Hello all,

I've been lurking here off and on awhile, would like to touch on why the new short mags are not discussed here freely without some sarcasm and misinformation by alot of the resident members here.Not trying to start a flame war but would just like to set the facts straight on who is using these short mags with great success. The short mags are embraced on all the other forums on the net except this one. I suspect it might have to do with alot of the members here are into nostalgia and the classic cartridges of the past, namely hunting Africa style.

First off, I've been a sheep hunting fanatic for about the last 12yrs and have always prefered a light rifle for my high alpine hunts.For a light pack rifle in the 7lb range or under, the belted mags expell too much recoil without a muzzle brake.They typically require a 24" barrel or longer and give off plenty of muzzle blast & recoil.

Traditionally, serious sheep hunters have always leaned towards short action cartridges such as the 284Win or 308Win varients until now. These new short mags are bringing true magnum performance to the table in a rifle that is handier, lighter and with less recoil than the belted mags.

I currently own (5) short magnums of different chamberings and when compared side by side at the range to any of the belted mags, the benefits become obvious. For hunting steep, rugged country where a flat shooting rifle is needed, a short mag can do the job in a lighter rifle with the same or less perceived recoil than a belted mag.

I've owned and shot several unbraked 300WMs that weighed around 8lbs and the recoil was just horrendous without a brake. My own personal Jim Borden rifle in 300WSM weighs in at 7.5lbs scoped and the recoil is less and much more manageable than most 300WMs. Yet, I can come within 50fps of the 300WM and the difference in trajectory is negligable in the field. I also own (1) Rem 700 Titanium in 7SAUM that can also come within 50fps of most 7RMs yet weighs under 7lbs scoped and the perceived recoil is about like a 9lb 7RM rifle.

If any of you have attended any of the annual FNAWS Conventions (Foundation for North American Wild Sheep) in the last few years, you well know the new short magnums are the rage for serious sheep hunting. And for that matter, any serious high country mountain hunting in steep terrain where a light, flat shooting rifle can make the difference.

Thanks to all and lets keep it above the belt folks. Ram Slayer

I've shot both short and original short mags side by side in identical versions of the model 70 (besides action length), and I'm not buying. The recoil difference is right were it usually is, between the ears.

Chuck

We (myself and a few short mag owners) have conducted side by side comparisons with the 300WSM and 300WMs at the range using various club members (over a dozen to date).
After not knowing which chambering they were shooting, the 300WSM was perceived to generate less noticable recoil. Most commented it felt like a 30/06 with stout handloads. Some even stated the 300WSM (w/180s) felt like a 30/06 with 200gr bullets. The 300WMs were also perceived to be the harder kickers and these rifles weighed on average 1.0 - 1.5lbs over the lighter 300WSMs.

Alot of these club members became short mag converts right after that experience.

On paper, there was little if any difference in trajectory out to 500yds when shooting and comparing the rifles using the same bullets.

The poor feeding argument that short mag detractors claim can be overcome with some minor tuning by a competent gunsmith in most cases. Feeding and function problems are not just limited to the short mags either, I own several that are just as slick if not slicker than alot of L/A cartridges.

RS

It is a shame that simple physics is seldom embraced in discussions of catridges. If the mass of the rifle, the mass of the bullet, and the velocity of the bullet are the same, the recoil will be the same with some infintesimal difference due to the jet effect of the escaping gases. The shape of the cartridge case is basically not a factor.

Two other things are a factor that most people just do a brain fade on. The percieved recoil is largely
affected by how well the stock fits the shooter. Take two identical rifles, one with a lot of drop at heel on
the stock and one without. I bet you will say the one with the large drop at heel recoils more.

The other factor is the users preconceived notion of whether a gun is going to kick hard.

Choose whatever the hell cartidge you like, shoot it a lot, and have fun.

Simple physics:

Less powder=less recoil

The 300WSM on average uses 5-8gr less powder than the 300WM uses to drive the same weight bullet at nearly the same velocity. Typically, the 300WSM velocities will be within 50fps of the 300WM, sometimes matching it.

