they seem fairly practical. I feel the cartridges could benefit from having slightly more body taper.

Is it possible to somehow pass the 300 Dakota through a die to give it slightly greater taper? Further, is there a mag box out there somewhere that will allow 4 Dakotas down a Mod. 70?

Thanks and no more Dakota questions hereafter for you

LBGuy,

Anything new that comes out that has any real or perceived advantages sells well to start with and especially if there have been a built up market waiting.

I believe that for the first couple of years after its introduction as a factory calibre the 30/378 represented half of all Weatherby's sales.

I think there are a couple of reasons why the 300 Win will keep going and the 300 WSM will die down.

Firstly, the 300 Win is simply a more impressive looking cartridge.

Secondly, unless rifle makers such as Winchester move to vertical stack in line feeding, the 300WSM will always be on the verge of having feeding problems. In other words with the conventional staggered feed the rifle has to be better to feed the WSMs.

Mike

Bill Leeper has my 3000WSM right now!

I already knew about his predudice against the WSM's, before sending it off to him, too!

I have owned a 300WM, and I didn't like the rifle itself, no prob wiht the cartridge...

I bought a 300WSM, becasue of the Kool factor, and I didn't have a .300. No other real reason.

My Winchester fed fine. Not as smooth as some of my other rifles, but it worked just fine.

I worked the hell out of that gun, and feeding was not an issue.It *felt* different than a 30-06, but it never failed to chamber.

Some factory ammo seemed to fire a bit too hot in it, it seems the chamber were out of round.

I own a number of rifles with belted cases. Althought he belt is not necessary in most applications, I don't see the problem wiht them either, especialy if you handload.

The WSM is just another cartridge. It seems that ithas caused all sorts of angst, but it is just another choice.

I like the WSM becasue they are cool, fun, new (ish)

Whatever..Teh 300WSM isn't going away, it's been hyped enogh that it will stay,. and it deserves to.

Once again, it's just another choice.

Most of us could get by just fine hunting for the rest of our lives with a 30-06, but hey-where's the fun in that???

[/QUOTE]

Is it possible to somehow pass the 300 Dakota through a die to give it slightly greater taper? Further, is there a mag box out there somewhere that will allow 4 Dakotas down a Mod. 70?...
The problem lies not with limited taper on the cartridge but in the finished chamber. Keep in mind, with most rifles and loaded to reasonable pressures there is no problem. But, if loaded to reasonable pressures, those amazing ballistics aren't there either!
In general I think such cartridges are interesting from an experimental point of view but bring nothing to the table as far as real world improvements are concerned.
Let's look at the WSM's for instance. They offer no functional advantage. They are not more accurate. Looking at it practically they are not really more compact. A box of twenty WSM's takes up just as much space as a box of twenty Win Mags. The 1/2 inch shorter bolt throw may be of some benefit to the man suffering from tennis elbow but that's a bit of a stretch (NPI). It certainly won't make any difference when it comes time to lower the boom on that bull elk. The same thing applies to any of the new bigs. An elk shot from 300 yards (further than 99% of the animals I have taken) will respond exactly the same to a good hit from virtually any of the 30 calibers. He'll die.
So the only real purpose of these cartridges is to catch the fancy of the consumer. They have plainly done that- at least for now- so, in that respect at least, they are a success.
Of course all of this comes from a man who, more often than not, carries a 30/40 Krag. Also a man who, more often than not, doesn't even manage to get a shot! Regards, Bill.

Bill,

Where the short action will be of value is to the person who has a 243 or 308 and does a lot of shooting. The WSMs are doing quite well in Australia and Australians very commonly use the 243 and 308 and also do a very high volume of shooting and the longer action will then feel awkward.

Personally, if I was buying a 300 WSM I would be buying instead of a 308 and if I was buying a 300 Winchester I would be buying it instead of a 30/06.