I load and shoot both breeds, there is a difference. Shooters are discovering this more and more every day, the short mags will be with us a long time.

Another question to think about, is if the physics you quoted are that exact, then explain why some barrels are faster than others when all factors are equal. The barrel makers do not know the answer so how about it?

The short mags are more than just a fad!

RS

Some more simple physics. Get a cronograph. You aren't getting a 300wsm to within 50fps of a 300wm. More like 200fps.

To make the comparison mean anything, load the same bullet type into both cases with a similar weighted charge of powder appropriate to each to give similar bullet speeds. If you're happy with a 165g going 3000fps or whatever, you should be able to get a WM to do that with about 63g of powder. How much does the WSM need?
Then, put those rounds into identical stocks, as suggested, and do a mix-em-up back and forth blindfolded with a few dozen people and gather the stats. It's all about equal and opposite reaction. As for faster barrels, there's only one known way to make a bullet go faster: add more pressure to its rear. Differences in new vs used vs wornout reamers will effect the pressure of a given load, as will the slight variances in the bore and rifling.
It's true, there's a lot of negative hype on these boards about the short mags, but it's mostly reactionary, after all the sickening hooplah from the marketers and rag writers about how you gottahave the latest and greatest. Just begs to be picked on, when after it's said and done, it's splitting hairs at best.
Now, if you have a rifle that shoots well and you like its performance, it makes absolutely no difference to me what it's chambered in. Good for you. In fact, I myself would love to have a little 7mm WSM M70 fwt, but there ain;t no way it's gonan be better than same in 7mm Rem. Just different.

I don't particularly dislike the short mags but do have a hard time rationalizing them in calibers I already own. Why would I got through the trouble of replacing my 7mm mag with a 7mm wsm? I wouldn't. That is my only prejudice against them.

quote:

Originally posted by Walker:
Some more simple physics. Get a cronograph. You aren't getting a 300wsm to within 50fps of a 300wm. More like 200fps.

Well, I am a big fan of both the .300 SAUM and the .300 RUM. I shot both today at 750 yards. I also shoot them a lot at 700 yards. Know what the difference in clicks is? One. It takes 6 clicks going from 700 yards to 750 with my .300 RUMs; it takes 7 with the .300 SAUM.

I like the SAUM because I have an accurate, long range rifle that I can carry all day.

Here is one thing no one ever mentions, except Jon Sundra: a short mag barrel that is 22 inches is the equivalent of 23 inches on a RUM. Why? Because the cartridge is an inch shorter and barrel lengths are measured from breech to muzzle, not where the rifling starts.

^^Interesting point regarding barrel length.

I know this, the custom .300 Win. Mag. rifles I own hold four-down in the magazine, feed much better, and produce 100 fps. more velocity with the same bullets than any .300 WSM I've worked with to date. The belt is a non-issue -- sort of a tidalwave-in-a-tin-cup argument -- and accuracy is at least as good with the .300 Win.

Weight is also a non-issue for me. I've carried a 9 lb. .300 Win. mag. up a lot of mountains for sheep, goats, bears, elk, mule deer, etc., and I haven't suffered too much yet. If I wanted a lighter .30 caliber, I'd go with a .30-06.

I've also found that a well-stock .300 Win. Mag. has the same or less felt recoil than a .300 WSM with a mediocre stock. Granted, a well-stocked WSM may indeed produce less felt recoil, but so far I haven't bumped into one with a good handle.

So I guess I'm one of those negative old recidivists who thinks that the WSMs are a solution to a non-existant problem, and they bring a few problems of their own to the table as well.

Besides being a recidivist, I've used the .300 Win. Mag. for many years and for much game in many places. I've filled the better part of a trophy room, a den, and an office with big game animals taken with that cartridge.

If I have a loyal old horse in my stable that's hauled me up the mountain many times in a steadfast and loyal manner over the course of many years, I don't suddenly turn around and shoot him in the a$$ with a load of rocksalt, then consign him to the glue factory...........

AD

quote:

Originally posted by Walker:
Some more simple physics. Get a cronograph. You aren't getting a 300wsm to within 50fps of a 300wm. More like 200fps.

I'm not Walker but in my custom 300wsm I get right at 300wby velocity and I use an Oehler 35p my 300wsm has a 24" barrel and the WBy a 26" barrel and I only use factory ammo in the Wby so that is part of the problem with the velocity in that rifle. I just had acouple 300mag done up so will check it against the 300wsm also and I load for both so will be more of a fair test. I think the 300wsm is a good case but in the 150/180gr bullet range. I also own a factory 300wsm and comparing that rifle to the 300wby it is less than 200fps difference with that rifle and 180 gr bullet i get like 2998,2995 and 2997fps.
Now with messing around the last few years with the 300wsm would I build another the answer is "NO". I love the short fat case but I've never stretched so many primer pocket on load development in 40yrs of reloading as I have with the 300wsm. I shot a pair of 30-338 for over 20yrs and I've shot some warm loads in other calibers also you get a sticky bolt flat primers but when that happens in the 300wsm I just toss the case. When I first started relaoding for the 300wsm you have about 15 or so powders to try and there wasn't alot of history on reloading for that round so you kind of had to try afew besides the good old stand-by mag type powders. I get good groups in the custom 300wsm smallest being in the .4's for 5 shots I know there is problems with the pressure etc with the 300wsm case now so kind of think I may or should have done the 300rem short case but Ackley it. I honestly never figure on the limits with the 300wsm but one never knows those things until you try them. I just had a pair of 300mag build for this coming elk season and the first one with the Kreiger barrel is like the 30-338 I have it like everything I've tried so far and the other one with the Lilja barrel has only 5 rds fired weather too bad for more testing.

I have also found with the three 300wsm I shot that you only have one powder that will give those small groups you can equal velocity pretty much but not groups and in all three rifles the small groups have been with different powders.

I think the wsm is here to stay and in time will find it's place. I'm thinking of using my 300wsm as a deer rifle only now. Just my .02

The 270 WSM and 300 WSM have really been selling new rifles it seems. I have bought three of them now as they fit what I want more that the old cartridges.

I never did like heavy big game rifles. Long ago I had one of those fancy FN Brownings in 7mm RM. I used it some for woodchuck hunting but it was just too heavy to carry up and down hills. Now I am sorry I sold it as it was a nice piece but I still would not carry that overweight rifle for big game hunting.

Another thing I never liked about the old magnums is that there is no common sense to bottlenecked belted rounds at all. None. Maybe Allens mags hold four rounds but the Classic Supergrade 300 WM with the Boss that I got for chuckles is not going to see the field and it holds only three not that capacity matters to me with the 300 WM. It's just too heavy.

So if you want a lighter rifle you can buy a Kimber Montana now in a WSM. They weigh only 6.3 lbs. That's a lot less than the belted 300 or 7mm RM's that I see for sale.

If I were to climb some rocky mountain after sheep there is no way that I would have ever carried a belted magnum. They are and were overweight tools. I would have carried an 06 Featherweight or such. Today one can find a WSM that weighs less than any 270 or 06 that I have today.

For the WSM's that's a genuine market niche.

To each his own

RamSlayer: The main reason a lot of us "pounce" on the WSM cultists is very simple; in order to justify their preference, they expouse a series of half truths and ouright falsehoods about the 300 Win Mag and other belted cartridges. All of a sudden, the belt, which is really a "trasparent" issue becomes such a horrible liability that you mihgt as well throw out all of your 300 Wins and Weatherbys and replace them with a WSM.

The truth is, the WSM brings nothing new to the table over the WM, fact is velocities are somewhat slower. Now, IF one is building a rifle where weight is the PRIME consideration, then a mild argument can be made for the WSM and the half pound it might save you.

Don't let the anti-belt crowd sway you. The belt is :non-issue" nowadays. Further, the short-fat mags bring all kinds of new wrinkles to the feeding process. You can find 300 Win Mag ammo world-wide and it is a proven performer, both in the hunting and target arenas.