Mike

To Bill Leeper and others,
I'm curious how many of the WSMs built on the various CRF actions (MRC, M70, Kimber, etc.) are actually feeding as a CRF or as a push feed?
The reason I ask, is that in checking my MRC 1999 with dummy rounds, I find that it only feeds as a CRF (ie, the round slides up under the extractor as soon as it leaves the magazine) about half the time. The rest of the time the round pops up and feeds nicely into the chamber ahead of the extractor like a push feed action. Otherwise, it feeds, extracts, and ejects fine.
Just wondering if others have had similar experiences with the WSMs on CRF actions. I don't want to start a CRF vs Pushfeed debate. I'd really like to hear from any of the gunsmiths that have successfully cured this problem(if it really is a problem on a rifle not intended for hunting dangerous game).
Thanks in advance,
Steve

I have a 223 WSSM here that I just bedded for a mate and also got it feeding. It would jam on the sencond cartridge. This is one of the combination PF and CRF,

It works as CRF if the bolt is pushed forward quick but not when worked slowly.

Mike

what we buy is partly determined by what's on the shelf

in the shops I walk into, 300 Win's are getting rare, plenty of 300 WSMs

the 300 Win is a fine cartridge, and there are a lot of rifles in circulation so I don't see it "going away" but I bet the new builds are overwhelimingly 300 WSM right now

Steve in Oregon, my model 70 feeds control round every time. If I try to push feed it by dropping a shell on the follower and just close the bolt the extractor does not easily want to slip over the rim of the shell and I don't like forcing it closed so I don't even try to snap it over the rim of the shell, too hard on the extractor and the brass at least in my gun. I always push the shell into the magazine so it will feed the rim up under the extractor to easily close the bolt, same way as I feed my real pre-64's. I never try to push feed them.

I don't think so-As you can see there is not that much difference in them if all have the same length of barrel which in this case all have a 24 inch barrel.This test was done by Rick Jaimeson.

Ammunition for the .300 Win Mag is almost everywhere if one needs them,Even in the backcountry of Idaho.I've yet to see the newer ones show up on the shelves yet around here.

Take care....Jayco

Jayco, based on what I've seen over the years by actually shooting these same cartridges over the chronograph, I'd say that the Jamison chart you've presented here is very close to the real-world velocity capability of these rounds.

That's really another reason why I've stuck with the .300 Win. Mag. over the years. It doesn't lag that far behind the .300 Weatherby and .300 Ultra Mag to matter, but it's much more widely-available, doesn't need a 26" barrel, burns a whole lot less powder, has a longer barrel life, and kicks significantly less. I really think the .300 RUM would be best served with a 28" barrel........

AD

Unless Saeeds loads for the 300 Ultra and his own 30/404 are bullshit and unless the Oehler 35 reads wrong, then that chart is showing the 300 Ultra, 30/404 and 30/378 dropping 300 f/s from 26 inch to 24 barrel.

The 300 Wby is dropping 200 f/s from 26 to 24 and the 300 Win is dropping about 130 f/s

I gotta agree with Mike375, from the data I have read (Cartridges of the World, Gun Digest 2005, Direct sources- reloading websites like this one etc...etc...)that chart seems WAY OFF.

Anyone care to share YOUR real world ballistics here? Just mention cartridge, load, FPS and barrel length.

There have been many new cartridges that should have made the 30-06 history.But when some thing is good and very popular it does not go away. I can't see any way the 300 win. will not be as popular in the future as it is now. Yes the 300WSM is selling . but there are a ton of 300WIN rifles out there and it is also still selling..P

Regarding accuracy, short fat cartridges have proven to be more accurate (the data suggests they are). Furthermore, all else equal, a shorter action is siiffer and more accurate.

It may be nit-picking, but a lot of nits sometimes add up to something real.

Have em both.....

love em both....

for someone to say one is more accurate than the other at this point.. IMPOSSIBLE...

to say one will replace the other.. IMPOSSIBLE... they both don't do the same thing... anyway you slice it...

the WSM can push the 210 reasoably well... but It can't push the 220 at 2900fps...

Both of mine are capable of bug holes at 100 yards... I have a 5 shot .163 group from the WM and a .180 group from the WSM ( 5 shot groups )

this stuff about one action being stiffer than the other which leads to more accuracy... I say PROVE it... not that one is stiffer but that it makes it more accurate...

you're gonna have to wiat a few years of comps to see if any of this pans out...

they both have thier place... and niche