Lastly, the WM gives you a bit more latitude if you load heavier bullets. It's not coincidental that mot of the loads currently out there for the WSM are in the 150-168gr loadings. jorge

Now if they'd build one in 6.5 I just might go out and buy it.

quote:

Originally posted by jorge:
RamSlayer: The main reason a lot of us "pounce" on the WSM cultists is very simple; in order to justify their preference, they expouse a series of half truths and ouright falsehoods about the 300 Win Mag and other belted cartridges. All of a sudden, the belt, which is really a "trasparent" issue becomes such a horrible liability that you mihgt as well throw out all of your 300 Wins and Weatherbys and replace them with a WSM.

The truth is, the WSM brings nothing new to the table over the WM, fact is velocities are somewhat slower. Now, IF one is building a rifle where weight is the PRIME consideration, then a mild argument can be made for the WSM and the half pound it might save you.

Don't let the anti-belt crowd sway you. The belt is :non-issue" nowadays. Further, the short-fat mags bring all kinds of new wrinkles to the feeding process. You can find 300 Win Mag ammo world-wide and it is a proven performer, both in the hunting and target arenas.

Lastly, the WM gives you a bit more latitude if you load heavier bullets. It's not coincidental that mot of the loads currently out there for the WSM are in the 150-168gr loadings. jorge

Jorge:

I certainly do not think there is anything wrong with a belt, and the short mags do feed a bit stiffer, but to be honest, I cannot recall ever losing an animal because of an action not being smooth. Certainly you would want that on a DGR rifle, but I just don't see the issue with slightly stiffer feeding. Why? A lesson the lowly .308 Win taught me.

I do love velocity (big .300 RUM and other belted mags fan), but I got a .308 Win to practice with at moderate distances so I wouldn't burn up my mag barrels. After a while, I started shooting it at really long ranges like 600 to 700 yards and noticed that after a while I was getting pretty good in the wind with all that practice.

And there lies the real beauty of the .300 short mags. I don't worry about shooting out my barrels. Why do I own 3 RUMs? So I can rotate them when I practice so I don't burn out the barrels. If you don't shoot every week like I do, then I suppose it wouldn't matter. And it isn't the cost of replacing barrels that deters me, it is the pain in the ass of working up loads. I would rather practice using field positions than work up loads and break in new barrels.

I have total confidence in my .300 SAUM out to any sensible range, which for me is pretty far, since I practice with it constantly.

Recoil is a secondary benefit. With 50-59 grains of VARGET, you are shooting about half the powder a .300 RUM uses. That means there is a noticeable drop in recoil. To be sure, the bullets in my RUMs do go faster and they are heavier, but bigger cases do take more powder to launch bullets of equal weight at equal velocities.

I like the .338 Win a lot, and I don't worry about shooting that too much in terms of barrel wear. BTW, that wears a belt too. It actually does most of my killing these days.

I haven't shot one yet, but here are some of my thoughts. The gun world seems to have (2) diff. groups of shooters, the guys who buy every new thing & the guys who just like things status quo. Look how many still hold the .270 so high even after all of the various magnums have come out.
Couple of yeas ago I built my "mountain rifle", a M70 in .280. Scoped & ready to go it weighs 7.2#. If Rm. had their M700Ti in 7mmSaum then, I probably would have bought that. It would put me between the .280 & 7RM. What the other guys said is true, you can't beat physics. If you are moving a 160gr bullet @ 2800fps using 57gr of powder in identical rifles, the recoil will be the same. Now subtract 6gr powder & 75fps vel. & you may actually lose 3-4# of recoil. Nothing wrong at all w/ the various SM, I may eventually get one (7SAUM in, 700Ti), I like shooting something diff., but it's nothing that can't be done w/ the carts. out there today.

I have no problem with the wsm cartridges, I do however have a problem with the misleading advertising used by browning and winchester to promote them.They would have us believe that the 7mmwsm and 300wsm actually provide more velocity and flatter trajectory than the 7mmremmag and the 300winmag and have actually convinced some people that this is true.I have fired a couple of 300wsm rifles and to me the recoil is comparable to the 300winmag rifles that I have fired.Although the wsm's do burn less powder they are chambered in lighter rifles so it makes sense that recoil will be comparable.As I stated previously,I have no problems with the wsm cartridges but they do not offer ballistics superior to the standard magnums.

I think the biggest thing going for the short mags is the people who try and sell you one. Seriously, if you like them that's great. I'm more than happy to shoot my T3 Lite (6 3/16 lbs unscoped) in .308 with 150 grain Barnes Triple shocks right about 2900 fps. It is a more than sensible propostion for what I need.

There are so many calibers out there that already that will do the job. Do we really have to keep inventing more? Enough is enough. Gun manufacturer's and magazines love this stuff. To me it's just a bad joke. People who buy into this crap will find that their "love affair" with their new rifle will pale as soon as something "better" comes along. Hunting is about being in the woods, looking for game, and relaxing from all the day to day demands which will one day put us in our grave. That's my rant. Thank you and "good luck" in '05.

Steve

The whole 300 WSM vs. 300 WM debate is stupid.

The 300 WM best's the 300 WSM by 100 fps on average with any bullet weight. That's not much but it DOES go faster... IT IS the bigger engine. The reported feeding problems of the WSM's can be real... I've never seen a round that caused as much problem as the WSM's.

That said, I like the WSM because of the Kimber 8400 "Montana" it's chambered in. Mine feeds as well as any rifle I've owned (though they do feed "differently") and weigh's 7lb's 7 oz's scoped with sling and three rounds. At that weight I believe the recoil difference between the 300 WSM and WM will show up. In heavier rifles I just don't think the differences are noticeable and if I were offered an 8.5lb 300 WSM or 8.5 lb 300 WM I'd always opt for the 300 WM. The difference in bolt throw is 1/4" (big deal) and, for instance, the difference in action weight's (SA vs. LA of same make) are around 2 oz's... again, big deal!

The 300 WSM really shines in a light "mountain rifle" with an action scaled to it (like the Kimber) and performs better than any factory rifle I've ever seen with factory ammo.

My Kimber with a 24" barrel is only 1 5/8" longer than my 21" bbl'd M70 30-06 while weighing 10 oz's less:

If Winchester had named it the 30 Winchester Poofenfarter everyone would be praising it as the best thing since the internet. A case shorter than a 30.06 with almost 300WM velocities and no belt, how fantastic is that?

Because they named it the 300 Win short MAGNUM people take it as a threat to the 300WM's that they already own.

AZ: I don't think I used the word "smooth" anywhere. The issue with the WSM, is the short-fat cartridge design makes for all kinds of feeding problems. If I want smooth feeding and extraction I go with a 300 H&H. But back to the subject at hand, the WSM has no redeeming qualities over the 300 Win Mag. And this is my opinion (after all that is waht we all do here is OPINE) the same goes for the 300 RUM and 30-378 WBY on the upper end. The 300 Winchester and the Weatherby cover all my bases. jorge

To paraphrase fredj338:

There is nothing that can't be done with the cartridges that were already out there.

Jim Borden is an excellent riflemaker. Perhaps the reported problems with factory rifles chambered for the WSMs is a non-issue with Borden guns.

I have a 9lb 300WM Echols Legend. I feel you get what you pay for. Since I don't hunt at port arms, I don't feel the need to go out and buy a 300WSM to save 2lbs. I'm not very recoil-sensitive to that gun, and maybe the extra weight helps me with that. The stock configuration certainly helps.

I'm not a wealthy guy, but after living with flaws in 9 other rifles I have had, I decided it would expeditious to sell all of them and get one as close to perfect as I could that will cover what I want to hunt.

If Winchester and Remington would put their $ into quality control instead of into solving nonexistent problems, then I think their sales would go up. Rifles from these 2 makers require too much work to make them reliable. Oh well, I like custom rifles anyway and don't shoot game at over 300 yards so I don't need either the short mags or the ultramags. If I need a bigger hammer, then I get a larger caliber. Just my $0.02....to each his/her own.

WPN, my .300 Win. Mag. is an Echols-built rifle as well, and I just don't hunt with anyone else's product anymore. D'Arcy's rifles do it all, and better than anything else I've owned over the last thirty years. In fact, I'm in the process of selling most of the rest of my rifles right now. They're excess baggage, and a burden. I'm going hunting.....

This gunmagazine-inspired "cartridge-of-the-month club" nonsense is ridiculous. In fact, it reminds me of the "9mm-of-the-month-club" handgun craze that made the circuit 15-20 years ago. Us guys who were long-time, dedicated 1911 .45 ACP shooters wondered what all of the fuss was really about. It didn't appear to be anything of lasting substance, but the gunwriters sure painted it out to be that way.

That, and this short-fat magnum craze remind me of that old tale entitled the "Emperor's New Clothes", the theme of which basically declares that any self-imposed mental illusion can become your reality if you believe hard enough and long enough, and enough people are willing to lie to your face in deference to the truth.

One of my local friends has basically shot all of the world's big game species, many of them several times over, and mostly with a .300 Weatherby that's on something like its fifth barrel, and he is an honest-to-gosh Weatherby Award winner on top of it. Talk anti-belt, and all the rest of the short-fat rhetoric to someone like him, and he'll likely laugh, and rightfully so.

AD

Since 99.4% of all hunters use factory rifles and get their game and I have used such rifles without problems for half a century I see no need to spend $5000 on one gun unless I wanted it. The common sense point of it is that I may want it but I don't need it function wise.

As to the WSM's they have a niche and in particular in the Kimber Montanas as illustrated by Brad. Go ahead and hunt with a nine pound rifle if that's what you like. I always liked 7.5 lb rifles and now I have one that performs, cartridge wise, a little better.

It's true that the WSM's were sold with a lot of baloney and more so that goes for the WSSM's but there is no denying that the have better headspace control and the factory rifles are lighter by quite a bit than what's available now in the old belted ones.

quote:

Originally posted by Walker:
Now if they'd build one in 6.5 I just might go out and buy it.

Walker,

I must admit that your post make me answer as the original "short" Mag (6.5 Rem Mag) is why I don't like them.

I am not automatically prejudicial about anything; willing to try and test it out and then form an opinion on past experience weighed with engineering knowledge. My testing of short fat bodied calibers (more than one) has shown me there is more to lose in design than to gain in performance.

I don't like them but it is a "tested" opinion.
Like anything else I comment on in this forum.

BigRx

Savage99, 99.4% of shooters wouldn't know quality if it bit them in the ass. You're one of em.

Chuck

quote:

the WSM has no redeeming qualities over the 300 Win Mag

Jorge, how many WSM's you worked with?

My "opinion" is that the average factory 300 WSM with factory rounds will shoot circles around the average factory 300 WM with factory loads, and go a bit faster to boot. Obviously with a quality custom all bets are off. However, for the average bloke who wants an accurate off-the-shelf 300 Mag and shoots only factory stuff the WSM is probably the better choice... 300 WM/WBY great rounds they may be.

I think alot of half truths, exaggerations and inflated advertising hype have been presented by alot of short mag proponents and the manufacturers. I won't argue with that.

I do feel the short mags have found their niche in the hunting world, they do offer improved performance over previous short action cartridges. Remember the 284Win? It suffered alot of criticisms in its early years yet has made sorta of a comeback via its wildcat offspring.

The short mags are off to a great start, feeding problems are being addressed and more game is being harvested by them every fall.

I will never claim the short mags can offer more performance than already established cartridges like the belted mags but they can come very close to equaling them in a shorter, lighter package with the same or slightly less recoil.

If one hunts with his camp on his back, then a 7lb range rifle is much more comfortable than a 9lb rifle. A 1.5lb weight savings is significant when you have to carry it in your hands with a pack on your back. This is the short mag's niche, a mtn rifle cartridge.

Montana's unlimited sheep units will put the most experienced, seasoned alpine hunter to test. If you want to kill a ram here, you better be utilizing every legal advantage that is available. There is no luck here, just alot of hard work, perserverance and disappointments. It takes on average, 5-7yrs to score on an average ram in this rugged country. A short mag could make all the difference when opportunity presents itself on this type of hunt.

RS

Ram Slayer:
My .270 Win. with a Leupold 2-7x scope & 22" barrel does all I want when it comes down to sheep & caribou. Why in the world would I want to change a good thing. In short - if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
If you want to use a short mag, fine but I don't see the NEED to use one when there are many other chamberings out there just as good.
Just my opinion, FWIW which isn't much.
Bear in Fairbanks

Brad: One. And one was enough. As a matter of fact, if you watch the TV show "Southern Outdoor Experience" you can catch yours truly whacking a hog with it, a 125 yard shot with the hog on full afterburner. That particular rifle had the bad manners to launch bullets out of the magazine and onto your shoelaces if you cycled tha action with any rapidity.

Regarding your quote about a 300 WSM "shooting circles" around a 300 mag, surely you don't mean in the velocity or accuracy department? both can be very accurate, but when it comes to velocity, I don't know what 300 Win Mag you were shooting, but given all things equal, a WSM is about 150-200 fps slower than a Win Mag, both observed and what is in most artcles I've read. jorge

Jorge,

I load for both cartridges (300WSM, 300WM) in both facttory and custom rifles. Both are so similiar in velocity and accuracy, the game will never know the difference. What differences will be noticed (and appreciated), will be on the mountain towards the end of a long hunt when physical and reserve stamina supplies are running low. One will appreciate the lighter rifle yet will still retain the flatter trajectory of the belted magnum. The short mags will run right up there with the big dogs so to speak in a easier handling package.

I know this is a tough pill to swallow for the die hard belted mag fans but thats the bottom line. The short mags win in a lighter rifle platform, not by much but enough to make a difference in certain hunting scenarios.

RS

RS: No argument there regarding your last paragraph and if you re-read my first post it's more or less what I said. IF weight is your primary objective, where 1/2 lb is significant to you, then you can either lighten your 300 Win mag or opt for a WSM. You are right in that the animal won't know the difference, which brings us back full circle, the WSM is a solution for a non-existant problem. jorge

quote:

My "opinion" is that the average factory 300 WSM with factory rounds will shoot circles around the average factory 300 WM with factory loads, and go a bit faster to boot.

Jorge, notice how much "qualification" there is in what I've said, LOL! Yes, within the parameter's I've laid out I believe the WSM outperforms the WM in velocity and accuracy... as I said, in a quaity custom and with handloads the WM is 100 fps faster and certainly, at least, the equal accuracy-wise.

Like Ram Hunter, the way I hunt (5-15 miles per day with a 15-30 lb pack up and down the Rockies) I'll take a 7.5 lb 300 WSM over ANY 9lb 300 WM. The ballistic performance isn't different enough to justify the added weight... for me.

Personally, the only short mag that interests me enough to perhaps go out and actually buy one is the 270WSM. Seems to me to be the only one offering anything substantial over existing cartridges.
Cheers...
Con

Forget reloads and go by factory data and the .300 WSM beats the .300 Win. Mag. by 10 fps. at the muzzle using the same weight bullet. I don't own either one my brother in-law and his wife own/shoot both. In rifles of equal weight and stock design the perceived/felt recoil is less in the WSM. I do own a .270 WSM and two of the WSSM calibers(.223 &.25) and all have lived up to what Winchester advertised. Lawdog

Lawdog,
But then Winchester knocked 100fps off its 300WM published velocities in the early 80's, some marketing genius must have seen the 300WSM coming...
Cheers...
Con

I think there is a legit place for the short mags, but at the end of the day, if that is what the rifle manufacturers need to make money, then bring on the new calibers.

I want Winchester and Remington to be around for a long time.

LG, you might ask Charlie Sisk about the unreasonable pressure generated by those WSM factory wonders.

Brad, you said yourself that the weight difference in the 70 actions is 2oz. I have also got to disagree with the accuracy notion riding along with these factory WSM's. The two I have helped load for where a couple of finniky rifles, in the accuracy department.

Chuck